DSD in Sonar!

Direct Stream Digital (DSD)

"SONAR now supports DSD, a high definition 1-bit audio format commonly used to archive masters in high resolution"
 
For those who are not familiar with DSD audio: it's a one bit, 2.8MHz (or double DSD = 5.6MHz, or quad DSD = 11.2MHz) audio format and the closest digital representation of acoustic sounds available. The extension is .dsf (tagged with metadata) or .dff (non-tagged files).
 
My question is this. I have a recorder capable of both playing and recording 11.2MHz DSD audio-data. I will use this to capture samples. Can i use these samples for music production inside Sonar? If not, what is the extent of the functionality of DSD inside Sonar?
 
As audio-science progressed, the algorithms for the DSD-to-PCM (Delta-Sigma to PCM)) and PCM-to-DSD conversions of typical converters have been shown to have a detrimental impact on sonic performance when they are developed according to old but classic formulas. These are relatively complicated algorithms and they introduced a new phenomenon that we describe as "digital sound" or ringing effects. Hence the motivation by the engineering teams of Sony and Philips to remove such steps altogether from conversions between analog and digital. The process of the simplified DSD path bypasses the PCM path and results in higher fidelity to the sound-source. As is usually the case, most simplifications in the signal path lead to sonic improvements, and so it didn't come as a surprise when the first listening tests of DSD were so astonishing that this format was considered as an archiving format for recording studios.

From the announcement:
 
Note that today SONAR supports import and export of DSD formats. The DSD data is converted to PCM using TASCAM’s high quality DSD-to-PCM conversion process, so as expected SONAR doesn’t support editing the raw DSD data itself. Depending on interest in that feature we may consider supporting native DSD editing in the future, however editing raw DSD data has limits in a DAW as no plug-ins can handle processing that format.

Drone7
So, if Sonar converts the DSD data to PCM (thus allowing us to utilize the usual music-production process') inside Sonar, then Sonar allows us to save that data at the completion of the song project back to DSD, then i for one would be happy to do things that way.

Then you'll be happy, because that's how it works. This gives better results than an all-PCM signal chain because elements with the potential to degrade the sound are taken out of the picture.
 
But stay tuned - the upcoming update has some very interesting improvement to the DSD export process, as well as some other additions. Definitely "technology leader"-level stuff.
 
As to making VST plug-ins DSD-compatible, I don't think that's on anyone's radar at the present time.

Anderton
 
But stay tuned - the upcoming update has some very interesting improvement to the DSD export process, as well as some other additions. Definitely "technology leader"-level stuff.

Are we able to use DSD and 24bit 96khz files side-by-side in Sonar? Meaning, are we able to play-back DSD files on some tracks while 24bit 96khz audio is playing-back on other tracks, and all while softsynths are playing in real-time on other tracks?


My portable Audiophile DAP (Digital Audio Player) can playback DSD files, that's why I'd be happy to save my songs from Sonar as 11.2mhz DSD files. Does Sonar support 11.2mhz DSD? I know a lot of DSD systems can only cope with 5.6mhz or 2.8mhz DSD files at the moment.

AT
 
Then decide.  If you do like DSD you can listen to other music using SONAR to play back (if you have DSD converters - there are some that are playback only for audiophiles). 

 
To all extents and purposes all of us DAW producers are in actual fact "Audiophiles". The "Philes" part of "Audiophiles" is directly derived from the Greek word "Philos", which means to be fond of or love something in a general sense. Thus "Audiophiles". It just so happens that some Audiophiles are more particular and finicky about it than others. Many people walking down the street with an iPod are Audiophiles whether they realize it or not. A lover of music.
 
 

AT
 
TASCAM and Cakewalk are perfectly positioned to make a cost-effective DSD recording system - anything similar today is way too costly for any home system.  I would love to have access to something like that. 
 

I too hope that Gibson will advance the state-of-the-art with DSD inside Sonar. If Cakewalk choose to advance the format inside Sonar for music production, this whole DSD thing could put Sonar users in a very good position and may even give Sonar a big boost in sales; certainly there would be many producers out there willing to get-in on the DSD thing if they knew more about it. I for one would spread the word like wildfire if it became more streamlined and capable and practical within Sonar.
 
What a combination. Gibson Brands encompasses not only Gibson guitars, but also high-end consumer electronics (Onkyo, TEAC) and pro audio (TASCAM, KRK, Stanton):
 
Nice! That puts us in good stead i reckon. To think of Sonar as being the pioneer of modern DSD production in the DAW world, woo hoo! Seems to me the faster the 'whole' music industry swaps to all DSD playback and production the better. DSD has essentially been around since 1999. This world is so slow to adopt superior technology sometimes. I know so many people who still by DVD's not knowing how much better Blu-ray is. Despite extensive marketing and advertising campaigns for Blu-Ray over the last ten years, still seems that many people are down in the ditch with DVD; i guess ignorance really is bliss. 

Anderton
Patience, Drone7...there's a bit of chicken and egg with DSD. If no consumers embrace DSD playback systems, there will be no incentive to keep producing content for them, so no demand for further advances within SONAR.
 
However...SONAR has staked a claim. We'll see what happens. And BTW, DSD is a direct result of synergy with TASCAM via Gibson Brands. I'm quite sure it won't be the last.

Good point.

What's it gonna take for electronics companies to simply implement DSD playback into their playback systems, isn't it essentially just another codec or format of sorts? What is holding it back? Can't they just implement it alongside other codecs like MP3 and AAC and FLAC etc, what would be the problem? FYI i have a portable dedicated mini DAC-Amp that supports playback of DSD by making Drivers available to install on the computer. That's good news because it shows that even lesser-known Chinese companies are on the bandwagon or at the very least acknowleding the format. Amongst the Audiophile community I know it is held in high-esteem, so a little more momentum could be all we need to help DSD gradually become the be-all end-all new world standard.

Although the mass consumers might not flock to DSD, I think plenty of recordist would if the price was right.  Bragging rights and all that - I use 96/24.  Well SONAR lets me do 384 - HA!
 
That might be a better route, since on the consumer end the idea seems to be ever smaller files so you can pack every song ever recorded on a gigabyte chip.
 
But wave your magic wand, Craig - you still are chief magic officer, ain't you?
 
@

Anderton
From what I understand, DSD is starting to gain traction in Japan. Also, although I don't know exact figures I think historically SONAR has sold quite well there. Including DSD may give SONAR a boost, and if DSD reaches "escape velocity" in Japan, it may catch on here to a greater extent. Sony is pushing DSD technology pretty hard these days.
 
Personally, if the world is going to go to a high-res standard I'd rather see DSD than 96/24, but some of the cork-sniffers out there say DSD is horrible and everything needs to be 384 kHz PCM...then again some audiophiles wax poetic over the "warmth" and "transparency" of one USB cable compared to another. I dunno, I just play guitar.

 
Craig said: "some of the cork-sniffers out there say DSD is horrible"
 
You joking right? Are these people on drugs??? That there would have to be a classic case of a delusional, twisted time-wasting audiophile with only one brain-cell! LOL
 
My audiophile DAP happily accommodates 384 kHz audio, but i still prefer DSD any day. For those who don't know, the sampling rate of standard 2.8mHz DSD is 40 times that of 44.1KHz. So just imagine the 11.2mhz version of DSD. Now that's some serious **** there!
 
Glad to hear that Sony is pushing DSD pretty hard, but they didn't really get very far with their SACD version of it; hopefully things turn-out better for DSD, i'm backing it all the way.
 
Craig said: "if DSD reaches "escape velocity" in Japan.
 
I know the wording "escape velocity" was just metaphoric or figurative, but still, i have to say...nice wording!
 
 
Craig said: "I'd rather see DSD than 96/24"
 
Well, yeah, i agree, but not because there is anything inadequate about 24bit 96KHz, but only because the Delta-Sigma conversion process used by nearly every DAC is letting the side down. Technically speaking 24bit 96KHz is off the charts good, but the superior conversion process to accommodate DSD is what saves the day and makes DSD superior IMO. Quite frankly if today's current process of DAC conversion routines wasn't so beleaguered with technical inferiority (by perfectionist standards) then i for one would be more than happy to work entirely with 32bit 384KHz, and actually if DSD doesn't take-off, then that's my only option for superior audio. The Samsung 850 Pro SSD will help make that a reality as long as i can get samples recorded at that level.
 
Craig said: "then again some audiophiles wax poetic over the "warmth" and "transparency" of one USB cable compared to another."
 
Man, this is baloney if i ever heard it, if it's not one thing it's another, geeezz. Warm USB cables? These types of so-called audiophiles should be put-away in an asylum. There are similar types in the Audio-Visual industry claiming better HDMI Cables, and that i know is absolute tripe. It has been 'proven' that all HDMI cables are created equal, i've seen the tests from the "Pros"; we are after all dealing purely with Zeros and Ones.
 
 
 
 
Multiple profanities removed

Drone7
I myself would be happy to work inside Sonar purely with the DSD data 'without editing' for some songs.
What exactly does Cakewalk mean when they say: "however editing raw DSD data has limits in a DAW as no plug-ins can handle processing that format."
Does this mean if we start with DSD data and Sonar converts it to PCM, we can then edit as normal and thus work with plugins as normal?
 
Cakewalk said: "SONAR supports import and export of DSD formats."
 
So, if Sonar converts the DSD data to PCM (thus allowing us to utilize the usual music-production process') inside Sonar, then Sonar allows us to save that data at the completion of the song project back to DSD, then i for one would be happy to do things that way.
I wonder if the VST format can be updated to allow plugins to process DSD audio data.

 
Presently when you import a DSD file it gets converted to PCM and sample rate converted to the audio project sample rate. So as such once inside SONAR you are working in PCM as before. At export time the process is reversed. When working with DSD the sample rate is typically chosen to minimize conversion loss. There are some further improvements coming in the next update to this area. Anyway working inside SONAR with DSD is exactly the same as working with any other format today, there is no change to the workflow.
 
Regarding processing native DSD data it would be a larger scope project since we would have to update our mixers to handle DSD audio natively rather than doing floating point mixing. The biggest issue however is that none of the plugins would work since there are no DSD capable VST plugins today. Updating the VST spec to do it is relatively trivial but the main work is actually doing processing in the DSD domain. Whether this is adopted by plugin vendors would depend on the commercial success of DSD. Its pretty big in Japan though! I saw a Japanese platinum box where the only feature listed was DSD :)
 
 

Drone7
Not only is my internet situation not conducive to 'download only' but also i simply feel strongly about having actual install media on-hand 24hours a day.

 
Not much you can do about an internet situation, but you can download the installer and burn it to DVD ROM or a copy it to a USB stick. This is what allows for an offline installation on a different computer.
 

As I said, there's not much you can do about an internet situation. I was addressing your concern about not having physical media available 24/7. If someone who does have decent internet is reading this, they need to know it is possible to have physical media available 24/7 if they go the download route.
 
A lot of the issue about physical media isn't just about convenience for Cakewalk or users with internet connections. Retailers hate it when they have boxes sitting on the shelves with media that's six months old and already out of date because there have been updates. So there was a certain amount of pressure for Cakewalk to include download cards instead of physical media, not just so customers would get the latest software but so a box would take up less shelf space. And under the former sales model, there was waste if there were unsold boxes of older software when the new software came out. It meant shipping back the box and the DVD, which was pretty much worthless at that point. The cost of returns had to be factored into the initial pricing.
 
I don't know when physical media will be available, maybe Andrew knows a target date.

So Noel, all DSD gets converted to PCM at the project rate?  Hm.  I'm still thinking straight DSD recording and playback would be sweet, using it like a analog reel to reel w/ external analog hardware.  I know that would cut most of what SONAR does, but from what you're saying it is a matter of CPU.  In a few years maybe CPUs can handle it.
 
But just mixing and punch ins would be really cool.  A DSD mixer.  A couple of channels of good analog and you could serially mix through them.  Even the TASCAM hand DSD unit would work, esp. as you can sync them.  Or maybe TASCAM just needs to put out a multi-track unit. 
 

@ 

AT
As Craig explained above, it is a cost situation.  You may think a DVD costs a dollar, so what is the big deal?  But there is packaging (I'd never thought about the stores demanding slimmer boxing so they can fit more on the shelf - wild) shipping and returns.  Plus all that printing/shipping costs needs to be financed.  Same reason we lost manuals. It isn't a dollar or two for each item, but much more.
 
I think at one point Cake was talking about the ability to order a hard version; hope they get that organized soon.  I'm sure you're not the only one, drone.

Well i don't think Cakewalk can claim that the extra $10 (my guestimation) cost for producing a boxed version justifies their stance, since Studio One is even cheaper than Sonar and yet Presonus still sell boxed versions, same case with Bitwig and Fruity loops. So, let's look at the obvious and do some speculative calculations. Money is 'a' root of every type of evil, right? Any company might claim it is their business prerogative to take risks even to the detriment of their own customers, but why don't we just be honest and call this what it is? A revenue-raising tactic! For example, $10 saved on ten thousand sales equals one hundred thousand dollars, capiche? Have I got stupid written on my forehead?

Drone7

Psychobillybob
It's not simply codec you are dealing with here, it is also bandwidth married to a codec, for instance an optical spdif cable maxes out at 24/96 it's not the cable itself its the conversion in the digital domain at the front end of the interface, since no one is really making the equipment.

 
 
Are you telling me USB has got greater bandwidth than SPDIF? I'm not aware of such technical things, but i will say that my portable mini Amp/DAC can happily accept a DSD signal via a USB cable from the computer, all i need to enable this is a mere 'driver' from the manufacturer of my portable mini Amp/DAC which they do supply from their website to facilitate the signal flow from the computer to the DAC on my portable unit.

Its a codec limitation set by the legacy standards. Heck a twisted pair of wires can dump a ton of data it's not the physical medium that sets the limitation (in most cases) it's the way it is implemented. Yes USB 2 can handle a lot of data per second but latency/bandwidth create different issues...in a usb port you do not get to tell it what happens downstream, so your port might be handling midi data/audio data/handshakes and all kinds of packets from hubs, etc...
 
I've always been puzzled by the idea that toslink which is essentially sp/dif over light is limited tot he degree it is...it was a design undersight in the original codec.

$10 seems about right to order a DVD, plus shipping.  And of course you are right, it is all about money.  Like anything, people will say they don't mind paying more, until they have to.  I'm perfectly happy not to have DVDs, and I imagine most people feel the same way if they have to reach into their wallet.  Something about right pocket charity. 
 
I esp. liked it when the computer companies started making you back up your OS on DVD.  That blew my mind the first time.
 
@