I have only just got my system installed, but I believe that all DDP and CDR's have to be written to a file image first before they can be burned/written? Is there any plan to make this possible direct from the timeline? I know that it can be usefull to have an image file for archiving of certain projects, but there are times when I need to quickly turn round a DDP, with the minimum of fuss and time, cost/productivity thing. If this already possible, and I've missed the method, perhaps some one would explain how this is done.
Regards
Roland Clarke
C.R.S.[/b]
DDP from timeline
Forum rules
The Merging Technologies team cannot be held responsible for support queries logged on the public forums. If a support query is logged here and only here, it may not be found and dealt with by the appropriate team.
To ensure that your support issue or bug report is dealt with properly and in good time, please use the link to the tech support request form page on the Merging website.
Make sure to let us know what version you are using when you send your mail. THANKS!
The Merging Technologies team cannot be held responsible for support queries logged on the public forums. If a support query is logged here and only here, it may not be found and dealt with by the appropriate team.
To ensure that your support issue or bug report is dealt with properly and in good time, please use the link to the tech support request form page on the Merging website.
Make sure to let us know what version you are using when you send your mail. THANKS!
-
Roland Clarke
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 23:57
- Location: St Leonards on Sea, England
DDP from timeline
Hi Roland,
There is no way that I know of to create a DDP directly from the timleline. As I'm sure you are aware, you can create an image much faster than real time (deselect the real-timebox in the export CDR window). Depending on your host processor and use of plug-ins I've found that a typical CD image can be created in as little aa a few minutes (2m42s once!) I have never had any quality issues doing it this way and at least for client references this works well. You can then burn from discwrite in the background while working on another project in Pyramix. I belive that Discwrite will burn to multiple devices sumultaneously so you could create multiple CDR's at the same time. Can anyone confirm this?
Enjoy the new system
Regards,
Silas
There is no way that I know of to create a DDP directly from the timleline. As I'm sure you are aware, you can create an image much faster than real time (deselect the real-timebox in the export CDR window). Depending on your host processor and use of plug-ins I've found that a typical CD image can be created in as little aa a few minutes (2m42s once!) I have never had any quality issues doing it this way and at least for client references this works well. You can then burn from discwrite in the background while working on another project in Pyramix. I belive that Discwrite will burn to multiple devices sumultaneously so you could create multiple CDR's at the same time. Can anyone confirm this?
Enjoy the new system
Regards,
Silas
-
Roland Clarke
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 23:57
- Location: St Leonards on Sea, England
DDP from timeline
Just got back from my first day of training courtesy of Merging and Total audio. Been told that although DDP from the timeline isn't possible at the moment it is likely that this may get implemented as many programs are now supporting both image file creation and disc/tape direct. From what I've seen at the moment, I don't think that it is possible to write to multiple devices at the same time.
Roland
Roland
-
Carl Schuurbiers
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 15:50
- Location: Munich, Germany
- Contact:
Re: DDP from timeline
[quote="Silas"]
I belive that Discwrite will burn to multiple devices sumultaneously so you could create multiple CDR's at the same time. Can anyone confirm this?
Yep, this works fine. Did this with 2 CD-R's burning at the same time.
Carl.
I belive that Discwrite will burn to multiple devices sumultaneously so you could create multiple CDR's at the same time. Can anyone confirm this?
Yep, this works fine. Did this with 2 CD-R's burning at the same time.
Carl.
Hear, hear!
Not only what you request, but please consider that at my multi-track 176.4 kHz session for Dorian back in June, I had to make 4 CDs of the four 13MB soundfiles which resulted from the four 2.5 hour sessions.
Guess what I had to do? Right, play each long session back into analog. I then recorded each one into Dyaxis II at 44.1 kHz, and went through the whole Studer routine of putting in all the ids and making a new image file.
Big time consumer. For which, of course, I was not paid.
Why can't Pyramix take those little red vertical lines--separating each take in a project's timeline--turn them into CD ids and, with the click of a mouse, make the image file directly? The fact that all takes end up on a single time line--separated by those red vertical deliminators seems so cool and, at the same time, so obvious as a cue to making CD ids.
I assume this can be done at 96 kHz, but at 176.4/196, no! In other words, no SRC from the highest sample rates down to 44.1.
In all honesty, only two of the four files went through analog. The other two went through a dCS SR converter owned by my buddies at Dorian.. But still, the resulting DATs they made for me still had to be imported into Dyaxis, nonetheless.
Why am I always on the bleeding edge?
"Dr. Fred"
Not only what you request, but please consider that at my multi-track 176.4 kHz session for Dorian back in June, I had to make 4 CDs of the four 13MB soundfiles which resulted from the four 2.5 hour sessions.
Guess what I had to do? Right, play each long session back into analog. I then recorded each one into Dyaxis II at 44.1 kHz, and went through the whole Studer routine of putting in all the ids and making a new image file.
Big time consumer. For which, of course, I was not paid.
Why can't Pyramix take those little red vertical lines--separating each take in a project's timeline--turn them into CD ids and, with the click of a mouse, make the image file directly? The fact that all takes end up on a single time line--separated by those red vertical deliminators seems so cool and, at the same time, so obvious as a cue to making CD ids.
I assume this can be done at 96 kHz, but at 176.4/196, no! In other words, no SRC from the highest sample rates down to 44.1.
In all honesty, only two of the four files went through analog. The other two went through a dCS SR converter owned by my buddies at Dorian.. But still, the resulting DATs they made for me still had to be imported into Dyaxis, nonetheless.
Why am I always on the bleeding edge?
"Dr. Fred"
-
Roland Clarke
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 23:57
- Location: St Leonards on Sea, England
RE higher sample rates
I hear what you are saying, but why did you transfer the session to Dynaxis? Quicker to sample rate convert inside the pyramix and make a disc image of the resultant files. Even if they are "Buddies" its still work that has to be done, and as such there should be some charge. Go to a copy room and see the sort of fee's they charge for this work! With a spare firewire drive you could back up this project in next to no time. I think in these situations CDR isn't of much use. Another option would be to use a DVD-R as a backup device. Firewire drive would be a lot quicker though.
Regards
Roland
Regards
Roland
[quote="Dr. Fred"]Hear, hear!
Guess what I had to do? Right, play each long session back into analog. I then recorded each one into Dyaxis II at 44.1 kHz, and went through the whole Studer routine of putting in all the ids and making a new image file.
I feel your pain. Until recently, I had to do something similar with DSD projects. Soon, Pyramix will be able to handle all of this internally.
...I assume this can be done at 96 kHz, but at 176.4/196, no! In other words, no SRC from the highest sample rates down to 44.1.
Use .WAV instead of .PMF for file type and then use WaveLab to convert the 176k4 to 44k1. As I said above, this will soon be easily done in Pyramix itself.
To get from a 96k project to a CD image is still a two step process ('Convert Project' and then 'Export to CD-R' functions required) but it's a lot easier than anything else out there...
Regards,
Graemme
Guess what I had to do? Right, play each long session back into analog. I then recorded each one into Dyaxis II at 44.1 kHz, and went through the whole Studer routine of putting in all the ids and making a new image file.
I feel your pain. Until recently, I had to do something similar with DSD projects. Soon, Pyramix will be able to handle all of this internally.
...I assume this can be done at 96 kHz, but at 176.4/196, no! In other words, no SRC from the highest sample rates down to 44.1.
Use .WAV instead of .PMF for file type and then use WaveLab to convert the 176k4 to 44k1. As I said above, this will soon be easily done in Pyramix itself.
To get from a 96k project to a CD image is still a two step process ('Convert Project' and then 'Export to CD-R' functions required) but it's a lot easier than anything else out there...
Regards,
Graemme
Graemme Brown
Zen Mastering
1460 Wild Rose Drive
Gabriola Island, BC
Canada V0R 1X5
+1.604.874.9096
"A Horus, A Horus; My Kingdom for a Horus!"
Zen Mastering
1460 Wild Rose Drive
Gabriola Island, BC
Canada V0R 1X5
+1.604.874.9096
"A Horus, A Horus; My Kingdom for a Horus!"
Hi, Roland!
I guess I wasn't clear. The CDs were audio CDs made for the artist (the leader of a "period brass band") to have for listening and eventual take selection. They were not a file backup.
Pyramix cannot sample rate convert from 176.4 to anything at the present time, although I'm told this is "being worked on."
Of course I backed up using a (120 GB IBM) firewire drive, mounted in the same Glyph trip rack as my Cheetah drives. Cool too--dragging the entire 25 GB project's media drive each day to the FW drive took all of about 20 minutes to backup!
I suppose I could have done the CD making back in Pyramix instead of Dyaxis of course (loading the audio DAT back in at its native sample rate) but the fact remains that I've been using Dyaxis since 1987, and only recently received a Pyramix demo system. When the chips are down, I always fall back on a system I can use blindfolded!
How long does it take Pyramix to make a typical CD image file? Unfortunately Dyaxis--running on a 33 mHz Mac from the early nineties, takes real time.
I assume all the other duties (putting in the track starts, and then actually burning the CD from the image file) would take about the same amount of time on both systems--for someone who is fluent in Pyramix, that is.
Back to writing that Pyramix review (due in next week!)
"Dr. Fred"
Audio Media Europe
Pro Audio Review US
I guess I wasn't clear. The CDs were audio CDs made for the artist (the leader of a "period brass band") to have for listening and eventual take selection. They were not a file backup.
Pyramix cannot sample rate convert from 176.4 to anything at the present time, although I'm told this is "being worked on."
Of course I backed up using a (120 GB IBM) firewire drive, mounted in the same Glyph trip rack as my Cheetah drives. Cool too--dragging the entire 25 GB project's media drive each day to the FW drive took all of about 20 minutes to backup!
I suppose I could have done the CD making back in Pyramix instead of Dyaxis of course (loading the audio DAT back in at its native sample rate) but the fact remains that I've been using Dyaxis since 1987, and only recently received a Pyramix demo system. When the chips are down, I always fall back on a system I can use blindfolded!
How long does it take Pyramix to make a typical CD image file? Unfortunately Dyaxis--running on a 33 mHz Mac from the early nineties, takes real time.
I assume all the other duties (putting in the track starts, and then actually burning the CD from the image file) would take about the same amount of time on both systems--for someone who is fluent in Pyramix, that is.
Back to writing that Pyramix review (due in next week!)
"Dr. Fred"
Audio Media Europe
Pro Audio Review US
-
Roland Clarke
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 23:57
- Location: St Leonards on Sea, England
DDP or CDR image file
Creating an image file in Pyramix takes around five minutes, obviously dependent on the running time of the audio. At that point you can use the disc write programme to write either a CDR of a DDP depending on the final destination. I wasn't aware that you can't sample rate convert from 196 to 44.1, guess that is something due out in the next release. That should be available about the time that your article will hit the shelves. For me the really great strenght of Pyramix is its compatibility. What other system can you put MP3's Wav's and aiff files all on the same timeline and crossfade the together without a glitch? Also bearing in mind that Pyramix in its present form has only exsisted for about 2 years, its an extremely capable programme already, improving at a vast rate of knots. I was previously a Sadie user, which still is one of the best systems in the industry, but I was blown away with the flexibility of pyramix, not to mention its awsome sound quality. How many other firm's can you ring and speak to the senior designers and get a direct response to your suggestions? For me Pyramix is setting the standards the others will try to follow.
Regards
Roland
Regards
Roland
Hi!
I agree with your assessment of Pyramix's place in the DAW world. It's got to be pretty special to get me to switch away from Dyaxis! I feel it's sort of where Dyaxis would have been had Studer not pulled the plug on further development of it after 1993 (and wouldn't even fund the development of the multi-track hardware (and software) which had begun to be prototyped in '92.)
I guess it's just that Pyramix does so many things so well, that I'm impatient for it to accomplish the few remaining items on my wish list.
Such as true monitoring in DSD mode (you have to monitor analog input whilst recording!)
SRC from 192 *and* DSD to 44.1 for client CD refs.
SACD authoring--or at least the facility to make SACD refs.
That's the short list..
The editing features are quite a bit better than any I've experienced on Sadie or Sonic and, as far as somone's comment about MIDI and very large multi-track session capability missing, I say..just sync up another system with Digital Performer or Logic and there you go. That's what I've done.
I'm VERY pro Pyramix and Merging, and have been for the past three years, as I've watch the system evolve. I'm just impatient, that's all!
All best,
"Dr. Fred"
I agree with your assessment of Pyramix's place in the DAW world. It's got to be pretty special to get me to switch away from Dyaxis! I feel it's sort of where Dyaxis would have been had Studer not pulled the plug on further development of it after 1993 (and wouldn't even fund the development of the multi-track hardware (and software) which had begun to be prototyped in '92.)
I guess it's just that Pyramix does so many things so well, that I'm impatient for it to accomplish the few remaining items on my wish list.
Such as true monitoring in DSD mode (you have to monitor analog input whilst recording!)
SRC from 192 *and* DSD to 44.1 for client CD refs.
SACD authoring--or at least the facility to make SACD refs.
That's the short list..
The editing features are quite a bit better than any I've experienced on Sadie or Sonic and, as far as somone's comment about MIDI and very large multi-track session capability missing, I say..just sync up another system with Digital Performer or Logic and there you go. That's what I've done.
I'm VERY pro Pyramix and Merging, and have been for the past three years, as I've watch the system evolve. I'm just impatient, that's all!
All best,
"Dr. Fred"
-
Roland Clarke
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 23:57
- Location: St Leonards on Sea, England
Dear Dr. Fred
I think that I was the culprit talking about midi and number of mixing tracks. This wasn't meant to be a criticism of Pyramix, just an observation that Pyramix is not a fix all. I doubt any piece of kit will ever be viewed that way. My comment was more concerned about mixing, and rock music production where programmes like Logic still have a place. For Jazz and Classical productions Pyramix might well be all you need. In my view its way ahead of systems like pro-tools. In fairness to the competition Pyramix being a more recent system has started from a basis where much of what we want is now achievable. Sadie and others were cutting edge when they started out. I agree with what you say about Studer in one sense, but I'm not sure that Studer "get" the digital audio manipulation thing. Almost all their products are Sound engineering or engineered, rather than music tools. I can't somehow imagine them producing guitar amp distortion simulators. Their reputation has been built on extreme fidelity and build quality.
I suppose that we all share the frustration that Pyramix can't "make the tea as well", I think thats more to do with teh human condition than Merging, but I truly think that its a product that I will be using for the next 7-10 years. By which time, if they manage to stay with the pulse I hope to be buying the new improved version!
Regards
Roland
I suppose that we all share the frustration that Pyramix can't "make the tea as well", I think thats more to do with teh human condition than Merging, but I truly think that its a product that I will be using for the next 7-10 years. By which time, if they manage to stay with the pulse I hope to be buying the new improved version!
Regards
Roland
[quote="Dr. Fred"]Hi!
...
Such as true monitoring in DSD mode (you have to monitor analog input whilst recording!)
Uhhh...I do this (true monitoring) all the time. I'd be happy to sort this out with you.
SRC from 192 *and* DSD to 44.1 for client CD refs.
I've been testing a prototype (from Philips) of the algorithms that will be used in the Pyramix DSD to PCM converter. I think that it sounds absolutely great.
I'd also like to see a PCM to DSD converter within Pyramix
SACD authoring--or at least the facility to make SACD refs.
You'll see SACD authoring sometime in the future...but don't hold your breath for SACD refs-they don't exist outside of pressing plants and even there, they appear to be in the form of an 'emulated' SACD. Personally, I'd like to have the ability to playback my AIT master as if it was a virtual SACD.
Regards,
Graemme
...
Such as true monitoring in DSD mode (you have to monitor analog input whilst recording!)
Uhhh...I do this (true monitoring) all the time. I'd be happy to sort this out with you.
SRC from 192 *and* DSD to 44.1 for client CD refs.
I've been testing a prototype (from Philips) of the algorithms that will be used in the Pyramix DSD to PCM converter. I think that it sounds absolutely great.
I'd also like to see a PCM to DSD converter within Pyramix
SACD authoring--or at least the facility to make SACD refs.
You'll see SACD authoring sometime in the future...but don't hold your breath for SACD refs-they don't exist outside of pressing plants and even there, they appear to be in the form of an 'emulated' SACD. Personally, I'd like to have the ability to playback my AIT master as if it was a virtual SACD.
Regards,
Graemme
Graemme Brown
Zen Mastering
1460 Wild Rose Drive
Gabriola Island, BC
Canada V0R 1X5
+1.604.874.9096
"A Horus, A Horus; My Kingdom for a Horus!"
Zen Mastering
1460 Wild Rose Drive
Gabriola Island, BC
Canada V0R 1X5
+1.604.874.9096
"A Horus, A Horus; My Kingdom for a Horus!"
"True monitoring"
Hi, Graemme!
I think I coined a term which is confusing. What I meant was, "monitoring like I can do in PCM mode, i.e., through the mixer." Even as august an authority as Alan told me last month that I'd have to use an analog mixer. So, sure, a stereo DSD output turned into analog is nice, but not very useful if it's only mirroring a stereo pair of channels.
And, sure, I understand why it's not happening; there is no such thing in the world as a DSD mixer! And, even another august "audiophile" authority as my original audio buddy from the early seventies, Mark Levinson, insisits--that Pyramix's scheme of converting to 352.8 kHz PCM to do the "after the fact" editing and mixing of DSD tracks, compromises the sound unacceptably. For him, the only decent-sounding DSD recording system is doing it directly to a Tascam DSD-98 recorder. I know that Claude disagrees.
I have just received delivery on one of those machines (another perk of being a reviewer!), so in the next few weeks I may be able to compare a recording made directly to the Tascam with its "Pyramixed" "clone." (Using the good-sounding Sony DSD ADCs to eliminate obvious differences on the way in, and the Genex GX-D8 DACs for the same reason on the way out.)
You gotta understand that Mark and I agonized over the very different sounds of different passive parts back in Connecticut in 1972. Nowadays, everyone understands what people back them failed to understand when they called us both crackpots. Thus, I take his opinions very seriously.
So, Graemme, please tell me how I can monitor a multi-channel DSD recording whilst on location through the Pyramix mixer. I've been wrong many times before..
Best,
"Dr. Fred"
aging audiophile
I think I coined a term which is confusing. What I meant was, "monitoring like I can do in PCM mode, i.e., through the mixer." Even as august an authority as Alan told me last month that I'd have to use an analog mixer. So, sure, a stereo DSD output turned into analog is nice, but not very useful if it's only mirroring a stereo pair of channels.
And, sure, I understand why it's not happening; there is no such thing in the world as a DSD mixer! And, even another august "audiophile" authority as my original audio buddy from the early seventies, Mark Levinson, insisits--that Pyramix's scheme of converting to 352.8 kHz PCM to do the "after the fact" editing and mixing of DSD tracks, compromises the sound unacceptably. For him, the only decent-sounding DSD recording system is doing it directly to a Tascam DSD-98 recorder. I know that Claude disagrees.
I have just received delivery on one of those machines (another perk of being a reviewer!), so in the next few weeks I may be able to compare a recording made directly to the Tascam with its "Pyramixed" "clone." (Using the good-sounding Sony DSD ADCs to eliminate obvious differences on the way in, and the Genex GX-D8 DACs for the same reason on the way out.)
You gotta understand that Mark and I agonized over the very different sounds of different passive parts back in Connecticut in 1972. Nowadays, everyone understands what people back them failed to understand when they called us both crackpots. Thus, I take his opinions very seriously.
So, Graemme, please tell me how I can monitor a multi-channel DSD recording whilst on location through the Pyramix mixer. I've been wrong many times before..
Best,
"Dr. Fred"
aging audiophile
Re: "True monitoring"
[quote="Dr. Fred"]Hi, Graemme!
I think I coined a term which is confusing. What I meant was, "monitoring like I can do in PCM mode, i.e., through the mixer." Even as august an authority as Alan told me last month that I'd have to use an analog mixer. So, sure, a stereo DSD output turned into analog is nice, but not very useful if it's only mirroring a stereo pair of channels.
Ahhh..So, are you saying that you want level and maybe panning controls to avoid having to use an outboard mixer? If so, then yes, you are right, the level controls in the DSD recording mixer are non-functional.
I don't like the idea of subjecting my monitors to the direct output of any DAW, (regardless of who makes it), so I use a simple level control (with mute buttons) prior to the power amps.
And, sure, I understand why it's not happening; there is no such thing in the world as a DSD mixer!
Yes, there is. The Sony Sonoma mixer operates as a standalone DSD mixer if you want to use it that way. No PCM involved.
And, even another august "audiophile" authority as my original audio buddy from the early seventies, Mark Levinson, insisits--that Pyramix's scheme of converting to 352.8 kHz PCM to do the "after the fact" editing and mixing of DSD tracks, compromises the sound unacceptably.
In theory, or after actual listening tests?
For him, the only decent-sounding DSD recording system is doing it directly to a Tascam DSD-98 recorder.
Whether or not you like the editing and mixing facilities of Pyramix, the recording mode is pure DSD and would be identical to the Tascam DSD-98.The ADC is doing the modulation to DSD, so that will be the determining factor, along with the clocking.
I have just received delivery on one of those machines (another perk of being a reviewer!), so in the next few weeks I may be able to compare a recording made directly to the Tascam with its "Pyramixed" "clone." (Using the good-sounding Sony DSD ADCs to eliminate obvious differences on the way in, and the Genex GX-D8 DACs for the same reason on the way out.)
Make sure that the DAC is always being used as the master clock in these kind of playback comparisons...or else it won't count...<G>
You gotta understand that Mark and I agonized over the very different sounds of different passive parts back in Connecticut in 1972. Nowadays, everyone understands what people back them failed to understand when they called us both crackpots. Thus, I take his opinions very seriously.
Sure, I'm one of those crackpots, too. I build most of my own analogue gear and modify the rest.
So, Graemme, please tell me how I can monitor a multi-channel DSD recording whilst on location through the Pyramix mixer. I've been wrong many times before..
Well, strictly speaking, you can 'monitor' a multi-channel DSD recording. Your output mixer busses need to be configured to match the number of output channels that you require. Of course, if in fact you do want Pyramix to be your level control, then you are out of luck. Given all of the things that can go wrong, I'd always want to hear the entire signal chain, so an external monitor controller connected to a Meitner ADC8 and DAC8 is my method of comparing input to output and general listening.
So, do we now agree on what the term 'monitoring' means...<g>
Regards,
Graemme
I think I coined a term which is confusing. What I meant was, "monitoring like I can do in PCM mode, i.e., through the mixer." Even as august an authority as Alan told me last month that I'd have to use an analog mixer. So, sure, a stereo DSD output turned into analog is nice, but not very useful if it's only mirroring a stereo pair of channels.
Ahhh..So, are you saying that you want level and maybe panning controls to avoid having to use an outboard mixer? If so, then yes, you are right, the level controls in the DSD recording mixer are non-functional.
I don't like the idea of subjecting my monitors to the direct output of any DAW, (regardless of who makes it), so I use a simple level control (with mute buttons) prior to the power amps.
And, sure, I understand why it's not happening; there is no such thing in the world as a DSD mixer!
Yes, there is. The Sony Sonoma mixer operates as a standalone DSD mixer if you want to use it that way. No PCM involved.
And, even another august "audiophile" authority as my original audio buddy from the early seventies, Mark Levinson, insisits--that Pyramix's scheme of converting to 352.8 kHz PCM to do the "after the fact" editing and mixing of DSD tracks, compromises the sound unacceptably.
In theory, or after actual listening tests?
For him, the only decent-sounding DSD recording system is doing it directly to a Tascam DSD-98 recorder.
Whether or not you like the editing and mixing facilities of Pyramix, the recording mode is pure DSD and would be identical to the Tascam DSD-98.The ADC is doing the modulation to DSD, so that will be the determining factor, along with the clocking.
I have just received delivery on one of those machines (another perk of being a reviewer!), so in the next few weeks I may be able to compare a recording made directly to the Tascam with its "Pyramixed" "clone." (Using the good-sounding Sony DSD ADCs to eliminate obvious differences on the way in, and the Genex GX-D8 DACs for the same reason on the way out.)
Make sure that the DAC is always being used as the master clock in these kind of playback comparisons...or else it won't count...<G>
You gotta understand that Mark and I agonized over the very different sounds of different passive parts back in Connecticut in 1972. Nowadays, everyone understands what people back them failed to understand when they called us both crackpots. Thus, I take his opinions very seriously.
Sure, I'm one of those crackpots, too. I build most of my own analogue gear and modify the rest.
So, Graemme, please tell me how I can monitor a multi-channel DSD recording whilst on location through the Pyramix mixer. I've been wrong many times before..
Well, strictly speaking, you can 'monitor' a multi-channel DSD recording. Your output mixer busses need to be configured to match the number of output channels that you require. Of course, if in fact you do want Pyramix to be your level control, then you are out of luck. Given all of the things that can go wrong, I'd always want to hear the entire signal chain, so an external monitor controller connected to a Meitner ADC8 and DAC8 is my method of comparing input to output and general listening.
So, do we now agree on what the term 'monitoring' means...<g>
Regards,
Graemme
Graemme Brown
Zen Mastering
1460 Wild Rose Drive
Gabriola Island, BC
Canada V0R 1X5
+1.604.874.9096
"A Horus, A Horus; My Kingdom for a Horus!"
Zen Mastering
1460 Wild Rose Drive
Gabriola Island, BC
Canada V0R 1X5
+1.604.874.9096
"A Horus, A Horus; My Kingdom for a Horus!"
-
Roland Clarke
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 23:57
- Location: St Leonards on Sea, England
DSD
I personally find a lot of the DSD vs PCM argument really quite academic. In my experience the things that have made the largest differences subjectively are the actual analogue side of AD/DA conversion.
Dr Fred, as you will know also the differences that can be made by temperature in a recording session. The number of times I have found major changes in the recorded sound from a morning session to an afternoon session with the change in temperature as a venue warms up.
One of my pet hates within AD conversion is the apparent phase shift that seems to be inherant in the bass end of many systems. I used to own a Otari Radar Mk1, widely praised for its "Analogue" like sound, for me it was one of the only digital systems I'd heard at that time that seemed to have a decent bottom end. Where as I am personally in favour of anything that yields an improvement in audio quality, I have found that simply by increasing bit depth, and removing dither from the digital signal, makes it almost impossible to distinguish live mic feed from playback feed. As for the sample rates I am totally unconvinced that 384khz vs 192 vs DSD is really of any real relevence. When I listen to different converters, all I hear are the artifacts that I would attribute normally to various analogue circuits. I would be interested to know what speakers you use for your reference.
Where as I think we may all be using DSD in the future as a recording medium, I think its highly unlikely that SACD is going to catch on. Take up on the format is dissapointing to say the least, and I feel that it will go the way of DCC, Elcasette, Beta video, Laser videodisc etc. Ultimately there are a lot of beautifully recorded, but musically vaccuous records out there. Personally I still get a kick out of listening to old transcriptions of Alfred Cortot 78's, in spite of the awful sound.
Regards
Roland
Dr Fred, as you will know also the differences that can be made by temperature in a recording session. The number of times I have found major changes in the recorded sound from a morning session to an afternoon session with the change in temperature as a venue warms up.
One of my pet hates within AD conversion is the apparent phase shift that seems to be inherant in the bass end of many systems. I used to own a Otari Radar Mk1, widely praised for its "Analogue" like sound, for me it was one of the only digital systems I'd heard at that time that seemed to have a decent bottom end. Where as I am personally in favour of anything that yields an improvement in audio quality, I have found that simply by increasing bit depth, and removing dither from the digital signal, makes it almost impossible to distinguish live mic feed from playback feed. As for the sample rates I am totally unconvinced that 384khz vs 192 vs DSD is really of any real relevence. When I listen to different converters, all I hear are the artifacts that I would attribute normally to various analogue circuits. I would be interested to know what speakers you use for your reference.
Where as I think we may all be using DSD in the future as a recording medium, I think its highly unlikely that SACD is going to catch on. Take up on the format is dissapointing to say the least, and I feel that it will go the way of DCC, Elcasette, Beta video, Laser videodisc etc. Ultimately there are a lot of beautifully recorded, but musically vaccuous records out there. Personally I still get a kick out of listening to old transcriptions of Alfred Cortot 78's, in spite of the awful sound.
Regards
Roland