Which DAW best for recording Hi Resolution audio (Like DSD128)

[BertKoor]

So in their case, the simple way is to use Tascam DA3000 or Korg MS2000 to do the recording.

Sure?? This here is a Korg MS-2000:



I'm not too sure it records straight to DSD-128 (which is a whole new topic btw, and discussed briefly not too long ago)


[edit: beaten by vurt]

The problem with audiophiles is they don't know when enough is enough (quality) although after reading the thread you linked to, most people there seemed to know what they were doing.
Example:

in theory the ripped files should sound identical to real time playback.

And the results seem to indicate as such.

[billcarroll]

Apart from making music, my friend and I are head-fi fans and he would like to record his old vinyls into digital format via a decent audio interface. And for my case, as I am hunting for a decent interface, why don't use it to record something else rather than instruments to support my 2nd hobby - is to record CDs and thru AD conversion to get higher resolution. If the hardware out there has such a good features/specs and what software to support hi-res recording? So that's the reason behind I raised this question.

Expert troll indeed. Well played. This thread should last years and spawn many arguments. I tip my hat to you cowby.

[vurt]

So in their case, the simple way is to use Tascam DA3000 or Korg MS2000 to do the recording.

Sure?? This here is a Korg MS-2000:



I'm not too sure it records straight to DSD-128 (which is a whole new topic btw, and discussed briefly not too long ago)


[edit: beaten by vurt]

mines blacker than that one.

[vurt]

keys are slightly yellower now too

[Psuper]

If you work with samples in Cubase projects set to 64 bit processing, you can't drag audio to the sampler track or control. This is an absolute workflow killer if you do any type of significant audio sample work inside Cubase.

I process the crap out of my audio, and use both the sampler track and control almost every project. It took me forever to figure out what was going on when I couldn't drag/drop sample work -- either virtually no one does this in Cubase, or they work in 32bit. I'm the first to 'discover' this as far as I can tell by my extensive searches, so I'm not expecting a fix.

So unfortunately I may have to look at another option that focuses on streamlined workflow while working with higher resolution samples and processing.

[WasteLand]

So in their case, the simple way is to use Tascam DA3000 or Korg MS2000 to do the recording.

Sure?? This here is a Korg MS-2000:



I'm not too sure it records straight to DSD-128 (which is a whole new topic btw, and discussed briefly not too long ago)


[edit: beaten by vurt]

The problem with audiophiles is they don't know when enough is enough (quality) although after reading the thread you linked to, most people there seemed to know what they were doing.
Example:

in theory the ripped files should sound identical to real time playback.

And the results seem to indicate as such.

it is great to see a KORG MS-2000 here. seems a forgotten synth. great synth (does not have one, my neighbour has one..)

but audiophiles and myths...
i have a high end installation! yes! i have!

a DAC of 7000 euro, or dollars, does it perform better than one of 100 euro, or even 20 euro??

384Khz is the rate of oversampling of one of the DAC's i use, does it sound better than my old pioneer PD-7700 (30 years old and still running smoothly, the only cd player, that plays every cd..).
yes, for certain productions, and no, because of taste. they sound different, not better. it depends who is listening. and sometimes i prefer the DAC of the PD-7700. yes in way, because it is more "analog" sounding. my main goal is neutral reproduction. that is why i mostly use the 384Khz oversampling DAC (which one, aha, i don't tell, class A converter! does that exist, yes! did i pay a half year in wages? no! for the price of a new vinyl record.. the DAC was second hand...).

for vinyl, that is basically nice THD, like a tube amplifier (and people love them, i prefer solid-state amplifiers. but that is matter of taste). and the RIAA conversion. (ever listened to a vinyl record, only the sound of the needle?? o yes, get into the groove, a vinyl record sounds better towards the outer edge.. that's why they invented 12"....).

o well, a simple DAC will do the job. but if your into cables 2x2 meters for 10.000 dollars? buy an expensive DAC. my cables were free, came with my first speakers... only the thickness matters... although the low OHMmmmmmmm, is sensitive for interference, but interference is everywhere.

but sample rate, nor bit rate will improve the recording. only the AD/DA converters, and in the end the DA/AD converter (and the op-amps, also bit of a myth, mostly an op-amp changes the sound slightly, more to your comfort, if you change them), will be of importance.

but there are DAC's of 25 euro or 50 euro, via aliexpress, that perform excellent.
when my DAC fails i will buy one of them. i haven't the link anymore to the website.. which compared them.

EDIT the old behringer DAC UCA202, had a burr brown DAC, sounded pretty good, the newest one less, they changed the chip...

[Psuper]

but sample rate, nor bit rate will improve the recording. only the AD/DA converters, and in the end the DA/AD converter (and the op-amps, also bit of a myth, mostly an op-amp changes the sound slightly, more to your comfort, if you change them), will be of importance.

This is the only reason I kept the Discrete 4. Antelope is too shady of a company going forward, so when it dies I'm off to the latest and greatest.

[teilo]

Apart from making music, my friend and I are head-fi fans and he would like to record his old vinyls into digital format via a decent audio interface. And for my case, as I am hunting for a decent interface, why don't use it to record something else rather than instruments to support my 2nd hobby - is to record CDs and thru AD conversion to get higher resolution. If the hardware out there has such a good features/specs and what software to support hi-res recording? So that's the reason behind I raised this question.

This explanation made me want to weep. So much wrong here…

[teilo]

Apart from making music, my friend and I are head-fi fans and he would like to record his old vinyls into digital format via a decent audio interface. And for my case, as I am hunting for a decent interface, why don't use it to record something else rather than instruments to support my 2nd hobby - is to record CDs and thru AD conversion to get higher resolution. If the hardware out there has such a good features/specs and what software to support hi-res recording? So that's the reason behind I raised this question.

I don't think recording vinyls or CDs to 384kHz will make them sound any better than say 24/96kHz, but I won't stop you from trying

Have a look at Reaper, too.

Yes, we know that it is not 100% better than the original but sure will give it a try

It's not even 1% better. It's actually worse. By doing a DAD conversion, you are destroying information and adding noise and distortion.

Presuming you are serious, and not a troll: You cannot possibly exceed the resolution and dynamic range of 44.1K 16-bit audio when you record from vinyl. Why? Because 44.1K 16-bit vastly exceeds the frequency and dynamic range of a vinyl record in pristine condition.

And finally, to my knowledge, there are no DAWs available in the consumer market that work directly in DSD. Almost no one in the professional studio market uses a DSD-capable mixing environment either. Any that are capable of ingesting DSD will convert it to PCM and work in PCM. This also shows the folly of audiophiles collecting DSD recordings. The vast majority of them started life as PCM masters. The ones that didn't (particularly from Sony) were DSD64 masters of old analog recordings.

[jonljacobi]

https://xiph.org/video/

[VariKusBrainZ]

You can achieve the same effect if you lower the voltage to your CD player so it plays slower, then at an industry standard sample rate you can capture all the bits in between that usually get missed in the conversion process.
So once you've recorded it you can up the sample rate to 300 whatever Khz in your DAW so its at the correct playback speed AND you have all the details that are usually missed. Same technique can be applied to cassettes and records.

Won't work with compressed media though such as midi discs.

A good analogy would be watching close objects and scenery from the side window of a car at different speeds. At 80mph everything whizzes by and you miss all the detail, its all blurry. Drive at 20mph and you will see the details you missed at the higher speed.

[cowby]

So in their case, the simple way is to use Tascam DA3000 or Korg MS2000 to do the recording.

Sure?? This here is a Korg MS-2000:



I'm not too sure it records straight to DSD-128 (which is a whole new topic btw, and discussed briefly not too long ago)




[edit: beaten by vurt]

The problem with audiophiles is they don't know when enough is enough (quality) although after reading the thread you linked to, most people there seemed to know what they were doing.
Example:

in theory the ripped files should sound identical to real time playback.

And the results seem to indicate as such.

I am sorry for my typo :

I was referring to : korg dsd recorder mr 2000

[BertKoor]

On the roonlab forum they referred to it as a Korg DS-DAC-10R. But never mind...

[antic604]

You can achieve the same effect if you lower the voltage to your CD player so it plays slower, then at an industry standard sample rate you can capture all the bits in between that usually get missed in the conversion process.
So once you've recorded it you can up the sample rate to 300 whatever Khz in your DAW so its at the correct playback speed AND you have all the details that are usually missed. Same technique can be applied to cassettes and records.

Won't work with compressed media though such as midi discs.

A good analogy would be watching close objects and scenery from the side window of a car at different speeds. At 80mph everything whizzes by and you miss all the detail, its all blurry. Drive at 20mph and you will see the details you missed at the higher speed.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense - if you load a 22kHz sample into a DAW project that's set to 192kHz the DAW itself will make the necessary interpolation. You don't have to slow down the recording and then play it faster.

And car + scenery analogy is completely off. By playing something slower you won't recover detail that was lost in the first place (like you would driving slower). You'll only interpolate - linearly or in some fancier way - between two points you've already captured. If there's a guy standing on a sidewalk between 2 (sampled) lamp posts, the images of lamp posts themselves won't magically produce the guy

[whyterabbyt]

You can achieve the same effect if you lower the voltage to your CD player so it plays slower, then at an industry standard sample rate you can capture all the bits in between that usually get missed in the conversion process.
So once you've recorded it you can up the sample rate to 300 whatever Khz in your DAW so its at the correct playback speed AND you have all the details that are usually missed. Same technique can be applied to cassettes and records.

Won't work with compressed media though such as midi discs.

A good analogy would be watching close objects and scenery from the side window of a car at different speeds. At 80mph everything whizzes by and you miss all the detail, its all blurry. Drive at 20mph and you will see the details you missed at the higher speed.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense - if you load a 22kHz sample into a DAW project that's set to 192kHz the DAW itself will make the necessary interpolation. You don't have to slow down the recording and then play it faster.

And car + scenery analogy is completely off. By playing something slower you won't recover detail that was lost in the first place (like you would driving slower). You'll only interpolate - linearly or in some fancier way - between two points you've already captured. If there's a guy standing on a sidewalk between 2 (sampled) lamp posts, the images of lamp posts themselves won't magically produce the guy

whoooo


ooooooo



oooooo




oooo



ooo


oosh.