DSD= DIGI ?

[tnie]

Is this the direction? [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[scoobdaproduca]

I would like to see Digidesign explore the realm of DSD. It seems to me that they are close with HD (I make this comment with limited knowledge of DSD).

[img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[waterboy]

though dsd looks great in the press releases and can sound great as a delivery format, it is currently very problematic as a production tool for several reasons:

the out of band noise it generates plays havoc with almost all current analog processors/mixers that do not specifically account for dsd in their design.

this out of band noise also makes it as "fragile" as analog when multitracking in terms of analog domain generational loss and noise accumulation

all digital processors would have to be rebuilt from the ground up

the mastering tools are quite limited and are tightly controlled by Sony

Personally, I think Digi is on the right track by the iterative improvements of its PCM systems.

[tnie]

Anyone hear the Sadie system? [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[tnie]

I guess that's a no [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[CO2]

Hello Tom:

Waterboy has raised some valid concerns regarding DSD. However, in all fairness, a few points should be considered.

PCM was not always the robust digital format it is today.
It has benefited from years of research and development.

DSD, though still infantile, is steadily attracting new developers.

While awaiting the arrival of DVD-A as a viable PCM consumer delivery format, we are forced to downsample our 192/24 and 96/24 to either 44.1/16 for music or 48/16 for post.

On the other hand, DSD is available at the consumer level via SACD.

PCM continues to ride its established popularity, while DSD appears to be SLOWLY gaining acceptance.

I believe the PCM/DSD debate will continue for quite some time.Certainly, each has its advocates and its detractors.

Personally, I would like to think that ultimately the better format will become the chosen format (unlike the VHS - Beta format wars).

Best Regards

[CO2]

Hello Tom:

Tom Jung reviewed the SADiE in the October 2002 issue of Pro Audio Review.

PAR SADie Review

Also, in the November 2002 issue of Pro Audio Review, Ed Foster presents a very well written article on The ABC's of SACD and PCM.

Best Regards

[tnie]

Wow, $$$$$$$ [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img]

[F Umminger]

DSD may make sense as a final delivery format for consumer audio, as in SACD, but it makes little sense as a professional production medium for many reasons, some of which have already been mentioned. Even Sony acknowledge this.

If SACD becomes popular enough, we may someday support some kind of DSD import/export option. However, it is not as easy as it might seem because "overs" and their workarounds in DSD are very complicated, unlike in PCM. It may always remain the job of specialized SACD mastering tools.

I seriously doubt that DSD will ever be a mainstream production format because 1) the claims of audio superiority are bogus 2) it is virtually impossible to do any nontrivial processing of a DSD signal, even simple linear EQ, without transforming it into PCM and thereby losing all the purported benefits of DSD, while gratuitously chewing up huge amounts of compute cycles. This directly translates into making DSD systems much more expensive than comparable quality PCM systems. This is confirmed by the fact that existing DSD systems, despite being made by very capable competitors, are expensive and yet do very little processing on very few tracks. Furthermore, the ones I am aware of do in fact convert DSD to 8 bit PCM for the processing.

I think the future is in higher bit depth and higher sample rates in PCM.

[CO2]

Hello Fred:

Originally posted by F Umminger:
DSD may make sense as a final delivery format for consumer audio, as in SACD, but it makes little sense as a professional production medium for many reasons, some of which have already been mentioned.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What makes little sense here would be recording in PCM ("thereby losing all the purported benefits of DSD" to paraphrase you) and then bumping up to SACD. While it is true that DSD currently lacks editing/processing tools, the DSD recording process is quite good.

...but it makes little sense as a professional production medium for many reasons, some of which have already been mentioned. Even Sony acknowledge this.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have not seen any published statement from Sony regarding a concession that DSD is not viable as a professional production medium. Could you please give us an attribution for the Sony statement.

If SACD becomes popular enough, we may someday support some kind of DSD import/export option.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Here again, I disagree that cross pollination is the answer. Rather, if SACD becomes popular, I would hope that Digi would have had the foresight to design a dedicated DSD Pro Tools DAW.

I seriously doubt that DSD will ever be a mainstream production format because 1) the claims of audio superiority are bogus

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I am assuming that the statement regarding "the claims of audio superiority are bogus" is your own. An opinion to which you are entitled, but I would suggest you look at some of the names (Jon Astley, Dr. Fred Bashour, John Gatski, Tom Jung, Bob Katz , Bob Ludwig, Ed Meitner, Alan Silverman to name a few) who have gone on record stating that DSD is superior sounding. Fred, I doubt you intended to imply that the opinions of these respected industry icons are bogus.

2) it is virtually impossible to do any nontrivial processing of a DSD signal, even simple linear EQ, without transforming it into PCM and thereby losing all the purported benefits of DSD, while gratuitously chewing up huge amounts of compute cycles. This directly translates into making DSD systems much more expensive than comparable quality PCM systems. This is confirmed by the fact that existing DSD systems, despite being made by very capable competitors, are expensive and yet do very little processing on very few tracks. Furthermore, the ones I am aware of do in fact convert DSD to 8 bit PCM for the processing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As I stated earlier in this post, PCM was not always the robust format that it has evolved into.

What prevents you from acknowledging that DSD, if given a lifespan equal to PCM, will not benefit from continuing R&D?

I think the future is in higher bit depth and higher sample rates in PCM.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Once again Fred, you are entitled to your opinion, but I would suggest keeping an open mind regarding alternative digital formats.

Based on the opinions of those I respect, I choose not to disregard DSD as a viable and potentially superior digital format. Should DSD end up being superior, I hope the professional audio community has the sense to embrace it.

Personally, my goal is making the best recordings possible. I will embrace whatever technology accomplishes that goal.

As Chuck Ainlay states:

Striving for the best possible recording has always been the goal for us - it's the artistry in what we do. It's what the pioneers of the recording industry did, and it's what we will continue to do.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Amen!

Best Regards