John reviewed this very cool new box.



http://www.studioreviews.com/dvra1000.htm

John, since you also have an Alesis Masterlink, could you give us a little insight on the differences between the two.

It seems like the DV-RA1000 might be a Masterlink killer. Would there still be any reasons for someone in the market for one of these recorders to get one over the other?

It's a rough call between the two - The ML has a hard drive... That's tough to beat. The DV-RA has DSD. Also hard to beat, but no hard drive.

Although if the hard drive doesn't really concern you, the DV-RA runs with DVD+RW... So, it essentially takes the place of an analog tape deck. You can "screw up" stop and go back, and "finalize" the disc when finished. Then erase it if you like.

ML's have the advantage of *not actually needing* the ML to write or read the "CD24" format. Alesis has a freeware ISO builder that allows you to create a CD24 disc from a simple collection of 24-bit AIF files. On the flip side, any CD drive will read a CD24, as they are a simple collection of 24-bit AIF files...

On the flip side of the flipped side, the DV-RA has a USB port to drag files to a computer.

You really can't go wrong with either one, but Alesis has a mild advantage with flexibility (you don't *need* their hardware for playback) and the Tascam has an advantage (IMHO) of sheer sound quality right out of the box.

quote:

While a CD utilizes a 16-bit signal sampled at 44.1 thousand times per second, the DV-RA1000 samples a simple one-bit signal at a mind-bending 2.822 million samples per second. The result is believed by many to be more "true" to the original signal than any other format — digital or analog. No tape saturation, no analog modeling.

John - I am still a little confused on the DSD technology.

While I get the mind boggling sample rate how does the bit size information work?

It seems the standard is moving up toward 24 bit in consumer electronics and yet downward with wide spread MP3.

Obviously at the mastering and professional recording level you have to best in 24/196 and many PC Software apps even run at 32 bits but the DSD does the 2 million plus sample rate of a 1 bit signal from an anaologue input through your analogue EQ etc...I think I am missing something basic here about DSD.

Thanks for the review, John!


I'm not wowed by my HHB cdrw in terms of sound quality and it would be nice to burn RedBook...mebbe I should consider upgrading at some point!

quote:

I think I am missing something basic here about DSD.

Yes. That digital does not equal linear Pulse Code Modulation. It's completely different way of digitizing and representing the incoming analog signal. It's not "higher resolution PCM"--which is your 24/192khz, or DVD-Audio for end user delivery. Direct Stream Digital is a whole different thing. The recording world would, IMO, have embraced it long ago if it were not for the development costs...think about it--every piece of digital gear you have right now is worthless (except through analog IO)...every plug in that works off algorithms to manipulate PCM snapshots would have to be rethought AND recoded mostly from the ground up. All DAW applications completely rewritten.

Anyway, to my ear, SACD (DSD) sounds more natural than high rez PCM...if only a little.

I agree, Pop. I don't think it's "digital" that sounds bad. I think it's PCM that sounds bad and unnatural. The world will be a better place when we evolve beyond it.

I do agree that on a good system with a good player, SACD does sound far better than CD in pretty much every way.

quote:

John - I am still a little confused on the DSD technology.

While I get the mind boggling sample rate how does the bit size information work?

To oversimplify perhaps a little too much (but maybe that's the best way to understand how different a way of thinking it is), first think of how PCM is like a 'graph' of the sound wave, with amplitude (bit depth) represented on one axis and 'time' (sampling rate) on the other. The higher the sampling rate and bit depth, the more accurately the sound wave can be represented on this 'grid'.

With DSD, instead of just continuing the 'higher bit rate / faster sampling rate' race, there's just an obscenely fast sampling rate, and only one 'bit' that's either on or off. The only thing the single bit represents is whether the sound wave was going 'up' or 'down' at the time it was sampled. It's really simple, but at the same time kind of hard to get your head around at first, because it's measuring 'rate of change' instead of an absolute value. Instead of a bunch of zeros for 'digital black' like you'd have in PCM, 'silence' is represented by alternating 'ones' and 'zeros'.

i'm sorry for me complete ignorance, but this is one of the components i haven't researched. what would this do for me that i can't do with my computer? does it just take the mixed down work you've done in say protools and put it on a cd? is this a really stupid question?

If you're mixing "in the box" then it won't do much that a Masterlink will do. If you're summing in analog or going through any analog gear on the way, the DSD setting is mind-blowing - It's basically a substitute for a tape deck, but it sounds "more accurate to the source" than just about any deck I've ever heard.

Can it be used as an AD converter? in other words, does it have a "thru" function which allows the live analog input to be snagged coming out as AES-EBU at the various bit/sample rates? I wonder, if so, if it'd be a fine solution or miles off from higher end converters....?

I haven't tried that myself yet (and I hate to say I've no time for even a little experimentation right now), but I'd have to assume it'd work... Gonna try some time.

That all being said, I know that a few people who's ears I resepect "didn't have any complaints" about the PCM converters.

I've got a DV-RA1000 here. I've had it for awhile sitting in the box, and thought it was time to hook it up and take it for a spin. I'm re-doing one of my racks, and I think it's found a home. : )

Just started using it. I'll post some notes as I play around with it.

quote:

I do agree that on a good system with a good player, SACD does sound far better than CD in pretty much every way.

You don't even need a good player, IMO. Or expensive at least...two years ago, I compared what was then a $170 Sony DVD that played SACD with a $700 Rotel CD...the Sony SACD was night and day better. I couldn't tell any significant difference in it and the Pioneer Elite I bought...which was $650 or something at the time. I bought it because it A)played BOTH DVD-A and SACD...and B) Bested the Rotel on straight 16/44.1 CD, IMO. But, of course, with stereo gear, I'm comparing sounding "musically good"...not having a reference for accurracy.

Anyway...I could dig having one of these and a BenchmarkDAC to feed it. If only you could one off author a SACD.