The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
DAD AX32 vs Merging Horus
Old 22nd January 2014
  #61
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

It becoming clear most firms are going to stop investing in expensive digital IO.
Audio over IP is very cost effective, and insures feature compatibility.

I would say, don't look back, write off your losses and buy either Horus or ax32
Old 22nd January 2014
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
MADI isn't going anywhere. It is in place for tv and radio broadcasting and that market alone assures its longevity.

The customer needs to be vocal and insist on tools that don't put them out of business. DSD is once again turning out to be a money pit with super specialized gear.

In the 1990's and early 2000's I already purchased dCS converters and dsd stuff to do the work. Then I sold it all when dsd went bust the first time.

Are there only young engineers here who embrace dsd and do not remember the money pit it was the first time around? I suppose so.

The European viewpoint is somewhat different than here in America. European studios and small practitioners are willing to embrace quality and willing too to go out of business trying to push quality.

Kick and yell about MADI implementation in the tools you want to buy and the manufacturers might respond. Claude Cellier and crew are an enlightened group. Realize too, that now, they are mining a vein of profit brought on by their commercial inventiveness and innovation. Why would
they change until a national broadcaster demands it. That is where leverage comes from.

I will continue to spend my money on family schooling, travel, my houses, etc. DSD is waaaaaaaaaaay down the list and I prefer to wait for Mytek at this juncture. DSD is just not very interesting to me. I would rather be a participant in SACD with a lovely pcm originated program. What's wrong with DXD?
Old 22nd January 2014
  #63
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
What's wrong with DXD?
Not starting that old debate but in short - nothing wrong with DXD. Especially when recorded in DSD256 first and then converted for processing... other than that, be it wrong or right, it sounds like PCM by comparison - you know, filtered, hard spiky transients, less natural and lacking warmth and texture in (especially lower) midrange, narrower and more congested (less 3D) soundstage , lesser sense of dynamics, compressed, etc etc.... by comparison.... nothing wrong, will make your living just as well as DSD, with less investment and time spent converting etc. So DSD is really a waste of time professionally, I agree.. unless you're aiming for the best possible result and like me can't sleep knowing there is an improvement to be made. Even by a small margin. Races are won in milliseconds, not minutes or hours.... Some people run a personal race pushing what they do to the limit. Weird , I know. They should all be divorced, made bankrupt and then locked up.

Let's hope BBC demand DSD over MADI soon
Old 23rd January 2014
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Hello Sabian,

You sound a lot like me in many ways. I always used to pursue the last bit of fidelity and recorded sound magicke, even if it meant spending a lot of money on esoteric gear and learning / changing techniques of working. I still do pursue great sound--just this time with an eye towards not going out of business.

You mention that races are won in a millisecond. YOU are not involved in a race, YOU are involved in a SURVIVAL MISSION.

I don't in any way think that dsd is not a good professional pursuit. It is certainly. However, I will be renting time in these studios having the super dsd capability. I will not be spending my own money AGAIN on this pursuit.

However, I don't agree one bit with your characterization of pcm. Why do you put yourself in the camp that espouses made up language and pseudo-observations?

I may not be the biggest digital fan out here but I do know one thing.
The high quality digital medium is reflecting very very well the input sound.

It is logical and very clear that the shortcomings you ascribe to the medium are instead contained in the signal being input to the recorder.

Specifically, from your post above, quote:
(my edit) ". . .you know, filtered, hard spiky transients, less natural and lacking warmth and texture in (especially lower) midrange, narrower and more congested (less 3D) soundstage , lesser sense of dynamics, compressed, etc etc.... by comparison..."

Let's take the most obvious and often heard complaint--of hard sound. Whatever the sound is that is input, that is the sound that is reproduced.
Didn't we all learn to temper harsh and hard sound years ago when working with digital? (by more distant micing, ribbon mics, tube gear??)

Narrower sound stage is strictly a mic technique problem. Think about it. It has to be so because the input signal defines the stereo picture.

Lesser sense of dynamics--no. DSD, because of its gross noise shaping requirement, barely reaches an 18 bit signal quality. Also its freq. response is not as good as pcm.

Any compressed sound is in the input signal, not added by the medium.

I've been around digital sound and analog tape for way too long to engage in high end hi-fi talk talk.

Besides, Deutsche Grammophon already convened serious listening panels and heard no difference between 96 kHz. pcm and dsd. It was then that they dropped dsd and did standard recording at 96K.

I don't want you to go out of business. Too many good men have.
Old 23rd January 2014
  #65
Gear Addict
 

Hey Plush,

I'm not sure how useful all this is to the community here and to this particular thread, but at this point "DAD AX32 vs Horus" inevitably turns into another "PCM vs DSD" debate - thank you Merging.

Firstly, the attributes I used to describe how I hear PCM were followed by the all important "by comparison" , meaning to DSD256 in particular. I missed out , "IMHO" and that I think it's also largely a matter of preference and very subjective. Like a tube vs transistor guitar amp - guess which one I use.

Secondly, the "comparison" means the same source recorded with the same analog chain and same converter in different formats, even after conversion to 4416 and mp3, the 'real world' situation. A typical mastering scenario which is what I do. In my tiny little universe , DSD (especially 256) yields 'better' end-results every time.

Thirdly, I too have been multi-tracking in the '80s and '90s using 2" tape and mixing to 1/2" - and would sonically go back to that any time, until DSD256 that is. As a guitarist, I remember clearly being disturbed when the new digital system we bought back then was not reproducing half of the nuance and texture of the same take being recorded to tape. I hung on to my tape machines for a long time...it wasn't until I bought Genex 9048 running DSD that my tape nostalgia started fading away. DAD AX24 in DXD is of course a different story to my early digital experiences and is damn close to the source. I just hear the Horus in DSD256 even closer. "by comparison"

Fourthly, we all have our personal races, survival being the big one. I always thought I could do a bit better than survive, maybe even LIVE a little bit, by pushing myself harder towards my personal limits. That applies to most things, from my work to skiing or whatever else I choose to do. Business is doing just fine, kids are well, wife reasonably happy, houses not in terrible state either.... we'll probably even make it to the slopes this winter despite the Horus. It looks like I may not get locked up as yet.

On a serious note - as much as I am trying to explain my reasoning and passion for good sound here, I totally appreciate it won't and can not work for everybody. It is by no means necessary to work in DSD to create great music and recordings. It just helps me to gain those extra few milliseconds and makes my working life more fulfilling and fun. This is why I chose music over maths some 30 years ago - it was more fun. ...and it's down to me to make sure it stays that way. It's also a bonus for clients who appreciate good sound, they don't pay a penny extra. For me that justifies the investment and the price difference between DXD and DSD - IF there is one anyway...
If Merging keep inventing new formats and hardware I am happy to treat the Horus and Pyramix as I did my tape machines - I could live with it forever, as long as it works. I may even stop upgrading my mobile phones, TVs and cameras one day and drop out of the tech catch-up race, the one we're all certain to loose.

Lastly, let me quote another answer by a respectable fellow DSD user to a similar debate with you, located in this thread https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remot...te-dsd-6.html-

This could easily have been me btw, exactly my thoughts and experience....

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpdonahue View Post
Actually, this couldn't be further from the truth. I listen and compare all the available options and choose the one which gives the best result. Do you actually think that people hire us because we have converter XYZ? People hire us because of a proven track record of making good sounding records. No more, no less. As far as the client is concerned, I'm only as good as my last record.
Fot the last year I've been running redundant systems at different rates (both PCM (96k, 192k and DXD) and DSD (64, 128 and 256) and comparing the differences. I am in the enviable situation to be able to compare the best converters, preamps....you name it. I choose how I work based on how it sounds. Period.
In reality, it actually takes significantly more effort to work in these formats and the clients don't pay a penny extra for high resolution production. It is simply one of the elements in making the best recording I can.
As always, YMMV.
All the best,
-mark
Old 23rd January 2014
  #66
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sabian View Post
Hey Plush,

I'm not sure how useful all this is to the community here and to this particular thread, but at this point "DAD AX32 vs Horus" inevitably turns into another "PCM vs DSD" debate - thank you Merging.

Firstly, the attributes I used to describe how I hear PCM were followed by the all important "by comparison" , meaning to DSD256 in particular. I missed out , "IMHO" and that I think it's also largely a matter of preference and very subjective. Like a tube vs transistor guitar amp - guess which one I use.

Secondly, the "comparison" means the same source recorded with the same analog chain and same converter in different formats, even after conversion to 4416 and mp3, the 'real world' situation. A typical mastering scenario which is what I do. In my tiny little universe , DSD (especially 256) yields 'better' end-results every time.

Thirdly, I too have been multi-tracking in the '80s and '90s using 2" tape and mixing to 1/2" - and would sonically go back to that any time, until DSD256 that is. As a guitarist, I remember clearly being disturbed when the new digital system we bought back then was not reproducing half of the nuance and texture of the same take being recorded to tape. I hung on to my tape machines for a long time...it wasn't until I bought Genex 9048 running DSD that my tape nostalgia started fading away. DAD AX24 in DXD is of course a different story to my early digital experiences and is damn close to the source. I just hear the Horus in DSD256 even closer. "by comparison"

Fourthly, we all have our personal races, survival being the big one. I always thought I could do a bit better than survive, maybe even LIVE a little bit, by pushing myself harder towards my personal limits. That applies to most things, from my work to skiing or whatever else I choose to do. Business is doing just fine, kids are well, wife reasonably happy, houses not in terrible state either.... we'll probably even make it to the slopes this winter despite the Horus. It looks like I may not get locked up as yet.

On a serious note - as much as I am trying to explain my reasoning and passion for good sound here, I totally appreciate it won't and can not work for everybody. It is by no means necessary to work in DSD to create great music and recordings. It just helps me to gain those extra few milliseconds and makes my working life more fulfilling and fun. This is why I chose music over maths some 30 years ago - it was more fun. ...and it's down to me to make sure it stays that way. It's also a bonus for clients who appreciate good sound, they don't pay a penny extra. For me that justifies the investment and the price difference between DXD and DSD - IF there is one anyway...
If Merging keep inventing new formats and hardware I am happy to treat the Horus and Pyramix as I did my tape machines - I could live with it forever, as long as it works. I may even stop upgrading my mobile phones, TVs and cameras one day and drop out of the tech catch-up race, the one we're all certain to loose.

Lastly, let me quote another answer by a respectable fellow DSD user to a similar debate with you, located in this thread https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remot...te-dsd-6.html-

This could easily have been me btw, exactly my thoughts and experience....


plus i want to add, the '18 bit resolution' of dsd somone mentioned isn't really the case, more like 25-26, at frequencies where the ear is the most sensitive. the higher the sr, the less of an issue it becomes.
Old 23rd January 2014
  #67
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Hello Sabian,
I don't in any way think that dsd is not a good professional pursuit. It is certainly. However, I will be renting time in these studios having the super dsd capability. I will not be spending my own money AGAIN on this pursuit.
This is a wise approach - I'd be delighted to offer my services.

Btw, I read your DAD AX24 vs Horus assessment and remember mostly agreeing to your observations. Despite our different life philosophies we might actually hear similar things. I have a locker full of ribbons and no shortage of tube kit. Words are less than ideal medium for describing sound but we still have a go at it from time to time. Here is another respectable member's attempt to describe his DSD256 experience , from the same thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MBishopSFX View Post
We made the Boston Baroque 256x DSD recording mentioned above. It was the first 256x session made with the Horus/Pyramix system. The Horus converter is an excellent AD/DA and centerpiece to any recording system. It performs exceptionally well at 256x DSD. We and the artists loved the sound of the 256x recording, with the 64x DSD backup coming in a close second. The 64x would be considered an excellent recording on its own, but the 256x simply has better dynamics, better inner detail, and a better soundstage as compared to the analog feed from the board at the session. We had the luxury of monitoring on ATC SCM150s throughout the recording sessions and post-production.

The Pyramix does convert the 256x DSD to DXD for any edits or changes to the DSD stream. A render back to DSD is required to play the edited DSD with DSD output to the DACs. To me, that is somewhat of a bottleneck in the system at this point.
Old 23rd January 2014
  #68
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Hello Sabian,
Let's take the most obvious and often heard complaint--of hard sound. Whatever the sound is that is input, that is the sound that is reproduced.
Didn't we all learn to temper harsh and hard sound years ago when working with digital? (by more distant micing, ribbon mics, tube gear??)
This is probably the best way to describe the difference - thanks. With DSD256 you no longer need to compensate, so you can start decluttering and selling those priceless vintage pres, tube / ribbon mics, tape emulation and finally those tape machines.... (not) only joking

People choosing between DAD and Horus are as it stands potentially choosing between working in PCM or DSD . IME the difference between those formats (especially DSD256) is bigger than between converters, at least from my experience with Sphynx2 and Horus . If deciding to go DSD route with Pyramix, one has to consider their workflow and application.

So far we talked mainly about capture. There is IME also an advantage in playing back any PCM files converted to DSD for analog processing in mastering and mixing . When I first heard some CD tracks converted to DSD128 and played back by Korg MR1000 I had to collect my jaw from the floor. Although I've been doing this for 5 years and knew what to expect this time, with DSD256 and Horus I had to collect it from the basement. Real time conversion to DSD has interestingly been implemented by "Mr DSD" Ed Meitner himself in his budget XDS1 CD/SACD player. It's amazing what's hiding inside that humble CD disc.

For multi tracking and mixing fully analog it's a no brainer - DSD256 IMO. However, there is indeed "the bottleneck in the system" as Mr Bishop calls it.
One would track in a DSD256 project, then open those same files in a DXD project for editing / processing while listening to DXD version with real time SRC on - which sounds different of course. Once done, re-render those edits and processed bits (while main files remain untouched), then back to the DSD256 project for real DSD playback, with no mixing facility, call it a digital tape recorder...

If mixing ITB, the benefits are "only" in capture, since you have to use a DXD project with SRC on playing back DXD - or convert files to DXD . You can still record the mix in DSD256 at the same time though which is great.

It is a shame that we lost the ability to output DSD stream from a DXD project in the current Pyramix version. It would be great to have that back supporting DSD256, being able to for example select in the mixer "pre" (straight DSD file playback) or "post" (real time DXD converted playback allowing processing) . That way one could apply some processing and edit while hearing real DSD playback, no need to render and switch back to DSD project just to hear the final result.....
Dream on.... Version 9 should be with us soon, maybe then?
Old 23rd January 2014
  #69
Lives for gear
 
tomdarude's Avatar
After having talked about this in length with a couple of knowledgable people and gear designers, especially Bruno Putzeys (of Grimm Audio and Hypex) I think 24/96kHz PCM is probably all the resolution one THEORETICALLY needs.

I think lots of this discussions and listening test are leading to totally wrong assumptions. I think it´s safe to say that once having reached a resolution as high as 24bit /88,2 or 96kHz PCM, audible differences in sound are due to the "implementation" and design of the converter and NOT due to the very format itself.

I really think that general statements such as "DSD being superior to PCM in sonics" are not valid at all.




...I mention this only for some perspective on this topic in general.
Old 23rd January 2014
  #70
Gear Addict
 

See what we started Plush ? Apologies on my part, I was genuinely trying to be useful in sharing my PRACTICAL experiences. It seems in 5 years of clicking on DSD/DXD I missed the real deal, 88.2k. Silly me.... better PM Mr Donoghue and Mr Bishop quickly of this great discovery... Right then, let's stop those listening tests and start talking to knowledgeable people instead. Only the ones who haven't carried out any listening tests of course, since that leads to wrong assumptions. Thanks for this original and useful perspective....
Old 23rd January 2014
  #71
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdarude View Post
After having talked about this in length with a couple of knowledgable people and gear designers, especially Bruno Putzeys (of Grimm Audio and Hypex) I think 24/96kHz PCM is probably all the resolution one THEORETICALLY needs.
I think anyone with a decent understanding of how digital audio works has to agree 100%.
If any given AD (dsd quad speed or not) sounds utterly superior to another AD converter, it must mean that either the latter is flawed, defect, badly designed, or sampling below 44.1K/24bit. Not even 96K. Then the differences would already be non-existent.

On another note, I remain uttely confused about the total number of DSD surround releases which sound like complete failures when listening to the stereo CD version. Maybe this contributes to the "bad" pcm sound versus the "divine" dsd sound ?

Dare I say it - intentionally so ?
Old 24th January 2014
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
The survival part I spoke of in my response to Sabian's first post was referring to surviving with dsd as the premium format in one's own studio. I am always surprised when owner / ear operators tell me that they do not charge more money for a premium product. In all other sectors of our world wide economy, we do charge a premium for premium output and performance. Several prominent and known people have pointed out though that we don't do that in the recording business.

Record companies treat engineers as desperate people; browbeating them on rates and unwilling to pay any ups and extras. Some let the companies do it to them.

Please understand that I already purchased the best dsd set ups one could buy in the 90's and 2000's. Then Sony dumped dsd and the market went away. I sold my equipment.

Sabian's citing of the opinions about dsd from the talented engineers from Sound Mirror and 5/ 4 Productions sheds NO light on what I already know. This has nothing to do with the good knowledge of the people cited. ( I will, for now, ignore the Pyramix Acolyte Zyndrom.)

It has everything to do with my on the ground experience--- have already owned and used the dsd systems.

I am of the opinion that the whole world already has all the dsd capable studios that it can absorb. There is no room for more.
Old 28th January 2014
  #73
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
The survival part I spoke of in my response to Sabian's first post was referring to surviving with dsd as the premium format in one's own studio. I am always surprised when owner / ear operators tell me that they do not charge more money for a premium product. In all other sectors of our world wide economy, we do charge a premium for premium output and performance. Several prominent and known people have pointed out though that we don't do that in the recording business.
Record companies treat engineers as desperate people; browbeating them on rates and unwilling to pay any ups and extras. Some let the companies do it to them.
I agree with the above assessment but would like to make an important point, especially for people without DSD experience. Surviving with DSD in your studio is the same as surviving with any other premium vintage or new equipment. It's a tool, like a U47, vintage Neve pres, or tape ... the point to make is that I am personally mostly competing in the same PCM (mainly CD and mp3) market as most people here. Although there is still a SACD market and I wish it would stay and expand to widely available DSD downloads , the reality is mp3, maybe FLAC if you get lucky. This doesn't mean we have to track and mix in mp3. High resolution formats (especially DSD) also yield "better" results in mp3 , IME . I've been working for over 5 years with DSD and prior to that mainly in 192k for a long time. The important part of the process is quality of SRC and dither (no different if using 96k PCM btw) which in Pyramix 8 is truly amazing. There are people here using Korgs to track in DSD and convert with Audiogate before dumping PCM files to their DAW - hard work but I know it's worth it. Several of my clients started mixing to Korgs and are delivering 5.6MHz DSD mixes to me for mastering which has improved the quality of their work by some margin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Please understand that I already purchased the best dsd set ups one could buy in the 90's and 2000's. Then Sony dumped dsd and the market went away. I sold my equipment.
.......
.......
It has everything to do with my on the ground experience--- have already owned and used the dsd systems.
Sorry to hear of the negative outcome but I imagine you purchased the DSD kit back then because you liked the sound of it? I guess it must have been a speculation that SACD / DSD market would grow.... For me DSD was never about that niche specialized market, but just another tool that makes it easier to get the best sound possible, regardless of delivery format - much like a lot of people still use tape. More natural, less compensation for "hard digital" artefacts needed, takes EQ well (kinda like a ribbon vs condenser), let's me push the limiter harder ( for those type clients) before it falls apart etc. Wider, fuller,deeper, louder if need be, more musical...blah.. IME. Why should only classical and jazz be recorded well?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I am of the opinion that the whole world already has all the dsd capable studios that it can absorb. There is no room for more.
Quite the opposite - the world already has more terrible sounding (not only) bedroom studio mastered pancakes than it can absorb. In every studio that uses analog summing there should at least be a Korg or Tascam DSD recorder (- or a well maintained 1/2 or even 1/4" tape). There is no excuse other than pure ignorance. IMHO ... and once that Korg settles in, you'll want to track and mix like that too. .... at least that's what happened to me .


Just being equally radical from a slightly different perspective
Old 19th May 2017
  #74
Deleted User
Guest
and ... has someone compared dad ax32 to merging (and solaris D/A)?

Last edited by Deleted User; 19th May 2017 at 11:13 PM..
Old 20th February 2018
  #75
Gear Maniac
I'm trying to gather more info about different workflows with AX32 or Merging Horus proposal.

Recently, I was talking with a friend (composer and producer), and he is fully working doing digital mixing using his Yamaha DM2000 mixer.
96 digital channels ready to be mixed using its dedicated DSPs.

The result is that the MIX is much open and clear than the one made by the DAW (no matter if logic, cubase or protools was the DAW)
He thinks that the reason could be based on the fact that Yamaha's mixer is using dedicated fpgas for digital summing instead of "software code lines"..

I've made some tests with the included TOTALMIXER sw of my RME HDSPe MADI FX, and I can confirm that idea. The FPGA chips within RME's card are giving a better summing than DAW one.

So my question is for any expert/user of AX32/MTRX/Horus/Hapi...

Does anyone use them for hw based digital summing instead of DAW summing?

Does DAD or Merging proposal a dedicated FPGA/DSP for digital summing? what resolution does it have?

Thanks!!
Old 21st February 2019
  #76
70% Coffee, 30% Beer
 
Doc Mixwell's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntpjl View Post
Hi guys

Let me try to answer some of the questions here.

Regarding DSD, we currently support it via MADI in a fashion which is compatible with Mergings Mykorinos MADI card. I don't know whether the latest Pyramix version supports this card, but I'm sure Merging can give you an answer to that (while trying to persuade you to go for a Horus instead of an AX32 ;-) ).

The AX32 supports as standard DSD and DXD and not like the Horus where they have "standard" cards (up to 192k) and "premium" cards (DSD/DXD).

As xcskier points out, the AX32 is very new, so there have not been any releases yet. We have however a number of customers who have done recordings, both classical and pop/rock, where we should hopefully see some releases soon. The only one we have published information about, is the Opera de Dijon which has recorded Wagners The Ring of the Niebelung (please see digitalaudio.dk for more info).

And finally, yes, AX32 has a ProTools HD interface so you can plug it straight into ProTools. We have two connectors and can emulate both HD-IO and HD-MADI so you can have up to 64 channels. One of the great features of the AX32 that many ProTools users point out is the routing/patching function in the AX32. The AX32 has as default 8 AES3 I/O's, a coax MADI I/O and can have up to 32 analogue inputs. You can then route any input to any channel on the ProTools interface. For example, if you have another A/D converter with MADI output, you simply plug it into the MADI on the AX32 and route the channels to the ProTools interface together with the analogue inputs from the AX32. You can of course also use this feature even if you don't use PT. Basically, you can route any input to any output (even multiple outputs), so you can use any interface towards your DAW. It also allows you to e.g. plug into a MADI output from a FOH if you record a live gig.

Another AX32/ProTools feature is our DADman control software can emulate a MIDI interface so you can control the AX32 mic pre's directly from ProTools.

We normally sell through distributors/dealers, unless we do not have a distributor/dealer in a country. For information about pricing and dealers, please drop me an e-mail at jan.lykke[at]ntp.dk

Jan

You can also follow DAD on Twitter: DigitalAudioDK
Many people ask about using your AX32 with Pyramix in DSD mode. You would sell more if you made that easier to do.
Old 21st February 2019
  #77
Gear Nut
 
ntpjl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
Many people ask about using your AX32 with Pyramix in DSD mode. You would sell more if you made that easier to do.
Hi Adam,

There is unfortunately not much we can do to make it easier.

We now also support DoP (DSD over PCM) so it is possible to carry DSD via MADI, AES and Dante, however Pyramix does not support DoP.

The only other way of getting DSD into Pyramix is via Ravenna. However, to do that you must use the Premium edition of the Merging Virtual Audio Device. Unfortunately, Merging have chosen to restrict the Virtual Audio Device Premium Edition so it requires a Hapi or Horus in order to work. So even if we implemented DSD via Ravenna it would still not work as Merging have chosen to block their Virtual Audio Device Premium Edition for 3rd party manufacturers.

To be very honest, we do not get many requests for DSD support so I doubt we would sell many more units even if we could provide a solution.

Best regards,
Jan
Old 21st February 2019
  #78
70% Coffee, 30% Beer
 
Doc Mixwell's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntpjl View Post
Hi Adam,

There is unfortunately not much we can do to make it easier.

We now also support DoP (DSD over PCM) so it is possible to carry DSD via MADI, AES and Dante, however Pyramix does not support DoP.

The only other way of getting DSD into Pyramix is via Ravenna. However, to do that you must use the Premium edition of the Merging Virtual Audio Device. Unfortunately, Merging have chosen to restrict the Virtual Audio Device Premium Edition so it requires a Hapi or Horus in order to work. So even if we implemented DSD via Ravenna it would still not work as Merging have chosen to block their Virtual Audio Device Premium Edition for 3rd party manufacturers.

To be very honest, we do not get many requests for DSD support so I doubt we would sell many more units even if we could provide a solution.

Best regards,
Jan
Thanks for your answer Jan, it is much appreciated.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 200 views: 19442
Avatar for Patzerat
Patzerat 5th August 2005
replies: 121 views: 32190
Avatar for SEA
SEA 21st August 2009
replies: 1 views: 788
Avatar for fondone
fondone 25th May 2009
replies: 1195 views: 121793
Avatar for Ghost Rider
Ghost Rider 5 days ago
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump