Back to the basics , no matter what you want to listen to , you will only ever get what the engineer feels like giving you , their choice and preferences in tone and balance so best hope you like the same things .
Very true. One can only hope that years of experience and perhaps sound musical knowledge lead record producers and engineers to make the correct decisions regarding microphone placement, level settings etc.Nevertheless, at the end of the day, it's still going to be a matter of opinion. I personally believe that only classical music holds a "template" for balancing instrumental forces in a way that one would likewise experience at a concert. At a jazz or rock gig, the instruments could be placed anywhere on the stage.
I wonder how Paul feels about the power plant since it's actually adding more noise/ distortion to the power chain. Now that it's came to light that it's in most cases worse than what's coming out of your wall socket.
Yes, but how many percent of actual great music is captured or even possible to capture optimally by two microphones in front of the music playing while being audiophile quality? If you have some small high school band playing and don't want to spend the time to optimize with cross-fading, EQ or any other mastering of the music, of course you can easily make a recording in this way, but is it better than going through a mastering process? Did anything recorded in this way (two tracks in = two tracks out = no mixer used) ever get popular? What is the best example of a successful title of music made in this way? (in recent decades)
he was using it as an example, not a paradigm, he even mentions using 32 tracks, I'm sure it's mastered, given they literally have a board and the outboard gear for it, if they have multitrack DSD recorders they can just... play those back, and capture the 2track summed by the console, or even do it digitally and send it to mastering, tons of engineers will master DSD
Yes, sorry. This is a separate channel and we duplicate some of the content from the PS site when it pertains to Octave Records. There are many here who are not subscribers to PS Audio's TH-cam site. But, for those that subscribe to both there will be some overlap and for that I apologize.
If you talk of samples at DSD, you took the wrong off-ramp, because it is a continous bitstream. Unfortunately at PCM and DSD, the used unit is MHz. Hz is may be known many people, but in fact, it is incorrect and has different meanings in DSD and PCM. In PCM is means MSpS (Mega Samples per Second). In DSD it means MBd (Megabaud), where Baud means the symbol rate per second, where 1 bit is the symbol of DSD. Using the sample width you can calculate the MBd of PCM. Than you can compare DSD with PCM at MBd (Megabaud). The nearest resolution of PCM to DSD64 = 2,8225 MBd is 96 kHz/24 bit = 2,304 MBd. All higher PCM rates, in rate and/or width, have more MBd, and professional audio ADC's use 192kHz/32bit output of Delta-Sigma-Converters, processing at 40bit-Floating-Point is state-of-the-art and standard.
Paul, do you paint your FR30 speakers in-house? Also, do have a list of available colors, or do you allow your customers to choose their own paints (presumably, via the color codes from auto manufacturers), thus allowing for any color under the sun, including metallic particles as many cars come with?
The most obvious reason, surely, for NOT recording live is to rectify playing or singing mistakes. I envy you that you can still eat grapefruit. I have a stent fitted which precludes that.
Mixing,, pan pots, equalizers, dynamic mods (compression, limiting, gating), and digital reverb are each more distortion than Home Depot cables. Further, all of those knobs require upstream decimation, so the recording is no longer DSD. If the engineer can't get a good sound in the room through two mics, that is incompetence. If the musicians can't play a complete piece or at least a movement from beginning to end with feeling, that, too, is incompetence. If there is no audience, there is a critical factor missing from the sound. I had to go make 750 live DSD recordings to prove this, becasue there are too few commercial examples. Recording studios are the wrong place to capture real music. All they are good for is composition/arranging tool and creating fantasies, soundtracks, and background music. No wonder nobody wants to pay for music anymore!
Love watching your vids Paul, have had your products since 1982-- But we are Resolute, in our use of only Analogue,,, admit digital has come an incredible distance since 1980, but Analog, still rules--- We challenge anyone to meet or beat the fidelity of our LP's (1955-1963), won't reveal which labels here-lol-- would drive the prices through the proverbial roof---Best Wishes always, we have spoken on the phone a few times-- marantz7 ( we use 845 tube amps from Europe (Not Jadis) (vintage tubes only-$$$) modified sota star taken to 2000 hp and a One off pre-map that belonged to my friend Victor G (of Fanfare fame--RIP Viictor)--+ slightly modded UK Audio Note speakers from Peter--- $400k++ sound for under $100k--keep the vids comming ,Best to you & your family in beautiful Boulder
A common marketing myth about DSD vs. PCM is that when blind listening tests were done comparing DSD to PCM, there was a consensus that PCM had a fatiguing quality and DSD had a more analog-like quality. This was proved to be total marketing BS. Recent well conducted blind tests show well recorded DSD and PCM recordings are indistinguishable.
we use analog 99.9999% , but some PCM we have heard, was very, very good--it blew all of us away in the room--- was bootleg's of Santana and Heart-- our jaws are still dropped-- been trying to get copies of those since 2002 -- can only use in the vehicles-- -lol, but still- hope the 4k B&wW defends itself well
Just labeling something "a myth" doesn't make it so and blind listening tests are always to be questioned. We do blind listening tests but we do it on properly resolving recordings and playback equipment. I'd be curious to see what kind of recordings and playback equipment were used in the blind tests you refer to. The difference between DSD and PCM is pretty stark and easy to hear.
It wasn’t a ‘marketing myth’ it was a peer reviewed AES study which I’ve read in which the authors found to be true PS Audio’s claim: DSD really does sound better than PCM!
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Paul, I understand that you are a salesman pushing your product but your claims about DSD are becoming more and more hyperbolic and misleading. DSD is NOT greatly superior to PCM. Quality recordings in both formats are very difficult to tell apart. The fact that blind tests are required to detect any perceived differences proves this point. The truth is that listening room acoustics and loudspeaker choice are far more important. The very best speaker is far from perfect and mangles the audio to a level orders of magnitude greater than any differences in the digital format used.
We are bombarded with DSD-vids....what is going on ?
DSD ia more easily copy-protected, so its money that drives firms like PS to pretend it is better than PCM
This is a reupload too.
This is a reupload too.
Back to the basics , no matter what you want to listen to , you will only ever get what the engineer feels like giving you , their choice and preferences in tone and balance so best hope you like the same things .
Very true. One can only hope that years of experience and perhaps sound musical knowledge lead record producers and engineers to make the correct decisions regarding microphone placement, level settings etc.Nevertheless, at the end of the day, it's still going to be a matter of opinion. I personally believe that only classical music holds a "template" for balancing instrumental forces in a way that one would likewise experience at a concert. At a jazz or rock gig, the instruments could be placed anywhere on the stage.
I wonder how Paul feels about the power plant since it's actually adding more noise/ distortion to the power chain.
Now that it's came to light that it's in most cases worse than what's coming out of your wall socket.
DSD 64: 2.8 MHz
DSD 128: 5.6 MHz
DSD 256: 11.2 MHz
DSD 512: 22.4 MHz
Yes, but how many percent of actual great music is captured or even possible to capture optimally by two microphones in front of the music playing while being audiophile quality? If you have some small high school band playing and don't want to spend the time to optimize with cross-fading, EQ or any other mastering of the music, of course you can easily make a recording in this way, but is it better than going through a mastering process? Did anything recorded in this way (two tracks in = two tracks out = no mixer used) ever get popular? What is the best example of a successful title of music made in this way? (in recent decades)
he was using it as an example, not a paradigm, he even mentions using 32 tracks, I'm sure it's mastered, given they literally have a board and the outboard gear for it, if they have multitrack DSD recorders they can just... play those back, and capture the 2track summed by the console, or even do it digitally and send it to mastering, tons of engineers will master DSD
well you've always got to add compression if you wanted to sound good
Confirmed. I already seen this video but it’s stated as a “new” upload. Not sure why the repeat video uploads.
Yes, sorry. This is a separate channel and we duplicate some of the content from the PS site when it pertains to Octave Records. There are many here who are not subscribers to PS Audio's TH-cam site. But, for those that subscribe to both there will be some overlap and for that I apologize.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio
Oh ok. Thanks for clearing that up. No wonder I was confused.
If you talk of samples at DSD, you took the wrong off-ramp, because it is a continous bitstream. Unfortunately at PCM and DSD, the used unit is MHz. Hz is may be known many people, but in fact, it is incorrect and has different meanings in DSD and PCM. In PCM is means MSpS (Mega Samples per Second). In DSD it means MBd (Megabaud), where Baud means the symbol rate per second, where 1 bit is the symbol of DSD. Using the sample width you can calculate the MBd of PCM. Than you can compare DSD with PCM at MBd (Megabaud). The nearest resolution of PCM to DSD64 = 2,8225 MBd is 96 kHz/24 bit = 2,304 MBd. All higher PCM rates, in rate and/or width, have more MBd, and professional audio ADC's use 192kHz/32bit output of Delta-Sigma-Converters, processing at 40bit-Floating-Point is state-of-the-art and standard.
Paul, do you paint your FR30 speakers in-house?
Also, do have a list of available colors, or do you allow your customers to choose their own paints (presumably, via the color codes from auto manufacturers), thus allowing for any color under the sun, including metallic particles as many cars come with?
Our speakers have 20 coats of hand rubbed lacquer and are done only at the factory. They are available only in white or black.
@@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285 Can I order one white speaker and one black speaker?
;-)
Instead of Sigma delta use a String resistor ladder network like in a r2r ladder dac. Wouldn't that be even better?
I will stay with my TH-cam music Premium service. 😀🤗👍 plus Apple Music 👍🤗
The most obvious reason, surely, for NOT recording live is to rectify playing or singing mistakes. I envy you that you can still eat grapefruit. I have a stent fitted which precludes that.
Mixing,, pan pots, equalizers, dynamic mods (compression, limiting, gating), and digital reverb are each more distortion than Home Depot cables. Further, all of those knobs require upstream decimation, so the recording is no longer DSD.
If the engineer can't get a good sound in the room through two mics, that is incompetence. If the musicians can't play a complete piece or at least a movement from beginning to end with feeling, that, too, is incompetence. If there is no audience, there is a critical factor missing from the sound. I had to go make 750 live DSD recordings to prove this, becasue there are too few commercial examples.
Recording studios are the wrong place to capture real music. All they are good for is composition/arranging tool and creating fantasies, soundtracks, and background music. No wonder nobody wants to pay for music anymore!
Love watching your vids Paul, have had your products since 1982-- But we are Resolute, in our use of only Analogue,,, admit digital has come an incredible distance since 1980, but Analog, still rules--- We challenge anyone to meet or beat the fidelity of our LP's (1955-1963), won't reveal which labels here-lol-- would drive the prices through the proverbial roof---Best Wishes always, we have spoken on the phone a few times-- marantz7 ( we use 845 tube amps from Europe (Not Jadis) (vintage tubes only-$$$) modified sota star taken to 2000 hp and a One off pre-map that belonged to my friend Victor G (of Fanfare fame--RIP Viictor)--+ slightly modded UK Audio Note speakers from Peter--- $400k++ sound for under $100k--keep the vids comming ,Best to you & your family in beautiful Boulder
Or keep it simple and play records and tapes.
stop saying it's perfect, there are losses at every stage
A common marketing myth about DSD vs. PCM is that when blind listening tests were done comparing DSD to PCM, there was a consensus that PCM had a fatiguing quality and DSD had a more analog-like quality. This was proved to be total marketing BS. Recent well conducted blind tests show well recorded DSD and PCM recordings are indistinguishable.
we use analog 99.9999% , but some PCM we have heard, was very, very good--it blew all of us away in the room--- was bootleg's of Santana and Heart-- our jaws are still dropped-- been trying to get copies of those since 2002 -- can only use in the vehicles-- -lol, but still- hope the 4k B&wW defends itself well
Just labeling something "a myth" doesn't make it so and blind listening tests are always to be questioned. We do blind listening tests but we do it on properly resolving recordings and playback equipment. I'd be curious to see what kind of recordings and playback equipment were used in the blind tests you refer to. The difference between DSD and PCM is pretty stark and easy to hear.
It wasn’t a ‘marketing myth’ it was a peer reviewed AES study which I’ve read in which the authors found to be true PS Audio’s claim: DSD really does sound better than PCM!
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Paul, I understand that you are a salesman pushing your product but your claims about DSD are becoming more and more hyperbolic and misleading. DSD is NOT greatly superior to PCM. Quality recordings in both formats are very difficult to tell apart. The fact that blind tests are required to detect any perceived differences proves this point. The truth is that listening room acoustics and loudspeaker choice are far more important. The very best speaker is far from perfect and mangles the audio to a level orders of magnitude greater than any differences in the digital format used.