x
kooz 15 April 2014

Anyone out there using Pyramix and working with DSD?

Tags

Comments

audiokid Wed, 04/16/2014 - 19:38

I owed the MR2000BK but quickly went to a second uncoupled DAW to capture. It made no sense to have to down sample an extra step when my destination was 44.1 or 96 example anyway.
I also got to thinking... here I am saving (archiving) a session at a resolution that is still only as good as the original session. Granted, I do make it sound sweeter but still, its going to sound dated in 5 years anyway.
So, rather than trying to preserve something that is sure to be dated, I focus on the best way to capture the "destination" now. I avoid SRC and uncouple the DAW's and the results are excellent.
I bought a second DAW, high quality 2 channel ADC and an additional license of Sequoia 12 and couldn't be happier.
Its costly, but if you are already thinking DSD, you might as well think about this too. We're past trying to be on a budget at this point. ;)

DSD would be excellent for moving the archive around to different studios etc.

Why are you thinking DSD?

kooz Thu, 04/17/2014 - 08:07

Well, I believe High Definition is going to be more and more important in the next few years, thanks to Neil Young and his Pono. We do live-off-the-floor to multitrack with no punch-ins, so if that no punching thing is true, it's a non-issue. It also fits well with my business partner's aspirations as far as a boutique, esoteric record label go. Finally, if it sounds as close to source/analog as everyone says it does - I haven't yet had a chance to listen/evaluate - we could have a winner, since our current converters (which we love love love) wouldn't need replacing.

audiokid Sun, 04/20/2014 - 12:41

kooz, post: 413954, member: 6916 wrote: Sorry, audiokid, I don't follow...merch?

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2014/04/18/pono-vs-wimp/

Don’t be an idiot.

My inbox is filling up with critics saying gotcha, implying my endorsement of WIMP is a belated acknowledgement of the superiority and inevitability of Pono.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Pono is merch.

kooz, post: 413924, member: 6916 wrote: Everybody in our business should subscribe to http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
read his 2 most recent about WiMP and Pono.

I'm wondering what your interpretation of "merch" > relation to our business etc is?
I read the article but got stuck on "merch" and wondered what you got from that term? The author is really setting the article up with that. Make sense? I'm guessing "merch" is merchandise? so what does this mean about Pono and so on. Why do you feel everyone should subscribe to this?

continuing the dialogue. :)

kooz Sun, 04/20/2014 - 13:37

AH! ok gotcha now...
yes, it is Merchandise, the Pono player. what I've taken from Bob's missives of late is that YES, people miss high quality audio and Pono will quite probably challenge the status quo in Cupertino (Apple HQ, which basically sets the standards for the world), and that will have implications throughout the music industry. We may have to deliver in Higher quality than we're used to, and Bob believes that the future is in HD streaming, now that the infrastructure is much more prevalent, which he postulates (and I agree) will end up being better for the artist if they are smart and business-like about it. Forget hipster and or audiophile vinyl pressings...we can deliver whatever you want, wherever you are and whenever you want it at studio quality.

So, back to DSD...(see how it connects??)

RemyRAD Mon, 04/21/2014 - 13:58

When I heard the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.merging…"]Pyramix DSD, some years ago, it was jaw-dropping. I was immediately sold. Had I been flush and well-off, I would have immediately plunked down my money for DSD. It ain't PCM! What don't you guys understand about that lousy, stroboscopic, florescent light like flickering, segmented, digital audio?[/]="http://www.merging…"]Pyramix DSD, some years ago, it was jaw-dropping. I was immediately sold. Had I been flush and well-off, I would have immediately plunked down my money for DSD. It ain't PCM! What don't you guys understand about that lousy, stroboscopic, florescent light like flickering, segmented, digital audio?[/]

Chris... honestly man... DSD... the downconversion... is not like down converting from PCM. There are no impossible mathematical anomalies of any kind from downsampling DSD to whatever convenient PCM format ya want.

DSD will not be dated sounding 20 years from now. Only the lousy transformer less recordings will appear dated. And because the transformer based recordings made yesteryear and today, when well designed and implemented, sound absolutely fabulous and y'all know that. When you scrimp and save and use lousy recycled metallurgy transformers, all bets are off. And unfortunately, that's what most people have experienced with. Developing attitudes and perceptions that are not relevant. Not to 21st-century recording technologies.

The ProTools guys ain't going to be able to use DSD, in ProTools 10, 11 because none of the plug-ins will work in real time. Our computers are not yet up to that task and capabilities. Sorry to burst your bubbles. Oh but now they are packaging DSD carried on the back of a PCM signal. Oh yeah? Really? I'm supposed to believe that? I don't. It's not ready for prime time. Not if you want all sorts of gobbledygook real-time plug-ins. It's really only a master recording medium. If ya want gobbledygook plug-ins in real time go PCM. If you want to down sample your DSD to PCM to use your plug-ins? Go ahead. But it won't be DSD sounding anymore. So what's the point?

If organic computers come into vogue, in the future? This might all change the game? Until then... we've gone as far as we can with silicon. And everybody will just keep re-releasing variations of the same old garbage to try and stay in business. We're looking at some strange times acomin'.

Wow I really think that the Neil Young high-resolution thing is cool. But it's more garbage. You've got to look at the profit perspective. McDonald's works. A lot of folks are watching standard resolution video on high-resolution monitors, all thinking it's high-resolution. It's the same placebo effect in audio. This is only going to appeal to the privileged few, that can afford it. Everybody else will still be happy with McDonald's audio.

Look at the playback systems in people's living rooms. High resolution? Really? Little itty bitty speakers and a cheap subwoofer. High resolution?

Cheap earbuds in cheap battery-operated players. High-resolution? Really? Who are they kidding? Kids don't give a damn. People don't give a damn. Only audio engineers and musicians care. But that's not going to make ya wealthy. McDonald's will. So it's all BS. Can't you guys see that? Are you all so blind and deaf? No one really cares about the difference except us. People like miniaturization and MP3's are miniaturization. Even though they suck. And automobiles will always have 4 tires. Some smaller ones had 3. But we want hovercrafts don't we? They go over anything, smoothly. And nobody can steal your airbag because it's the whole car.

Is this high-resolution stuff supposed to make it better for those guys with the stereos in their car going boom boom boom from blocks away? Does it make it better for us? Or anyone else?

Don't get me wrong guys... we all love to play with what we have. We love to do everything better than we do. We strive to be the best. But that's technique. That's different. We all need to make money, sure. But for me, it's the level of accomplishment I attain and feel good about that makes the Biggest difference for me. And not necessarily just the equipment. It feels so much better when you get to drive a Rolls-Royce. How often is that? Most of the time, we settle on Chevrolets and Toyotas. We're not going to win any races with those. But we're not in any races. Not no more. Not since the fall of the record industry.

So it all comes down to narrowcasting and niche marketing. Your investment in your equipment should be offset by your prospective sales. Not whether it's the best or not. You have to be the best first. The equipment will follow. If there's any reason? Computer-generated high-resolution audio? What the hell is that? The samples recorded how and with what? Nobody seems to question that? I mean if I wanted a sample library? I only want one recorded on Neve & API's. I want samples recorded with ribbon not condenser microphones. I want samples on DSD and not some gritty PCM. So... where are we?

Really, I'm not here to burst bubbles. I love pushing the envelope, technically. I always have. I always will. But what should be the desired effect? Should one wait for the equipment for you to be able to deliver the proper sound? Or should it just be up to your talents and with whatever equipment ya have? In fact I find it much more of a fun, technical challenge, to be able to make really fine sounding recordings on equipment that should not be capable of delivering that. This takes some high knowledge to know what's inside that makes the stuff tick, that you're using. That only comes with reading and real-world experience. And especially, listening. It's a game. It's a contest. It's a game of skill. It's like trying to hit a bull's-eye with the same darts everyone else is using. The champ isn't using special darts.

I hate using TEAC/TA-SCAM stuff. I just get a real kick when other folks can't get even close, using the same stuff, after I showed them how. When you're faced with nothing but a POS in front of ya, what are ya supposed to do? You're supposed to make it sound good. And if you feel the equipment can't deliver? You won't try.

For me it's just the other way around. Will it sound like it was made with GML, Millennia, Neve, API or anything else like that? As a matter of fact... yes. It will for 99 & 44/100TH of the world's population. And it will make your hands so soft. Much better when you stick your finger where the sun don't shine.

And that's why I use Charmin Ultra
Mx. Remy Ann David

audiokid Mon, 04/21/2014 - 14:00

RemyRAD, post: 413991, member: 26269 wrote: When I heard the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.merging…"]Pyramix DSD, some years ago, it was jaw-dropping. I was immediately sold. Had I been flush and well-off, I would have immediately plunked down my money for DSD. It ain't PCM! What don't you guys understand about that lousy, stroboscopic, florescent light like flickering, segmented, digital audio?[/]="http://www.merging…"]Pyramix DSD, some years ago, it was jaw-dropping. I was immediately sold. Had I been flush and well-off, I would have immediately plunked down my money for DSD. It ain't PCM! What don't you guys understand about that lousy, stroboscopic, florescent light like flickering, segmented, digital audio?[/]

Chris... honestly man... DSD... the downconversion... is not like down converting from PCM. There are no impossible mathematical anomalies of any kind from downsampling DSD to whatever convenient PCM format ya want.

DSD will not be dated sounding 20 years from now. Only the lousy transformer less recordings will appear dated. And because the transformer based recordings made yesteryear and today, when well designed and implemented, sound absolutely fabulous and y'all know that. When you scrimp and save and use lousy recycled metallurgy transformers, all bets are off. And unfortunately, that's what most people have experienced with. Developing attitudes and perceptions that are not relevant. Not to 21st-century recording technologies.

The ProTools guys ain't going to be able to use DSD, in ProTools 10, 11 because none of the plug-ins will work in real time. Our computers are not yet up to that task and capabilities. Sorry to burst your bubbles. Oh but now they are packaging DSD carried on the back of a PCM signal. Oh yeah? Really? I'm supposed to believe that? I don't. It's not ready for prime time. Not if you want all sorts of gobbledygook real-time plug-ins. It's really only a master recording medium. If ya want gobbledygook plug-ins in real time go PCM. If you want to down sample your DSD to PCM to use your plug-ins? Go ahead. But it won't be DSD sounding anymore. So what's the point?

If organic computers come into vogue, in the future? This might all change the game? Until then... we've gone as far as we can with silicon. And everybody will just keep re-releasing variations of the same old garbage to try and stay in business. We're looking at some strange times acomin'.

Wow I really think that the Neil Young high-resolution thing is cool. But it's more garbage. You've got to look at the profit perspective. McDonald's works. A lot of folks are watching standard resolution video on high-resolution monitors, all thinking it's high-resolution. It's the same placebo effect in audio. This is only going to appeal to the privileged few, that can afford it. Everybody else will still be happy with McDonald's audio.

Look at the playback systems in people's living rooms. High resolution? Really? Little itty bitty speakers and a cheap subwoofer. High resolution?

Cheap earbuds in cheap battery-operated players. High-resolution? Really? Who are they kidding? Kids don't give a damn. People don't give a damn. Only audio engineers and musicians care. But that's not going to make ya wealthy. McDonald's will. So it's all BS. Can't you guys see that? Are you all so blind and deaf? No one really cares about the difference except us. People like miniaturization and MP3's are miniaturization. Even though they suck. And automobiles will always have 4 tires. Some smaller ones had 3. But we want hovercrafts don't we? They go over anything, smoothly. And nobody can steal your airbag because it's the whole car.

Is this high-resolution stuff supposed to make it better for those guys with the stereos in their car going boom boom boom from blocks away? Does it make it better for us? Or anyone else?

Don't get me wrong guys... we all love to play with what we have. We love to do everything better than we do. We strive to be the best. But that's technique. That's different. We all need to make money, sure. But for me, it's the level of accomplishment I attain and feel good about that makes the Biggest difference for me. And not necessarily just the equipment. It feels so much better when you get to drive a Rolls-Royce. How often is that? Most of the time, we settle on Chevrolets and Toyotas. We're not going to win any races with those. But we're not in any races. Not no more. Not since the fall of the record industry.

So it all comes down to narrowcasting and niche marketing. Your investment in your equipment should be offset by your prospective sales. Not whether it's the best or not. You have to be the best first. The equipment will follow. If there's any reason? Computer-generated high-resolution audio? What the hell is that? The samples recorded how and with what? Nobody seems to question that? I mean if I wanted a sample library? I only want one recorded on Neve & API's. I want samples recorded with ribbon not condenser microphones. I want samples on DSD and not some gritty PCM. So... where are we?

Really, I'm not here to burst bubbles. I love pushing the envelope, technically. I always have. I always will. But what should be the desired effect? Should one wait for the equipment for you to be able to deliver the proper sound? Or should it just be up to your talents and with whatever equipment ya have? In fact I find it much more of a fun, technical challenge, to be able to make really fine sounding recordings on equipment that should not be capable of delivering that. This takes some high knowledge to know what's inside that makes the stuff tick, that you're using. That only comes with reading and real-world experience. And especially, listening. It's a game. It's a contest. It's a game of skill. It's like trying to hit a bull's-eye with the same darts everyone else is using. The champ isn't using special darts.

I hate using TEAC/TA-SCAM stuff. I just get a real kick when other folks can't get even close, using the same stuff, after I showed them how. When you're faced with nothing but a POS in front of ya, what are ya supposed to do? You're supposed to make it sound good. And if you feel the equipment can't deliver? You won't try.

For me it's just the other way around. Will it sound like it was made with GML, Millennia, Neve, API or anything else like that? As a matter of fact... yes. It will for 99 & 44/100TH of the world's population. And it will make your hands so soft. Much better when you stick your finger where the sun don't shine.

And that's why I use Charmin Ultra
Mx. Remy Ann David

really? "honestly man" burst my bubble ::rolleyes:

DSD to 44.1 isn't down sampling? And you don't need to perform some sort of ridiculous conversion back and forth? Maybe new technology I wasn't aware of, Remy?

I wasn't aware you could use DSD files for itunes or soundcloud or CD either . My bubble and logistics hears, DSD is completely unnecessary for any commercial benefit other than falling into the snake oil, misinformed or GAS bubble.

In fact, I bet an uncoupled capture is better than DSD any day of the week and will sound superior at the destination public playback media 100% of the time.
Technology and a workflow you are definitely unaware of, Remy. You are just blabbing off again like it was 20 years ago.

In fact, during the recording process virtually all DSD recording are first converted into PCM for mixing, equalization and other "artistic" processing. Upon completion, the data is then converted back to DSD format and manufactured into discs of "so called" DSD recordings (SACD) for distribution to consumers. In addition, the majority of DSD recordings are actually converted from original PCM masters. One should note that most all such back-and-forth conversion is performed via software – not hardware.

I don't mean to be as disrespectful as you in return, but its hard not to drive a nail into you some days. This idiotic response from you appears to be another topic right over your head once again.

And for those who think different, why would you try and turn PCM to 1bit and back to DSD again, but wait, then back to PCM. That is about as stupid as it gets.

Ya, I owned those 1bit machines 2 in fact. Glad I sold them both when I still had the brand new boxes and got $1200.00 each for them. ;)

Boswell Wed, 04/23/2014 - 04:27

My understanding of the way that DSD recordings are mixed using current technology is that the original tracks are converted to PCM and then conventionally mixed using standard track fades and EQ. The automation file for all this is recorded. This automation file is then used in an off-line run on the original DSD tracks to generate the end DSD mix. The result is that the final DSD 2-track (or multi-track surround) has no PCM conversions in it, save for any PCM-originating effects that may be added at mixdown.

anonymous Wed, 04/23/2014 - 08:06

Kooz referenced:
"...We may have to deliver in Higher quality than we're used to..."

Hmmm. I'm wondering when we started delivering "lower quality"? ( and by "we" I mean you, me, and everyone else who is serious about our craft, and at times, obsessively so)

I can only speak for myself of course, but I've always given my best to a recording or mix session. I make no distinction between the pro acts I have cooked for, and the garage band down the street who saved every penny to book time.
I do the best that I can, all the time.

Now, what is done with the product after I deliver it is a different story. I'm not an M.E., I'm a recording and mix engineer. When a project leaves my hands, I have no control over what is done to it afterwards.

Remy said:
"A lot of folks are watching standard resolution video on high-resolution monitors, all thinking it's high-resolution. It's the same placebo effect in audio. This is only going to appeal to the privileged few, that can afford it. Everybody else will still be happy with McDonald's audio."

I don't find that to be an excuse to not obtain and use the best gear that we can, or to not do the best work that we can. I'm not mixing for the kid with the earbuds. I'm mixing for those people who can hear the difference.
There's no percentage in bringing ourselves down to the lowest common denominator, or to base our work on the substandard. If you can afford the high dollar gear, the gear that does make a difference, then you should get it.
Your sound is your reputation. It's everything. Keep your standards as high as you can, keep reaching for the next step up, never be completely satisfied with what you've done.

There's absolutely no downside to approaching your mix as if the ears listening on the other end are connected to people like George Martin, Alan Parsons and Bruce Swedien... because you never really know, do you? ... They just might be. ;)

kooz Mon, 04/28/2014 - 08:57

DonnyThompson, post: 414062, member: 46114 wrote: Kooz referenced:
"...We may have to deliver in Higher quality than we're used to..."

Hmmm. I'm wondering when we started delivering "lower quality"? ( and by "we" I mean you, me, and everyone else who is serious about our craft, and at times, obsessively so)

I can only speak for myself of course, but I've always given my best to a recording or mix session. I make no distinction between the pro acts I have cooked for, and the garage band down the street who saved every penny to book time.
I do the best that I can, all the time.

Now, what is done with the product after I deliver it is a different story. I'm not an M.E., I'm a recording and mix engineer. When a project leaves my hands, I have no control over what is done to it afterwards.
Remy said:
"A lot of folks are watching standard resolution video on high-resolution monitors, all thinking it's high-resolution. It's the same placebo effect in audio. This is only going to appeal to the privileged few, that can afford it. Everybody else will still be happy with McDonald's audio."

I don't find that to be an excuse to not obtain and use the best gear that we can, or to not do the best work that we can. I'm not mixing for the kid with the earbuds. I'm mixing for those people who can hear the difference.
There's no percentage in bringing ourselves down to the lowest common denominator, or to base our work on the substandard. If you can afford the high dollar gear, the gear that does make a difference, then you should get it.
Your sound is your reputation. It's everything. Keep your standards as high as you can, keep reaching for the next step up, never be completely satisfied with what you've done.

There's absolutely no downside to approaching your mix as if the ears listening on the other end are connected to people like George Martin, Alan Parsons and Bruce Swedien... because you never really know, do you? ... They just might be. ;)

I mis-spoke my thoughts, DonnyThompson. thanks for calling me on it and doing a better job than I obviously could putting into words what in my heart I meant to type. perhaps I could've said something about higher RESOLUTION rather than the Q word...

And speaking of Resolution, RemyRAD's sentiment is absolutely correct in that quote ^ as far as I'm concerned. It burns my nether regions to see people paying huge amounts of their hard-earned dollars for premium "High Definition" but actually lossy-compressed for transmission, when with a little education and effort, they can have higher quality for the same or less money. I'm thinking HDTV over the air vs cable/satellite, but music fits this category as well with the vinyl/CD and FLAC/mp3 arguments. Let's all agree to raise the bar as much as possible with everything we do...which is why I applaud the PONO and the efforts and sentiment behind it, but it (24/192 encoded FLAC) still may be an intermediate step when the infrastructure to deliver the highest quality (assuming that's DSD) exists in place at a price just about everyone can easily afford, and the files/content have been made available at ridiculously low prices in comparison to the costs associated with producing it.

ha! I just wanted to talk about DSD and Pyramix with real-world end users and see what's happened?!?!?

x

User login