DDP from timeline

[Dr. Fred]

Hi!

Graemme wrote:

<<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.>>

FJB: So do I. I use a passive balanced switcher/level control
unit built by Glenn Coleman. On location sessions, I usually bring along three sets of Stax SRM-MK. III Pro electrostatic headphones (the round one with thin diaphragms) and a set of Dynaudio BM6A active monitors.

snip: my lack of knowledge about Sony Sonoma equipment.

<<Yes, there is. The Sony Sonoma mixer operates as a standalone DSD mixer if you want to use it that way. No PCM involved.>>

snip: questions about Mark Levinson's decision making process..

FJB: He always uses exacting listening tests. He does live jazz recordings right at his store in NYC,and has done this for many years. He never liked PCM, and used a custom tweaked Studer for ages.

snip

<<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.>>

snip

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> >>

FJB Of course. I've gotten pretty good at playing the clock game, especially since Pyramix's little fanout is so un-user-friendly. Who ever heard of a $$$$$ DAW without dedicated separate clock connectors?

Daniel Weiss and I went over and over about this subject several months ago, when he dropped "master clock mode" from his DAC-1 when it was upgraded to 192 kHz compatability. He maintains that his circuit cancels transmission jitter so well that clocking playback from the DAC is unnecessary. So now my reference PCM DAC can no longer clock its input sources (although, in all fairness, the previous 96 kHz model could only do so at 44.1/48 kHz.)

FJB: 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.>>

FJB: Me too. I guess not too many gents build digital gear!

FJB: 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.>>

FJB: I understand, and yes, I've done that--but sending all those Genex DAC output channels to an analog mixer is usually not the way the final edited recording will be done! If I can "monitor and mix" my multi-track PCM recordings through the Pyramix mixer--the same way I will eventually do the final mix to stereo, then I feel I ought to be able to do the same thing with my multi-track DSD recordings.

<<So, do we now agree on what the term 'monitoring' means...<g>
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.>>

I guess we do. And, again, there's always at least a balanced SSL original equipment stepped attenuator before the power amps.

Onward and upward!

"Dr. Fred"
[/img][/quote]

[Dr. Fred]

Hi!

Roland wrote:

<<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.>>

Agreed. I get to audition most of the usual suspects in the converter world, and can often compare them. They all sound different. I may like the sound of one better at 44.1 than another at 192, for instance.

But my two experiences with DSD (Genex and dCS) have left me with similar impressions. Different big time from PCM, and yet quite similar to each other. I haven't heard the Meitner converters yet. And, truth be told, so far I prefer my Genex's 176.4 "sound" to its DSD sound. Maybe I'm just too used to PCM recording, and have tailored my whole recording chain to maximize its potential for many years.

Sort of like when I switched from analog to PCM in 1981. I had to change everything. That's when I moved to tube mics and preamps, for instance.

<<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. >>

The Digital Audio Denmark converters are particularly nice regarding this sort of smoothness. I have high hopes for their eight channel "AD-8000-killer," the ADDA 2408.

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. >>

But they sound different from each other, even within the same family of converters..

<<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.>>

On location, see previous post. At the studio, various custom-tweaked transmission-line monitors based upon IMF/TDL designs from the seventies, as well as the venerable 10" Tannoys with Mastering Lab crossovers. All driven by various tweaked-out tube amplifiers, such as McIntosh MI-200s, or even a special pair of MC-75s completely modded with Russian 711 output tubes used as directly heated triodes! Those latter ones drive the Tannoys!

<<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.>>

I fear you may be right. Very little promotion is going on *to the engineers who do the recordings* by Sony (or even Merging, or Genex, etc." so this might ultimately result in not enough DSD recordings being made to sustain SACD. That's the main reason that I'm trying DSD--just to be open-minded and progressive!

<<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.>>

Or Schnabel or Gieseking!

Isn't it strange how musical values transcend the recording medium?

"Dr. Fred"

[Graemme]

[quote="Dr. Fred"]Hi!

snip: questions about Mark Levinson's decision making process..

FJB: He always uses exacting listening tests. He does live jazz recordings right at his store in NYC,and has done this for many years. He never liked PCM, and used a custom tweaked Studer for ages.

To clarify my question: Has Mark levinson actually put Pyramix DSD through his rigorous listening tests?


snip

FJB Of course. I've gotten pretty good at playing the clock game, especially since Pyramix's little fanout is so un-user-friendly. Who ever heard of a $$$$$ DAW without dedicated separate clock connectors?


You can use a sync bracket (The one that used to be for the Merging 'Sync100' option and that plugs into the Mykerinos card. Much more robust than the fan-out cable.


snip

FJB: I understand, and yes, I've done that--but sending all those Genex DAC output channels to an analog mixer is usually not the way the final edited recording will be done! If I can "monitor and mix" my multi-track PCM recordings through the Pyramix mixer--the same way I will eventually do the final mix to stereo, then I feel I ought to be able to do the same thing with my multi-track DSD recordings.

I agree. Unfortunately, it won't happen next week...<g>

I guess we do. And, again, there's always at least a balanced SSL original equipment stepped attenuator before the power amps.

Oops, I think that second reference to the level controller was a typo...

Thanks for the chat...

Regards,

Graemme

[Dr. Fred]

Graemme wrote:

<< Oops, I think that second reference to the level controller was a typo... >>

As was mine to the "711" vacuum tubes. Obviously I meant 811s!

All best,

"Dr. Fred"

[Grant Lyman]

You'll see SACD authoring sometime in the future.... Personally, I'd like to have the ability to playback my AIT master as if it was a virtual SACD.[/color]

Well I recently inquired about the ability to playback an AIT master as if it was a virtual SACD and I was told:"We will also implement this option should the demand arise"

Seems like there are at least two of us who want this functionality any one else interested