Post by dvda-sacd October 19, 2006 (11 of 24)
|
|
DSD has another advantage over high resolution LPCM: the bit rate.
· DSD-64: 1 bit x 2,822.1 kHz = 2,822.1 kilobits per second
· 24/192 PCM: 24 bit x 192 kHz = 4,608 kilobits per second
|
|
|
Post by dvda-sacd October 19, 2006 (12 of 24)
|
|
Dan Popp said:
Come back when we can do it right.
So if you capture and archive the audio with DSD-128, you will be able to have state-of-the-art true DSD recordings (recorded, mastered and edited entirely within the DSD domain) when it becomes possible.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Johnbs October 20, 2006 (13 of 24)
|
|
dvda-sacd said:
DSD has another advantage over high resolution LPCM: the bit rate.
· DSD-64: 1 bit x 2,822.1 kHz = 2,822.1 bit per second
· 24/192 PCM: 24 bit x 192 kHz = 4,608 bit per second
I think the answers should be in kilobit per second
i.e. DSD-64 is 2.822 Mbit per second
24/192 PCM is 4.608 Mbit per second
John
|
|
|
Post by dvda-sacd October 20, 2006 (14 of 24)
|
|
Johnbs said:
I think the answers should be in kilobit per second
i.e. DSD-64 is 2.822 Mbit per second
24/192 PCM is 4.608 Mbit per second
John
That's correct! Thank you for the remark. Let me edit my post.
Best regards,
Leo F.L.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp October 20, 2006 (15 of 24)
|
|
dvda-sacd said:
So if you capture and archive the audio with DSD-128, you will be able to have state-of-the-art true DSD recordings (recorded, mastered and edited entirely within the DSD domain) when it becomes possible.
Cheers!
Leo,
Here's an article about DXD (DSD-128) and how recordists might think about using it. Is this the process you were talking about - "entirely within the DSD domain"?
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/technical_papers/axion/dxd%20Resolution%20v3.5.pdf
The relevant lines are these:
"Sampling in DSD128 does make a significant improvement in the noise of the recording. However, it
is still necessary to format convert the signal just as with DSD64 to do editing and thereby gives a
degradation to the overall recording."
I don't have any quarrel with what you like or with what you're hearing. Are you trying to quarrel about the way I would like to work, or with my philosophy of pushing for something better? Mr. Taylor started this thread to publicize a couple of devices he thought might help spread the love of DSD. I don't disagree with that. I was only pointing out the limitations still to be overcome before some (not to say "many") recordists climb aboard the bandwagon.
Yours,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by dvda-sacd October 20, 2006 (16 of 24)
|
|
Dear Dan,
I apologize to you. It seems to me that my words may have been misinterpreted. I have no intention of quarreling with you. The way you work is not my business.
As regards true DSD production, I don't know whether it can currently be properly done or will become feasible some day, although "true DSD recording, editing, and level adjustments" are said to be some of the Sonoma features. What I know, from personal experience, is that current DSD recordings can deliver a stunning sound quality, even though DXD (24/32-bit signal sampled at 352.8 kHz) has been used for editing.
Yours,
Leo F.L.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp October 23, 2006 (17 of 24)
|
|
dvda-sacd said:
Dear Dan,
I apologize to you. It seems to me that my words may have been misinterpreted. I have no intention of quarreling with you. The way you work is not my business.
As regards true DSD production, I don't know whether it can currently be properly done or will become feasible some day, although "true DSD recording, editing, and level adjustments" are said to be some of the Sonoma features. What I know, from personal experience, is that current DSD recordings can deliver a stunning sound quality, even though DXD (24/32-bit signal sampled at 352.8 kHz) has been used for editing.
Yours,
Leo F.L.
Leo, apology accepted, though not necessary.
I have a hard time keeping up with this stuff, and the claims of the various advertisers are confusing and sometimes contradictory. When I upgraded my studio about a year ago, I looked into the Sonoma but it had (at that time) the usual drawbacks of a newer technolgy: expensive, not very capable in terms of what we're used to with PCM editors, and only one US dealer/support source.
I certainly believe you when you talk about the "stunning sound quality" of a DXD-edited work. And I hope many of my colleagues jump on the technology quickly. I'm not in a position to do that. There are "early adopters" and then there are the rest of us.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Steinway October 24, 2006 (18 of 24)
|
|
Someone has a price for MR-1 ?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
