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.

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 most manf. simply use off the shelf toslink chips that create the bottleneck, it's not the hardware that is the issue its the lack of decoders built into the chips. 
 
DSD eliminates some of this but communicating that elimination is the issue and like Mr. Anderton has stated until a demand is placed upon the equipment manf. to include the codecs/decoders on the front end its simply to easy to slap a standard chipset onto your A/D device and go...most of the current A/D chips out there can handle the DSD requirements but since they are pre=programmed to look for PCM they won't be able to see anything else.
 
I think for storing masters and such DSD is a great idea, but I have serious doubts it will make much of an impact on the consumer market.

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?
 
@

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.

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

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.

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 :)
 
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
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. 
 

 
Is this to the exclusion of normal floating-point mixing, meaning, would it have to be one or the other entirely, or could floating-point processing and DSD processing co-exist in Sonar for when a project requests entirely one or the other?
 
 
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Updating the VST spec to do it is relatively trivial but the main work is actually doing processing in the DSD domain.  

 
Please elaborate. Are you saying that DSD processing would require too much CPU and therefore is unfeasible, or that implementing the DSD format for processing inside Sonar would be very difficult and not easy to implement? Or when you say "processing" are you referring specifically to effect plugins? Your previous answer seemed a bit paradoxical because you said "updating the VST spec is relatively trivial" but then you said "the main work is actually doing processing in the DSD domain" < and if by that you are referring to effect plugins that can accommodate DSD processing, then what's the problem inasmuch as you said "updating the VST spec is relatively trivial"?
 
 
Also, Noel, if you answer again, can you also please tell me if and when 'physical install media' is going to be ready for boxed versions of Sonar? I'm ready to jump onboard the sonar platform but i definitely wont until physical install media is available. And i hope this will be in the form of a handy USB stick. There are other non DAW related companies resorting to USB sticks now for installing their products. 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.
 
 

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.
 

Anderton
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.

 
Not interested! On principle alone. What principle you ask? That fact that Cakewalk is doing this for their own convenience in lieu of our convenience. 
 
I feel strongly enough about this issue that I will 'reluctantly' deny myself the purchase of Sonar (not your problem, i know, but it doesn't have to be this way is my point). Cakewalk is not putting themself in our/my shoes, and may be forgetting that unlimited access to the internet is not as widespread as in America; moreover, not everyone has a myriad of friends with unlimited internet access to call-on for this requirement, as cakewalk seem to be supposing. I don't live with family, they are all in another country, and none of my friends even have a large enough internet data plan to accommodate me even if they were willing. And, the many internet cafes i have been to in my city do not have a reliable enough internet connection to help-out with such a large download, the only option is to go into an Apple store and put a gun to their head, and that isn't gonna happen. Any more ideas?