Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
January 1, 2015 - 2:21pm
#1
Controversial DSD downloads or a welcome contribution?
Loudspeakers Amplification | Digital Sources Analog Sources Featured | Accessories Music |
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Retired Columns | Show Reports | Features Latest News Community | Resources Subscriptions |
I just bought their latest and that has been recorded straight to DSD AND to PCM, using separate recorders.
I do not see why their method is controversial. Most DSD downloads or SACD's has been converted in some way at some point.
this is the text about DSD on their website;
[quote]Our original idea was to only provide one to one copies of the original studio masters.
But we have had a number of requests to provide DSD downloads of our recordings.
We have been consulting various experts as well as conducting our own experiments on how to transfer our recordings to DSD.
What we finally arrived upon was that, in order to make full use of the sonic qualities of DSD, we would need to create new masters especially for the DSD medium.
After a full year of trial and error we finally found, what we believe, is the ultimate DSD conversion method. We transfer the PCM files via an analogue signal chain, using the best possible outboard gear to create a new DSD master file, and in so doing, embellish the unique qualities of DSD.
So just to clarify; Our DSD masters are not original studio masters.
We record in PCM, so if you want a native one to one copy of the original studio master, without any kind of conversion, choose the PCM download.
With one exception, Impromtu (Tony Overwater & Bert van den Brink), was recorded direct to PCM and direct to DSD with two seperate recorders.[/qoute]
But if you like the sound... if it sounds good it is good no...?
Came across an interesting response article:
www.ap-linux.com/articles/dsd-jewels-concealed-behind-the-scarlet-book/