DSD will require an infrastructure to be of any use. I suppose one could use it as an archive medium but what happens if no further development happens? I first read about it some years ago in Sound on Sound. From what I recall a lot was being ascribed to it but at that time no one had a way to play it back without using a PCM format. So I didn't take it as a great new way to do digital audio. If I recall it was a Sony technology but its been awhile so don't quote me on that. I don't know if it is at all any better in theory than what we already have. I have no way of finding out by listening so as far as I am concerned its a tech awaiting further development. 

Drone7
I thought i made it clear that my preference for "physical media made available 24/7" is precluded by virtue of my previous explanation in relation to Cakewalk taking another route away from the more usual boxed version, which is why i blame Cakewalk for this problem if they intend not to oblige me or other potential Sonar users who might share the same feelings as i do.

 
They said physical media would be available for a nominal fee, so they apparently do plan on making this an option. But given how few people buy physical versions of SONAR, I expect it would be a lower priority than some other things (like the upcoming release for those who have already bought SONAR).
 

however, those explanations don't seem to ring-true for music store retailers in Australia...

 
But consider the logic. You want DVDs because of internet issues, so it makes more sense to sell physical media in that market. I don't know sales figures for SONAR broken down by country, but I would assume that sales in Australia are much lower than in North America, Europe, and Japan, where many people prefer downloads. So it's probably not surprising that a smaller company prioritizes to favor its biggest markets.
 
You definitely see less and less boxed software in the USA. Many audio interfaces have stopped including physical media altogether, because with driver updates being so common, they direct customers to the web to make sure they have they "latest and greatest." (Or maybe it's so users won't go on forums and say how much the interfaces suck )
 
As Mix Magazine said in their review of SONAR, "Although some of us aren’t quite there yet, the fact is physical DVD installers are a dying medium. Resellers don’t want to waste shelf space, and manufacturers don’t want to inflate costs with packaging and printing. Besides, you still have to download updates and patches, so what is the value proposition of having physical media?"
 
I think that's the prevailing view in SONAR's largest market. Sales of physical media have plummeted compared to online sales for all software companies. Cakewalk was actually one of the last companies to do direct download sales. The fact that many computers don't even come with DVD drives is also becoming problematic. USB sticks cost a lot more than DVDs...and so on.
 
It also seems perhaps silly that someone would buy a box with a download card, but some people want to support their local music stores. Often that store will give support to customers or offer other items along with the software. There are even stores with what are essentially "download kiosks" and they'll download onto media for you.
 
Please don't misinterpret this as an attempt to invalidate your needs, I get that. But the world is changing rapidly and companies have to make hard decisions about what has the best odds of keeping them in business if they can't do everything they'd like to do.

 

I will also state that IMO it is still too early for 'download only' of nearly anything, and especially of 'big-sized' download products like Sonar.

For better or for worse, I'm afraid it's inevitable. Optical media is nowhere near as popular as it once was (a shame, actually, Blu-Ray storage is outstanding). More sample libraries are sold these days as downloads than as physical media, and they can be huge. Now, if only all internet connections were as fast as South Korea we wouldn't be having this discussion...

gswitz
For years I've been exporting my mixes as 24 bit 44.1.
 
If I export a mix to DSD vs import a mixed track at 24 bit 44.1 and then export to DSD, would you expect a noticeable difference?
 
I don't currently have a DSD player and I'm wondering if I should export to DSD for archiving instead of Wave.

To get back to DSD, things are in flux. There are quite a few people in the record industry who want to change the "standard" audio playback medium from 44.1/16 to 96/24. I remain unconvinced that the average consumer can hear the difference, or would care enough to want to replace their existing music collection, be it CD or MP3.
 
Another contingent, probably a smaller one, feels DSD is the way to go. I'm not a cork-sniffer who believes that $600 USB cables will make an interface sound "warmer," but I have listened to DSD and PCM side-by-side and I do think the DSD sounds more like what we associate with "analog." Whether it's the technology, the filtering, or whether more care is spent in the recording process...I don't know. But I do think it sounds better.
 
Interestingly my daughter, who has no vested interest in any of this, was listening to material I'd recorded via DSD and without prompting said it sounded "different...really good." Not a scientific test by any means, but subjectively she liked the sound quality for whatever reason.
 
I like to archive to multiple formats, so it's likely I'll back up to DSD as well as PCM. DSD is easily decimated down to 96/24 so regardless of which becomes a "standard," if indeed one does, I'm covered. 
 
 

Cost efficiency and reduced circuit complexity is the reason it (pulse density modulation) is being used in other industries and I believe why it will become the norm in the audio industry. DAW's will continue to convert pulse density modulation to pulse code modulation or some variation thereof at very high frequencies in order to process because of the cost required to restructure.

Anderton

Drone7
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?

 
Yes, assuming that whatever other audio you have can convert to your project's sample rate and resolution. For example if you're using a 352.8 kHz or 384 kHz sample rate for your project (not that you have to), then you'll need softsynths that can work at that rate. The 96 kHz audio will be converted to the project rate, as per the usual.

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.

I've been able to both export and import 11.2 MHz DSD files.

ALL audio imported into Sonar is at the project sample rate in the PCM format so technically Sonar does not run DSD and wav audio side by side.

Anderton
They said physical media would be available for a nominal fee, so they apparently do plan on making this an option.
 

 
Good! Then i will be availing myself of that opportunity, only problem is 'when' will it be available? Also, 'how' do i obtain it, through a retailer or direct order from cakewalk?
 
 

Anderton
But consider the logic. You want DVDs because of internet issues, so it makes more sense to sell physical media in that market. I don't know sales figures for SONAR broken down by country, but I would assume that sales in Australia are much lower than in North America, Europe, and Japan, where many people prefer downloads. 
 

 
 
Well yes, 'I' have internet issues because of my internet plan, and i'm not utilizing the more powerful and regular cellular systems that more wealthy people pay to use, but FYI internet is certainly not an issue in Australia per-se. Apparently we have here the fastest most reliable internet in the world (well that's what they keep telling us on TV Ads and documentaries etc).
But as far as internet sales of Sonar being lower than other countries, then fair enough, I can see why Cakewalk needs to make business decisions and prioritize in their own interests, i may just have to suck it up and get with the program and make lemonade out of lemons.
 
 

Anderton
Besides, you still have to download updates and patches, so what is the value proposition of having physical media?"

Well because of my internet issue (as you've already acknowledged) the value proposition (as you call it) would be for me to merely download the foundational part of the program of about 150mb plus any new minor plugin or loop updates, and the 'larger majority' of Sonar could then be installed from the physical media on my shelf, capiche? That's the value proposition, thus circumventing my internet issue! The reason you even mentioned it that way and failed to realize this shows me how good of a situation you are in and that you've failed to put yourself in my shoes as to why i have a gripe about this in the first place. Unless you're telling me that Cakewalk only makes Sonar available as a complete download with no option to choose which parts to download.
 
 

Anderton
I think that's the prevailing view in SONAR's largest market. Sales of physical media have plummeted compared to online sales for all software companies. Cakewalk was actually one of the last companies to do direct download sales. But the world is changing rapidly and companies have to make hard decisions about what has the best odds of keeping them in business.
 

 
 
Seems the Australian market is years behind America, and therefore I wasn't aware of this, and why I still seem to be living in the 80's and 90's in my own head thinking everything is a physical product that one buys off the shelf in a retail store. I fully accept your explanation now that you put it like that.
 

Anderton
 
For better or for worse, I'm afraid it's inevitable. Optical media is nowhere near as popular as it once was.

 
That's why i'm glad Cakewalk is still prepared to make physical media available for a nominal fee, but i'm just hoping also that Cakewalk might be prepared to do this in the form of a USB stick rather than the old cumbersome and bulky DVD set
 
 
 
 

Anderton
There are quite a few people in the record industry who want to change the "standard" audio playback medium from 44.1/16 to 96/24. I remain unconvinced that the average consumer can hear the difference, or would care enough to want to replace their existing music collection, be it CD or MP3.
 

 
 
In listening to my 24bit songs vs 16bit, anyone would have to be deaf not to hear how superior the 24bit version is. This whole debate is similar to how many people claim they can't tell much difference between an AAC or MP3 and a 16bit WAV file, in reality we know they simply haven't got discerning ears or simply don't give a crap, so that's really what i would call a 'perception issue' not a 'reality issue', feel me?
 
What's more, it's comments from some Pro's in the industry like what you've just said THAT ARE IMPEDING THE WHOLE TRANSITION TO 24BIT, and personally i don't appreciate it (no offence intended). I'm quite surprised to hear you say that! I was playing CD's back in 1982 (ummm that would be 33 YEARS AGO); please people, enough is enough!! Use your ears, we want 24bit 96KHz BECAUSE IT MOST CERTAINLY IS SUPERIOR AND 'DOES' SOUND BETTER, more depth, more sheen, more body, more dynamic range, more gloss, more everything, there is a cumulative affect of doing the 'whole' mix in 24bit from start to finish (assuming use of all 24bit samples of course), or 'synergistic affect' if you like (conditions such that the total affect is greater than the sum of the individual affects) which most certainly holds weight for the argument of preferring 24bit in favour of 16bit for anyone who is 'quality orientated' or cares enough to give a damn. Yes, 16bit sounds fine, and has served us mightily for over 3 decades, BUT 24BIT SOUNDS BETTER, no doubt about it. I feel it in my gut when listening to 24bit, like a glow rising up in my soul, i don't get that with 16bit. This might be seen as 'subjective' but it's akin to the 'VIBE' the similar vibe during music production that makes the producer go from a static frozen mummy to an animated lightspeed being bobbing his head up-and-down and tapping his feet when the magic starts happening, feel me?
 

Anderton
Another contingent, probably a smaller one, feels DSD is the way to go.

 
I totally agree, another step-up from 24bit, even better again.

mudgel
ALL audio imported into Sonar is at the project sample rate in the PCM format so technically Sonar does not run DSD and wav audio side by side.

Yes. It runs the imported DSD and Wav side by side, both are converted to the project's sample rate and resolution.

From what I understand, technically, SONAR doesn't run DSD at all, but imports it and runs it, at most, at 24 bits and 384 kHz.  Of course, this rate is what the big boys run at for editing DSD.  I wonder if capture at DSD and export as DSD has the same effect as tape does, where capture, even if later turned into to digital, continues to provide that special sound.
 
@

Drone7

Anderton
They said physical media would be available for a nominal fee, so they apparently do plan on making this an option.
 

 
Good! Then i will be availing myself of that opportunity, only problem is 'when' will it be available? Also, 'how' do i obtain it, through a retailer or direct order from cakewalk?

 
I believe Cakewalk will essentially be doing on-demand publishing. Don't know the timetable, though.
 
Rather than quote your entire post, just a few comments...
 

Anderton
"Besides, you still have to download updates and patches, so what is the value proposition of having physical media?"

Just FYI that was a quote from Mix magazine, not me. The ongoing problem for you will be things like loop libraries. The one I did for the first release is around 430 MB. So even if you could download the core program, it's not a given that future releases will have only incremental changes...probably patches to the program will be relatively small, but you'll still have an issue with some of the content.
 

Drone7

Anderton
There are quite a few people in the record industry who want to change the "standard" audio playback medium from 44.1/16 to 96/24. I remain unconvinced that the average consumer can hear the difference, or would care enough to want to replace their existing music collection, be it CD or MP3.

 
In listening to my 24bit songs vs 16bit, anyone would have to be deaf not to hear how superior the 24bit version is...it's comments from some Pro's in the industry like what you've just said THAT ARE IMPEDING THE WHOLE TRANSITION TO 24BIT, and personally i don't appreciate it (no offence intended). I'm quite surprised to hear you say that!

 
What I said was "I remain unconvinced that the average consumer can hear the difference." That is why things aren't changing. If they can't hear a difference, they won't pay for it. It doesn't matter what you or I think.
 
The irony is that I posted a thread in here about how much recording at 96 kHz makes an audible, major improvement in sound quality, and several people took me to task for it (without trying it, of course ). The conclusion I've come to is that recording and working in the computer with 96 kHz files can make a huge difference because of issues involving lack of oversampling in many virtual instruments and plug-ins. Please check out this article I wrote for Keyboard magazine that summarizes my findings.
 
However, material recorded at 96 kHz, even when downsampled to 44.1 kHz, retains the improvements from recording at 96 kHz (the linked article explains why). So basically, I've come to the conclusion that while material recorded at 44.1 and played back at 44.1 sounds inferior to material recorded at 96 and played back at 96, it also sounds inferior to material recorded at 96 and played back at 44.1, for very valid technical reasons. I doubt very many people, if any, could tell the difference between material recorded at 96 and played back at 96 with material recorded at 96 and played back at 44.1.
 
I'd still prefer it if the world went to DSD instead of 96/24 . But that's subjective.

AT
From what I understand, technically, SONAR doesn't run DSD at all, but imports it and runs it, at most, at 24 bits and 384 kHz.  Of course, this rate is what the big boys run at for editing DSD.  I wonder if capture at DSD and export as DSD has the same effect as tape does, where capture, even if later turned into to digital, continues to provide that special sound.
 
@

Music exported to pulse density modulation from pulse code modulation data in a computer would embed pulse code modulation's quantization errors into the pulse density modulation data so I doubt it. Upsampling the pulse code modulation data before exporting would minimize this. File size would be the benefit but the sound would be on the level of upsampled pulse code modulation. Just my thoughts though not written in stone.
 
edit....
I believe I misread your question as you were asking about PDM to PCM to PDM. I was thinking about PCM to PDM. Decimation and interpolation come into play so who knows, I would think not but who knows what  the "special sound" is.