I can guarantee that lots more processing and conversion occurred on The Trinity Sessions than occurs in the conversions you mention.
1 Like
Yes.
Another example of how the skill setting up the recording of the music - and knowledgeable tasteful editing/mixing/mastering - trumps the technology used.
We’re talking bleeding-edge SOTA sound stuff here with DSD, DXD and the best current high end analog. Does that mean that all of a sudden The Trinity Sessions is not worth listening to? Nope.
Think about say, Kind of Blue. I just got the latest 45 UHQR of it. Fab recording. Fab record. Dead silent like digital? Nope. Though frankly if you played it for most people and they couldn’t see the source, they would be stunned that the sound was coming off a vinyl record. But the tech at that time (ONLY in the way we’re attempting to compare it) - or at the time of the Trinity recordings - would be considered a complete joke comparatively by today’s standards. Yet we have these amazing sounding albums. How can that be?
2 Likes
Todd Garfimkle told me that nearly all his PCM and DSD (he made only few) are not mastered but released as recorded. Only his LP‘s are mastered by Bernie Grundman.
Hi @cookie , so nice to see you adding such good information here. I am chiming in only to add names of some recording engineers/label owners recording to and releasing in DSD256 in addition to the luminaries you mention:
Gonzalo Noqué - Eudora Records - releases in Pure DSD256
Tom Peeters - Cobra Records - releases in Pure DSD256
Robert Zoltán Hunka - Hunnia Records - releases in Pure DSD256
Brendon Heinst - TRPTK Records (recently made the switch to capture in DSD256 because he got better sound quality, but still masters everything in DXD)
Jonathan Stokes of Classic Sound Ltd who is making the live recordings of the London Symphony Orchestra for LSO Live
John Newton, Soundmirror - who has been making the live recordings of the National Symphony Orchestra for NSO Live
One might consider theirs to be niche labels, but they are making great recordings. All use NativeDSD for distribution (but NSO Live albums seem to appear then disappear for some reason).
2 Likes
Thank you! Excellent information. It’s great to have a list of those engineers working in DSD256!
Cookie
I’d be happy to hear about more recording engineers working in DSD256. These are the ones whose recordings I know. Then, we also have the mastering engineers transferring from analog tape, like Bob Witrak at HDTT, who are working in DSD256 with Merging Technology DAW and gear.
I had mentioned recording engineer Robert Zoltán Hunka of the Hungarian label Hunnia Records as a fan of recording and releasing in Pure DSD256. Here’s a lovely example of Hunnia’s results:
Available from NativeDSD here.
And here is a very recent release of some superb performances in an outstanding Pure DSD256 recording by Gonzalo Noqué at Eudora Records. Another “out of the park” release.
Available from NativeDSD here.
An interesting interview with Abbey Road”s main engineer.
Why/that he only uses digital transfers for half speed vinyl mastering although preferring analog
Why/that he doesn’t use DSD and doesn’t prefer DSD/PCM conversion processes to pure PCM
Why/that he thinks LP’s of digital sources sound better than the fully digital editions
And many interesting side stories (the most interesting insight, that seemingly every later Abbey Road half speed record is from a digitall transfer)
Most interesting point I didn’t know (if it’s a fact):
There’s no way yet to de-ess sibilance in a DSD tool. It either can’t be done or has to be done in DXD. That’s why he thinks, pure DSD based vinyl as Mofi does, is not the best idea in case of recorded singers.
I’d like to get @cookie ’s opinion on this.
Thank you, Tony.
To answer the question… yes, there are plenty of ways to “de-ess” a vocal or otherwise when mixing in DSD without going to PCM. We have several analog de-essers, combinations of various effects, eqs, noise gates and etc if needed. DSD in the Pyramix doesn’t have any plugins, but you can achieve the results mixing in analog.
The best bet is to record the vocal so that sibilance isn’t an issue. Also, if you lessen any compression that might be affecting the vocal, that can also lessen the sibilance. There are a lot of mixing tricks.
Hope that helps,
Cookie Marenco
Blue Coast Records and Music
4 Likes
Hello Jazznut, I watched the interview with Miles Showell of Abbey Road and found it fascinating. If you compare that with Bernie Grundman’s interviews and the interviews with the MoFi engineers… it really seems to point out the artistic differences mastering engineers have. Mastering gear choices are much like Van Gogh, Picasso and Monet choosing paints and brushes.
We used to do half-speed mastering from 1/2" tapes for Windham Hill. We never went to digital. I don’t know Miles, but if he feels he can achieve the results he wants taking a tape to 192Wav so that he can better manipulate using plugins for sibilance, then so be it. I wasn’t at the sessions, so I can’t say what he’s hearing, but I’ve never wanted to elminate sibiliance in mastering. PCM plugins are normal for most mastering engineer to use.
Those of us devoted to DSD have learned to work around the need for those plugins. Many DSD engineers convert to 192W or DXD for using plugins, speeding up the work cycle, and it’s what they’ve learned.
I haven’t heard a digital plug in that didn’t corrupt the sound in some way so I personally avoid them for Blue Coast Records. But, when working with outside clients, I have been asked and will use plugins.
Miles is working with a lot of pop music from early tape with plenty of hiss and age to deal with. I’m sure he’s doing a great job. DSD is not a popular medium to work in. It’s very difficult and time consuming.
There is no right or wrong in mastering. It’s all a choice.
Enjoy your music,
Cookie Marenco
Blue Coast Records and Music
4 Likes
Yes, he has some surprising principles…and he’s probably the only one insisting that half speed should be cut from digital.
And yes, that’s what I meant, he sees DSD itself not capable of e.g. de-easing, sees it necessary to do at times and sees DXD or analog conversion as suboptimal, which is why he chooses PCM only with de-easing in PCM tools.
It would all not be my favorite choice, but his way. I see this a bit more pragmatic and practical than artistic, but he certainly also wants the best result possible within his principles. This is maybe something different than wanting the best sound regardless of effort and principle…or different than making decisions to fit a sound to certain artists and albums.
So that’s why I observe that some engineers or label owners have principles ruling over a pure artistic or sound quality driven approach…but somehow I also see, we can call any decision artistic 
Thanks Cookie!
Yes, Jazznut, I think we agree. “Pragmatic” is a very good word to describe his (Miles as Abbey Road) choices… and in many cases, (including myself) we all balance ‘art’ with pragmatism. Especially with the Beatles albums that are highly protected and require many levels of approval from the Beatles and their successors.
Miles is probably under a lot more pressure to accommodate the mainstream listener and conform to practices that more industry folks understand. I can say that most industry folks aren’t aware of what we do with DSD (or why) we do it. Many think we’re crazy.
I very much like your use of the word “Pragmatic” and “Practical” in this situation because as a producer, I often have to make pragmatic and practical decisions in my work to meet deadlines and budgets. Commerce is a reality.
To offer another view… David Robinson (editor Positive Feedback) offers a very informative interview on the subject of mastering and DSD. I very much agree with him on the subject. Here it is…
Enjoy your music!
Cookie Mareco
4 Likes
Thanks Cookie, as long as everyone tries to get the best out of his practical choices we all are well served. Most don’t sell their choice as the best, but as the best matching their personal principles and goals anyway.
In case of choices like Miles made (which I understand from his point of view), I had wished of different ones, as when a major engineer of a big label decides to cut all analog recordings in half speed (not perfect for some anyway) and therefore in his logic from PCM conversions instead of from analog tape or maybe DSD, things could maybe have turned out better for those releases…but maybe not.
I really went through the video (thanks for the link!), which, although mainly about DSD as a tape protecting archival measure and the Mofi thing, also contained a lot of other interesting information around that and a great history lesson. All in all it was less about DSD mastering (as the title suggests) than about DSD recording.
I believe Robinson, he couldn’t hear a difference between DSD256 and the source…and I’m certainly sure, then I couldn’t either. Funny that he’s anyway still an analog nut (but what shall we do if the majority of music is not yet available on DSD). It’s convincing that his digital appreciation seems to have started with such DSD levels and wasn’t present generally.
Taking the claims seriously, that DSD very transparently records analog and that a D/A conversion is just a low pass filtering, I began to think differently about the analog mixing/mastering stage in DSD processing.
DSD will then record the analog mixed content as faithfully as it recorded the musicians before. Hardly any losses. The additional DA transformation inbetween is also more or less “just” low pass filtering as we read here and there. So if we take this for granted, it would eliminate doubts in the triple AD/DA/AD processing.
That analog mixing/mastering (with the right gear and independent of the DSD topic) is usually superior to digital mixing, has at least several examples on the market
So if DSD is so similar to analog vs. similar to PCM and all ADAD transformations are as transparent as proclaimed, staying analog for mixing/mastering (instead of PCM) makes sense to me in terms of keeping the signal in an analog-like domain vs. in a digital processed (but partly not analog-like) domain.
So far just the theory, listening would show how it turns out in reality, but getting aware how fundamentally different DSD is than PCM, makes staying in the analog domain for processing more comprehensible.
1 Like
Yes, this is a good path to work your way down to see what you can learn along the way.
Logically and technically DSD is closer to analog than to digital. In fact, many people have bristled when we refer to DSD as digital. In the same way, for example, that PWM is not digital, yet it is not analog.
Getting hung up on terminology has its drawbacks. We cannot effectively use terminology as building blocks for our understanding.
1 Like
Definitely! What counts is how it sounds, no matter if there’s a DSD step in vinyl production or a PCM step in DSD production.
What I wanted to say is just:
If those conversion or ADA…transformation processes from DSD are as transparent as claimed, they can’t be a big reason for compromising the mixing procedure, too…or if they are not, they are not transparent in the recording stage, too.
I’m so interested in these alternative mixing/mastering stages, because meaningful comparisons would tell a lot about the different influences of those DSD/PCM or ADA transformation characteristics in general. I wish I could listen what happens in each case when both is done on best possible level.
What I perceived of various interviews is, that many pro’s have a basic opinion or principle, even made a decision, but few have really compared with the intent to find out the best option. The most common agreement seems to be “it plays no big role if done right” (which again doesn’t fit to a very clear opinion of some, based on their practical experience).
Finally the way to use DSD with the least DA or PCM conversions is using it as archival format and making LP’s from it