Quantcast
DSD and the future busiess of small to medium studios - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
DSD and the future busiess of small to medium studios
Old 3rd January 2003
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
posted by mattimattmatt:
Curve Dominant writes: "DSD is 1-bit PCM. DVD-A is 24-bit PCM."

I don't think it's quite that simple.
Matt,

OK.

Uhh...do you care to elaborate??

I'm ALL ears.

I'm just DYING to see an audio engineer tell lil' ol' me, a stoopid composer, how 1-bit conversion is "Super Audio."

Oh, and the "Use yor ears" shtick won't cut it here. I used my ears. SACD sounds muffled to my ears compared to Redbook. Y'all gotta do better than that.

C'mon, boys, impress me.
Old 3rd January 2003
  #32
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Hello Guys

Hello guys,

mmh, it is getting hot here.
I'm not a digital tech, but it seems that we should all try to understand what DSD is before our clients force us to use a system that is not suiting our needs.
I have been thru that several times in my career, and I'm getting fed up with this.It first started with the Mitsubichi X700 prodigy, then Pro tools (I know, I know, I come from PSW).

If I understand well the situation, 1bit dithering is not achievable, so that means that any treatment (EQ, Comp,etc) is not possible.
Yes matt, you don't need dithering, as long as you record a final master, in the same resolution as you reproduce it, but that's all you will do.
Even editing seems complicated with that format.
So a multitrack that sounds rock solid, that you can't edit easily, with no pluggins whatsoever, and that you can't copy too many times...
...we allready got that :We call it 2' Studer...

malice
Old 3rd January 2003
  #33
Lives for gear
 
hollywood_steve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by alphajerk
if it has 48 channel out you could easily mix it... just mix on an analog board.

who needs to edit...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



OH MY GOD, YOU CAN DO THAT????

( remember when players could play?)
**********************************************

I guess that's the point........DSD isn't for folks who have become addicted to moving snare beats and autotuning every syllable. Its a replacement for analog recorders that are simply too expensive to manufacture profitably any more. Those of us who record complete musical performances will never miss the "lack" of editing features. We are being offered the first audibly acceptable replacement for analog recorders and at a price of less than half of the last 2" machines.

Perspective is everything. The folks who can't finish a recording without feeling compelled to line up every note to the click track already have their utlimate toy (PT). DSD is for the rest of us.

steve
[email protected]
steve
[email protected]
Old 3rd January 2003
  #34
Lives for gear
 
atticus's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Re: Hello Guys

Quote:
Originally posted by malice

So a multitrack that sounds rock solid, that you can't edit easily, with no pluggins whatsoever, and that you can't copy too many times...
...we allready got that :We call it 2' Studer...

malice
LOLheh A 2' (foot) Studer. Now that's tape! From a manufacturers perspective I can tell you that Sony is covering it's tail. You sell what you have and Sony has CD and SACD exclusively. They have been paid royalties on every CD sold for the past twenty years and believe me that is not an insignifigant amount. So they have "invented" a new technology that they can use to squeeze another twenty years out of. It's not inherently bad technology, but honestly all of the information out there is spun pretty good, especially the"It sounds like analog" thing. What kind of analog? Tape? Vinyl? Virgin Vinyl?!? Tube? Wax Cylinder? Wire Recorder? Those who are championing this format are not doing so in an unbiased way. I have spoken at lenght with our engineers and they are all saying the DSD/SACD is fine as a delivery format, but it's not a great recording format. We as a company don't have anything to gain either way. We can adapt our converters to work with either format. I say just pick a system, learn (gasp!) how to use it, and stop getting into these silly discusions over DSD vs PCM, Pro Tools VS Nuendo Vs Radar Vs Logic. They're all good! Remember, there's an ass for every seathehheh
Old 3rd January 2003
  #35
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Re: Re: Hello Guys

Quote:
Originally posted by atticus
LOLheh A 2' (foot) Studer. Now that's tape!
ooops, I made an arse of myself again...You know, we frenchies make mistakes about foot, inches, yard, miles ...

heh heh heh

malice

With that said, I agree with you David ...
Old 3rd January 2003
  #36
Lives for gear
 
atticus's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Re: Re: Re: Hello Guys

Quote:
Originally posted by malice
ooops, I made an arse of myself again...You know, we frenchies make mistakes about foot, inches, yard, miles ...

heh heh heh

malice

With that said, I agree with you David ...
Arse? You may be the first Scottish Frenchman I've ever met heh
Damn English measurements!
Old 3rd January 2003
  #37
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Re: Re: Hello Guys

Quote:
Originally posted by atticus
...From a manufacturers perspective I can tell you that Sony is covering it's tail. You sell what you have and Sony has CD and SACD exclusively. They have been paid royalties on every CD sold for the past twenty years and believe me that is not an insignifigant amount. So they have "invented" a new technology that they can use to squeeze another twenty years out of. ...
This isn't exactly true. CD, DVD and SACD all employ a number of patents and trademarks owned by various people. Phillips administers CD and SACD but the royalties go to most of the same people DVD royalties go to. In fact DSD technology is closer to being "public domain" than most conventional PCM technology because it doesn't require propriatary reconstruction filters. I'd be willing to bet that Sony earns virtually the same amount from every DVD sold as they do from every SACD.

The most important thing for people to understand is that the labels who have committed to moving to hybrid SACD releases within the next 3-5 years account for, depending on who you talk to, between 55% and 70% of the entire prerecorded music market including indi releases. This is closer to being a "done deal" than ANY new format has been since the introduction of the stereo LP. Does it mean we all need to move to DSD workstations? No more than we needed to move away from analog tape when the CD first came out.
Old 3rd January 2003
  #38
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant
.

A puerile personal insult, followed by a distinct lack of on-topic follow-up information. A bit bored and uninformed, are we?
Geetar,

.
Eric,

You speak about DSD and SACD as if you had spent any time with it. I have been running a Sony 9000ES SACD player through a Meridian pre/Bryston power amp into ATC 20SLs and through ATC 100s (internal triamp) for some months now. Where are your experiential credentials in this ? Oh, sorry, I forgot, one or two sessions away from home on gear and in rooms you were less than intimately familiar with.

But of course, that's OK, 'cos you've read Lip****z and Vanderkooy. You _know_ SACD must be bad.

This may be my first post on Gearsluts, but I took you to task on another forum for your essentially leaden critique of the format. I am bored, yes.

Of you and your endless twittering.
Old 3rd January 2003
  #39
Lives for gear
 
atticus's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Thanks for clarifying, Bob. Sony does stand to make more money off of SACD's then DVD-A though, right?
Old 4th January 2003
  #40
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by atticus
...Sony does stand to make more money off of SACD's then DVD-A though, right?
As I said, I seriously doubt that this is the case. In addition my understanding is that the royalties on SACD are lower than those for DVD-A.
Old 4th January 2003
  #42
Lives for gear
 
Steve Smith's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by hollywood_steve
[B
I guess that's the point........DSD isn't for folks who have become addicted to moving snare beats and autotuning every syllable. Its a replacement for analog recorders that are simply too expensive to manufacture profitably any more. Those of us who record complete musical performances will never miss the "lack" of editing features. We are being offered the first audibly acceptable replacement for analog recorders and at a price of less than half of the last 2" machines.

Perspective is everything. The folks who can't finish a recording without feeling compelled to line up every note to the click track already have their utlimate toy (PT). DSD is for the rest of us.

steve
[email protected]
steve
[email protected] [/B]
I agree that that is most likely the point. DSD has not, in my admittedly limited knowlege really seem to be pointed at pop recording ( I am not raising my nose here, I use PT every day, and I do lots of records with massive editing, both creative and surgical). But there are alot og folks out there who just want to record "live" players ala tape.. and DSD looks like the answer thus far.
Old 4th January 2003
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
posted by Geetar:
Eric,

You speak about DSD and SACD as if you had spent any time with it. I have been running a Sony 9000ES SACD player through a Meridian pre/Bryston power amp into ATC 20SLs and through ATC 100s (internal triamp) for some months now. Where are your experiential credentials in this ?
Geetar,

The listening tests I conducted were on a similiarly pricey system. Maybe even pricier. In an acoustically treated and sealed room.

Dude, you spent a truckload of $$$ on your system, so just enjoy it, and ignore the objective engineering-based discussion of the format if it upsets you so much.

DSD is a 1-bit PCM conversion system. DSD is PCM. That is a fact, and there is no wishing it away.

You cannot dither a 1-bit signal. You need at least 2 LSB (Least Significant Bits) of TPDF (Triangular Probability Density Function) white noise to effectively dither (create a noise floor for...) an audio signal for digital conversion. Plus one more bit for the audio. So anything less than a 3-bit signal is undithered = CLIPPING.

A 1-bit signal is in a constant state of clipping, because it is not dithered.

Now, Ed Meitner claims that he has designed the DSD delta-sigma modulation convertor so that it filters the clipping noise up and out of the range of audible hearing. But that kinda kills Sony's claim that DSD doesn't require the "brickwall filter" (a misnomer) that PCM requires (and since DSD is PCM, that's a myth on top of a myth, isn't it??).

Now, Ed Meitner is a pretty smart guy. I've read his US Patent Office filings for his filters and convertors, and given the limitations inherent in 1-bit convertors, I'll admit he did an admirable job of covering for those limitations.

But let's not get TOO blinded by the Sony PR machine here.

You may "like" the sound of DSD, and that's fine! But since we are (??) engineers (??), let's at least try to be objective about what exactly it is we are hearing.

And while we are at it, let's try not to fool ourselves as to the motivations of creating this SACD format in the first place. DVD-A got out ahead of Sony. SACD is their attempt to play catch-up. Or is it Ketchup? YMMV.

At any rate, Geetar, hopefully sometime in this millenium or the next, you'll stop making me the issue, and actually contribute to the engineering-based issue at hand in SOME productive way, sans childish personal insults.
Old 4th January 2003
  #44
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Curve...

Good grief. Talk about missing the point. I was responding in the first instance to your assertion that you could produce an analog of the SACD sound by running post-conversion Red Book material through an Aphex. However......

You "grasshopper" seemingly at random between defending a subjective approach...your assertion that you can make perfectly good music using a Protools system, just use your ears dude ....and an objective, mathematically pure, ABX-type attempt to hold the world of ear-driven audio to ransom at quantitative gunpoint.

It would, perhaps, surprise you to know that I agree with a lot of what you've written on the various fora we both frequent. Just not this one. Your vehemence and pedagogic style (and your absolute certainty, which I find most irritating) is in danger of convincing those without the desire or ability to immerse themselves in the technical detail of the format to turn a deaf ear to it. The irony of this may be lost on you.

By the way I'm not merely the possessor of several decent Hi-Fis masquerading as monitoring systems. I've been recording since the mid 1970s as a bassist, guitarist and occasional (God help the rest of the world) vocalist. I started on Revox A77s ,through AHB Mini-8s and Tascam 4-tracks, all the way to Adats and Logic, Protools 001 and finally Tascam 2424s.That's just in my home studio. As you may be aware, my current set-up is multi-bit, writ large. I like it. Rather a lot, actually. And I know what it sounds like.

I've heard the transition from one paradigm to another and like everyone else, I've done my best to keep the musical sense of whatever I happen to be working on intact . So, I believe, do you. But unlike yours, my experience of SACD suggests that, as a delivery system, it has something to offer over and above Red Book. This suggests, in turn, that it may (I repeat MAY) have something to offer as a tracking format.

I will be trying both Pyramix and Genex systems in the coming six months and I'll be doing so with an open mind and open ears. My main reservations in a general sense are centred around the fact that DSD lacks, currently, a medium for generating rough mixes for clients and on completion, protocols for delivery to mastering houses. For my own purposes, I have a Nagra 4-s. That's right, an analog tape machine.

I'd like to think your hostility to it doesn't influence those who may be more easily swayed by the appearence of a substantial understanding of the whole picture. After all, you can make a perfectly good album on Protools, can't you and yet we all know that Protools sounds terrible, don't we?


Geetar.
Old 4th January 2003
  #45
VIP
 
mwagener's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
By now I have listened to a bunch of recordings on SACD and the CD equivalents. There is something about the SACD versions that FEELS better than the PCM versions (as stated before). I don't know what it is, and I don't know any details about the technical side of it, it just feels better, it gives me a closer connection to the music. It triggers a positive reaction when I listen to it, so, IMHO whatever they did, they did something right and I think it's worth investigating. It may very well be 1 bit PCM, but it still feels better. Maybe it IS the clipping, and we have to come up with a PCM clipping system, dunno. Interesting topic.
Old 4th January 2003
  #46
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant
Matt,

OK.

Uhh...do you care to elaborate??

I'm ALL ears.

I'm just DYING to see an audio engineer tell lil' ol' me, a stoopid composer, how 1-bit conversion is "Super Audio."

Oh, and the "Use yor ears" shtick won't cut it here. I used my ears. SACD sounds muffled to my ears compared to Redbook. Y'all gotta do better than that.

C'mon, boys, impress me.
Eric / Curve Dominant --

Don't put yourself down!

By your own posts, it is clear that you are not simply a "stoopid composer," and probably know more than you even realize!

Personally, I have learned an awful lot in these forums, and I'm sure that you will as well. That you are here to learn is admirable, and as you can see just from this one thread, there are many experienced engineers from whom you can learn quite a bit.

Rather than go into an elaborate discussion of DSD vs. PCM, I would refer you to any number of fine articles that have been published on the subject over the past several years. You may want to search the websites of magazines such as MIX or Audio Media, or use a generic search engine such as www.google.com.

Briefly, while a 24 bit audio stream might seem 24 times better than a 1 bit audio stream if all else were equal, all else is not equal. Sample rates for 24 bit PCM audio max out in practice at 192 kHz, whereas the sample rate for 1 bit DSD audio is a whopping 2.8224 MHz!

There are other "under-the-hood" differences as well, and I would be the first to concede that the distinction between formats is misleading if you are not aware of them.

In practice (and your point is well taken -- I wouldn't be so bold as to suggest what you can or cannot hear), the fidelity of DSD has been widely embraced by a number of respected engineers and members of the public. Moreover, consumers tend to prefer SACD over DVD-A for a variety of reasons, when comparing high-resolution formats.

However, as others have pointed out, there are impediments to producing and marketing SACD (as well as DVD-A), and while higher-resolution audio is inevitable, the jury is still out on which formats will win the race.

Finally, you are not alone. I understand there are many composers who take an interest in audio only to feel a little overwhelmed at first. I applaud your effort, and assure you that if you stick with it, it will all begin to make sense.

Hope this is helpful, and all the best,

-MattiMattMatt
Old 4th January 2003
  #47
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by mwagener
Maybe it IS the clipping, and we have to come up with a PCM clipping system, dunno.
i know thats what i do with my mixes heh
Old 5th January 2003
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
posted by alphajerk:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mwagener
Maybe it IS the clipping, and we have to come up with a PCM clipping system, dunno.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


i know thats what i do with my mixes
Excellent point, Barrett.

Harmonic distortion, or "character," is an essential and naturally occurring element of music. Agreed?

As producers and engineers, we want to have control over where/when/how much "character" we introduce into our mixes. Agreed?

Once those decisions are made, we want the delivery platform to faithfully reproduce those decisions we've made. Agreed?

OK:

The problem I have with DSD is that "character" is built-in to the delivery platform. I cannot control or remove the third-order harmonic distortion that the 1-bit delta/sigma modulation of DSD introduces into my music.

DSD "colors" the audio across the entire mix. I don't want that. I want my mix "colored" where I colored it, and clean where I want it clean. DVD-A gives me that. SACD does not.

I'm a rock & roller, folks. I know how to distort audio. But when my beautiful little brown angel Oshia whispers a sexy passage in mid-breakdown...I will shoot the ****er that introduces any distortion into that audio signal. I want that vocal track to sound like she's in your bed, cuddled against you, whispering that stuff into your ear. I don't need Sony's built-in "character" to do that for me. I take painstaking measures to record my audio so it sounds the way I want it. **** if I want Sony "coloring" it for me.

It is no surprise to me that all the acclaim I've seen for SACD has been in the realm of: "My old Stones records! My old Led Zep records!" Yeah, actually I'd probably prefer to hear those ****ty old "Digitally Remastered" albums on SACD myself. SACD is GREAT for that crap: vinyl simulation.

But, before y'all continue this cluster****, look up at the title of this thread:
DSD and the future business of small to medium studios
...and ask yourselves, "What the **** does DSD have to do with lil' ol' me??"

If you want distortion in your audio, then go ahead and distort it to your heart's content on the way into (fill in your recording platform of choice here_______). But at least you will have control over that, and you'll want your delivery platform to faithfully reproduce that audio, right?

OR:

You can go ahead and make ****ty sounding recordings, knowing that SACD will "fix it in the mix."

It's nice to know we live in a free world where we have these choices, isn't it?
Old 5th January 2003
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
posted by mattimattmatt:
higher-resolution audio is inevitable
Matt,

Please explain what you mean by "higher-resolution audio."

Or how the term "resolution" is in any way relevant to digital audio.

Thanks in advance!
Old 5th January 2003
  #50
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
CURVE DOMINANT:

Given that humans have existed on this planet for around a million years, and digital audio has only been around for a few decades, it is remarkable how fast it has evolved. In fact, it has gotten so good so fast, that it has elevated expectations beyond what is reasonable.

"Resolution," is a convenient metaphor to discuss broad concepts in digital audio (and other fields). By resolution, I mean the number of samples per second, and the amount of information stored on each sample. Samples are audio snapshots, recorded and spit back to create the illusion of audio flux just as a film projector creates the illusion of visual flux.

When I wrote that "higher-resolution audio is inevitable," I meant that in 5, 10, 100, 1000, etc. years, technological progress and consumer demand will propel standards beyond current practice.

As I take it from your post to alphajerk, you are unhappy with the fact that DSD is flawed (a situation BTW, exacerbated by limitations in current processor technology that should improve). However, given the enormous distance between sound in the "Real World" vs. all artificially reproduced sounds at this time, DSD aint bad.

Furthermore, I cannot help but wonder if your evaluation of DSD may be colored more than the format itself. For instance, as a "rock & roller," the deterioration of your own hearing may be the culprit. Your reaction may be of psychological rather than physiological origin. Playback circumstances may not have been ideal. Perhaps you read "Stereophile." Alternatively, you may be right -- perhaps you are the little boy who stands up and shouts "The Emperor has no clothes." But I don't think so -- I think the Emperor is wearing the best clothes he can find, which given a nascent human endeveour, are fairly impressive.

Best regards, etc. etc.

-MattiMattMatt
Old 5th January 2003
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
posted by MattiMattMatt:
CURVE DOMINANT:

Given that humans have existed on this planet for around a million years, and digital audio has only been around for a few decades, it is remarkable how fast it has evolved. In fact, it has gotten so good so fast, that it has elevated expectations beyond what is reasonable.
Oh gawd...I can tell already this is going to be rich.

Quote:
posted by MattiMattMatt:
By resolution, I mean the number of samples per second, and the amount of information stored on each sample. Samples are audio snapshots, recorded and spit back to create the illusion of audio flux just as a film projector creates the illusion of visual flux.
This is a flawed analogy which has no application to digital audio.

The sampling rate of a digital convertor determines the frequency that can be recorded. Increasing the number of samples per second increases the possible frequency recorded. It has nothing to do with "resolution" of audio. Similiarly, the bit depth used simply determines the SNR. Nothing to do with "resolution."

This concept of "resolution" is one of the most widely-abused myths in digital audio.

Quote:
When I wrote that "higher-resolution audio is inevitable," I meant that in 5, 10, 100, 1000, etc. years, technological progress and consumer demand will propel standards beyond current practice.
You mean beyond MP3 into something even MORE ****ty-sounding? I can't wait!

Quote:
As I take it from your post to alphajerk, you are unhappy with the fact that DSD is flawed (a situation BTW, exacerbated by limitations in current processor technology that should improve). However, given the enormous distance between sound in the "Real World" vs. all artificially reproduced sounds at this time, DSD aint bad.
A more half-hearted defence of the platform I couldn't have concieved myself.

Quote:
Furthermore, I cannot help but wonder if your evaluation of DSD may be colored more than the format itself. For instance, as a "rock & roller," the deterioration of your own hearing may be the culprit.
Uhhmm...that's about as contradictory as you could get, Matt. You're helping me more than you know. You'd think if my hearing was damaged, I wouldn't be able to discern any difference...?? Hello? But hey, at least you got me laughing now!

Quote:
Your reaction may be of psychological rather than physiological origin.
Thanks for the consultation, Doc, but I think you're due back at the Cracker Jack School of Theraputic Analysis.

Quote:
Playback circumstances may not have been ideal.
Playback conditions were scientific as all hell. The difference was clear. Redbook SOUNDED better.

Quote:
Perhaps you read "Stereophile."
Where did I read "Stereophile?"...and what does that have to do with...??

Quote:
Alternatively, you may be right -- perhaps you are the little boy who stands up and shouts "The Emperor has no clothes." But I don't think so -- I think the Emperor is wearing the best clothes he can find, which given a nascent human endeveour, are fairly impressive.
The Emperor...yeah, OK Doc. Time for your Lithium now it seems.
Old 5th January 2003
  #52
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
wait wait wait... dont drag me into this SACD/PCM discussion and thinking one is "flawed". i have no ****ing clue, i havent ever heard SACD so i cant comment on it. the ONE thing that bothers me is the lack of competition pushing out smaller outfits in regards to SACD manufacturing. also the fact that no PCM based digital system will reap ANY benefits of SACD unless running out to analog [or starting and staying in analog]... so we must all fully REDO our digital based studios to function within SACD/DSD, although no processing can be done on it [digital hardware effect units wont work im guessing either]


if i were to move to DSD/SACD production, i would move to analog... deal with every drawback of that type system and get a couple ARIA 2"/16tracks and a nice API board.

i just dont see moving towards SACD productions at any point in the near future until sony [or whoever] comes out with a DAW system in which i can do everything i can do now with my PCM based system.

10 years from know... who knows?
Old 6th January 2003
  #53
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years


CURVE D: Go back to my post above that begins "Don't put yourself down!" after your disingenuous humility, and PLEASE tell me that my sarcasm hasn't gone over your head!

Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant

This concept of "resolution" is one of the most widely-abused myths in digital audio.
Which is why I began my explanation with "'resolution' is a convenient metaphor...." Like most convenient metaphors, this one is no stranger to abuse. But hey, better to abuse a metaphor, than the ones you love (feel free to use this line in your next song).

Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant

A more half-hearted defence of the platform I couldn't have concieved myself.
I am not defending DSD -- I'm discussing it.

If I had to wager a guess, I would say that our exchange in this thread has more to do with LSD than DSD.

Thanks for the laugh,

MattiMattMatt
Old 6th January 2003
  #54
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
[i]Originally posted by MattiMattMatt[i]
I would say that our exchange in this thread has more to do with LSD than DSD.

MattiMattMatt
I think it is begining to look like Mixerman forum at PSW ...
heh

malice
Old 6th January 2003
  #55
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Yeah, and like the Mixerman-type debates elsewhere, if any of this daiper-and-comforter level load of old bollocks was aired on the mastering board Forum ( http://webbd.nls.net:8080 on threads like "DSD Discussions")they'd have eaten the porridge that passes for reasoning here for breakfast.

If you fancy your luck, go ahead and post your best on there. See you there, Curve.
Old 7th January 2003
  #56
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Geetar --

The link you gave isn't working. Do you have another address for the mastering board?

BTW, How do you like your ATCs? I have used the 20As in the past, and now have a pair of the 50As.

I've thought about getting the ATC sub at some point as well.

I heard that Sony was using ATCs for their travelling SACD demo (e.g. AES), but I didn't catch it.

regards,

-MattiMattMatt
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 38 views: 32949
Avatar for RightOnRome
RightOnRome 10th May 2019
replies: 55 views: 30717
Avatar for IM WHO YOU THINK
IM WHO YOU THINK 13th October 2020
replies: 140 views: 47121
Avatar for SuchyRNRStudio
SuchyRNRStudio 8th October 2014
replies: 1296 views: 178795
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump