As diehard advocates of DSD as the ultimate capture technology, we are in the infinitesimal minority.
We find ourselves here on the wild frontier for one reason and one reason alone. DSD sounds remarkably better than any other capture method (including analog).
So the question continues to pop up. If DSD is so darn good why wouldn’t major studios like Abbey Road use it? They claim to be state of the art.
I’ll venture forward with a couple of thoughts on the matter.
First, DSD is a pain from a workflow standpoint made worse by the one program to work with, Pyramix: an ultra-sophisticated network-capable DAW used by many of the major studios and orchestras. It is used not because it is easy (it is anything but that) but because of its incredible network capabilities. Without worry of latency or loss, hundreds of channels of high-sample rate PCM or DSD audio can be moved around a network connected only by CAT6 cable.
But moving hundreds of channels of audio data around isn’t something Abbey Road needs, or for that matter, any of the famous recording venues. And of the studios, live venues, production houses, and orchestras where Pyramix is used it is almost never DSD. (In fact, in speaking with the engineers and owners of Pyramix it turns out almost no one uses it for DSD)
Big and famous studios have to accommodate workflows and knowledge chains of visiting engineers and producers—none of whom have any experience with DSD or Pyramix. They are in the business of being the best there is within the bounds of what those who might use their services know and understand.
And, that is not DSD nor Pyramix.
That our quest for the best sound regardless of the difficulty and limitations in achieving it is what drives us in a certain direction—one not shared by the mainstream—should come as no surprise.
It’s why they call us Audiophiles.
