“Our incredible engineering team has done the seemingly impossible and developed a conversion tool that reformats DSD to PCM without any loss. Zero. In case you’re not tracking, that means that we are now able to record at DSD quality and edit with the unlimited flexibility of digital.”
As a side note language-wise, “In case you’re not tracking” scans poorly.
“Pure DSD through the entire recording process”.
Assumedly that is with the exception of the PCM (DXD) editing part mentioned above. Unless we’re just talking capture, in which case “entire recording process” is a problematic way to refer to it. “The entire recording process” traditionally would include editing and mixing, even if we leave transfers, analog, digital and/or analog conversions and the mastering stage out of it.
That’s the top level stuff. I personally have issues with much of the rest of it, but that’s getting more into the realm of opinion.
Yeah you’re right…in times of the Mofi transparency discussion all are sensible that a given transparency also reflects the current truth and is no fantasy transparency or pure marketing
Thanks, Beef. I am a little lost in all this. Sorry. I have tried to be clear but probably not doing a good job.
The important ting from my perspective is that everything is captured from the microphones directly into DSD. And in the new studios, that is DSD256 fort all the projects we’re working on.
There are two ways to mix DSD. Convert to analog and mix on an analog mixer or convert to PCM (DXD 352.8) and mix in the box. Either method requires conversion as DSD cannot be mixed or altered.
After a lot of listening and back and forth trial and error, we have found that keeping it in the box—mixing in DXD—is sonically superior to converting to analog and back again.
I hear zero loss.
We are in the minority on this one - and that’s a place we usually find ourselves when we’re out on a limb.
Thanks Paul - yup understand all of that. Had I not known it, Cookie has outlined it here recently. I guess I’m arguing, in light of the MoFi Thing, that it may not be the best idea marketing-wise to use terms like “zero loss” when you really mean, “I can’t hear it”. Or to say “the entire recording process” when you mean simply “recording” or “capture”.
And funnily Cookie also says she’s in a minority to prefer going over analog mastering as Paul says he’s in a minority going over DXD mastering. After all I read so far, I personally think there are more going over DXD than analog.
Edit:
There might be a way, both are correct.
In my understanding of the matter, a majority uses DXD for mastering DSD, but only a few of them compare to alternatives. Of those who compare, it seems a majority prefers the analog way to master.
So in this case Cookie would be right to say, she’s in a minority to use analog DSD mastering and Paul would be right to say, he’s in the minority preferring the DXD way.
Yes, but in fact both is done with mixing being maybe the more essential part, correct?
I’m a little focused on mastering because I’m mostly on the “remastered’ releases train, where a remix is rarely done. But I agree when speaking of newly recorded stuff, it first needs to be mixed.
Paul and Cookie are generally referring to how DSD is used in “the recording process” (not mastering or remastering) with respect to mixing/editing. Either mixed in analog or “mixed/edited” in DXD in digital. So this “issue” - which format you choose to go to for this purpose - doesn’t get to the mastering stage yet and/or which format you choose to do that in - OR what the final output format is.
Ok,I see, but if DXD is the only interim step in Paul’s philosophy and analog the only interim step in Cookie’s philosophy between the DSD recording and the later final format, then I have no idea in what if not those two formats DXD and analog the mastering should happen (beside the mixing).
If you meant the mixing vs. mastering topic, I just read that she mentioned it combined a few times and otherwise spoke more often about mixing. I can’t recognize anything being extremely clear, but the differentiation wasn’t the topic anyway.
The goal was just getting aware of the process of DSD recording & production steps and the influences of the different steps, formats and sample rates for the sound quality. Also getting different opinions clear if present.
I just like to understand things to a degree and reasons for decisions. If decisions go here and there the one and the next day and reasons don’t immediately convince me, I need to go a little deeper and then not rarely contradictions or inaccuracies of stories or very different opinions of professionals on a topic (as we experienced here threefold to a degree even I didn’t expect) get to the surface that help me to get an overview as I now tend to have, on my level.
I know others are mostly much easier to please with whatever statements and sometimes it seems harder to make myself understandable (probably due to being no native English speaker, sometimes due to a ambitious political constellation of a topic and participants and their way to be clear in statements and opinions)
Average price for an album on vinyl is now EUR 30.
For which we are entitled to expect good quality music, with aforementioned engineering tools and methods that should not be a problem.
We should give the industry the possibility and freedom to arrive at that good quality utilizing the tools and methods of their choice. I am sure it’s always combination of technology and skill of the sound engineers that make the difference, not the technology alone.
Mofi gate taught us that even if a company adds a double sided 12” x 12” leaflet to the records, explaining a one step step all analog vinyl pressing from the analog master while there are multiple digital in between, it doesn’t make the quality of the record any better or worse, but tells us regardless what method has been used, prices over EUR 30 are ridiculous as you can not trust the information provided with the album anyway.
This is the Mofi has badly hurt this industry and it will take the industry a considerable amount of efforts to gain that trust back.
I do realize that Octave Music, MA Recordings and Blue Coast music and a few others are not Mofi and feel that they have been transparent all the time. So they are a positive exception. For the rest, I am not so sure. I see no reason to pay more than EUR 30 for records just because they have a gold rim stating BS.
Think your English is very good. Even though I personally am pleased easy it are people like you who inspire manufacturers to be more transparent. Therefore I do appreciate the questions you are asking on the forum.
Otherwise we wouldn’t have a discussion and what fun would that be?
If you want to hear two other of worlds best audio engineers “rant” about digital including DSD/DXD (after the other few of worlds best audio engineers did already somewhere else), listen to this video from about 1:18 to 1:26, also 1:59-2:01
Even if Bernie’s a bit in a flow, I definitely share (and often mentioned) what he says is the major thing that gets lost in any way of digital compared to analog:
top end quality and ambiance.
I would say they have been a bit more gracious with digital than this time, but the basic opinion of most pro‘s who not only produce digital releases seems to be quite the same.
For those who still think or just claim there usually are limiting measures taken, cutting audiophile vinyl reissues, listen from 2:16.
