[Arny Krueger]

Sony's new high end PCM-D1 portable digital recorder ($2k list, $1.8k
street)

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...Model?id=82662

features:

no mention of DSD or SACD.

Linear PCM coding.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
: Sony's new high end PCM-D1 portable digital recorder ($2k
list, $1.8k
: street)
:
:
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...Model?id=82662
:
: features:
:
: no mention of DSD or SACD.
:
: Linear PCM coding.
:
:

Mr. Krueger you really are the biggest ass I have ever come
across! Just for the sake of argument *WHY* would Sony make
a portable recorder that records in DSD format so that
99.99% of people cannot edit, burn to disc or play it on
their equipment?

Please retitle this thread as "Arny abandons reality!"

TT

[Clyde Slick]

On 13 Sep, 08:40, "TT" wrote:



Mr. Krueger you really are the biggest ass I have ever come
across!

Don't confuse the size of the ass with the frequency of excremental
expulsions

[Harry Lavo]

It is also old news. Sony has had such a PCM machine on the market for
almost two years now.

It hasn't sold much because it is vastly overpriced compared to the PCM
competition, and subsequently Korg has introduced a DSD machine that puts it
to shame.


"TT" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
: Sony's new high end PCM-D1 portable digital recorder ($2k
list, $1.8k
: street)
:
:
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...Model?id=82662
:
: features:
:
: no mention of DSD or SACD.
:
: Linear PCM coding.
:
:

Mr. Krueger you really are the biggest ass I have ever come
across! Just for the sake of argument *WHY* would Sony make
a portable recorder that records in DSD format so that
99.99% of people cannot edit, burn to disc or play it on
their equipment?

Please retitle this thread as "Arny abandons reality!"

TT

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

It is also old news. Sony has had such a PCM machine on the market for
almost two years now.

Good, so Sony smartened up two years ago and realized that DSD was a
solution looking for a problem.

It hasn't sold much because it is vastly overpriced compared to the PCM
competition,

More properly stated - it is overpriced compared to its competition, some of
which is DSD and some of which is also PCM.

subsequently Korg has introduced a DSD machine that puts it to shame.

Interestingly enough, the only way the Korg machine is going to be useful to
about 99% of all audio professionals is for them to take advantage of the
provided tools for converting its brain-dead DSD to industry-standard PCM.

[TT]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...
:
: "TT" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: . ..
: : Sony's new high end PCM-D1 portable digital recorder
($2k
: list, $1.8k
: : street)
: :
: :
:
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...Model?id=82662
: :
: : features:
: :
: : no mention of DSD or SACD.
: :
: : Linear PCM coding.
: :
: :
:
: Mr. Krueger you really are the biggest ass I have ever
come
: across! Just for the sake of argument *WHY* would Sony
make
: a portable recorder that records in DSD format so that
: 99.99% of people cannot edit, burn to disc or play it on
: their equipment?
:
: Please retitle this thread as "Arny abandons reality!"
:
: TT
:
: TT, I'm in favor of any high resolution alternative.

To CD that is and yes I 110% agree.

I would point out,
: however, that it seems to have been established that DSD
is one bit behind
: 24/192 in achievable resolution above the noise floor, 19
bits vs. 20.

In Arny talk - they are both better than perfect so it
really doesn't matter ;-)

: This, of course, says nothing about the sound, but both
are very good.

Only the engineering can let them down. i.e recording,
mixing, the idiot twiddling the knobs etc.

:
: Bob Morein
: (310) 237-6511
:
IMHO AK's header and premise is ridiculous all the same. I
didn't see Arny screaming that Sony abandoned CD when they
introduced a MP3 player!

Cheers TT

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message
...
:
IMHO

Oxymoron - TT has no humilty.

AK's header and premise is ridiculous all the same. I
didn't see Arny screaming that Sony abandoned CD when they
introduced a MP3 player!

Your ability to fail to notice that which is obvious is well known, TT.

There is no Sony DSD alternative to their portable PCM player.

Sony continues to sell CD players along with their MP3 players.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"TT" wrote in message
...
:
IMHO

Oxymoron - TT has no humilty.

You have insinuated I am moron before!


AK's header and premise is ridiculous all the same. I
didn't see Arny screaming that Sony abandoned CD when they
introduced a MP3 player!

Your ability to fail to notice that which is obvious is well known, TT.

I am blinded by your omniscience as always Arny ;-) BTW all of us have
noted your failure to see that SACD/DVD-A is superior to CD and that Annalog
LP still has a place in Hi-Fi.


There is no Sony DSD alternative to their portable PCM player.

I haven't said otherwise have I?

Sony continues to sell CD players along with their MP3 players.

I believe I even mentioned that. They also continue to sell LPCM players
(DVD-V) as well as SACD players.

I am obviously "blind" to the point you are trying to make here (shrug).

Regards TT

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"TT" wrote in message
...
:
IMHO

Oxymoron - TT has no humilty.

You have insinuated I am moron before!

Thanks TT for presenting additional evidence on behalf of my latest
assertion.

AK's header and premise is ridiculous all the same. I
didn't see Arny screaming that Sony abandoned CD when they
introduced a MP3 player!

Your ability to fail to notice that which is obvious is well known, TT.

I am blinded by your omniscience as always Arny ;-)

Only omnisicience as compared to morons.

BTW all of us have noted your failure to see that SACD/DVD-A is superior
to CD and that Annalog LP still has a place in Hi-Fi.

It's not a matter of failure, its a matter of perceiving that which is
obvious.

There is no Sony DSD alternative to their portable PCM recoder/player.

I haven't said otherwise have I?

By implication, probably.

Sony continues to sell CD players along with their MP3 players.

I believe I even mentioned that. They also continue to sell LPCM players
(DVD-V) as well as SACD players.

But while competitors were coming out with DSD-based professional recorders,
they stuck with PCM.

I am obviously "blind" to the point you are trying to make here (shrug).

TT, you're obviously blind to the fact that the LP has fallen into a tiny
niche and is irrelevant to just about all music lovers. Now you know we both
have turntables, so don't go on about that.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Let's stop beating arround the bush. *IF* Sony released a DSD recorer what
good is it to the general population? I haven't bothered to read up on any
other proffessional releases (if any).

Sony won't alloy SACDs to be burnt/played on PCs because they *will* get
copied. So once you have your DSD recording what do you do with it besides
burn it to LPCM so it can be played on and distributed to consumer gear and
PCs?

AFAIK any DSD recording can only be played back on a sililar machine and not
a SACD player. Correct?

Regards TT

[Harry Lavo]

"TT" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Let's stop beating arround the bush. *IF* Sony released a DSD recorer
what good is it to the general population? I haven't bothered to read up
on any other proffessional releases (if any).

Sony won't alloy SACDs to be burnt/played on PCs because they *will* get
copied. So once you have your DSD recording what do you do with it
besides burn it to LPCM so it can be played on and distributed to consumer
gear and PCs?

AFAIK any DSD recording can only be played back on a sililar machine and
not a SACD player. Correct?

Regards TT

With their player, Korg includes translation software that allows the DSD
archive to be output in almost any imaginable format, including files that
can be mastered by a DSD mastering house such as Airshow into SACD disks if
so desired. But for most people, the ability to burn to 88 or 96 or 192/24
DVD-A files will be the most practical use. Or even reducing to a 44.1/16
CD format. The point is, you get the utmost in recording quality and
archiving when recording in DSD....regardless of what you do with
thereafter. And it will never be NOT usuable...which is why it was
developed to begin with.

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Let's stop beating arround the bush. *IF* Sony released a DSD recorer
what good is it to the general population?

Since Sony has a very significant business serving audio professionals, this
is an irrelevant question.

Sony won't allow SACDs to be burnt/played on PCs because they *will* get
copied.

What Sony didn't get is that these days many if not most profesionals are
looking for a medium that can be burnt on a PC.

So once you have your DSD recording what do you do with it besides burn
it to LPCM so it can be played on and distributed to consumer gear and
PCs?

Presumably, a DSD recording can be processed on DSD production gear, and
professionally duplicated.

AFAIK any DSD recording can only be played back on a similar machine and
not a SACD player. Correct?

See the previous paragraph.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"TT" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Let's stop beating arround the bush. *IF* Sony released a DSD recorer
what good is it to the general population? I haven't bothered to read
up on any other proffessional releases (if any).

Sony won't alloy SACDs to be burnt/played on PCs because they *will* get
copied. So once you have your DSD recording what do you do with it
besides burn it to LPCM so it can be played on and distributed to
consumer gear and PCs?

AFAIK any DSD recording can only be played back on a sililar machine and
not a SACD player. Correct?

Regards TT

With their player, Korg includes translation software that allows the DSD
archive to be output in almost any imaginable format, including files
that can be mastered by a DSD mastering house such as Airshow into SACD
disks if so desired. But for most people, the ability to burn to 88 or
96 or 192/24 DVD-A files will be the most practical use. Or even
reducing to a 44.1/16 CD format. The point is, you get the utmost in
recording quality and archiving when recording in DSD....regardless of
what you do with thereafter. And it will never be NOT usuable...which is
why it was developed to begin with.


I feel the archive argument is specious. In comparison with 24/192, DSD
has no objective virtue. To wit:

1. The technical folks think they have shown that 24/192 has one bit more
resolution than DSD. Note that this statement is entirely within the
objective realm, and has nothing to do with perceived quality.

Yet another demonstration of the golden ear world's congenital inability to
grasp simple scientific findings. Technically speaking 24/192 is vasty
cleaner than DSD, yet we find few if any golden ears who report the same,
based on their subjective tests.

2. All user reports of DSD superiority compare to 16/44, CD type
encodings.

In fact there are few if any golden ear reports of any proper comparisons of
any audio media.

Personally, I think it does sound better. However, this has nothing to do
with higher level PCM formats, such as are typically used for recording.

Actually, so-called high resolution formats make up only a tiny fraction of
all ongoing recording efforts. The workhorse professional digital audio
recorder is the audio CD recorder. The workhorse consumer digital audio
recorder(s) records audio in compressed format (s).

3. In comparison with the above, the extent of comparisons of DSD with
24/192 is so small as to be anecodotal.

This statement is flawed logically. There being a small number of
comparisons has no necessary connection with whether the results are
anecdotal or not. Anecdotal refers to the style of the report (flagrantly
unscientific, for example) and not the number of reports.

Sure, we've had reports of highly excited recording engineers, and so
forth, but those people are notoriously inconstant, and their fluctuations
are uncompensated by quantities of such reports. A reported event at
Famous Recording Studios gushed praise for SACD, with their special
equipment, does not come close to the validation of SACD versus CD
provided by thousands of enthused audiophiles.

In fact, the audiophile world turned its back on the two new high resolution
formats, in terms of their actual behavior. The CD player remains the
standard audio player for the audiophile world, in terms of numbers and user
acceptance. The last effort made to popularize the so-called hi-rez formats
involved putting a CD recording on the same piece of media as the so-called
hi-rez recording.

One could conclude:

1. SACD is a good thing, because any format that pushes musical quality is
a good thing.

In fact there's no logical connection between format and music. You can
record any kind of music on any of the extant formats, and vice-versa.

2. High rate/depth PCM is likely to be superior.

One could conclude this were one ignorant enough of the relevant facts about
real-world musical performances and psychoacoustics. Interestingly enough,
the relevant facts are generally unknown to most audiophiles and they
allowed the hi-rez formats to languish anyway.

Sony chose not to implement it precisely because it does not have the
attributes of "proprietary" and "protectable" that fuel the money flow.


3. As well as good, SACD is also a bad thing. Sony's choice to make the
format creatively unavailable was an attempt at monopolistic hegemony over
the creators of music.

You got that right.

By denying them the tools to bypass the labels, Sony sought to interpose
themselves between the musicians and their income.

You got that right.

These are three words: quality, superfluous, and hegemony. The sum of
benefits is ambiguous.

Net benefit was a loss. Probably a loss to Sony and Philips, certainly a
loss to the world of audio. It attempted to divide the world of audio, and
it failed.

Perhaps there is a fourth word as well: music. Would the success of a
proprietary, monopolistic scheme have made music better?

Of course not.

Could a Flower of Evil beget Sweet Perfume?

Stranger things have happened, but it didn't happen this time.

[George M. Middius]

Robert said:

Brett[sic], Sound Devices makes the jewels these days

That company is no good for Bratzi -- they employ Jews.