I was reading a magazine recently (Home Theater or S&V, I don't
remember) wherein Pete Townshend was commenting on the 5.1-channel
SACD mix for "Tommy." He said that, during the mix, the label wasn't
sure which format they'd ultimately use, so they mixed from multitrack
analog to 24/96 PCM. Later, when they mastered for SACD, all the
channels had to be converted to DSD.

These multiple conversions kinda bug me, but how significant are they?
Also, I know that various levels of signal processing are applied
during mixing, such as EQ and compression, but do studios have
equipment to perform these functions in the DSD domain? In other
words, do they HAVE to use PCM-based gear for processing, even if the
final product will be in DSD?

My bottom-line question is, what are they REALLY doing with SACD? If a
disk is strictly two-channel and doesn't require a new mix (like the
Rolling Stones' ABCKO catalog), they can simply convert the analog
master straight to DSD, true?

Any comments would be appreciated, because I don't really know how
this works. Thanks.

// Gary

Long Rod Penetrator > wrote:
> I was reading a magazine recently (Home Theater or S&V, I don't
> remember) wherein Pete Townshend was commenting on the 5.1-channel
> SACD mix for "Tommy." He said that, during the mix, the label wasn't
> sure which format they'd ultimately use, so they mixed from multitrack
> analog to 24/96 PCM. Later, when they mastered for SACD, all the
> channels had to be converted to DSD.

> These multiple conversions kinda bug me, but how significant are they?
> Also, I know that various levels of signal processing are applied
> during mixing, such as EQ and compression, but do studios have
> equipment to perform these functions in the DSD domain? In other
> words, do they HAVE to use PCM-based gear for processing, even if the
> final product will be in DSD?

> My bottom-line question is, what are they REALLY doing with SACD? If a
> disk is strictly two-channel and doesn't require a new mix (like the
> Rolling Stones' ABCKO catalog), they can simply convert the analog
> master straight to DSD, true?

Actaully, some of the Stones stuff went through a PCM stage too, in order
to apply noise reduction.

I vaguely recall reading taht
equipment for doing SACD remixing and remastering totally in the
DSD domain is coming online soon, if not already, but I could be
misremembering.



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Long Rod Penetrator" > wrote in message
...
> I was reading a magazine recently (Home Theater or S&V, I don't
> remember) wherein Pete Townshend was commenting on the 5.1-channel
> SACD mix for "Tommy." He said that, during the mix, the label wasn't
> sure which format they'd ultimately use, so they mixed from multitrack
> analog to 24/96 PCM. Later, when they mastered for SACD, all the
> channels had to be converted to DSD.
>
> These multiple conversions kinda bug me, but how significant are they?
> Also, I know that various levels of signal processing are applied
> during mixing, such as EQ and compression, but do studios have
> equipment to perform these functions in the DSD domain? In other
> words, do they HAVE to use PCM-based gear for processing, even if the
> final product will be in DSD?
>
> My bottom-line question is, what are they REALLY doing with SACD? If a
> disk is strictly two-channel and doesn't require a new mix (like the
> Rolling Stones' ABCKO catalog), they can simply convert the analog
> master straight to DSD, true?
>
> Any comments would be appreciated, because I don't really know how
> this works. Thanks.

The smallest SACD processing workstations sold today are eight
channel...most are 16 or 24..and the eights can be linked. Mixing can take
place in the processors. Add-on modules can be added that also do eq and
compression, so presumably some have added them and more will in the future.

At this point, most SACD's are mixed in DSD...they used to be mixed in
analog and then sent to DSD. Most SACD's have eliminated
uber-compression...using either none or very lightly using analog tape or
24/192 pcm.

While it seems that it is possible to reformat any other media to go
onto an SACD I thought I'd ask Mike Sokol about this question
(Wednesday February 18, 2004) as well as how superior (if at all) the
SACD :sound" was compared to any of the DVD formats or any other
media for that matter. (To find out about Mike Sokol, "Mr.
Multichannel" just plug "Fits and Starts Productions" into Google and
read a few of the first dozen or so links or go to
www.fitsandstarts.com. Mike was one of the first Mix/Master beta
testers for Sony's original SACD mixdown processors.)

According to Mike, comparing only sound quality, SACD/DSD is far
superior to either of the DVD formats and the only other record
playback system that can compare even slightly is 2:1 (lossless
compression) Windows Media 9 recordings played back off of hard
drives in real time. The caveat Mike says is that the only way to
hear this difference in record/playback quality is to use only analog
sources right up to the final mastering stage onto DSD/SACD. Mike's
heard many many hours of material recorded and played back through
his three sets of monitors in SACD stereo (including using the new
Tannoy monitors with response extended out to about 50KHz) and it is
the vitality and "lifelike" sound capability of the sound that hits
the listener immediately in comparisons between DSD/SACD and other
mediums. Once any musical performance has been degraded substantially
by putting it through any of the lower quality digital "osterizers",
going to DSD/SACD loses all of it's relevance. I myself am waiting to
convert a number of 2 track high speed analog masters to DSD because
so far I've been very disappointed with the results on either DVD
format. Next up I'll be converting one of these master analog tapes
to the Windows Media 9 format with 2:1 compression and hoping this
will allow me to archive the music I've collected over my lifetime.
Mike on the other hand has a number of 48 track analog masters that
would sound that much better (with one less step of transfer) if they
could be mixed and mastered in DSD in one process down to SACD. Just
putting something out on SACD isn't helpful unless there haven't been
losses along the way and unfortunately that means no digital (PCM or
otherwise) recorders and no digital mixing consoles either. It seems
like SACD would be the ideal format for "Direct Live" recordings done
in one take through passive analog boards to DSD and then onto SACD.

The superhigh sample rate available in DSD has the same effective
quality potential as the 100K sample rate PCM sound I listened to 20
years ago without all the phase shift introduced by normal brick wall
filtering. 20 years ago that problem was solved by having microphones
and the rest of the transmission to the recorders limited to no more
than 80KHz response capability so the noise etc. coming through at
100KHz was down 70 db or more due to lack of signal. That way very
soft 6db/octave filtering could be added as a high frequency block
with very low phase shift below 44KHz. I've heard very short tests of
PCM recorders that operated at 250-300KHz sample speed and there was
no need for any upper range filtering when using audible sound as the
source. DSD seems to produce similar results now.

Of course recording in DSD will require special discipline that most
pop artists don't have or possibly 25 takes of each tune, but SACD
seems like it is finally shaken out as the most superior audio format
for stereo since the vinyl disc. So the point here isn't whether SACD
CAN use analog masters to produce recordings so close to the original
that it is nearly impossible to hear the difference. It is that using
all analog up to the DSD processors is the ONLY way to achieve sound
quality that good. Any music that has been mashed onto or through
anything digital (that being most of the music recorded for the past
18-20 years) won't be improved by being put onto SACDs and so there
may be many musical moments from the late 70s and early 80s that will
be rediscovered once SACD can show people how much better sounding
this material is than most of what came after it. Classical music may
be the first to demonstrate this because there are quite a few
multitrack masters of super quality out there already, and now they
can really shine on SACD. We can only hope.

Watchking

We don't get enough sand in our glass

Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> Actaully, some of the Stones stuff went through a PCM stage too, in order
> to apply noise reduction.

True, and in the interest of full disclosure, this is worth
mentioning. I read that Bob Ludwig, who mastered the ABKCO catalog for
SACD, said he used "very little" noise reduction, but he did use some.
Even then, he always tried to do it in the analog domain, so he only
used PCM when he had to.

Regarding my original post, I want to adjust my facts a bit. The
magazine was Home Theater, and Townshend said the eight-track tapes
for "Tommy" were transferred to 24/192 (not 24/96), then mixed to 5.1.
Presumably the mixing was done to 24/192 as well, but he didn't
actually say.

On the subject of classics from the catalog, I just read that the
monumental "Allman Brothers Band at Fillmore East" will be released on
multichannel SACD on May 11. In 1992, Tom Dowd remixed these
performances for the "Fillmore Concerts" boxed set (and most agree
that it was a disappointing mix), and he mentioned in the liner notes
that the multi-track tapes were transferred to digital, so the analogs
could be retired to a museum somewhere. I suspect that the SACD will
be mixed from those PCM digital transfers, so, once again, the
recording will go from analog to PCM to DSD to me.

// Gary

watch king > wrote:
> While it seems that it is possible to reformat any other media to go
> onto an SACD I thought I'd ask Mike Sokol about this question
> (Wednesday February 18, 2004) as well as how superior (if at all) the
> SACD :sound" was compared to any of the DVD formats or any other
> media for that matter. (To find out about Mike Sokol, "Mr.
> Multichannel" just plug "Fits and Starts Productions" into Google and
> read a few of the first dozen or so links or go to
> www.fitsandstarts.com. Mike was one of the first Mix/Master beta
> testers for Sony's original SACD mixdown processors.)

> According to Mike, comparing only sound quality, SACD/DSD is far
> superior to either of the DVD formats and the only other record
> playback system that can compare even slightly is 2:1 (lossless
> compression) Windows Media 9 recordings played back off of hard
> drives in real time. The caveat Mike says is that the only way to
> hear this difference in record/playback quality is to use only analog
> sources right up to the final mastering stage onto DSD/SACD.



Can you pojnt me to a page that describes the comparison in detail?


> for stereo since the vinyl disc. So the point here isn't whether SACD
> CAN use analog masters to produce recordings so close to the original
> that it is nearly impossible to hear the difference. It is that using
> all analog up to the DSD processors is the ONLY way to achieve sound
> quality that good.


Well, that's what one guy says. Seems premature to claim it as fact,
though.



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Long Rod Penetrator" > wrote in message
news:cnsZb.23791$Xp.102173@attbi_s54...
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > Actaully, some of the Stones stuff went through a PCM stage too, in
order
> > to apply noise reduction.
>
> True, and in the interest of full disclosure, this is worth
> mentioning. I read that Bob Ludwig, who mastered the ABKCO catalog for
> SACD, said he used "very little" noise reduction, but he did use some.
> Even then, he always tried to do it in the analog domain, so he only
> used PCM when he had to.
>
> Regarding my original post, I want to adjust my facts a bit. The
> magazine was Home Theater, and Townshend said the eight-track tapes
> for "Tommy" were transferred to 24/192 (not 24/96), then mixed to 5.1.
> Presumably the mixing was done to 24/192 as well, but he didn't
> actually say.
>
> On the subject of classics from the catalog, I just read that the
> monumental "Allman Brothers Band at Fillmore East" will be released on
> multichannel SACD on May 11. In 1992, Tom Dowd remixed these
> performances for the "Fillmore Concerts" boxed set (and most agree
> that it was a disappointing mix), and he mentioned in the liner notes
> that the multi-track tapes were transferred to digital, so the analogs
> could be retired to a museum somewhere. I suspect that the SACD will
> be mixed from those PCM digital transfers, so, once again, the
> recording will go from analog to PCM to DSD to me.
>
> // Gary
>

This is why Sony originally developed/started using SACD....so this didn't
have to happen to their analog tapes.

(Long Rod Penetrator) wrote in message >...
> I was reading a magazine recently (Home Theater or S&V, I don't
> remember) wherein Pete Townshend was commenting on the 5.1-channel
> SACD mix for "Tommy." He said that, during the mix, the label wasn't
> sure which format they'd ultimately use, so they mixed from multitrack
> analog to 24/96 PCM. Later, when they mastered for SACD, all the
> channels had to be converted to DSD.
>
> These multiple conversions kinda bug me, but how significant are they?
> Also, I know that various levels of signal processing are applied
> during mixing, such as EQ and compression, but do studios have
> equipment to perform these functions in the DSD domain? In other
> words, do they HAVE to use PCM-based gear for processing, even if the
> final product will be in DSD?
>
> My bottom-line question is, what are they REALLY doing with SACD? If a
> disk is strictly two-channel and doesn't require a new mix (like the
> Rolling Stones' ABCKO catalog), they can simply convert the analog
> master straight to DSD, true?
>
> Any comments would be appreciated, because I don't really know how
> this works. Thanks.
>
> // Gary

I don't know how most of the industry is doing it, but from my
experience with studios my guess would be that EQ and Compression is
done using analog equipment (outboard gear as channel inserts into an
analog console). For recording they send it to a Pro Tools systems
equipped with I beleive 96/128/192 KHz or digital sampling.

The other post says that most SACD work is done in dedicated
workstations this is something to consider.

Presumably, though, the conversion to DSD format would be done after
the mixing phase - and basically when you master the record (I was
told Sony is the only one that supplies SACD mastering gear, and at a
substantial cost). For the mixing, whether the surround mixing work
is being done in the digital domain or the analog world may be
difficult to tell, but there are solutions available in both to my
knowledge (I would guess that most of it is probably occuring as
digital audio in a format internal to the system being used...probably
stored as .wav files? Hope that's correct and I'm not sending you
down the wrong road).

To my knowledge, their are no DSD editing stations and it is done in analog
or PCM for edits, eq, etc. DSD does not allow for them in their domain

"Long Rod Penetrator" > wrote in message
...
> I was reading a magazine recently (Home Theater or S&V, I don't
> remember) wherein Pete Townshend was commenting on the 5.1-channel
> SACD mix for "Tommy." He said that, during the mix, the label wasn't
> sure which format they'd ultimately use, so they mixed from multitrack
> analog to 24/96 PCM. Later, when they mastered for SACD, all the
> channels had to be converted to DSD.
>
> These multiple conversions kinda bug me, but how significant are they?
> Also, I know that various levels of signal processing are applied
> during mixing, such as EQ and compression, but do studios have
> equipment to perform these functions in the DSD domain? In other
> words, do they HAVE to use PCM-based gear for processing, even if the
> final product will be in DSD?
>
> My bottom-line question is, what are they REALLY doing with SACD? If a
> disk is strictly two-channel and doesn't require a new mix (like the
> Rolling Stones' ABCKO catalog), they can simply convert the analog
> master straight to DSD, true?
>
> Any comments would be appreciated, because I don't really know how
> this works. Thanks.
>
> // Gary

"John Roberts" > wrote in message
news:LoPZb.370454$xy6.1927252@attbi_s02...
> To my knowledge, their are no DSD editing stations and it is done in
analog
> or PCM for edits, eq, etc. DSD does not allow for them in their domain

You may find some information of interest at the www.genexaudio.com site.
Genex makes an 8 channel and 48 channel standalone DSD recorder. Here is a
direct link to a small Genex forum thread from late last year that addresses
DSD editing solutions.

http://forum.genexaudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php3?t=37

Here is a link to the Sonic Studios DSD editing solution:

http://www.sonicstudio.com/products_DSD1.html

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

Merging Audio http://www.merging.com works all in DSD and provides
Mastering Solutions. You have two choices when working in DSD. You can
either switch back for editing, noise cancellations,signal processing,
etc to PCM 354 KHz so you do not get the out of band noise that can
become unmanageable after a few processes, or stay pure DSD. I have
worked on the system as well as the Protools with a Prism system all
in DSD. The differences are significant but when it switches between
PCM at such a sample rate you can not tell the difference. But
considering how large a 32bit 354KHz signal is in data DSD wide is the
preferred format. Not to mention not many systems can do 354Khz PCM.


"Pat Wilson" > wrote in message
news:IgOZb.370065$xy6.1926188@attbi_s02...
> (Long Rod Penetrator) wrote in message
>...
> > I was reading a magazine recently (Home Theater or S&V, I don't
> > remember) wherein Pete Townshend was commenting on the 5.1-channel
> > SACD mix for "Tommy." He said that, during the mix, the label
> > wasn't sure which format they'd ultimately use, so they mixed from
> > multitrack analog to 24/96 PCM. Later, when they mastered for
> > SACD, all the channels had to be converted to DSD.
> >
> > These multiple conversions kinda bug me, but how significant are
> > they? Also, I know that various levels of signal processing are
> > applied during mixing, such as EQ and compression, but do studios
> > have equipment to perform these functions in the DSD domain? In
> > other words, do they HAVE to use PCM-based gear for processing,
> > even if the final product will be in DSD?
> >
> > My bottom-line question is, what are they REALLY doing with SACD?
> > If a disk is strictly two-channel and doesn't require a new mix
> > (like the Rolling Stones' ABCKO catalog), they can simply convert
> > the analog master straight to DSD, true?
> >
> > Any comments would be appreciated, because I don't really know how
> > this works. Thanks.
> >
> > // Gary
>
> I don't know how most of the industry is doing it, but from my
> experience with studios my guess would be that EQ and Compression is
> done using analog equipment (outboard gear as channel inserts into
> an analog console). For recording they send it to a Pro Tools
> systems equipped with I beleive 96/128/192 KHz or digital sampling.
>
> The other post says that most SACD work is done in dedicated
> workstations this is something to consider.
>
> Presumably, though, the conversion to DSD format would be done after
> the mixing phase - and basically when you master the record (I was
> told Sony is the only one that supplies SACD mastering gear, and at
> a substantial cost). For the mixing, whether the surround mixing
> work is being done in the digital domain or the analog world may be
> difficult to tell, but there are solutions available in both to my
> knowledge (I would guess that most of it is probably occuring as
> digital audio in a format internal to the system being
> used...probably stored as .wav files? Hope that's correct and I'm
> not sending you down the wrong road).
>
>
>