Which echoes what I've heard many say. So far the JCF is the only converter I believe I've heard anyone say sounds the same after the transfer as straight off the tape deck.

Hm.well heck. Sorry you don't like it. I have a pristine Otari mtr90 I record at 15ips IEC. Never had issue with transfer sounding funny. As a matter of fact.... I have my flame suit on... I even transferred to a dig 002 from the multitrack a few times and sounded fine as well.

ALSO... making sure you have the soft limit OFF when doing transfers and that the converters are calibrated properly is essential. But once you do that.... I never had issue. But you do have to be realistic. I mean it is being converted. There is a process going on. If you want to go down the rabbit hole.... track to tape, mix to tape, cut vinyl and call it a day. :D

Absolutely, no soft limit and calibration makes a HUGE difference

If you hear it ok then it's ok. Maybe individual tracks are less complex than mixes and the difference is not as noticeable.
I never use soft limit.
I like to mix to tape because I can record the mix with better converters and/or at higher rates and I like how good tape sounds (not much as FX). After that I have to go back to digital.

Most modern conversion will do just fine. I've done a few multi-track transfers, one of which was with an Emu 1820M a while back, and even that turned out fantastic; just like playing from tape to my ears. And I'm an old tape guy who's very picky.

Anyways, as mentioned, keep any soft limit/saturation off.

Here's a biggie nobody mentioned (I don't think?). Find out what your A/D is calibrated to (0dBV = ? dBFS). Typically, this figure is around -18dBFS or so (it varies depending on the converter). In other words, in the above case, make sure peaks never exceed -18dBFS (what you're seeing in your DAW).

Don't put anything else in the signal chain.

Is the output on the deck optimal for the interface connections? +4dB balanced outputs? Or -10dB unbalanced?

I don't disagree with your points! There are definitely smart people on both ends making arguments for and against DSD.

But man, the logistics and economics... four chained-together Tascams? For the same price you could get a Symphony I/O MKII 8x8 that gets better AD/DA specs than the Tascam does in either PCM or DSD mode, and it just plugs straight into the computer with a standard cable into a standard DAW like Logic or Pro Tools, where you can edit, mix, etc. More than anything else, that's what makes me personally think that DSD is going to stay a niche format.

Since this topic is actually staying civil, I'll ask - you're an advocate for "printing, preserving and archiving to DSD." In your opinion do you think DSD is going to make a comeback in the consumer playback world and someday people are actually going to listen to those DSD files through their phones/YouTube/however people are going to be listening to music twenty or thirty years from now in native DSD? Or do you think that when your archived DSD recordings are eventually converted to PCM or whatever compressed format for distribution to the public that they will retain some amount of what is that you prefer about the "sound" of DSD? Absolutely not saying you're wrong either way, I'm just curious!

No. So far it isn't possible, not even with the best converters. If you have discerning ears you will hear an imprint from every converter that exists. IMO DSD is a lot better, but nothing is perfect.

This question isn't for me, but I can definitely tell a qualitative difference downstream from DSD transfers/masters, even in compressed files.

I don't know if it will ever be a big thing, but there are already a number of audiophile and even portable devices that will play the format. That it has hung around so long indicates to me that if it becomes more convenient it will continue to grow.

Have you heard the JCF converters?

The thing you are hearing with DSD though, is the 20bit max dynamic range, and extreme noise shaping and reduced dynamic range of the top end in comparison to PCM 24bit/96k or 24/192.

Sometimes the ear + brain do not always respond to the truly better signal in a direct A/B. High end artifacts, distortion in just the right places, reduced dynamic, can actually win out, unless you are very cognizant about what you are listening for. This is why it is important to understand what is truly happening with the processes underneath...putting the emphasis on the "engineering" part of "audio engineering". Confirmation bias is a very real thing.

In my experience DSD does sound a little bit better in the final delivery format even once the file is down sampled to 16/44.1 for instance. Not sure why this is. Maybe because its not going through all of the decimation filters etc that PCM does? Who knows, follow your bliss and your ears is what I say

I have the JCF AD8 and I do not find it to be colored in the same way you might find a Burl to be. I like it because there are no ICs or amps at all in the line, just a transformer directly into the converter. The thing I always wanted to avoid in converters with my analog transfers is more about those little amps and filters and less about what a simple transformer might be doing.

Absolutely... smart folks making great tools for recording the highest quality music. Lots of quality options. And, Apogee products are always on my radar.

I think 128fs DSD capability fits easily into a hybrid analog setup, essentially acting as a precision tape machine, capturing off the desk to a simpler, less processed digital file, retaining the high sample rate. Some more steps in work flow, but pretty basic. Nothing compared to an analog tape machine.

Regarding the multitrack option, I think the link & sync feature of these DSD recorders is actually very cool. I use 2 Korgs this way for 4-track DSD recording, and will be doing so with 2 Tascams as well (I've been curious about the DA-3000's since they came out).

Can a Korg or Tascam DSD 2-track or 8-track array compete on the level of the 8-track Apogee MKII in terms of (PCM-based) DAW and PT integration, convenience, etc.? Nope, not their forte in DSD. They can, however, more than compete on sound capture quality, they can exceed, imo. But, it's also pretty easy importing tracks into PT, if needed.

(And, conversely, one can simply start up and press record with these DSD units, without the need to even hook up any cables to a computer /monitor screen and DAW to utilize PT's, etc. Everything is self contained.)

To me, it's really not an either/or question (PCM vs DSD). Nor just one of specs. Or of convenience. It boils down to the sonic quality as implemented in these converters and the end results. Whether PCM, DSD or both.

I do think there is an expanding and broadenning niche market for DSD, along with hi-res PCM audio. Relative to our ubiquitous PCM, it's small, but not insignificant. I see DSD getting easier to work with for engineers, recordists and consumers, more seamless to stream from computers through capable DA's and software players, and, looking forward, more easily streamed from music sites catering to theses discerning music consumers.

In my experience, yes absolutely, the quality of the initial high rate DSD capture is retained, in good measure, when down-sampling to a lower rate delivery format.

delivery format and what you choose to use in your studio for recording are vastly separate issues, tape has never been the same as vinyl, 24/96 has never been the same as mp3, right?

let's not confuse the issue, let the producer decide, in 2016 every multi channel interface should support what the chips support - dsd256 for the people!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right ON!!!!

I believe that you actually can stack eight of the Tascam DA-3000's for a 16 track DSD setup.

OP, you never replied to how many tracks the tape(s) are or the tape condition (the need to do a transfer in one pass), which above all determines the list of possible converters or is this just another "what is the most transparent converter?" thread.

Multitrack meaning 16-24 tracks. And in a way it is another "most transparent converter" thread except in the context of tape transfers. There are many methods for determining a converters' transparency. I specifically wanted to discuss it terms of tape transfers for a couple of reasons. That would be an important use for the converter. And also because it's one area I've often heard people say it never sounds as good after the transfer as it does straight off the deck.

toledo3, I'm personally with you on this one - I think the "DSD just sounds better" argument is mostly placebo because it's more esoteric, and that 24-bit PCM is technically just as good or better. Of course, there are a lot of fantastic-sounding DSD recordings out there because it's pretty much only the über-nerds with the expensive toys who are making them! But if I had to do a 16-track tape transfer and were given the choice between eight daisy-chained Tascams recording to DSD or one Symphony MKII recording to PCM, I'd take the Symphony any day and feel confident that the results would sound as good as it gets.

In either case, those are both sides of the DSD versus PCM argument! Like bcgood said, follow your ears and your bliss! Next up, politics or religion?

.

I guess I'm staring to think that if DSD really does have sonic advantages for this purpose, the deciding factor for using it might well come down to "future-proofing" these captures for later use.

It would also seem that the quality of conversion from DSD to PCM (or something else that hasn't even been invented yet) is likely to improve in the future, so...

.

Well , Scott has mine on his list to upgrade .

The DSD recording matter , is always an explosive topic.
As an owner of a full and complete Merging Technology System , and a modern analog system , I know what each one sounds like and what each brings to the table.
Unless you have a DSD system to use in your studio , then all you can offer is speculation and here say .

I would not make a comparison as to one or the other simply because each brings what they have to the market place.
DSD can be delivered for distribution without having to go through the commercial mastering process , loudness wars , or be altered for radio broadcast .
It is a download , so it stays pure from your computer to the customers DAC unit .
The higher sample rates offer greater detail and openness , not compressed .
DSD sounds to me as if it tames the attack of the instruments just enough to give it a less stressful sound .

As for the market on DSD recordings , well they are selling more now than ever.
With the PONO players out there , the consumer has educated themselves enough to thirst for High Resolution music .
New product lines of lower cost DAC units are now entering the Market place , many below $ 500 .
This in turn has generated a demand for greater fidelity and better sounding music .

White paper nerds forget to mention that DSD recording have been winning Grammies for years and those folks with enough money
to purchase music no matter what the cost , are buying DSD format recordings .
This last week , Sony , Merging Technologies , Blue Coast Studio's did the first ever DSD live streaming radio broadcast .
The Merging converters where used for this event .

The music industry is moving towards higher sample rate music not because it sounds better as much as it offers a higher dollar return .
Most record companies are transferring tape to DSD and 192 PCM for distribution from downloads .

Any time program material is digitized it is changed in some way. That's the way it is.
The sound is changed. Sometimes it is changed for the worse with collapse of depth being the number one giveaway.

Sometimes the sound is changed to sound different. Different, not better and not worse.

That is digital recording. The best sound is out of your console into your ears.

But if the sound is very good we have to distribute it to the outside world. Then there comes digital. . .

The question is not wether the sound changes when digitized. The question is wether anyone has found a converter where the change is inaudible to their naked human ear.

Thanks for the correction!

Good post. I'm currently using a Prism AD-2 for mixdown from my 24-track, but it would be fun to compare it to DSD. A Merging System with the upgraded DSD cards is about $6k, but then there's the software expense and the fact that I'd probably have to buy a PC, as well...looking at $8k at least! Wish they made a 2-channel DSD converter at a more affordable cost...

Well since this is really a "What's the most transparent converter today?" thread you need to compare a round trip digital conversion against a live stereo monitered source (something rich with great 3D to start with). The problem with comparing against tape is with tape you have made a conversion (why add another variable). We have covered this subject deeply already in the "need for a large converter shootout" threads. Again if this was really about a tape transfer then likely your biggest concerns would be converting to digital in one pass (tape condition and costs) which for 16 or 24 tracks takes most the converters mentioned in this thread out. If you are using more than one converter box to get around that 16 to 24 channel need then you have all but the main box running under external clocking which effects it's sound (gets back to the transparency).

Time for that well executed large converter shootout guys?

A few problems I would have with testing the converters with a live source is the challenge in getting a musician to play a small excerpt of music twice in a row exactly the same way as to make any determination wether it sounds exactly the same twice in a row. And also I would want to listen to the full mix to hear how everything comes together so you'd need all musicians to play everything perfectly twice in a row. Secondly the tape machine introduces harmonic distortion and other variables to test the converters. If I were testing cameras perhaps two cameras can produce identical images (to the human eye) in normal light. But if one camera excels in low light it will show. And if I plan to shoot in low light Id want to test them both in low light. Likewise if my purpose is for tape transfers I'd want to test them in exactly this application.

I've found even past converters is the sample and bit rate being the most important. If you try to transfer at 24-48 you will hear how much better the source sounds. Transfers at 96 and up seem to keep a lot of the harmonic content. I've tried a ton of converters, currently have Lynx Aurora's and it really is about the sample rate.

Amen to that!