EMM vs. DAD ? ?

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by DSD_Mastering

Cool! That's good to know. Do all versions support the higher sample rates?

Yes - afaik they all do - including SAWStudio Basic which is only $300. Again - this is for working with wav and aiff files only - it does not support any proprietary DXD formats.

I wish more companies would climb aboard and support the higher rates.

Well - while I've had numerous client provide me with 96kHz sources I've never even had a single inquiry as to whether I could work with 192kHz - let alone 384kHz! Until I receive client requests for me to work from these then the investment in converters that output at these rates is unwarranted from a business stand point.

Also - from a sonic standpoint - Dan Lavry's arguments against the 4xFs (and higher) rates for PCM are very well worth reading and to me his view point has a lot of merit - http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf

To me the whole idea that PCM at 8xFs gives you any actual sonic improvement over PCM at 2xFs seems to be based on faulty science and a general misunderstanding of how PCM actually works - although admittedly upsampling during many digital processes (such as limiting or equalization) can definitely yield better sounding results - so I guess the idea of DXD is to have things already upsampled, since I would think the only reason to change from a DSD to a DXD stream would be to do some processing.

This is a completely seperate issue from the debate over PCM vs. DSD though!

When work station bounce from DSD to PCM and then back again in order to do any processing or editing - and then claim they are not losing resolution because the PCM end of it is so overly sampled then I tend to get slightly sceptical of the claims. I would think there would likely be a small degradation from the format conversion - but I don't have any experience with this realm though so I guess how the end result sounds is the key determiner - but since both DVD-A and SACD have failed in the consumer market a lot of this debate is moot to me. Seems like DSD does offer some good possibilities as an alternative 2-track recorder format though.

Now that Sonar has a 64bit engine,

SAWStudio had a 64bit engine long before Sonar did. They just never hyped the fact.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[ed littman]

Originally Posted by DSD_Mastering

But, anyone that is interested in what DSD can sound like, I would suggest looking into the new Korg MR-1/1000 or the Tascam DV-RA1000HD. If you need to edit the files, both machines come with software to downsample to PCM. Or, you can send the DSD files to someone that has the capabilities of editing.
I'm receiving files from clients every single week that they've recorded on these units for editing/mixing/mastering.

Regards,
Bruce

Yes, last week i heard the Korg. nice little box, & even under not the best test conditions I heard the better qualities of more detail on top & a more dynamic low end.
Ed

[fondone]

24 bit 384 is pcm but 24 bit 352.8 is DXD?

Aren't these two almost the same in quality and 24 bit 352.8 has just been given the name "dxd" ?


how is DXD differnent from PCM?

[DSD_Mastering]

Originally Posted by fondone

how is DXD differnent from PCM?

It's not. It's just a name, given to a certain sample rate (352.8kHz), that is easily converted to DSD if needed, or DSD to DXD for editing.


Regards,
Bruce

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by DSD_Mastering

It's not. It's just a name, given to a certain sample rate (352.8kHz), that is easily converted to DSD if needed, or DSD to DXD for editing.

Born from the intractable problems in staying at one bit, wasn't it?


DC

[fondone]

I just want to say thank you for making this a great thread and helping me spend my money wisely .

BIG UP YOURSELVES !!!!!

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by dcollins

Born from the intractable problems in staying at one bit, wasn't it?


DC

No problem staying at one bit if you never process - never change the gain, add a fade, EQ, dynamics etc... Hmm, that is a bit of a challenge in modern music.

Wasn't this called "DSD wide" at first? I think Sony stated in the old days that DSD was intended to be used just like analog machines (well, originally just as an archive format, but after that), where you come out of the machine outputs every time, and not do anything digitally. Of course using a workstation for prep with fades, editing, and gain changes kind of puts a kink in that.

Then they came out with the custom chips for processing. What ever happened to those? They were in the Sonic SACD DAW and I think in Sonoma. Looks like multi-bit was the answer after all.

[nam0617]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

No problem staying at one bit if you never process - never change the gain, add a fade, EQ, dynamics etc... Hmm, that is a bit of a challenge in modern music.

Wasn't this called "DSD wide" at first? I think Sony stated in the old days that DSD was intended to be used just like analog machines (well, originally just as an archive format, but after that), where you come out of the machine outputs every time, and not do anything digitally. Of course using a workstation for prep with fades, editing, and gain changes kind of puts a kink in that.

Then they came out with the custom chips for processing. What ever happened to those? They were in the Sonic SACD DAW and I think in Sonoma. Looks like multi-bit was the answer after all.

I think DSD wide is 2.8MHz/8bit to do the dsp in the same sampling frequency as DSD. E chip from the Oxford was the only DSP that converts the DSD signal to DSD wide and does the DSP needed and converts back to 1bit signal.

I've used SADIE DSD 8 which uses E chip as Sonic, and Sonoma does, and recently got surprised to see that SADIE deleted DSD line up from their website.

I'm not sure somebody still makes those E chip, but Gus is still selling the Sonoma machine though.

Sunny
The Mastering Lab.

[Peter Scheelke]

Originally Posted by Stefanizzi

DXD is PCM, isn't it? Personally, I'm not interested in DSD, maybe in DXD.

Originally Posted by DSD_Mastering

As it stands now, I will be receiving a new DAD AX24, not Sphynx2 that was tested, for review.

Hi. My name is Peter Scheelke. I am one of the founders of DAD, Digital Audio Denmark. We are the manufacturer of the AX24 AD/DA converter and the Merging Sphynx 2 converter.

Except for the user interface there is no difference between our AX24 and the Merging Sphynx 2 converter. We are using the same PCB’s for both units.

It is true that DXD is 352.8 kHz/24 bit PCM, however 352.8 kHz and 384 kHz are sounding significant better than lower PCM sample rates due to the absence of an anti aliasing filter.

For those of you who have an interest in HD audio formats, I have tried to explain the advantages and disadvantages of the different formats in some posts at: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/30990-dsd-dxd-dsd-wide.html

Best regards,

Peter

[fifthcircle]

Sequoia is capable of dealing with 384KHz as well, but the problem I see with most of the native DAWs out there is the lack of sound cards that can deal with that sample rate.

I have no doubt that there are multiple programs that under the hood can deal with those rates, but how are you going to monitor? Is there a product out there these days that can deal with them- even in a digital setting?

--Ben

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

Sequoia is capable of dealing with 384KHz as well, but the problem I see with most of the native DAWs out there is the lack of sound cards that can deal with that sample rate.

I have no doubt that there are multiple programs that under the hood can deal with those rates, but how are you going to monitor? Is there a product out there these days that can deal with them- even in a digital setting?

--Ben

Seems to me only some of Merging's Pyramix cards are really set up to do this currently.

fwiw SAWStudio allows you to do src for the playback in realtime for monitoring of high res sample rates at a lower rate supported by the soundcard without having to actually convert the original sound files. So you could edit and bounce to disc at 384kHz using it but be able to monitor while doing this at 192kHz or 96kHz or whatever your soundcard supported.

Still - at this point it's hard to for me to always agree that with PCM "more is more" when with a decent anti-aliasing filter design you can get a smooth response without any significant pre-ringing at even a 60kHz sample rate. I think some of the tradeoffs in accuracy for speed that Lavry has noted come into play with the higher rates than this in his paper are worth taking into consideration also.

Anyway - until client demand for both providing mixes at these higher rates, and for delivering with a hi-res format actually starts existing I think any dollars ear marked for gear are much better spent on other things than converters and cards that support the 8xFs rates. As stated before while I see interest and advantages in 2xFs PCM no one has ever approached me to work at even 4xFs.

Personally I would be happier to see development, support and promotion from digital media player manufacturers and digital download distributors for a non-proprietary lossless compression codec that delivered 24bit/48kHz at hopefully something close to a 3:1 compression ratio, than what I see as just useless marketing of products to engineers based on possible "more is always more" fallacies in efforts to just soak money out of them - as a much more realistic hope for delivery of better sound quality to the general consumer in the future than recording at 8xFs only to deliver an mp3 in the end would.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[zenmastering]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Wasn't this called "DSD wide" at first?

DSD-Wide = 2.8224 MHz/8bit (also known as "PCM - Narrow). This is what the Sonoma/Sadie/Sonic camp used. All DSP processing was done at this width to avoid the impossibilities of a 1-bit accumulator, with a final modulation to 1 bit at the end of the chain.

To add to what has been previously posted about DXD, it can be anywhere from 16-24 bit integer (as used in converters) or 32 bit floating point, as it's used in Pyramix for DSP calculations.

Currently, the thrust of what DAD/Merging are trying to do with DXD is to get people to convert from analogue directly to 352k8 and only convert to 64fs/1-bit at the end of the production chain, if SACD is the target.

Those 'MAC-DSD' modules never really materialized beyond empty sockets on host-boards, but I hear rumour that Genex is using them in the DSD mixer that they built for 'LiveNation'.

Best,

Graemme

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

Sequoia is capable of dealing with 384KHz as well, but the problem I see with most of the native DAWs out there is the lack of sound cards that can deal with that sample rate.

I have no doubt that there are multiple programs that under the hood can deal with those rates, but how are you going to monitor? Is there a product out there these days that can deal with them- even in a digital setting?

--Ben

Ben,
Peter's DAD Axion converter has DXD DA converters, and with the introduction of Masscore Pyramix has ample horsepower even for large surround mixes.

[fondone]

I know I could phone vintage king etc.....but....

does anyone know the "street price" of the new MASS CORE Daw....?

is there still versions (mastering, post, broadcast) ?

thanks

[klaukholm]

Masscore is an additional option to regular pyramix.

It allows pyramix to take over one or several cores outside of windows.

"MassCore dedicates virtually one entire core of a multi-core CPU to handle all time-critical audio mix-engine tasks. It also transparently lets Windows keep control of the other core(s) for all other non- or less-time critical tasks required by your Pyramix workstation offering the same basic user interface as Pyramix without MassCore but with added power comparable to a stack of 6 additional Mykerinos DSP boards and exclusive functions "


The latency is incredible now with live-in to live-out latency of 1.33 ms in ultra low latency mode.

[George Necola]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

Masscore is an additional option to regular pyramix.

It allows pyramix to take over one or several cores outside of windows.

"MassCore dedicates virtually one entire core of a multi-core CPU to handle all time-critical audio mix-engine tasks. It also transparently lets Windows keep control of the other core(s) for all other non- or less-time critical tasks required by your Pyramix workstation offering the same basic user interface as Pyramix without MassCore but with added power comparable to a stack of 6 additional Mykerinos DSP boards and exclusive functions "


The latency is incredible now with live-in to live-out latency of 1.33 ms in ultra low latency mode.

you use it successfully and in everyday use?

how is the performance if you apply a *sorry for the blasphemie* plugin on a DXD stream? is this possible? still learning here..

we tested some PCM converters and some of them are internally downsampling, so they can handle the stream (eg. 192khz to 96khz).

cheers

[klaukholm]

George,
I always record 96/24, maybe someday Peter will convince me otherwise.
As such I cannot tell you what happens with plugins in ultra low latency mode running DXD.
Maybe Peter can chime in?

We are 100% happy with our PMX both for scoring sessions as well as classical sessions and if it was not for the relatively conservative scoring business, I would never use anything else.

[zenmastering]

Hi George,

I've been using VST plug-ins inside Pyramix DXD for several years. If you think that an Algorithmix LP EQ uses a lot of processor cycles at 44k1, wait until you try it at 8x that rate...

For stereo use, I can monitor at 'medium' resolution, but anymore than that and the audio won't play back correctly. I still can't use the Algorithmix Red or Orange plugs on a multi-channel bus, even on a Quad-core system.

The Flux E-pure and Solera plug-ins work well at DXD resolution, probably because the developer, Gael Martinet has been involved in the development of Pyramix for a while now. The Flux plug-ins sound great.

Best Regards,

Graemme

[Adebar]

Originally Posted by nam0617

I've used SADIE DSD 8 which uses E chip as Sonic, and Sonoma does, and recently got surprised to see that SADIE deleted DSD line up from their website.

I'm not sure somebody still makes those E chip, but Gus is still selling the Sonoma machine though.

Sunny
The Mastering Lab.

Is Sonoma still on the market? Are there further developments on it or is Pyrmix the only application capable for editing DSD?

Sadie is gone as far as I know and Sonic Studio didn´t continue the DSD capability from the old Sonic HD.

[nam0617]

Originally Posted by Adebar

Is Sonoma still on the market? Are there further developments on it or is Pyrmix the only application capable for editing DSD?

Sadie is gone as far as I know and Sonic Studio didn´t continue the DSD capability from the old Sonic HD.

Yes, Sonoma is quite alive.
Check its website. Super Audio Center Home
Gus Skinas is the man who keeps that machine running and expanding actually.

Sunny
The Mastering Lab.

[Adebar]

Thanks for your reply, Sunny.

The next month I´ve do decide for a DSD, DXD solution. Pyramix is very attracting because it supports all, PCM, DXD, DSD. It has real good editing features and is good for Mastering too.

Where could be an advantage for the Sonoma DAW, comparing it with the Pyramix?

[zenmastering]

Originally Posted by Adebar

Where could be an advantage for the Sonoma DAW, comparing it with the Pyramix?

I frequently use both the Pyramix and Sonoma DAWs. The Sonoma's advantage is that it is easier to learn and simpler to operate. If you plan to only work on DSD material and will be mixing and/or summing externally, then the Sonoma is a fine choice. But, if you also want to use PCM and have a much more flexible user-interface, then Pyramix is the only choice, now that Sadie is out of the game.

You could always buy both...

Best,

Graemme

[nam0617]

Hi Adebar,

f you're going to do the DSD thing in a real purist way, I would use Sonoma.
And then I'll get rid of the DSP board which uses E chip and use it as a multi track recorder/player or SACD authoring machine.

If you want to mix the stuff ITB, I may use the Pyramix, since it would give you more flexibility to mix the stuff.

Sunny
The Mastering Lab.

[Adebar]

Originally Posted by nam0617

Hi Adebar,

f you're going to do the DSD thing in a real purist way, I would use Sonoma.
And then I'll get rid of the DSP board which uses E chip and use it as a multi track recorder/player or SACD authoring machine.

Thanks so far for your answers. One more question.

What is the E chip for?

[nam0617]

E chip from the Oxford was the only DSP that converts the DSD signal to DSD wide and does the DSP needed and converts back to 1bit signal.

Since the DSD signal itself cannot be processed by the DSP based on PCM theory, Sony developed E chip that converts DSD to 2.8Mhz/8bit PCM, does the signal processing and converts it back to DSD signal.

[Adebar]

Originally Posted by DSD_Mastering

I priced thd DAD right around $12-13k... as opposed to $18k for the Meitners I have.

This is quite expensive. You can have the Meitner arround 5000,- € now.

[buffert]

How DAD AX24 compare with prism sound ADA-8XR and dcs DSD DAC?