Post by Beagle April 12, 2006 (1 of 10)
|
|
DIRECT-TO-DISC SACD? Interesting...
"Until now it was practically impossible to maintain the DSD format throughout the entire edit/mix/mastering sequence during production. This was because no system is yet available which permitted the necessary processing in the 1-bit format after a DSD recording. This meant that the unavoidable editing procedures such as gain leveling, mixing, cross-fades or even additional EQing or dynamics processing could be achieved only by downconverting to PCM format (i.e. the Pulse Code Modulation format of the traditional CD).
"We first used our SADiE DSD8 system for the recording, processing and mastering of this DIRECT-CUT-SUPER-AUDIO-CD – which enabled us to forget about the limitations that had beset us to date: a brand-new system from the tradition-steeped British manufacturer of mastering equipment that allows simultaneous recording of 8 channels. The analogue signal from the microphone is converted at the input to DSD and is also maintained in DSD-Wide format with 2,8224 MHz throughout the processing stages already mentioned. The end result is then obtained in the SADiE DSD8 – the "cutting master" (AIT tape) – which is then transferred directly to an SACD glass master in the pressing plant.
"This DIRECT-CUT-SUPER-AUDIO-CD will enable you to hear a 5.1 DSD surround mix as well as a DSD stereo mix on the SACD layer, and the 16-bit PCM stereo program on the hybrid layer which guarantees downward compatibility. So this gives you the first ever opportunity of comparing a real(!) DSD recording with the conventional CD format." QUOTE Stockfisch-Records
|
|
|
Post by Claude April 12, 2006 (2 of 10)
|
|
Interesting. But does it really make a difference in sound, compared to the usual DSD processing, and given all the other factors in a successful recording (acoustics of the studio, microphones)?
|
|
|
Post by Fugue June 27, 2013 (3 of 10)
|
|
Claude said:
Interesting. But does it really make a difference in sound, compared to the usual DSD processing, and given all the other factors in a successful recording (acoustics of the studio, microphones)?
Hard to tell, but I received the disc today and can state categorically that it has fantastic sound--among the best piano recordings I have heard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by tailspn June 27, 2013 (5 of 10)
|
|
Claude said:
Interesting. But does it really make a difference in sound, compared to the usual DSD processing, and given all the other factors in a successful recording (acoustics of the studio, microphones)?
Yes and no. The acoustics, microphone selection and placement, are most important, followed by the A/D Converter choice for the initial session take. By the way your question is phrased, the usual lower sampling rate PCM post processing does take its toll in sound quality, if that's what you're referring to by the "usual DSD processing". But, the SADiE DAW is essentially the same as the Sonoma in that it uses the same Sony developed E-Chip for 8-bit two level processing at the original (64fs) sampling rate.
The answer to your question depends upon how much post processing they actually did.
|
|
|
Post by Lute June 27, 2013 (6 of 10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude said:
Interesting. But does it really make a difference in sound, compared to the usual DSD processing, and given all the other factors in a successful recording (acoustics of the studio, microphones)?
Claude, stop the kivetching and put IT on your wish Liszt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
rammiepie said:
Claude, stop the kivetching and put IT on your wish Liszt!
You're responding to a 7 year old comment. Are you sure he's not probably forgotten it all together?
|
|
|
Post by Claude June 28, 2013 (9 of 10)
|
|
At last my 7 year old rhetorical question has been answered :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude said:
At last my 7 year old rhetorical question has been answered :-)
In a roundabout way.
A pity that Stockfisch Records no longer records in DSD multichannel anymore.....and moreover, direct to SACD.
|
|
