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

[MattH]

I have found that DSD recording can make the rest of the signal chain much less important. Most high quality gear is designed to make PCM sound better. A lot of money is spent trying to improve a PCM decimated signal, both in recording and in playback.

That's some heavy hype. Care to expand on it?

I quickly realized this when I first started recording with DSD and the mics and preamp completely disappeared from the quality equation. The flavors of gear being used completely vanished from the recordings. The veil completely lifted.

DSD does not provide the extended frequency response that 96kHz and 192 kHz PCM recordings are trying to capture. PCM wastes a lot of information trying to capture frequencies beyond those being played live or even reproduced in the studio. This is then further limited by the mics, playback system and limited human hearing range.

Your attempt to characterize 96khz as merely an effort to capture frequencies beyond human hearing seems disingenuous and inaccurate.

I think the differences between capturing audio at 48kHz vs. 96kHz are fairly well documented. All the extra information/resolution is for capturing the frequencies above where 48kHz cuts them off which is around 21k-22k. That's why the file size double and you can hardly tell any difference at all.

DSD in contrast is providing hugely higher resolution in the range we all hear and with low cost mics and playback systems.

Low cost playback = no DSD.

Just hook up the DSD recorder/player to a low or mid-fi system and hear how good it can sound.

Seems we are moving more towards PC based playback systems and the playback software is there.

The DSD player software on your PC will convert to PCM before sending to the soundcard.
The only exception would be a native DSD card.  Most soundcards talk PCM only.

[Brian Skalinder]

I quickly realized this when I first started recording with DSD and the mics and preamp completely disappeared from the quality equation. The flavors of gear being used completely vanished from the recordings. The veil completely lifted.

Interesting.  I would have expected the exact opposite - that the greater fidelity would more accurately reveal the differences in gear.  I guess the suggestion is that there really isn't much difference between the different gear we use.  While I find that hard to believe, I'll have to reserve my opinion until I have a chance to try it out myself.

I think the differences between capturing audio at 48kHz vs. 96kHz are fairly well documented. All the extra information/resolution is for capturing the frequencies above where 48kHz cuts them off which is around 21k-22k. That's why the file size double and you can hardly tell any difference at all.

It's not just frequency, it's also time.  A more accurate measuring of time produces a more accurate representation of the stereo image / soundstage.

Just hook up the DSD recorder/player to a low or mid-fi system and hear how good it can sound.

For the price at which some of these pieces are selling, it's darn tempting.  Ultimately, I'd want pure PC-based DSD playback, but I'm awfully tempted to give it a go just for kicks in the mean time.   

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I quickly realized this when I first started recording with DSD and the mics and preamp completely disappeared from the quality equation. The flavors of gear being used completely vanished from the recordings. The veil completely lifted.

And yet, mics and pre-amp are extremely important when recording analog.  I call massively heavy BS!

Somehow, I don't expect to see everyone settling on CSB's into DSD.

I think the differences between capturing audio at 48kHz vs. 96kHz are fairly well documented. All the extra information/resolution is for capturing the frequencies above where 48kHz cuts them off which is around 21k-22k. That's why the file size double and you can hardly tell any difference at all.

Fairly well documented, YES. Some of us even understand it fairly well. But your post suggests a profound lack of understanding.  And yet, you try and sound like an expert.

Just hook up the DSD recorder/player to a low or mid-fi system and hear how good it can sound.

I can put a live performer in the next room and send the live analog into a low or mid-fi system and it will still sound like a low or mid-fi system.

[MattH]

DSD upsampling of PCM can also do a lot for your system. But real DSD does wonders more.

I probably am stretching to make the point by including low-fi gear. It's just that with DSD, the point of seriously diminishing returns occurs far sooner than with PCM. The brand of mics really do disappear when the veil over the music lifts. The preamp to a lesser extent but still very noticeable.

The 20-20k range of PCM at 24/48 is identical to 24/96 and 24/192. All the extra space utilized is solely for frequencies above 20k. I don't think this is profound misunderstanding. I certainly don't mean to sound like an expert. I may be completely wrong. But I do know how DSD sounds with live recording. And it makes sense to me.

[pgoelz]

While the frequency response beliow 20KHz might be the same at sample rates above 48KHz and at higher bit depths, I would imagine the subtle detail, especially in the upper frequency ranges, would improve.  And that would make the recording more transparent?

Paul

[it-goes-to-eleven]

The brand of mics really do disappear when the veil over the music lifts. The preamp to a lesser extent but still very noticeable.

That is completely contradictory to what you suggest - more detail, etc.

The 20-20k range of PCM at 24/48 is identical to 24/96 and 24/192.

You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

[eric.B]

I quickly realized this when I first started recording with DSD and the mics and preamp completely disappeared from the quality equation. The flavors of gear being used completely vanished from the recordings. The veil completely lifted.

Interesting.  I would have expected the exact opposite - that the greater fidelity would more accurately reveal the differences in gear.  I guess the suggestion is that there really isn't much difference between the different gear we use.  While I find that hard to believe, I'll have to reserve my opinion until I have a chance to try it out myself.

I think the differences between capturing audio at 48kHz vs. 96kHz are fairly well documented. All the extra information/resolution is for capturing the frequencies above where 48kHz cuts them off which is around 21k-22k. That's why the file size double and you can hardly tell any difference at all.

It's not just frequency, it's also time.  A more accurate measuring of time produces a more accurate representation of the stereo image / soundstage.

Just hook up the DSD recorder/player to a low or mid-fi system and hear how good it can sound.

For the price at which some of these pieces are selling, it's darn tempting.  Ultimately, I'd want pure PC-based DSD playback, but I'm awfully tempted to give it a go just for kicks in the mean time.   

I dont know much about the math, but I know the comment in bold above to be true...   this, IMO, is really all that matters..

[MattH]

The brand of mics really do disappear when the veil over the music lifts. The preamp to a lesser extent but still very noticeable.

That is completely contradictory to what you suggest - more detail, etc.

The 20-20k range of PCM at 24/48 is identical to 24/96 and 24/192.

You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Two samples per frequency is two samples per frequency any way you cut it. Please show me something that suggests more than 2 samples per frequency for PCM,  otherwise you seem to have no clue.

DSD provides greater resolution because it's more than 2 samples per frequency, hence greater detail which I have found makes the brand of mics and preamp far less important.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

The 20-20k range of PCM at 24/48 is identical to 24/96 and 24/192.

Two samples per frequency is two samples per frequency any way you cut it.

Could you try and defend your original point before changing the subject?

You said they were identical.. I posted an image of a waveform at 16 Khz that obviously shows the difference.

[Nick's Picks]

fudge it folks...trust your ears.
mine tell me DSD kicks ass over PCM.  thats all i need to know

[Brian Skalinder]

mine tell me DSD kicks ass over PCM.

Did you find, as MattH did to his ears, that the greater detail results in less of a noticeable difference between upstream components (mics, pre, ADC)?  I would expect to hear greater differences, personally, but I've not had the pleasure of listening to DSD yet.

[RebelRebel]

fudge it folks...trust your ears.
mine tell me DSD kicks ass over PCM.  thats all i need to know

yes, the science of it doesnt matter..LISTEN! DVD-A can compete if done right, but redbook ...nah, no way.

DXD is great too. It  is a 24 bit signal sampled at 352.8hz.The most important advantage of DXD is that the signal is not a 1 bit model... because of this, the A-D convertors can use a higher order delta sigma modulator of 5 bit, for example. This drastically cuts the level of lower frequency noise, and improves the conversion quality.ANNNND.. Since the sample rate of DXD is 8 times 44.1kHz, the signal is easily up-sampled to DSD without any degradation. the new digital audio denmark converters are DXD capable..all these new formats..these HIGH RES formats are exciting! especially to us acoustic "purist" recording geeks!

[Nick's Picks]

mine tell me DSD kicks ass over PCM.

Did you find, as MattH did to his ears, that the greater detail results in less of a noticeable difference between upstream components (mics, pre, ADC)?  I would expect to hear greater differences, personally, but I've not had the pleasure of listening to DSD yet.

beats me, as the only DSD i've heard is studio released

[Nick's Picks]

agreed.
I can't see any credit to the arguement that the method of digital encoding, be it DSD or PCM will have *any* impact on making the gear used to actualy do the recording in one way or another.
In fact, logic tells me that the higher the resolution,. the more of these little details will become presnet (details of mic type, location, stereo method, analog front end..etc).

as the resolution goes to hell, then things start to equal out.
for example....how much difference will you hear in a $200 recording rig vs. a $2k rig if you mastered at 128kbps MP3?
probably not much.
but, take those same rigs and record at 24/96 or DSD and then you'll notice.

[MattH]

agreed.
I can't see any credit to the arguement that the method of digital encoding, be it DSD or PCM will have *any* impact on making the gear used to actualy do the recording in one way or another.
In fact, logic tells me that the higher the resolution,. the more of these little details will become presnet (details of mic type, location, stereo method, analog front end..etc).

as the resolution goes to hell, then things start to equal out.
for example....how much difference will you hear in a $200 recording rig vs. a $2k rig if you mastered at 128kbps MP3?
probably not much.
but, take those same rigs and record at 24/96 or DSD and then you'll notice.

location and method is still most of the equation.