DSD, What's up with that?

[Dingo]

Does any software support this yet? Anyone here heard it?

[AudioAstronomer]

Sequoia, pyramix, sadie I beleive...

I have an sacd player that's routed into my monitoring system, it is very nice but very limited. Very nice for when I wanna relax after a day's work. Just "softer" than plain cds really.

[Sebastian Eskildsen]

I believe DSD and DXD is the same as a sample rate at 354 and 384 khz,
so actually SS should do DSD or DXD if you can find a soundcard supporting
such sample rate.

Sebastian

[Cary B. Cornett]

I believe DSD and DXD is the same as a sample rate at 354 and 384 khz,
so actually SS should do DSD or DXD if you can find a soundcard supporting
such sample rate.

Sebastian
Actually, no. Well... DXD is a new one on me, but DSD actually records a 1-bit data stream, so to work on such a project in a SAW rig would require converting from DSD to PCM and back again. I bet there have already been some big arguments about whether this can be done without losing the fundamental advantages of DSD.

That said, I do not see a compelling reason to go DSD, giver that at this point the added cost of "approved" production equipment far outweighs any sonic advantage.

[Pedro Itriago]

Actually, no. Well... DXD is a new one on me, but DSD actually records a 1-bit data stream, so to work on such a project in a SAW rig would require converting from DSD to PCM and back again. I bet there have already been some big arguments about whether this can be done without losing the fundamental advantages of DSD.

That said, I do not see a compelling reason to go DSD, giver that at this point the added cost of "approved" production equipment far outweighs any sonic advantage.

What!!!! :mad: so you mean to tell me that you'd sacrifice audio quality for money :confused: How dare you say something like that?!!!! why don't you mix in mp3 and ... (voice fades away while being taken out in a wheel chair with a force vest on and foam coming out of mouth) :D :p :cool:

[Sebastian Eskildsen]

DXD is Digital audio Denmark's version of Sony's DSD format,
The new DXD is supported by Merging and Philips, and it is also
part of Merging's new converters for pyramix.

Sebastian

[Tree Leopard]

Dingo - I looked into this last year with a couple of other guys here. We were thinking of setting up a project studio offering hi-rez audio services for acoustic music recording. Yes, it was impressive listening to raw DSD files but ...

As Cary has just pointed out, everything about DSD production is exclusive and very, very expensive, right through to the mastering and manufacture of a SACD itself. Ultimately, whatever you do has to be "pretty bloody good, man" to get noticed by the few marketing channels that handle audiophile recordings. I remember seeing one guy on CD Baby who did an independant SACD. But its not common.

Then there is the debate (mainly amongst audiophiles) which is "superior" - DVD-Audio or SACD. But you'd need $ 5K & upwards hi-fi to "hear" the difference. But it would be much easier for anyone here to knock out a DVD-Audio disc using SAW and software such as discWelder Chrome.

Anyway, you can read some more about DSD here: http://www.merging.com/
Merging Technologies is the home of Pyramix. Pyramix is starting to get noticed: but not so much as a DSD production DAW - which was the original intent of its design. Its simply a very well designed DAW that can also cope well with trading files between Nuendo, PT, Samplitude etc. To quote Tom Waits, its "Big In Japan". Many people are finding it a great all round solution - in audio post as well as music production.

Andre

Btw, there is a PDF about DXD here:http://www.merging.com/2002/html/pyradsd.htm

[Tim Miskimon]

That said, I do not see a compelling reason to go DSD, giver that at this point the added cost of "approved" production equipment far outweighs any sonic advantage.

The compelling reason to go to DSD possibly could be that it sounds much better than PCM.
It's a shame that a whole new software is needed to use it which is most likely why it hasn't taken off up to this point. Many top audio guys brag and rave about it's sound being the closest thing to high-end analog that they've heard.
It certainly is a step up from PCM but I don't see anyone including myself trashing our PCM based work station any time soon - it's too expensive and not as many tracks or features at this point.
Tascam has out a stand alone recorder that does both DSD & PCM recordings - it's not the highest end example but it does sound quite nice.

[Angie]

Does any software support this yet? Anyone here heard it?

A couple years ago, Chris and I were lucky enough to be invited to listen to a surround demo given by Gus Skinas, Sony's SACD guy. It was a recording of a Joni Mitchell concert and it was truly amazing. DVD-A could never sound this good.

Gus is now president of Super Audio Center which developed, sells and supports a DSD system called Sonoma. The latest John Haitt CD was recorded using Sonoma.
www.superaudiocenter.com

[spiritman]

This is exactly what they said about Beta........ I think we should just move on. It's the next format of Hi-Fi. I would LOVE to see Bob take up this cause.

[Cary B. Cornett]

The compelling reason to go to DSD possibly could be that it sounds much better than PCM.
I'm not convinced. As I understand it, the trick to DSD is that it effectively bypasses some of the problems that have bedeviled PCM, partly to do with quatization linearity and partly the anti-alias filtering problem. We have seen real progress in the quality of PCM technology, not just in terms of more bits and higher sample rates (although these help), but in terms of better conversion methods.

The key to the "sound" of any digital format is in the conversions. Converters continue to improve. There is nothing in the storage method for DSD that is inherently superior to PCM, because both are just number storage, simply arranged differently. I am of the opinion that, over time, PCM systems will develop that are fully the equal of current DSD technology, and they may well surpass it.

[Sebastian Eskildsen]

Hi

I want to correct what I said in a early post,
DXD is a 5 bit signal sample at 5,448 mhz.
the box then output it as DSD :1 bit/2,8 mhz signal
and at pcm 24 bit / 352,8 khz.

DAD told me that this way of doing it should eliminate the quantizing
noise, DSD have at high freq.

Sebastian

[Tree Leopard]

Hi Sebastian,

Is the Opera House producing its own DSD stuff now, or this an in-house service you are offering to various classical / new music labels?

Have you managed to successfully import converted DSD > PCM files into SAW?

Andre

[Sebastian Eskildsen]

We don´t have any DXD or DSD converters, we do have the Digital Audio 2408 converters (pcm 24/96).

The studio´s are build for in-house productions, but it is possible to
rent the studio and control room, but I can tell you - the prices are not made
for small independent labels, personly I think it´s a wrong decission.

There was a guy who told me, that he "hope" or "know" RME will update there´s madi drivers to handel the high sample rates.
I don´t know if it is true or just something that he hope :cool:

Sebastian

[Hakan]

I now have recorded and produced 5 SACD surround CDs - see www.sonoconsult.se (http://www.sonoconsult.se) Several new are in the works. Before making the first SACD I made some A/B tests comparing PCM @88/24 with DSD. If there is a difference in sound it is very minor indeed and can in my view be neglected to the difference in microphones, acoustics and A/D converters in general.
We have compared the sound of great DSD recordings: listened to the DSD stream comparing to a version after making a digital copy in PCM using the Meitner converters ( http://www.emmlabs.com ) The comparison was made in great mastering rooms in Stockholm and with very experienced listeners. The difference - if any - is very, very small. In fact I could fool the listening crew by slightly increasing the level (ca 0.2 dB) of one stream. The louder one was preferred! It seems as if major European record labels go SACD for major recordings so this format will be here for a some time. But do not rely on the DSD logo on the CD box that DSD is used thoruhout the process. Sometimes we move from DSD to PCM and back for editing and mixing. DSD systems used here in Sweden are Pyramix and Sonoma. The sonoconsult recordings are made in PCM @8824 - very few has recognized this fact (told on each CD, though...) and noone can tell by listening, I am sure of that. And the recordings are made in SawStudio, of course - with RME converters.
/Håkan

[brent]

I'm not convinced. As I understand it, the trick to DSD is that it effectively bypasses some of the problems that have bedeviled PCM, partly to do with quatization linearity and partly the anti-alias filtering problem. We have seen real progress in the quality of PCM technology, not just in terms of more bits and higher sample rates (although these help), but in terms of better conversion methods.

The key to the "sound" of any digital format is in the conversions. Converters continue to improve. There is nothing in the storage method for DSD that is inherently superior to PCM, because both are just number storage, simply arranged differently. I am of the opinion that, over time, PCM systems will develop that are fully the equal of current DSD technology, and they may well surpass it.

DSD IS PCM.

[Naturally Digital]

I now have recorded and produced 5 SACD surround CDs - see www.sonoconsult.se (http://www.sonoconsult.se) Several new are in the works. Before making the first SACD I made some A/B tests comparing PCM @88/24 with DSD. If there is a difference in sound it is very minor indeed and can in my view be neglected to the difference in microphones, acoustics and A/D converters in general.
We have compared the sound of great DSD recordings: listened to the DSD stream comparing to a version after making a digital copy in PCM using the Meitner converters ( http://www.emmlabs.com ) The comparison was made in great mastering rooms in Stockholm and with very experienced listeners. The difference - if any - is very, very small. In fact I could fool the listening crew by slightly increasing the level (ca 0.2 dB) of one stream. The louder one was preferred! It seems as if major European record labels go SACD for major recordings so this format will be here for a some time. But do not rely on the DSD logo on the CD box that DSD is used thoruhout the process. Sometimes we move from DSD to PCM and back for editing and mixing. DSD systems used here in Sweden are Pyramix and Sonoma. The sonoconsult recordings are made in PCM @8824 - very few has recognized this fact (told on each CD, though...) and noone can tell by listening, I am sure of that. And the recordings are made in SawStudio, of course - with RME converters.
/HåkanVery objective POV. Thanks for posting... and welcome to the forum!