Thanks Michael! I've really been enjoying the Q&A...
I think a lot of folks share your sonic appreciation of the DSD format along with some of the frustrations from limitations you describe.
If ever a digital format deserved some additional implementation improvements and options, this is the one. Implementations that offer more cost effective multi-tracking and editing capabilities, along with streamlined workflow and "native" DAW integration and interfacing. Not to mention delivery format ubiquity/acceptance.
I mean, once one has an opportunity to really hear the sonic integrity of a high quality DSD capture/playback... one can't help but feel the format deserves more attention.
I never had an opportunity to use a Sonoma or Pyramix system, but learned about the Korg 5.6MHz DSD recorders from Terry Manning's glowing posts on the PSW and PRW forums. He swears by these for 2-track mix-down. I'm still amazed at how truly wonderful these sound. If you haven't had the opportunity, it might be worth a listenning experience.
Up to four MR2000 rack units can also be transport linked/synced via spdif, for up to 8-track DSD recording, which is pretty cool in and of itself. Along with their AudioGate software which allows for simple editing, track splicing, DSD disk creation, and of course SRC.
But, Korg's 8-track, editable, "proof of concept" DSD DAW they called Clarity, showed off in late 2010, may be the coolest advancement yet... if/when it ever hits the market. If their previous 5.6 DSD implementations and affordable price points are any indication, Clarity will be sonic nirvana, well within the reach and utilization of many.
And, I for one would just love to be able to hear and truly appreciate top level artists/engineers/producers, such as yourself, utilizing the format to its full potential. Especially when it's their preferred choice, as it is yours. From project start to finish. I can dream can't I?
Anyway, I'm very much looking forward to your future music-related endeavors...
whatever the format! Keep on rocking!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fexurbis
String6theory-
I feel that any high-rez format is great for music with fast transients and lots of rich harmonic information. As for DSD, I can't say enough good things about it- it's my format of choice and if money was no object, I would own a system. Obviously, there are issues with editing (at least in the Sonoma system) but the sound quality more than makes up for that. In the end, no one who listens to a record is going to hear how easy the editing was for the engineer, anyway. I feel it's always more satisfying from the perspective of a listener to hear musicians work harder when they're being recorded, instead taking the easy way out and having their performances edited after the fact.
I have only gotten to use DSD on a few projects- the mix for Untouchables (Korn- the DSD mix edged out the analog mix), The Bronx record (which was bounced to Pro Tools prior to mix) and a Courtney Love record (which was also bounced to Pro Tools after I left). It is absolutely heartbreaking to hear what gets lost when something which sounds so gorgeous gets converted to a different format. For all practical intents and purposes, DSD is analog since it won't speak to any othe recorder in the digital domain.
Because of the downsides, I've had to give up on DSD for the time being. Additionally, the cost of renting these systems is prohibitive on most recording budgets these days. The workflow aspect was brutal and I'm hoping this has changed. The main reason The Bronx record was't mixed in DSD was because the DSD system had to be SMPTE master when we tried to run it with an SSL. At that point, I would have been happy to do a non automated mix, but the record company's meter was running. I'm looking forward to using it again, when time and budget allows. I'm also interested in using the Pyramix system which seems to be a step up from the Sonoma in terms of ergonomics and interfaceability.*