|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.218.230.92
Thought you might enjoy this lead from an article in the latest issue of EQ Magazine (aimed at small studio recording pros), regarding the recently concluded AES Convention in San Francisco. They tried to summarize what they saw as the three big trends emerging from this show."TREND #3: DSD GETS AFFORDABLE"
"Not impressesed by high-res audio? Expect to have your mind changed. In the opinion of many with golden ears, and quite a few with lesser auditory endouwments, Sony's Direct Stream Digital is the closest yet to analog tape running at 30 ips - sans hiss and distortion. So far those with SACD players have heard DSD, but few others have because the cost and availability of authoring tools has been limited. Yet at this AES, DSD made its move. And we're going to see it move more over the course of the year"
EQ Magazine, January 2005, p 22.
The article went on to describe the Tascam DV-RA 1000 stereo recorder ($1499) "...used to be you needed Bill Gates-like wealth to get involved with DSD," which records either DSD or PCM at 192/24 onto DVD-R disks. One disk can record an hour of DSD two-channel performance. Later in the article (p 25) it goes on to concludes that the TEAC machine "..is the equivalent of a DAT machine for the 21st century."
The article also points out that Phillips has released a DSD plug-in for Pro Tools Mac as well as a full scale SACD Creator Pack designed for creating SACD cutting masters and disk images. And it suggested looking for a near-future release of DSD capabilities in Pyramix, as well.
So, essentially we now have DVD-recorder and plug-in equivalents for both DSD and DVD-A (Disk Welder Steel and Bronze) at reasonable prices.
When the technology gets affordable to the average studio, it augurs well for the future of high-res, don't you think?
Follow Ups:
Recording DSD is easy enough - problem is processing it. Any digital processing of DSD is (1) technically difficult, and (2) when possible, the theoretical "simplicity" of DSD is completely lost. These considerations rule out DSD, now and forever, for most recordings (exceptions are analog recordings and purist recordings of the sort made by Telarc).For amateur recordings, DSD is especially silly, since there is no way to write a SACD onto a DVD-R (by design - it's a key part of the copy protection story).
For amateur recordings, DSD is especially silly, since there is no way to write a SACD onto a DVD-R (by design - it's a key part of the copy protection story).It took about 10 years to get 16-bit recording technology into the hands of amateurs, and it was tape-based. It's only been a few years since the big-time pros got DSD recording technology.
Whether DSD will ever be a useful recording technology for amateurs is another question entirely.
It took about 10 years to get 16-bit recording technology into the hands of amateurs, and it was tape-based.Sony marketed the PCM-1 processor to consumers starting in 1977. See the quote and link below.
In September 1977, the PCM processor was marketed as the PCM-1. Although it had to be used in combination with a VCR, it was the world's first product to be commercialized that enabled digital recording and playback. The PCM-1, which was generally intended for home-use, was priced at 480,000 yen.
I was talking about 16-bit technology. The Sony PCM-1 was 13-bit (and outrageously expensive).
Sony's 1978 PCM-1600 recording processor stored 2-channel digital audio on rotary head, 3/4-inch video tape. The system (which eventually became the PCM-1610/PCM-1630 format used in CD production) allowed digital editing by using modified video-editing controllers. Four years later, Sony's PCM-F1 (and later PCM-701/501/601 units) and Nakamichi's DMP-100 processors offered a consumer method to tape CDs digitally, with selectable 14- or 16-bit operation. Connecting a PCM processor to a VCR (Beta, VHS or U-matic) proved unpopular with consumers, but at $1,900, Sony's PCM-F1 was a hit with studios.
.
NT
It was about how long it took from the time the "pros" started doing 16-bit to when "semi-pro" DAT decks at reasonable prices became available to the masses, i.e. the "amateurs" Max was referring to. I don't have to google the web or look for product history info to know this - I was there.I don't know why you have such a burning need to prove me wrong, or prove yourself right, or whatever, but I hope you're having fun trying! :-)
What prompted my original response was your quote:It took about 10 years to get 16-bit recording technology into the hands of amateurs, and it was tape-based. It's only been a few years since the big-time pros got DSD recording technology.
When I read this, I thought to myself, "Hmmm, this doesn't sound right". The reason I thought this is that I remember an issue of Audio mag from the mid '80s, shortly after I bought my first CD player, that featured a 16-bit PCM processor from Sony on the cover. I didn't remember its model number since that was so long ago, but I remember it because I was thinking of buying one at the time to make assortment tapes from my CDs. Since I don't have my old Audio mags from back then anymore, I had to resort to a web search to get the info on the player. After mistakenly finding a reference to an earlier processor, I found the following:
Sony's 1978 PCM-1600 recording processor stored 2-channel digital audio on rotary head, 3/4-inch video tape. The system (which eventually became the PCM-1610/PCM-1630 format used in CD production) allowed digital editing by using modified video-editing controllers. Four years later, Sony's PCM-F1 (and later PCM-701/501/601 units) and Nakamichi's DMP-100 processors offered a consumer method to tape CDs digitally, with selectable 14- or 16-bit operation. Connecting a PCM processor to a VCR (Beta, VHS or U-matic) proved unpopular with consumers, but at $1,900, Sony's PCM-F1 was a hit with studios.
So I suspect it was the PCM-F1 that appeared on the cover of the mid-'80s Audio . At any rate, this shows that 16-bit digital audio recording equipment was available to the consumer in 1984 at the price of $1900, for recording digital audio onto VCR tapes.
Then in your reply, you stated,
It was about how long it took from the time the "pros" started doing 16-bit to when "semi-pro" DAT decks at reasonable prices became available to the masses, i.e. the "amateurs" Max was referring to.
But your original quote up top did not refer to DAT specifically, but rather "16-bit recording technology". The point I'm trying to make here is that the "16-bit recording technology" was available to the consumer long before DAT, in the form of PCM processors for recording digital audio onto VCRs. The delays in introducing DAT were to a large extent due to the RIAA requiring copy protection to prevent digital copying of CDs, rather than technical issues.
...this thread was about the use of DSD for studio/music recording, by pros and amateurs, not about Joe Sixpack copying songs off of CDs to make mix tapes.
As an owner of a small private studio, and a fan of SACD, I think the advances this year do bode well for SACD. I don't know how usable some of the products you have noted above will be, but I do think the "public" introduction of the Sony Sonoma products in 8 channel incremented multichannel recording format with high quality plugins will be the ticket. While it is presently on the spendy side for a 24 track system with all of the Meitner gear included, $59K or so for a full DSD system that can do 7.1 is really appealing to larger studios. I expect the price will come down in time.As much as most studios looking at DSD would like Pro-Tools to record in DSD it doesn't. I think for anyone serious about DSD, the Pro-Tools system is not going to be of serious use because the plug in only converts PCM tracks from pro-tools into DSD which isn't going to sound as good as DSD. Since Pro-tools is so dominant in studios ranging from basement quality to world class, full implementation of DSD into pro-tools would be the thing to watch for as far as wide spread implementation. At least that is my take on it.
I still do not think that the other systems (which may have excellent recording capability) do not have the editing capabilities that studios seek for pop or rock type music where multitracking is prevalent, and effects are essentially required by labels and much of the public. Plus a couple of these systems are Windows based, which many studios and engineers (including our own) stay away from because they tend to crash after hours of work.
So, I think once the Sonoma Work station prices come down, or Pro-tools implements a full DSD system you will see a lot more SACD product from smaller studios or individual artists. I think that the good news is that companies are developing the products to get us there, which indicates they believe there is a future for SACD.
that is about the best and most respectful reponse that i have seen in a long while here,,i really apprecita the information that you have put out ,,
not that i would imply , but even if you were bs'ing, i really enjoyed the read that you provided,,, you should reply more often , if you have done so , forgive my response, i have just gotten back form deployment, so i havent been able to check the forukms out as much i would like to have done,,,
thanks again,, and happy new year,,,
...I'm a really small guy, basically thinking of doing 4.0 recording of chamber music and jazz (or perhaps 5.0 using M/S)on my 30ips Otario MX-12 and then transferring to a workstation for mastering. Have considered using Airshow Mastering as an alternative. So to me the opening floodgates are enormously appealing.I've amassed about 150 SACD titles and 15 DVD-A's, and have yet to hear much in the way of really well-recorded chamber music (I did such recording for about ten years averaging about thirty sessions a year, and have a pretty fixed idea of the kind of sound-capture I wish to achieve).
You are right, though, that 57k state-of-the-art is probably more important to the immediate future, as most decent-sized studios can afford that.
Harry
n
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: