On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:32:42 GMT, Michael
wrote:

Why is DVD-A biting the dust and not SACD?
Neither is healthy. It may be a function of the companies and
repertoire that was emphazied for each format.

SACD has a relatively rich classical repertoire from small
companies. DVD-A had more mainstream pop/rock from large companies.
The latter demands larger profits.

Kal

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote in message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote in message
...




So far there is no perfect solution for high end audio that I have
discovered.


Possible solutions for high end audio:

Reeducation camps
Medical treatments
Cold Turkey withdrawal


We're trying an alternative method - massive wallet extraction.


Good work if you can keep the offending *waste* for yourself! ;-)

However, looking at how DVD-A is biting the dust, it appears that most of
the wallets that were extracted belonged to record companies who paid for
producing the new issues and re-issues. I seem to recall that some
executives who promoted DVD-A at their companies were sorta reassigned...

Well, we do not intend to push DVDA or even SACD, but if anyone asks for it...


--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:32:42 GMT, Michael
wrote:


Why is DVD-A biting the dust and not SACD?

Neither is healthy. It may be a function of the companies and
repertoire that was emphazied for each format.

SACD has a relatively rich classical repertoire from small
companies. DVD-A had more mainstream pop/rock from large companies.
The latter demands larger profits.

Maybe people just do not like having to buy special machines to play stuff so
copy restricted.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote in message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote in message
...


Dr. Dolittle wrote:



Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:



Been looking at SACD tech, and rather ****ed off with the copy
protection crap.


Well, can you blame them?

Yes.
It eliminates rights that we supposedly already have concerning fair use,
making backups etc. I will never buy any audio disc that I cannot copy
onto the HDD of my PC.


Some people don't like to admit it, but 24/192 is a superset format, as
compared to SACD. IOW 24/192 is superior to SACD in terms of both
bandwidth and dynamic range.

Therefore, if you take one of the top audio interfaces around like a
LynxTWO, and digitize the analog outputs of a top-quality SACD player,
you should have a 24/192 recording that fully realizes the potential of
SACD or at least comes very, very close. If you did this with a SACD
test recording, and analyzed the results, you should find a very, very
good indication of the quality of the original SACD recording.

That's what I thought.
Which begs the question of why, if it is so easy, is the copy protection
there at all?


First off, I suspect that they thought that converters like those in the
LynxTWO wouldn't be so readily available, so soon, for such a relatively low
cost.

Secondly, I suspect they thought that even as good as converters like the
LynxTWO are, some would feel that the purity of the music would somehow be
compromised.

Thirdly, there has been a tendency to sort of turn a blind eye to the fact
that skilled professionals using standard tools can compromise the security
of just about anything. Something about futility, I think. ;-)

So the pirates keep pirating and the industry prefers to **** their legit
customers instead.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:19:39 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:32:42 GMT, Michael
wrote:


Why is DVD-A biting the dust and not SACD?

Neither is healthy. It may be a function of the companies and
repertoire that was emphazied for each format.

SACD has a relatively rich classical repertoire from small
companies. DVD-A had more mainstream pop/rock from large companies.
The latter demands larger profits.

Maybe people just do not like having to buy special machines to play stuff so
copy restricted.

Perhaps but, as I said, not everyone cares about that.

Kal

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:19:39 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
wrote:


Kalman Rubinson wrote:


On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:32:42 GMT, Michael
wrote:



Why is DVD-A biting the dust and not SACD?

Neither is healthy. It may be a function of the companies and
repertoire that was emphazied for each format.

SACD has a relatively rich classical repertoire from small
companies. DVD-A had more mainstream pop/rock from large companies.
The latter demands larger profits.

Maybe people just do not like having to buy special machines to play stuff so
copy restricted.


Perhaps but, as I said, not everyone cares about that.

I suspect that most do, esp the vast market that uses MP3

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

If you can't tell the difference, why
pay the money for SACD?

Surround sound? Better transfers to SACD format than to CD?

Arny Krueger wrote:


As far as the losses related to converting analog to digital, they
can be reduced to almost vanishing levels.

Almost is such an ambiguous term.

They are also completely inaudible.

But you say this as fact when it is most obviously an opinion.

Michael wrote:

Why is DVD-A biting the dust and not SACD?


Because DVD-A is PCM digital and only marginally better than standard CD
formatting. SACD is a completely different beast that is so much better
than PCM it isn't even funny.

Of course there are plenty of tin eared "experts" that cannot hear the
difference. And they would fight to their dying breath to prove that
because *they* can't hear a difference, there is no difference.

Arny Krueger wrote:

I suspect that Sony might have done a better job of marketing to the golden
ear segment of the market. Or, they have deeper pockets.

Yup, anything but the obvious.

"Dr. Dolittle"

Why is DVD-A biting the dust and not SACD?


Because DVD-A is PCM digital and only marginally better than standard CD
formatting. SACD is a completely different beast that is so much better
than PCM it isn't even funny.



** Can this man talk Hippopotamus ??

Of Couserous !




........... Phil

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax"
Phil Allison wrote:

** How smartarse.

You are bereft of even the tiniest clue.

The hi-fi audio charlatans & scammers will LOVE you.

Love me, hate me... I don't care as long as they pay me.



** Better get the dough up front.

If they chose to pay on "results", you are ****ed.




......... Phil

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:

Why is DVD-A biting the dust and not SACD?


Because DVD-A is PCM digital and only marginally better than standard CD
formatting. SACD is a completely different beast that is so much better
than PCM it isn't even funny.

Of course there are plenty of tin eared "experts" that cannot hear the
difference. And they would fight to their dying breath to prove that
because *they* can't hear a difference, there is no difference.

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:

Why is DVD-A biting the dust and not SACD?


Because DVD-A is PCM digital and only marginally better than standard CD
formatting. SACD is a completely different beast that is so much better
than PCM it isn't even funny.

But didn't those recordings all start out as PCM ?


Of course there are plenty of tin eared "experts" that cannot hear the
difference. And they would fight to their dying breath to prove that
because *they* can't hear a difference, there is no difference.

A difference aint necessarily to do with the data format.

geoff

Dr. Dolittle wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


As far as the losses related to converting analog to digital, they
can be reduced to almost vanishing levels.

Almost is such an ambiguous term.

They are also completely inaudible.

But you say this as fact when it is most obviously an opinion.

Just what we need around here; another gadfly with a fountain of one
line wisdom. Heavy sigh.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

Geoff@work wrote:

But didn't those recordings all start out as PCM ?

No.

Bob Cain wrote:

Just what we need around here; another gadfly with a fountain of one
line wisdom. Heavy sigh.


But isn't this your sig?

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

I suspect that Sony might have done a better job of marketing to the
golden ear segment of the market. Or, they have deeper pockets.

Yup, anything but the obvious.

The obvious is that SACD is like the emperor's new clothes, but I didn't
want to go there.

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:

Why is DVD-A biting the dust and not SACD?


Because DVD-A is PCM digital and only marginally better than standard CD
formatting. SACD is a completely different beast that is so much better
than PCM it isn't even funny.

If so, then why are its benefits so hard to hear in bias-controlled
listening tests.


Of course there are plenty of tin eared "experts" that cannot hear the
difference.

Actually, we have yet to see anybody show that they can *hear* the
difference.

And they would fight to their dying breath to prove that because *they*
can't hear a difference, there is no difference.

So, where are the results of DBTs showing this difference you claim is so
obvious?

"Geoff@work" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:

Why is DVD-A biting the dust and not SACD?


Because DVD-A is PCM digital and only marginally better than standard CD
formatting. SACD is a completely different beast that is so much better
than PCM it isn't even funny.

But didn't those recordings all start out as PCM ?

Yeah, I guess Dr. Dolittle wasn't around when Sony admitted to the AES that
all SACD recordings start out as a kind of PCM.

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Geoff@work wrote:

But didn't those recordings all start out as PCM ?

No.

Yes.

"On a more theoretically troubling note, elsewhere at the AES Convention,
Stanley P. Lip****z and John Vanderkooy of the University of Waterloo in
Ontario, Canada, presented a paper entitled "Why Professional 1-Bit Sigma
Delta Conversion is a Bad Idea." The authors claim to prove that when
properly dithered, single-stage, 1-bit sigma delta converters are in a state
of constant overload, making it inherently impossible to guarantee the
absence of distortion, limit cycles, instability, and noise modulation. In
their abstract, the authors conclude: "The audio industry is making a tragic
mistake if it adopts 1-bit sigma-delta conversions as an archival format to
replace multibit, linear PCM." Tragedians are encouraged to have plenty of
Kleenex on hand before downloading the paper, Preprint 5188 from the AES
website "

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:


As far as the losses related to converting analog to digital, they
can be reduced to almost vanishing levels.

Almost is such an ambiguous term.

They are also completely inaudible.

But you say this as fact when it is most obviously an opinion.

Show me proof that they are audible in a bias-controlled, level-matched,
time-synched listening test.

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 01:16:30 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
wrote:

Since DVDs can hold 10x the info of CDs, is music available in 24 bit
192kHz or
better sampling? Does anyone do 'Audio DVDs'?

Sure. From the original DADs (Classic and Chesky Records) through
DVD-A to DualDisc, there are many(!) audio-only DVD-based recordings.
There are even more on a related format, SACD.

More to the point, what uncompressed formats are DVD players required to
have in order to be called DVD players. Is there a high quality stereo
format that all DVD players must be able to play? Seems I recall something
about 48k sample rate.

I'm not looking here for what is frequently found, but what is absolutely
required in a DVD player.

Norm Strong

Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

Now I have to start looking at why someone might spend $15k on something a
little better.

Feed good audio to a pair of Klein & Hummels, and I think you will
understand, even if those are less than $15K/pair.

--
ha

"Arny Krueger" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..


"On a more theoretically troubling note, elsewhere at the AES
Convention, Stanley P. Lip****z and John Vanderkooy of the University
of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, presented a paper entitled "Why
Professional 1-Bit Sigma Delta Conversion is a Bad Idea." The authors
claim to prove that when properly dithered, single-stage, 1-bit sigma
delta converters are in a state of constant overload, making it
inherently impossible to guarantee the absence of distortion, limit
cycles, instability, and noise modulation. In their abstract, the
authors conclude: "The audio industry is making a tragic mistake if it
adopts 1-bit sigma-delta conversions as an archival format to replace
multibit, linear PCM." Tragedians are encouraged to have plenty of
Kleenex on hand before downloading the paper, Preprint 5188 from the
AES website "

Perfect, recognising and to make public these facts was crucial, but
only as first step. The next must be the presenting a new PCM technic,
using all advantages and possibilities of non sigma-delta and non
oversampling converting with outstanding sound as a result. As long as
the differences are not shocking enough, the cheaper sigma-delta
converter chps staying on the market. The key is the undistorted sound
as reality.

Some of us are already working on it )))
--
Johann Spischak

SDG, Spischak Digital GmbH
+49-911-965-7319
http://sdg-master.com

But didn't those recordings all start out as PCM ?
No.
Yes.

In other words, DSD recordings are really PCM? Since when?

"Arny Krueger" writes:

"Geoff@work" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:

Why is DVD-A biting the dust and not SACD?


Because DVD-A is PCM digital and only marginally better than standard CD
formatting. SACD is a completely different beast that is so much better
than PCM it isn't even funny.

But didn't those recordings all start out as PCM ?

Yeah, I guess Dr. Dolittle wasn't around when Sony admitted to the AES that
all SACD recordings start out as a kind of PCM.

While that may have been true several years ago, I believe Glen
Zelnicker (Z-Systems) now has a DAW that allows the signal to orginate
in and remain DSD throughout the mixing chain.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Johann Spischak wrote:

"Arny Krueger" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..


"On a more theoretically troubling note, elsewhere at the AES
Convention, Stanley P. Lip****z and John Vanderkooy of the University
of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, presented a paper entitled "Why
Professional 1-Bit Sigma Delta Conversion is a Bad Idea." The authors
claim to prove that when properly dithered, single-stage, 1-bit sigma
delta converters are in a state of constant overload, making it
inherently impossible to guarantee the absence of distortion, limit
cycles, instability, and noise modulation. In their abstract, the
authors conclude: "The audio industry is making a tragic mistake if it
adopts 1-bit sigma-delta conversions as an archival format to replace
multibit, linear PCM." Tragedians are encouraged to have plenty of
Kleenex on hand before downloading the paper, Preprint 5188 from the
AES website "


Perfect, recognising and to make public these facts was crucial, but
only as first step. The next must be the presenting a new PCM technic,
using all advantages and possibilities of non sigma-delta and non
oversampling converting with outstanding sound as a result. As long as
the differences are not shocking enough, the cheaper sigma-delta
converter chps staying on the market. The key is the undistorted sound
as reality.

Some of us are already working on it )))

So what advantage does this offer over, say, some .wav 32 bit floating point
sampled at 384 kHz?

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

hank alrich wrote:

Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:


Now I have to start looking at why someone might spend $15k on something a
little better.


Feed good audio to a pair of Klein & Hummels, and I think you will
understand, even if those are less than $15K/pair.

Well, we have some new types of speaker that really are revolutionary (to the
extent that I have not seen anything like them on the market). Doing the
frequency equalisation across the spectrum using onboard DSPs is part of what
I'm working on. They sound really good to me, although I cannot claim the Golden
Ears award.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Phil Allison wrote:

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax"

Phil Allison wrote:


** How smartarse.

You are bereft of even the tiniest clue.

The hi-fi audio charlatans & scammers will LOVE you.

Love me, hate me... I don't care as long as they pay me.




** Better get the dough up front.

If they chose to pay on "results", you are ****ed.

Let me put it this way...
We had one guy walk in, listen to some prototypes and immediately asked to be
put at the top of the list when they are sold. They were not even fully
equalised across the spectrum at the time, just hand tweaked on the bass/treble
knobs of the driving amp.

They *will* sell - I have no doubt about that at all. Everyone who hears them is
really impressed. Plus, they look amazing.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

I suspect that Sony might have done a better job of marketing to the
golden ear segment of the market. Or, they have deeper pockets.

Yup, anything but the obvious.

The obvious is that SACD is like the emperor's new clothes, but I didn't
want to go there.

Arny, you might want to look at Eelco Grimm's papers on DSD to PCM
conversion processes before you say that. There may be some advantages
to DSD streaming in that it makes it easier to build highly accurate
sigma-delta converters.

Plus, of course, you get surround channels, which I don't think is a
huge advantage but is still a significant one. I think that if SACD
or DVD-A ever sell in the marketplace, it's the surround channels that
will sell it, not any possibility of sound improvement.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

I suspect that Sony might have done a better job of marketing to the
golden ear segment of the market. Or, they have deeper pockets.

Yup, anything but the obvious.

The obvious is that SACD is like the emperor's new clothes, but I didn't
want to go there.

Arny, you might want to look at Eelco Grimm's papers on DSD to PCM
conversion processes before you say that.

I took a look at the guy's web site and its full of self-serving BS.

http://www.grimmaudio.com/whitepaper...%20recipes.pdf

Let's start with:

"All the finest theory cannot predict how a human listener will experience
music as reproduced by a particular circuit."

Yecch!

The guy obviously has no idea about what audio theory can predict starting
with Bell Labs in the late 1920s and early 1930s through Zwicker and Fastl
in the 1990s. Actually, he probabaly does know this stuff perfectly well,
but puts his pontification suit on when he wants to sell his schtick to
unsuspecting rubes.

There may be some advantages
to DSD streaming in that it makes it easier to build highly accurate
sigma-delta converters.

"Easier" is practically irrelevant if good-enough PCM converters already
exist, and sell for reasonable prices.

They do.

I think its about time for everybody to admit that digital audio is really
not that much of a problem any more, and we need to get back to studying
mics and speakers and room acoustics and all the stuff we need to learn
about recording and playback aside from recorders and players.

Plus, of course, you get surround channels, which I don't think is a
huge advantage but is still a significant one.

AC-3 with all its warts seems to continue to dominate the marketplace very
nicely.

I think that if SACD
or DVD-A ever sell in the marketplace, it's the surround channels that
will sell it, not any possibility of sound improvement.

Neither SACD nor DVD-A seems to have commanded enough market share to be
worth anybody big pursuing as a mainstream format. These boutinque formats
had their time in the sun, and now the sun seems to be setting on them.

Let's get back to the things we still can't yet do right, like mics and
speakers and room acoustics, eh?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
But didn't those recordings all start out as PCM ?
No.
Yes.

In other words, DSD recordings are really PCM? Since when?

Kinda-sorta.

Well, the Sony DSD Analog-to-Digital conversion process starts with a PCM
conversion.

This has been true all the time that SACD have been commercial, it seems.

First, Vandeerkooy and Lip****z proved mathematically at an AES meeting that
pure DSD won't make a good ADC.

Then, Sony admitted at a subsequent AES meeting that the first step in their
commercial DSD processing involved a highly-oversampled PCM converter. This
addressed the problems that V&L discovered.

Ironically, 24/192 DVD-A and even 24/96 is a superset format for SACD if
dynamic range over the full band that is recorded is considered.

That's one reason why SACD bigots want to pooh-pooh dynamic range - if it is
considered their hobby-horse format loses out to conventional PCM, big
time.

However in the real world, this is all about how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin. No practical relevance to sound quality as perceived by
humans. None at all.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" writes:

"Geoff@work" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:

Why is DVD-A biting the dust and not SACD?


Because DVD-A is PCM digital and only marginally better than standard
CD
formatting. SACD is a completely different beast that is so much better
than PCM it isn't even funny.

But didn't those recordings all start out as PCM ?

Yeah, I guess Dr. Dolittle wasn't around when Sony admitted to the AES
that
all SACD recordings start out as a kind of PCM.

While that may have been true several years ago, I believe Glen
Zelnicker (Z-Systems) now has a DAW that allows the signal to orginate
in and remain DSD throughout the mixing chain.

Gosh, what a waste of good brains!

Arny Krueger wrote:

The guy obviously has no idea about what audio theory can predict starting
with Bell Labs in the late 1920s and early 1930s through Zwicker and Fastl
in the 1990s. Actually, he probabaly does know this stuff perfectly well,
but puts his pontification suit on when he wants to sell his schtick to
unsuspecting rubes.

You might want to actually read his published papers. He understands the
math. Yes, he's interested in subjective evaluation as well, but I do not
see that as a bad thing at all as long as it's backed up.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Arny Krueger wrote:

First, Vandeerkooy and Lip****z proved mathematically at an AES meeting that
pure DSD won't make a good ADC.

Right. However their proof also applies equally well to the vast majority
of sigma-delta ADC systems out there that are in current used to produce PCM.

Then, Sony admitted at a subsequent AES meeting that the first step in their
commercial DSD processing involved a highly-oversampled PCM converter. This
addressed the problems that V&L discovered.

No, actually the front end was a sigma-delta system, but parts of the
editing system relied on storage as PCM. This is still the case with the
Sony editing system but it is not the case for the Mykerinos.

That's one reason why SACD bigots want to pooh-pooh dynamic range - if it is
considered their hobby-horse format loses out to conventional PCM, big
time.

At high frequencies, yes. Not at lower frequencies at all.

However in the real world, this is all about how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin. No practical relevance to sound quality as perceived by
humans. None at all.

I'm not going to say it is or not, because I have heard some SACD recordings
that sound excellent, and some PCM recordings that sound excellent, as well
as some of each that sounded terrible too. I don't think we have enough
actual listening experience to be able to poo-poo DSD quite yet.

DSD is very inconvenient and a pain in the neck to edit (which is why the
Sony system uses a PCM intermediate file). I'm not sure it has any real
advantages. But I'm not willing to say it doesn't have any without a lot
more actual experience in the field.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

The guy obviously has no idea about what audio theory can predict starting
with Bell Labs in the late 1920s and early 1930s through Zwicker and Fastl
in the 1990s. Actually, he probabaly does know this stuff perfectly well,
but puts his pontification suit on when he wants to sell his schtick to
unsuspecting rubes.

You might want to actually read his published papers.

a reasonable challenge:

http://www.grimmaudio.com/whitepapers.htm

(1) The AES papers are all convention papers - not peer-reviewed
(2) They are not surprisingly free of the kinds of posturing I took
exception to.

He understands the math.

Only one of the 3 AES papers on his web site has *any* math. One begs for
the math of stability estimation, but very conspicously lacks it. That's a
choice he gets to make, but he's not at all in the same league as Stan
Lip****z or John Vanderkooy, at least judging by his papers.

Yes, he's interested in subjective evaluation as well, but I do not
see that as a bad thing at all as long as it's backed up.

What I quoted from him has been disproved often enough, over long enough
period of time that it obviously lacks backing.

Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

Well, we have some new types of speaker that really are revolutionary
(to the extent that I have not seen anything like them on the market).
Doing the frequency equalisation across the spectrum using onboard DSPs
is part of what I'm working on.

Who's "we"?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote:



Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

Well, we have some new types of speaker that really are revolutionary
(to the extent that I have not seen anything like them on the market).
Doing the frequency equalisation across the spectrum using onboard
DSPs is part of what I'm working on.


Who's "we"?

'We' - well, that's a rather interesting question.
Does the name 'Paul Dobson' ring any bells here?

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...


Yeah, I guess Dr. Dolittle wasn't around when Sony admitted to the AES
that
all SACD recordings start out as a kind of PCM.

While that may have been true several years ago, I believe Glen
Zelnicker (Z-Systems) now has a DAW that allows the signal to orginate
in and remain DSD throughout the mixing chain.

Which will apply to *some* new recordings.

Maybe there should be a new code a la ADD, like A-D-DSD, or D-D-DSD, or
D-DSD-DSD, etc.

geoff