Korg MR-1 and MR-1000 - News DSD Recorders announced at AES

[pjdavep]

So we need an open source solution to go from DSD to PCM?

there is already software that does DSD___PCM downsampling. Tascam includes it with their DV_RA1000s.

Teddy

And on page two of this thread it was stated that the Korg devices would be bundled with software that can downsample DSD.

Later,
   pjdavep

[udovdh]

And as far as why NOT DSD... How the f do you LOOK at a DSD sine wave?  I'm serious... How can I actually do it today?

So we need an open source solution to go from DSD to PCM?

there is already software that does DSD___PCM downsampling. Tascam includes it with their DV_RA1000s.

Do we have source? Will it run on something that is not Windoze?
Do we know the DSD file format (if such a thign exists)?

[Ed.]

And as far as why NOT DSD... How the f do you LOOK at a DSD sine wave?  I'm serious... How can I actually do it today?

So we need an open source solution to go from DSD to PCM?

there is already software that does DSD___PCM downsampling. Tascam includes it with their DV_RA1000s.

Do we have source? Will it run on something that is not Windoze?
Do we know the DSD file format (if such a thign exists)?

If you're so worried about the DSD file format, just record in PCM with the thing...or use any of the recorders already available today.



hmm, guess I'll hold out on the 722 and keep kicking the mt around for a bit yet...I won't be taping many shows until these things are released anyway.

[RebelRebel]

the dsd file format has been around for several years already. the tascam software will run on windows or mac..

DSD isnt something that you are just going to be able to crack, tweak , and mod like PCM. it is a closed format...propreitary in nature.

And as far as why NOT DSD... How the f do you LOOK at a DSD sine wave?  I'm serious... How can I actually do it today?

So we need an open source solution to go from DSD to PCM?

there is already software that does DSD___PCM downsampling. Tascam includes it with their DV_RA1000s.

Do we have source? Will it run on something that is not Windoze?
Do we know the DSD file format (if such a thign exists)?

[silentmark]

Interesting gear, too bad about the cost of DSD>SACD software though ...

[it-goes-to-eleven]

the dsd file format has been around for several years already. the tascam software will run on windows or mac..

It will run on those machines TODAY.  But it will likely not run on those machines in 10 years. You will need a new version.

DSD isnt something that you are just going to be able to crack, tweak , and mod like PCM. it is a closed format...propreitary in nature.

Oh, it most certainly could be cracked. I just don't think there is a large enough audience for anyone to consider the time worthwhile.  If the new itunes format was DSD, it would get cracked.

[udovdh]

So if I cannot edit DSD streams (cut off the parts before and after the interesting parts) nor process a DSD stream (EQ, compress, etc) if necessary, the device is `just` a glorified iRiver H120? (not to be negative, it will certainly work well and sound very good)

[Rick]

the device is `just` a glorified iRiver H120?

Not really casuse it can do 24bit. I also assume it will sound much better too. Think MT2496 or R09 with a 20GB HD

[udovdh]

Yes, that is what I mean. A better H120.
How typical that suddenly people think and act like I do not deserve tickets.
I even wrote I did not meant to be negative. What does this say about the readers?

THe H120 was chose because it's got a HD.
Glorified because it's an improvement over the H120 (16->24bit, 48 -> 192 KHz).
The main improvement (DSD) has little use as it looks right now.

By the time the devices are released bigger SD/CF cards have come down in price, so the HD could be re-evaluated by then.

[RebelRebel]

So if I cannot edit DSD streams (cut off the parts before and after the interesting parts) nor process a DSD stream (EQ, compress, etc) if necessary, the device is `just` a glorified iRiver H120? (not to be negative, it will certainly work well and sound very good)

well, aside from the fact that DSD sounds so much better than PCM.. I mean, not even close. DSD is superior in that regard(to redbook pcm)

[Brian Skalinder]

So if I cannot edit DSD streams (cut off the parts before and after the interesting parts) nor process a DSD stream (EQ, compress, etc) if necessary, the device is `just` a glorified iRiver H120? (not to be negative, it will certainly work well and sound very good)

well, aside from the fact that DSD sounds so much better than PCM.. I mean, not even close. DSD is superior in that regard(to redbook pcm)

I share udovdh's perspective.  I don't doubt it sounds far superior to PCM.  But without the ability to edit the recording, or author SACD playback (and for me, I won't go back to media-based playback, so I'd want some sort of PC-based SACD playback), this is not the device for me.  I hope the technology and products evolve over time.  I'd love to make DSD recordings if they sound so darn good.  But not until it becomes usable in a way that meets my requirements.  I'm sure those who have different requirements, and for whom the current current technology and products addresses their requirements, will take advantage and use these devices.

[RebelRebel]

yeah, it is primarily for recording professionals who send work off to mastering houses with SACD capability. though this may help cause a paradigm shift.

So if I cannot edit DSD streams (cut off the parts before and after the interesting parts) nor process a DSD stream (EQ, compress, etc) if necessary, the device is `just` a glorified iRiver H120? (not to be negative, it will certainly work well and sound very good)

well, aside from the fact that DSD sounds so much better than PCM.. I mean, not even close. DSD is superior in that regard(to redbook pcm)

I share udovdh's perspective.  I don't doubt it sounds far superior to PCM.  But without the ability to edit the recording, or author SACD playback (and for me, I won't go back to media-based playback, so I'd want some sort of PC-based SACD playback), this is not the device for me.  I hope the technology and products evolve over time.  I'd love to make DSD recordings if they sound so darn good.  But not until it becomes usable in a way that meets my requirements.  I'm sure those who have different requirements, and for whom the current current technology and products addresses their requirements, will take advantage and use these devices.

[bgalizio]

yeah, it is primarily for recording professionals who send work off to mastering houses with SACD capability. though this may help cause a paradigm shift.

So if I cannot edit DSD streams (cut off the parts before and after the interesting parts) nor process a DSD stream (EQ, compress, etc) if necessary, the device is `just` a glorified iRiver H120? (not to be negative, it will certainly work well and sound very good)

well, aside from the fact that DSD sounds so much better than PCM.. I mean, not even close. DSD is superior in that regard(to redbook pcm)

I share udovdh's perspective.  I don't doubt it sounds far superior to PCM.  But without the ability to edit the recording, or author SACD playback (and for me, I won't go back to media-based playback, so I'd want some sort of PC-based SACD playback), this is not the device for me.  I hope the technology and products evolve over time.  I'd love to make DSD recordings if they sound so darn good.  But not until it becomes usable in a way that meets my requirements.  I'm sure those who have different requirements, and for whom the current current technology and products addresses their requirements, will take advantage and use these devices.

Therein lies the problem - these devices appear to be much more "consumer" or "prosumer" rather than for recording professionals. If I'm sending my work to be mastered to SACD (for what is probably a large sum of money), I'd probably also be recording to DSD using much higher quality gear.

Until consumers can edit the DSD stream and author it to SACD and/or listen to it via some media-free transport, recording to DSD is essentially worthless for the consumer. It's somewhat like recording to a DAT in 16/44 or 16/48, but having no way to listen to it unless you convert to mp3.

[RebelRebel]

well, .there are only a handful of recorders that record to DSD as an option..

Genex 9048, Tascam DV-RA1000,Tascam DS-D98.  they all appear plenty professional....and I know plenty of professionals that use em..the genex is many thousands of dollars, and for my money...not worth it..as i am just looking for the DSD version of a tape machine to capture my mixdowns on....now what can be improved on are the DSD ADC Converters..but the recorder is just a capture device. they are all professional.


this is a way for more recording studios to integrate DSD(noone wants to pay 10,000 dollars for the genex beast), and for some of the average joe sixpacks to be made aware of the benefits of the format.. i hope it sticks this time.

it is very much worth it to me, so I am going to keep the capability as long as the format is around .the difference is really stunning...not going to bother with a multitrack DSD machine yet, but a 2track is definitely going to stay with me.

yeah, it is primarily for recording professionals who send work off to mastering houses with SACD capability. though this may help cause a paradigm shift.

So if I cannot edit DSD streams (cut off the parts before and after the interesting parts) nor process a DSD stream (EQ, compress, etc) if necessary, the device is `just` a glorified iRiver H120? (not to be negative, it will certainly work well and sound very good)

well, aside from the fact that DSD sounds so much better than PCM.. I mean, not even close. DSD is superior in that regard(to redbook pcm)

I share udovdh's perspective.  I don't doubt it sounds far superior to PCM.  But without the ability to edit the recording, or author SACD playback (and for me, I won't go back to media-based playback, so I'd want some sort of PC-based SACD playback), this is not the device for me.  I hope the technology and products evolve over time.  I'd love to make DSD recordings if they sound so darn good.  But not until it becomes usable in a way that meets my requirements.  I'm sure those who have different requirements, and for whom the current current technology and products addresses their requirements, will take advantage and use these devices.

Therein lies the problem - these devices appear to be much more "consumer" or "prosumer" rather than for recording professionals. If I'm sending my work to be mastered to SACD (for what is probably a large sum of money), I'd probably also be recording to DSD using much higher quality gear.

Until consumers can edit the DSD stream and author it to SACD and/or listen to it via some media-free transport, recording to DSD is essentially worthless for the consumer. It's somewhat like recording to a DAT in 16/44 or 16/48, but having no way to listen to it unless you convert to mp3.

[RebelRebel]

what do you mean??you mean transfers from one to the next?? or chaining together to get multitracks? sorry, im a big dummy, have to have things spelled out.

I've not read up on these latest toys.
Is there any interface capabilities between any of the dsd units? such as genex->tascam, or, vice versa??  I know that tas.->tas is capable, but beyond that?
I'm truly clueless, so be easy on me.

I will say that DSD is tremendous sounding, breathtaking. But, as far as field recording goes, its dead in the water, until they get a quality portable rig, prosumer editing capability, and open usability for the mentioned reasons.
The tascam unit wasn't trustable enough for me to use as a live source recorder, so, its now seeing little use. Actually, its now residing in the bedroom system, unplugged.