12 Sep
2005
12 Sep
'05
2:17 p.m.
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:32 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
Hmm - I didn't know that. I'm no DSD expert, but I understand that
there are some clear drawbacks. For example, the DSD process introduces
high levels of ultrasonic noise which can cause problems with certain
playback equipment, and it is very troublesome to attempt DSP with pure
DSD signals. But if you're trying to accurately capture a "real-world"
performance - it certainly is a strong contender.
Cutting edge technology formats often attract controversy for many
reasons. That said, many of the (admittedly few) facilities that
specialize in audiophile authoring (both SACD and DVD-A) rely on DSD
basic capture and editing tools. Speaking as a format agnostic, I think
it would be tough to argue that it doesn't sound damn good.
Greg
www.steeprockmedia.com
Bouncing a
final mix to 1/2 inch tape before the final print allows you
to do the 44.1 conversion from a high quality analog source. But, it
assumes that the source recordings and processing was done at an
extremely high level - i.e. DSD. And unfortunately, we don't yet have
any open-source tools for manipulating DSD. I know of a few mastering
houses that would *kill* to be using GNU/Linux if the tools were
available.
there is a still quite a lot of controversy over whether or not Sony's 1
bit/MHz clock design actually *is* better than more "traditional"
approaches. i know there is a lot of good marketing to explain why its
so cool, but that doesn't seem to be backed up by any substantive double
blind testing. even the math analysis is heavy on marketing bullshit.