Turtlerock Forum

Hi all,

I'm wondering what you good folk think are acceptable / good / great end-of-chain external mastering devices.....

For ITB I have Wavelab, but I see units like Ta@#$% CD-RW2000 going for reasonable $s and wonder about these options ...

i think a good end of chain mastering device is a......mastering engineer....although they are a bit softer then rack cases. and a lot more precious.

budum...tshhh.

Hi Ian,

After the obligatory mix buss compression and Eq, I go to a Korg mr 1000 DSD recorder.
It sounds pretty good and I prefer it to recording back into PT.
Other models include korg mr 2000( a rackmounted job) and a Ta@#$% dva 1000(?)
Richard Zatorski ( reallife) is selling one of thevTascam ones on eBay at the moment.

Cheers

Thanks NYMo - much appreciated - looks like I need to save a few more $s.....

I dont think there is much point going to a CD burner these days....DSD is the future !

Cheers

wow Nymo (and you need to add your full name to your signature)
DSD is the future! ha! havnt heard that said for 10 years... its been/ gone/ dead as fas as anyone i know would say
it does SOUND good.. but it just never happened

at GP the mix buss goes into an avalon 747 comp/ eq then apogee PSX100 converter
one output goes to a separate protools rig at 24/44.1 (not the multitrack machine) and another (dithered) to a Ta@#$% CD burner for quick reference copies (real time, no need to bounce out. i HATE bouncing)

gigpiglet wrote:.....at GP the mix buss goes into an avalon 747 comp/ eq then apogee PSX100 converter
one output goes to a separate protools rig at 24/44.1 (not the multitrack machine) and another (dithered) to a Ta@#$% CD burner for quick reference copies (real time, no need to bounce out. i HATE bouncing)

Thanks Gareth - that's pretty much what I had envisaged, just with a few different brand names.

So you mix buss out is analog -> 747 -> and then you're converting the final (analog) master back into PT ... for bouncing later?

When you say you use the Ta@#$% for quick reference copies are you implying that the sound is not "final" quality and something else needs to be done via the PT copy?

cheers

NYMo wrote:Hi Ian,

After the obligatory mix buss compression and Eq, I go to a Korg mr 1000 DSD recorder.
It sounds pretty good and I prefer it to recording back into PT.
Other models include korg mr 2000( a rackmounted job) and a Ta@#$% dva 1000(?)
Richard Zatorski ( reallife) is selling one of thevTascam ones on eBay at the moment.

Cheers

A few well respected recording engineers in the US are using the Korg 1000. They also say it sounds superior to the Ta@#$% DSD recorder because of the DSD file type used. The consensus is DSD is the ant's pants, AKA duck's nuts for recording but useless for processing because of the 1 bit rate.

DSD is also useless as a final product. Who can play it? If it's the final output after "mastering" it should be in it's final format. That's what mastering is isn't it? Putting it onto record, so you can make more records the same. Putting onto cd, so you can make other cds. Putting onto DSD so it can sit there in all it's one bit DSD glory that nobody other than highend audio nerds and audiofools can listen to?

I'd have thought the point of getting back into a computer instead of burning straight to disc is so you can top/tail silences, set track breaks, add cd-text if you want to etc...

dont get me wrong guys, im not saying DSD doesnt sound good. i think it sounds AMAZING (and have done a few live recordings on it, with 24/44 as a redundant recorder, than in my studio able to A/B track by track or the whole mix (by flipping to the second input on my console) and it truly is wonderful.
i just think the format (because it never got picked up) is useless.

now - back to the question. i use the CD burnber (44/16) as a reference/ take home/ listen in the car/ import to iTunes etc copy.
the 44/24 pro tools session i take to mastering. i NEVER bounce it out of tools.
its not a final product - its a product waiting to go to the mastering suite and be made final.
in the mean time, so i cant listen in other places than my studio, and so the artists can listen etc, i use the cd burner

the fact that the apogee has 2 outs (and can dither on one) just means i can run both off simultaneously and save myself time.

thanks guys - all good info

The Ta@#$% DVRA1000 also does CD etc format so I viewed DSD as a bonus - I assume the Korg does the same... Interesting that there would be a sonic difference in the Ta@#$% vs Korg due to file type - especially if it goes through an external convertor prior to burn ..... is a "0" really a "0"? is a "1" really a "1" .... my binary is better than your binary nah nahhh

But back to topic - the end of the mastering chain itself - the last step when the red book master disk is produced.... I can do it with Wavelab but would rather use a device.... and the device is ..... ?

If any format is DEAD ...it's cd .
And thanks for the heads up about the sig, gigpiglet...
( having been around here for a while..I am aware..it's just changing)

Kurt..we then transfer the audio via USB..you can even archive at 384 kHz if you like( or any other sample rate)..while we wait for the converters to catch up !

Cheers

CD is definitely not dead. People like it, we all have the shit required to play them. Nobody went for SACD, nobody went for Audio DVD, nobody went for DSD. All the flac/ogg/mp3 legal downloads I've seen are at 44100/16 bit, so they can be burnt to cd.

Transfer and store in whatever format you like, it will end up 16/44100 to the consumer.

NYMo wrote:If any format is DEAD ...it's cd .
And thanks for the heads up about the sig, gigpiglet...
( having been around here for a while..I am aware..it's just changing)

Kurt..we then transfer the audio via USB..you can even archive at 384 kHz if you like( or any other sample rate)..while we wait for the converters to catch up !

Cheers

DSD will outlast all other formats and is the best archival format. It is simply the raw "1-bit" Delta-Sigma output of the converter before applying a decimation filter that converts the signal to a PCM signal.

Lifted from wikipedia

DSD has not been broadly successful in the studio recording or the consumer markets, even though the SACD format has gained more traction than its direct competitor, DVD-Audio. The advent of very-high-resolution PCM media and tools e.g. DXD has led to a decrease in the uptake of DSD in the studio market. Also, consumer Blu-Ray Discs are considered to provide similar or superior audio quality to DSD-based SACDs[10].

I know wikipedia is hardly a reliable factual guide, but this, combined with your unequivocal statement below really does make me wonder. How many people here actually own DSD recorders and/or software?

Thirteen wrote:DSD will outlast all other formats and is the best archival format. It is simply the raw "1-bit" Delta-Sigma output of the converter before applying a decimation filter that converts the signal to a PCM signal.

thirteen (who also needs to put their full name in their signature per the forum rules) has a good point about archive..
yes DSD is a good archiving format - BUT whats the good of that if it can't/ doesnt get played

sydney opera house archives everything to DSD as far as i am aware
but can't play it back (cause the euphonix cant handle it)
so cool... they have a stack of hard drives.. whats your point? no one is listening to them.
and its music, man.
archive it till you're dead - id rather listen to it on MP3.
my job/ profession isnt sound archiving or museum work. its pop music/ selling records.
in my field - DSD is dead (or even never got born)

you may live in a different world - feel free to tell us all about it.

gigpiglet wrote:thirteen (who also needs to put their full name in their signature per the forum rules)

Not sure why you can't see my signature.

gigpiglet wrote:you may live in a different world - feel free to tell us all about it.

I bow to your experience. I may indeed live in a different world, one day I'll get the chance to work in a big studio or on a big tour and find out how the pro's do it.

DSD aint dead yet - it might be as a consumer format.
There are quite a few top mixers in the world who mix to Korg MR2000 - and playback D to A off these units in mastering.
If it IS agreed that it sounds amazing, compared to other digital formats - then why not mix to the highest quality?
Classical recordings, are done on DSD too.
If people are still using it, and swearing by it as a mixdown format - then its not dead - simple.
It will still be relevant in this context until someone comes up with a higher quality mixdown format.

It may be considered an esoteric format, but its super high quality makes it still a consideration for some - and its relevant to this topic " End of the chain mastering device - thoughts?"

Archiving is another issue/topic altogether.

Dead?
http://prorecordingworkshop.lefora.com/ ... /korg-dsd/

The Tasmanian wrote:Dead?
http://prorecordingworkshop.lefora.com/ ... /korg-dsd/

As the original question was about mastering, I could suggest that making the final cut at the highest resolution might just be important when a record company calls up months or years later and asks whether there is a HD master of a track available. Not that I would know anything about that.

Yes .....
I'm waiting for someone (dumb) to say - it all ends up as a MP3 anyway.... so whats the point in mixing to DSD?

Kurt wrote:Lifted from wikipedia

DSD has not been broadly successful in the studio recording or the consumer markets, even though the SACD format has gained more traction than its direct competitor, DVD-Audio. The advent of very-high-resolution PCM media and tools e.g. DXD has led to a decrease in the uptake of DSD in the studio market. Also, consumer Blu-Ray Discs are considered to provide similar or superior audio quality to DSD-based SACDs[10].

I know wikipedia is hardly a reliable factual guide, but this, combined with your unequivocal statement below really does make me wonder. How many people here actually own DSD recorders and/or software?

Thirteen wrote:DSD will outlast all other formats and is the best archival format. It is simply the raw "1-bit" Delta-Sigma output of the converter before applying a decimation filter that converts the signal to a PCM signal.

The reason for my statement is purely technical. I do not mean that the DSD format will be the last format standing due to it's popularity, what I mean is that it is a pure, easy to extract format. In 50 years AIFF and WAV may be as dead as Betamax and VHF, but a DSD file is a simple 1 bit stream that is less dependant on custom conversion protocols. Theoretically all a DSD file needs to convert it to audio is some lowpass filtering. It is a technically robust format, in the future a DSD file will be easy to play, unlike a potentially "lost" format like AIFF. Anyone remember SDII?

And isnt the korg is not just DSD but double the quality of DSD at 5.6Mhz ?

The Tasmanian wrote:And isnt the korg is not just DSD but double the quality of DSD at 5.6Mhz ?

It can record in several formats and rates including 5.6Mhz and WAV.

thirteen/ steve (and yes i can see your signature... not sure what was going on there) i think when you view in the reply screen all the signatures are gone. anyway.

i think ive been misinterpreted.
i wasn't having a go or saying your world wasnt real.
my point that its not relevant in MY world, but may well be in yours - please tell (as in educate the forum - and obviously myself) about where/ why/ when it is used/ relevant and why we should all be considering it.

all of my material is mastered by rick
i take rick the highest quality i can (he doesnt even want 96k)
and rick produces my masters
so DSD has no "place" in my world.
i see no point recording to it (apart from possibly archival reasons if my mastering engineer can't play it back. and the music i do doesnt really warrant being archived.

as i mentioned earlier, i have used it a bunch (in my live recording world) and A-B'd it
it sounds amazing.
the recording i did at angel place was for bon iver and the cinematic orchestra (probably 4 years ago?)
as far as im aware neither of them released anything from it.

get pyramix or some other program that can multitrack DSD and some sphynx or the like converters. itll blow your mind! but it won't/ hasn't made me any money or been asked for ever (the time i did it was for myself/ as an experiment/ audition)
but thats just my world.

please tell us about yours (for example - what was the request for an HD master of something. did it go on to be released as something?)

If for example a client is going to the expense of transferring album masters from tape, particularly masters of tracks that were multi platinum releases it is logical to transfer those tapes to a format that can most closely match the sound of those tapes. We do not know what premium consumer formats may be available in the future, and by the time we find out there may not be a second chance to spool up that tape and try again. Some clients have spent millions over the years making those masters, the songs are a part of Western musical culture and they need to be archived appropriately.

The dirty secret of many of the new re-releases of classic albums onto new vinyl is that many of them are made from CD masters.

A point about archiving. An archive is made for a specific purpose. It is not made to be listened to, it is made to preserve the program material for the future so that the data is not lost. As memory and bandwidth increases each year the likelihood of new premium HD music and cinema formats also increases and I don't want to be the one to have to break the news to an artist or record company that "we only have the track on a CD".

I've asked Jason Blackwell to chime in here - as he is a Opera House soundie.
If they are doing it there (and they aint fools in the digital department) - then it would be good to get his take on why they made that choice - and if it is now considered a mistake.

I'm 100% with Steve and Nymo here.
Its the utmost importance to have the highest quality masters we can muster - we can transfer when the quality gets improved. Until then these DSD korgs are the only affordable high quality format to mix to.
I really care about the quality of what I mixdown to, the A to D process is extremely important to me - and what is
presented for analog processing in mastering.

As far as archiving:
CDR's and DVD's are not anything like an archival format - not even (supposed) archival grade DVD's are, they were touted as this great safe medium and failed at an alarming rate. Its consumer garbage.
A cassette is a much safer storage format.
I backed up all of EMI's Australian content a few years ago - and begged them not to trust archival grade DVD's - to use LTO as a safe back-up (like gov and banks do)
Head office in the UK insisted - so I did it - and 1/3rd of them had failed within a couple of years.
Same must have happened in the UK - as they came back to me and asked to do it again to LTO.
Lucky for them I kept the hard drives which outlasted the DVD's

The thing with archiving digital media is that a maintenance plan has to be made so that the media is refreshed every 3-5 years - transferred to another drive and if appropriate transferred to a more current format of higher resolution.

In a similar vein, earlier this year I had a request to re-construct a live sequence and samples for an upcoming concert tour. The last time the sequence was used was at an arena show in the US in 1997. I had kept data backups of the show, as I have done for every concert that I have worked on since 1988 and I managed to find and repair 3 different samplers and sequencers along with a Magneto-optical drive, a Jazz and a Zip drive and got the whole thing re-constructed and loaded across to Protools.

This is what archiving is all about. Things that don't seem that important at the time can become very important to someone 15 years later. A demo of an unknown band can become something else entirely when 10 years later that band is playing stadiums. Sometimes a floppy disk in a box in a store room can become a very important piece of plastic once again. I have seen it time and time again. I have also heard "if only we had"... too many times when down the line someone wants to do a Blu-Ray or motion picture release of a track. And don't even get me started on record keeping. It's no fun 15 years later to find that someone has filled out the "Dolby" field on a tape box sticker with simply "yes".

There are also professional archiving services available such as TSM and 7 year retention - as mentioned, these tend to go on LTO or similar proprietary media ...... but I don't know if the audio world is ready to take on that sort of service..... cloud may make it more viable soon though .....

But on the original "end of chain mastering device" question .... I'd prefer to target a hardware device after the mastering tools / final AD convertor than to go back into a PC or HD recorder. So the Ta@#$% DV and the Korg are candidates as I doubt my pockets are deep enough for the more elite name brands.....