Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bblackwood]

Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 10:51

Brad, Are you talking about the DV-RA1000HD?

Yes, that's it.

[Barry Hufker]

We have two at Webster University and I think they're quite nice.  We haven't tried DSD but the students have done some very nice projects with them.  More importantly they've held up under student use (abuse).  That says a lot to me about robustness.

Barry

[tom eaton]

I'll say a couple of things about the DVRA...

I love having it to print mixes to.  I love how easy it is to clock to anything, and that I can back up a record worth of 96/24 files in five miuntes on a DVD that can be opened in any computer.  It can also connect via USB, but I have been using sneaker net.

The HUGE downside to the box is the inability to downsample a high res file for delivery as a ref for the client.  I have to run two machines off the mix buss, the Tascam (Isochrone at 96 to HEDD a/d) and another cd burner for refs for the client.  Why Tascam didn't include this function is beyond me.

Otherwise, a great box.  Rugged, sounds good, does what you tell it to.  You can even plug in a PC keyboard and name the files from there, and the names travel with the files onto the DVD exports.

I've been really happy to have mine around... running tracks from a DAW at 48/24 to an analog automated console to a 96k final mix is making me happy.

-tom

[compasspnt]

Eliott James wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 10:14

The best way to use a DSD unit would be as a stereo recording device - performance directly to DSD. If you are multi-tracking with ProTools or other PCM medium, at 96/24 or 192/24, and then mixing to the DSD device, what you get is no better than what you started with. You might as well preserve your 192/24 or 96/24 mix. Now, if you could multi-track, add effects (plug-ons or other) and edit in DSD, then mix the DSD, then you're perhaps getting there. Future proof... no such thing as we don't know the future and the technology moves so quickly... but again, it's no better than what you put in. There may be some merit to mixing down from tape to DSD. If you believe tape captures more detail than 192/24.

Hi Elliott,

What I am doing is coming from multitrack Protools, out track-for-track through high quality D>A conversion into a large analogue console, wherein I am adding reverberation and hardware outboard where needed, and finally summing with the console's analogue stereo bus(s).

My point is to now capture that as my final mix on the highest quality format possible, be that 1/2" tape, or digital.

I think one will get a better result with the best possible format, and in this case one is not "limited" to the sample/bit rate of the original, because the original multitrack has at this point become something more than the sum of its parts .

So for me, if DSD is demonstrably better than 96/24 (which I had been using for digital mix archive before), or even analogue tape, then why not go to that?

As for "future proof," of course nothing is ever truly so.  But if one archives at the highest possible rate, then one is most likely to fit into the most number of possible formats...until the future rears its head with something higher!  And this 5.6 is twice the resolution capability of SACD.

Best regards.

[tom eaton]

compasspnt wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 12:33

As for "future proof," of course nothing is ever truly so.

I have a t-shirt that's going on 20 years.  Not even one hole.

Seriously, though... I think if you buy a really good un-powered instrument or a really good piece of analog gear it's going to be performing its intended job quite well for eternity.  Until they make us try to power the gear with corn oil.  Then just the instruments.

Makes me wonder whether I can legally tune my Wurlitzer with lead based solder. Hmm.

t

[Hank Alrich]

RSettee wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 16:10

Okay, so what's the deal with that Korg unit? Is that a DAW?

http://www.korg.com/gear/info.asp?A_PROD_NO=MR1000


I gandered at it at AES in SF 2006, and while that's nowhere to make well-informed listening judgements, I came away thinking it sounded better than it ought to, even in that environment. What I was hearing had allegedly been recorded in Nashville a few days prior, piano played by Bill Champlin's son, using just the mics and the MR1000.

The cross-platform software to dump to many other formats seemed well thought-out.

The Korg guys said they were demoing it at AES so it wouldn't get lost in the junhgle of their keyboards at a NAMM show, because they hoped it would find its market as a serious stereo machine.

I came away wanting a four-track version.

[Barry Hufker]

Just to "argue" for the other side -- analog fits any digital format.  In other words, it is a relatively simple thing to build a tape recorder.  It is quite another thing to build a sophisticated digital recorder with proprietary chips, should the format no longer be supported and your machine finally gives up the ghost.

That said, I would probably do as the rest of you in saving masters.

Barry

[Eliott James]

compasspnt wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 12:33

Eliott James wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 10:14 The best way to use a DSD unit would be as a stereo recording device - performance directly to DSD. If you are multi-tracking with ProTools or other PCM medium, at 96/24 or 192/24, and then mixing to the DSD device, what you get is no better than what you started with. You might as well preserve your 192/24 or 96/24 mix. Now, if you could multi-track, add effects (plug-ons or other) and edit in DSD, then mix the DSD, then you're perhaps getting there. Future proof... no such thing as we don't know the future and the technology moves so quickly... but again, it's no better than what you put in. There may be some merit to mixing down from tape to DSD. If you believe tape captures more detail than 192/24. Hi Elliott, What I am doing is coming from multitrack Protools, out track-for-track through high quality D>A conversion into a large analogue console, wherein I am adding reverberation and hardware outboard where needed, and finally summing with the console's analogue stereo bus(s). My point is to now capture that as my final mix on the highest quality format possible, be that 1/2" tape, or digital. I think one will get a better result with the best possible format, and in this case one is not "limited" to the sample/bit rate of the original, because the original multitrack has at this point become something more than the sum of its parts . So for me, if DSD is demonstrably better than 96/24 (which I had been using for digital mix archive before), or even analogue tape, then why not go to that?

Using it the way you're using it sounds like it could give you an advantage because you're adding to the mix with effects and going thru the console before the final mix.

Wouldn't be great if we could capture each track in DSD while recording?

[Jay Kadis]

Eliott James wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 11:06

Wouldn't be great if we could capture each track in DSD while recording?

http://www.superaudiocenter.com/

[Eliott James]

Jay Kadis wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 14:19

Eliott James wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 11:06 Wouldn't be great if we could capture each track in DSD while recording? http://www.superaudiocenter.com/

You're right, I know multi-tracking and editing exists in DSD, and I should have said, wouldn't be great if we could capture each track in DSD while recording, at a reasonalble price!

http://www.superaudiocenter.com/Pricing.htm

[stevieeastend]

Eliott James wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 19:06

Using it the way you're using it sounds like it could give you an advantage because you're adding to the mix with effects and going thru the console before the final mix.

The set up Mr. Manning was referring to sounds like the mixing set up that still app. 70% of the high profile mixer are using.
You kind of commenting it as it would be some sort of out of space though..

cheers
St

[Jay Kadis]

Eliott James wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 11:23

Jay Kadis wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 14:19 Eliott James wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 11:06 Wouldn't be great if we could capture each track in DSD while recording? http://www.superaudiocenter.com/ You're right, I know multi-tracking and editing exists in DSD, and I should have said, wouldn't be great if we could capture each track in DSD while recording, at a reasonalble price! http://www.superaudiocenter.com/Pricing.htm

The Pyramix system may be cheaper.

http://www.merging.com/

24 track digital r-r recorders were in the same price range and the Sonoma includes mixing.  It is definitely more expensive that PT.  Perhaps that's part of Sony's decision to spin off the Sonoma project.

[Buzz]

It's amazing how a format like this that is SOOOOO simple of an idea has sat around for so long with out being implemented ??
I like the design , it has LOTS of advantages bypassing the declination filters etc. and is a simple straight forward design.

In time if it catches on the price will drop , hell it's digital is'nt it ????

I would love to hear it in practice Terry !! , are you going to mix WSP on it ?????

LAter
Buzz

[Eliott James]

steveeastend wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 15:33

Eliott James wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 19:06 Using it the way you're using it sounds like it could give you an advantage because you're adding to the mix with effects and going thru the console before the final mix. The set up Mr. Manning was referring to sounds like the mixing set up that still app. 70% of the high profile mixer are using. You kind of commenting it as it would be some sort of out of space though.. cheers St

Not meant to be a slight... and I suspect you are correct about most high profile mixers using it that way. How many high profile mixers are there?

I'm not one so I don't think in those terms or use a big console coming out of ProTools. ITB mostly.

While there are advantages to the way Terry is using it, my original point was it would be ideal to use DSD going in. Unless the DSD DA converter is adding an "enhancement" to the sound, you will only get back what you put in, or add in later, but how good was the material going in? It's like upsampling a 44.1 file to 88.2 and thinking it will sound better for it. It won't.

I really wonder about the possibilty of the DSD DA "enhancing" the playback? Maybe it's great if it does (nothing wrong with that) but it's good to know how this great sound is coming about from playing back PCM files. Playing back DSD original files and sounding better, ok. But how can you get a better sound from the DSD DA when the source material is PCM? Or is it just a matter of the DSD DA converters being superior to most PCM converters? If that's the case, let's all line up to buy one!

My 2 cents, FWIW  

[compasspnt]

Buzz wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 16:18

I would love to hear it in practice Terry !! , are you going to mix WSP on it ?????

Yes, as long as it does give me back what I expect.

Will report.