Good news for Genesis fans - bad news for DVD-Audio?

[LeeS]

As I read the links, it seems to me that Nick is going straight from analog to DSD for the SACD and then downconverting to PCM (24/96) to get the DVDAs. This is good news for the SACD.

[StyxCollector]

Originally Posted by LeeS

Thanks Styx for the links.

No prob. Definitely looks like SACD is the purest form. Although it will be interesting to hear DVD-A made from DSD.

[LarryDavenport]

Unless they put some kick *** visuals on a DVD-A I'd just as soon have an SACD hybrid.

[StyxCollector]

Originally Posted by LarryDavenport

Unless they put some kick *** visuals on a DVD-A I'd just as soon have an SACD hybrid.

As I said, the band AFAIK nixed that idea. So looks like you're buying the import SACD since it won't be released in the USA that way because Genesis is on Atlantic.

[LarryDavenport]

That's fine with me. At least there aren't region issues or with SACD.

[Michael St. Clair]

This is not always the case, in fact the new workstations stay in the DSD format entirely.

Do they stay in true DSD (1-bit), or this new 8-bit "DSD Wide" that some engineers are calling "PCM Narrow"?

Are there any major-label pop-rock recordings that were mixed in 24 or 48 track DSD, as would be needed for this Genesis release?

As I read the links, it seems to me that Nick is going straight from analog to DSD for the SACD and then downconverting to PCM (24/96) to get the DVDAs.

Nope. You are implying that this is mixed in DSD with no PCM and analog intermediaries, and that is absolutely not correct. He is going straight from the analog of the mixing console to DSD, but that desk is mixing PCM conversions from the original analog multitracks.

We've been through this before several times, both here and at the HTF.


Direct quotes from Nick Davis:

i think if you look around this board you will find more info as i have answered this question a few times.
also there is an interview in the wating room i copied the multitracks at 24bit 192khz. mixed down to dsd.

(interview) Yeah. And then you play it on to a 2" and into a Pro Tools system that is running at 24 Bit 192K and we record the multitrack into that and then I mix from that format and through the desk into 5.1.

i'm not using a digital console at all.
i'm using the farms' ssl 4000e desk and mixing on this and converting to digital as i go into the 'sonoma' dsd mastering computer.

i am currently mixing down to a 'sonoma' which is an 8 channel dsd system.

[Michael St. Clair]

Nope. Nick Davis has said all the DVD-A will have is basic graphics and maybe some lyrics.

Then there would be no reason for a DualDisc layer to differ from the DVD-A. High-res stereo, high-res surround, and lossy tracks for the DVD-V folks could certainly fit on a DVD-5 layer.

[LeeS]

Do they stay in true DSD (1-bit), or this new 8-bit "DSD Wide" that some engineers are calling "PCM Narrow"?

They stay in pure DSD.

Nope. You are implying that this is mixed in DSD with no PCM and analog intermediaries, and that is absolutely not correct. He is going straight from the analog of the mixing console to DSD, but that desk is mixing PCM conversions from the original analog multitracks.

In my opinion this creates problems. First you have a longer, more circuit filled recording chain. Second, you have extra conversions which also degrade the sound. Since he converted at 24/192k we may get some decent sound but in my studio experience these two things can create problems.

I'm looking forward to the disc though.

I believe it would have been better to take the analog masters direct into DSD.

[Michael St. Clair]

I believe it would have been better to take the analog masters direct into DSD.

These are new mixes, so to do that, they'd have to be mixed in DSD. As far as I can tell, not a single major-label pop/rock disc has been mixed in DSD.

I don't think it's fair to criticize this disc for not being mixed in DSD when that is absolutely not the norm.

[GoldenBoy]

Until they get DualDisc to use the DVD 9 instead of the lesser storage capacity of DVD 5, then, IMO, DualDisc is a dead duck. It's a good idea being implemented incorrectly from go. Reduced resolutions, less extras, and, even in some cases, abbreviated albums are just not a good plan, IMHO.

[Michael St. Clair]

Until they get DualDisc to use the DVD 9 instead of the lesser storage capacity of DVD 5, then, IMO, DualDisc is a dead duck. It's a good idea being implemented incorrectly from go. Reduced resolutions, less extras, and, even in some cases, abbreviated albums are just not a good plan, IMHO.

So you think the Fagen disc that many have praised here is a poor release?

[LeeS]

I don't think it's fair to criticize this disc for not being mixed in DSD when that is absolutely not the norm.

In my opinion, offering up good criticism when the recording chain is so bastardized is in keeping with this forum's emphasis on good recording, mastering, and cleaner transfers in general in pursuit of better sound.

I believe there are examples of big albums being mixed in DSD although it is difficult to provide these since the major labels almost always do not share details of the recording process in the liner notes. Look at the Alison Krauss Live disc. That was a superb DSD recording. She is quite popular but on Rounder. Sony has done several recordings in DSD from James Taylor to Joshua Bell. I have no doubt these examples will increase over time.

[GoldenBoy]

I can't comment on the Fagen release because I don't have it, but don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to imply that a DualDisc release couldn't be done well, but rather, they are, IMO, limiting their options and starting off in the wrong manner with DualDisc by letting it out before they could go DVD 9 instead of DVD 5. Like I said, it is a good idea being implemented incorrectly. Of course, that doesn't ultimately mean that the sales potential and future of the format will be hampered. I felt it was a bad idea for Sony to push Single-layer stereo only SACD's at the onset, but it hasn't worked out all bad for SACD. Perhaps the ultimate acceptance of the format was indeed hampered by this early debacle - who knows? All I know is, that SACD's didn't really start gaining momentum (if you can call it's anorexic market share momentum) until the hybrid multichannel releases made an appearance. It could be the same for DualDisc.

[Metralla]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoy

I felt it was a bad idea for Sony to push Single-layer stereo only SACD's at the onset, but it hasn't worked out all bad for SACD.

Is "push" the right word? In some respects, they had no option. Sonopress had the only hybrid plant in the world - Sony had a non-hybrid plant. Sony wanted to use their own plant for a number of reasons; one being they wanted to make the hybrid capacity available to other labels adopting the pilot program. Did you want them to wait until they built a hybrid plant before releasing any SACDs?

There is possibly an undercurrent here - Sony did need to test the waters. Had non-hybrids been more popular with the general public outside Japan they may have continued, or even expanded, production of non-hybrids. As it is today, the non-hybrid plant seems to be just making domestic SACDs.

Sony would have loved to have seen non-hybrids take off outside Japan. Cheaper to make, copy-protected, not saddled by length of side restrictions that the Redbook layer enforces, not as liable to read errors etc. What they really wanted was to reap all those royalties as the world switched from Redbook to SACD.

[LeeS]

Geoff,

I think you nailed it. Sony was held back for a time due to real business reasons on the production side. Thankfully there is a good bit of capacity and more discs now than I can accumulate!

[GoldenBoy]

I understand all of that, and to an extent it is true, but even from the beginning I realised that pushing a format that was not backward compatible with the hundreds of millions of cd players in the world was a bad idea. Sony should have realised that as well and started off by building a hybrid plant from the start, but they didn't and that is one reason why they were hampered in their own ability to release hybrids.

[World of Genesis]

Just get the catalog in 5.1.... That's all I care about. SACD preferred, but I'll take what I can get.

Dave

[Michael St. Clair]

In my opinion, offering up good criticism when the recording chain is so bastardized is in keeping with this forum's emphasis on good recording, mastering, and cleaner transfers in general in pursuit of better sound.

I have never rationalized the analog->digital->analog->digital approach used in producing these releases. I suspect leaving it in 24/192 all the way through the mixing process might be a better idea, for example (but I'm not going to say anything bad about the disc until I listen to it first). The surround of the DSotM SACD was mixed in 24/96 PCM and I have no complaints of the sound (and if I recall, virtually nobody here at SH criticized the sonics of the DSotM 5.1).

But you continually criticize them for not mixing it in 24-track DSD. Nobody else is doing that either, at least not in major-label pop/rock. I don't think it is fair to criticize one release for not mixing in DSD; if you must criticize, I suggest pointing your finger at the entire industry.

[StyxCollector]

I think this is veering off topic a bit ... this is going to be analog --> DSD. So it's good for us. It's not a "how DSD can be done" best thread, kids

[Dave D]

Originally Posted by StyxCollector

I think this is veering off topic a bit ... this is going to be analog --> DSD. So it's good for us. It's not a "how DSD can be done" best thread, kids

only problem is.....what the hell is the topic? The thread title itself is a powder keg!