- 第 1 页 -
深夜盲测 顶级宿主Pyramix，Sadie ，Sequoia， PT
本帖最后由 Salinx 于 17-2-4 18:14 编辑
深夜盲听测试Pyramix ，Sadie ， Protools ，Sequoia，四大录混宿主DAW
我个人的审美角度，以及这10几年开棚子对声音的理解 ，
我心目中 盲听结果是Pyramix 10 > Sadie 6 > PT 12（非 HD ）> Sequoia 12\ 13
（当然了Pyramix、 Sadie 有了他们自家算法的解码芯片硬件之后，会比其他公司的卡加载Pyramix、 Sadie 声音更好）
本人四次盲听， 我只负责带着森海耳机 闭上眼睛， 旁边的人随即打乱几个宿主，无序播放，
，我总共三次选对了Pyramix 10.
几个宿主 同一个分轨最明显的差别 ，（音色 每个人喜好都有差别，我们暂且先不谈）
就分轨中 各个乐器之间，明确定位的清晰感，临场感，以及声场宽度。Pyramix 都是先胜一筹的。
Pyramix 颜值不高， 声音却很棒，立体定位感很强。
Protools 中规中矩的中性， 声音不偏不倚 ， 稳重不失风采。
Sadie 中低频的动态收放速度，特别是鼓、Bass, 也是一耳朵 就能感受到不同于其他宿主的。
Sequoia 颜值高，声音一般般。但是任意快捷键、宏编辑、4点剪切，音频单块内建插件，人性化便捷是其最大优势！
（但以上4个顶尖录混宿主中 ，只有ProTools 是PC、苹果都支持！ 剩下三个宿主 均只支持PC，不支持苹果平台。
另外，这篇测评 只是个人观点， 仅供参考。并且不考虑MIDI编曲之功能性。）
我自己棚用了9年的德国Sequoia ，3年ProTools,
现在真的被盲测比下去， 实在有丝丝的不甘心
感叹此生 好多年竟然还花了半个月时间，去自己钻研制作了Sequoia的皮肤，。。唉，，美好的仲夏夜回忆······~
咱们搞录音、混音的朋友们，还是远离熬夜和香烟
（友情提示： Sequoia 13 和Pyramix 10 选好声卡通道后，可以同时一个界面，同时播放！ 这样对快速比对非常之高效。
大家自己闭上眼睛， 让旁边的老婆 女友 家人 朋友， 鼠标动一下 +空格键播放 ，
来回切换试一试， 百语千言 ，一试了之
可能你会依然选PT， 但很可能你会有新惊喜）
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PS：切勿受本人此篇影响，自己盲听说了算！ 你得相信自己的耳朵！！
腰哥老话★★ 请购买正版，尊重智慧财产权★★
* 请购买正版最稳定 *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
过年不在棚，在家工作室里闲着没事做，好几天研究了2017年最新Pyramix ，以及它的DSD知识
今天共计花了4个多小时 用Pyramix 混的一首歌曲《我要你》，（ 录音时降过Key )
录音是前几日我弟子棚子， U87 +BAE 1073话放，声卡 Prism Sound
新宿主手不熟， 混的不好大家多多指教
深夜盲听测试Pyramix ，Sadie ， Protools ，Sequoia，四大录混宿主DAW
我个人的审美角度，以及这10几年开棚子对声音的理解 ，
我心目中 盲听结果是Pyramix 10 > Sadie 6 > PT 12（非 HD ）> Sequoia 12\ 13
（当然了Pyramix、 Sadie 有了他们自家算法的解码芯片硬件之后，会比其他公司的卡加载Pyramix、 Sadie 声音更好）
本人四次盲听， 我只负责带着森海耳机 闭上眼睛， 旁边的人随即打乱几个宿主，无序播放，
，我总共三次选对了Pyramix 10.
几个宿主 同一个分轨最明显的差别 ，（音色 每个人喜好都有差别，我们暂且先不谈）
就分轨中 各个乐器之间，明确定位的清晰感，临场感，以及声场宽度。Pyramix 都是先胜一筹的。
Pyramix 颜值不高， 声音却很棒，立体定位感很强。
Protools 中规中矩的中性， 声音不偏不倚 ， 稳重不失风采。
Sadie 中低频的动态收放速度，特别是鼓、Bass, 也是一耳朵 就能感受到不同于其他宿主的。
Sequoia 颜值高，声音一般般。但是任意快捷键、宏编辑、4点剪切，音频单块内建插件，人性化便捷是其最大优势！
（但以上4个顶尖录混宿主中 ，只有ProTools 是PC、苹果都支持！ 剩下三个宿主 均只支持PC，不支持苹果平台。
另外，这篇测评 只是个人观点， 仅供参考。并且不考虑MIDI编曲之功能性。）
我自己棚用了9年的德国Sequoia ，3年ProTools,
现在真的被盲测比下去， 实在有丝丝的不甘心
感叹此生 好多年竟然还花了半个月时间，去自己钻研制作了Sequoia的皮肤，。。唉，，美好的仲夏夜回忆······~
咱们搞录音、混音的朋友们，还是远离熬夜和香烟
（友情提示： Sequoia 13 和Pyramix 10 选好声卡通道后，可以同时一个界面，同时播放！ 这样对快速比对非常之高效。
大家自己闭上眼睛， 让旁边的老婆 女友 家人 朋友， 鼠标动一下 +空格键播放 ，
来回切换试一试， 百语千言 ，一试了之
可能你会依然选PT， 但很可能你会有新惊喜）~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PS：切勿受本人此篇影响，自己盲听说了算！ 你得相信自己的耳朵！！
腰哥老话★★ 请购买正版，尊重智慧财产权★★
* 请购买正版最稳定 *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
过年不在棚，在家工作室里闲着没事做，好几天研究了2017年最新Pyramix ，以及它的DSD知识
今天共计花了4个多小时 用Pyramix 混的一首歌曲《我要你》，（ 录音时降过Key )
录音是前几日我弟子棚子， U87 +BAE 1073话放，声卡 Prism Sound
新宿主手不熟， 混的不好大家多多指教
本帖最后由 Salinx 于 17-2-3 04:14 编辑
SADIE 6 下载链接：http://pan.baidu.com/s/1jIc9fcM 密码：x23j
感谢jim007200
http://www.audiobar.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=499975&page=1&from=space ------金字塔（Pyramix）
http://www.audiobar.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=500034------塞德（Sadie）
SADIE 6 下载链接：http://pan.baidu.com/s/1jIc9fcM 密码：x23j
感谢jim007200
http://www.audiobar.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=499975&page=1&from=space ------金字塔（Pyramix）
http://www.audiobar.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=500034------塞德（Sadie）
本帖最后由 Salinx 于 17-2-3 04:44 编辑
我给你对下联， 工欲善其事必利其器也！
本论坛大师级人物 6cL 陈珞老师广州棚子 为什么那样多顶级设备》？ （那也只是一堆铁而已，呵呵）
http://ep.ycwb.com/epaper/ycwb/html/2016-10/22/content_168167.htm
这个世界的声音比赛，以及音质比拼， 确实是一场马拉松的拉锯战
先拼个人技术！ 其次再拼ADDA设备、监听环境、音箱、宿主、插件等等工具！
光有好技术， 手上是口锈铁锅，巧妇难为无米之炊
赛跑名将博尔特 穿上竞走鞋， 会和他穿上专用跑步鞋 ， 速度一样快？
美国飞鱼菲尔普斯， 穿上普通游泳衣， 会和他穿上奥委会同意使用的“鲨鱼服”， 速度一样快？
还是让懂的人 去懂， 让不懂的人 去不懂吧 ~ ~~
伤心凉粉 发表于 17-2-3 01:38
运动员脚下的跑鞋，不是你的鞋子好，就能赢，那只是一双鞋子而已更何况大家用的都是专业跑鞋
我给你对下联， 工欲善其事必利其器也！
本论坛大师级人物 6cL 陈珞老师广州棚子 为什么那样多顶级设备》？ （那也只是一堆铁而已，呵呵）
http://ep.ycwb.com/epaper/ycwb/html/2016-10/22/content_168167.htm
这个世界的声音比赛，以及音质比拼， 确实是一场马拉松的拉锯战
先拼个人技术！ 其次再拼ADDA设备、监听环境、音箱、宿主、插件等等工具！
光有好技术， 手上是口锈铁锅，巧妇难为无米之炊
赛跑名将博尔特 穿上竞走鞋， 会和他穿上专用跑步鞋 ， 速度一样快？
美国飞鱼菲尔普斯， 穿上普通游泳衣， 会和他穿上奥委会同意使用的“鲨鱼服”， 速度一样快？
还是让懂的人 去懂， 让不懂的人 去不懂吧 ~ ~~
本帖最后由 Salinx 于 17-2-3 03:48 编辑
DSD同期录音技术制作SACD在若干年前最早出现于欧洲。
Telarc在1998年5月就与Sony正式签约开始进行DSD录音。将录音效果推向高点 －
而瑞士的Pyramix 继续发挥了DSD的音质还原度。 使得DSD的声音 区别于传统的PCM 算法。
想更多了解DSD的朋友 可以去翻墙看看以下文献：
http://craigmandigital.com/education/PCM_vs_DSD.aspx
http://nw-electric.way-nifty.com/blog/2015/05/dsdpcm-c9b6.html
http://www.sa-cd.net/faq
http://www.docin.com/p-1700088839.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
MEET THE CODECS
![]()
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~·
http://www.audiophileaddicts.com/2014/11/dsd-audio-simple-explanation/
http://1pmn.com/meinv/5567.html
http://www.stereophile.com/content/sony-scd-1-super-audio-cdcd-player-direct-stream-digital#OGwyX3KYTG0kUlL9.97
DSD同期录音技术制作SACD在若干年前最早出现于欧洲。
Telarc在1998年5月就与Sony正式签约开始进行DSD录音。将录音效果推向高点 －
而瑞士的Pyramix 继续发挥了DSD的音质还原度。 使得DSD的声音 区别于传统的PCM 算法。
想更多了解DSD的朋友 可以去翻墙看看以下文献：
http://craigmandigital.com/education/PCM_vs_DSD.aspx
http://nw-electric.way-nifty.com/blog/2015/05/dsdpcm-c9b6.html
http://www.sa-cd.net/faq
http://www.docin.com/p-1700088839.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
MEET THE CODECS
Hi-Res Audio doesn't refer to any one format, though. It can be packaged in a number of different ways using various codecs, which are the 'languages' of digital audio.
The most popular suitable codecs include FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, WAV and DSD.
Here's a quick look at the differences between these main audio standards:
FLAC – Probably the most popular lossless format, FLAC was introduced in 2001. It is an open format. Despite being lossless – which means that none of the music information is lost in the digital transition – it'll still reduce the size of music files dramatically.
ALAC – This is Apple's own lossless format, used in iTunes when you want to rip tracks losslessly. It's open-source just like FLAC. So what's the benefit of ALAC over FLAC? Audio-wise, nothing. However, iTunes can't play FLAC files, but it can play ALACs.
AIFF – If you think FLAC is old, get a load of the 28-year-old AIFF. The issue here is that it's much less space-efficient than FLAC. The files are pretty large.
WAV – Similar to AIFF, WAV is a long-standing lossless audio format, one much less efficient data-wise than FLAC and ALAC. It was created by Microsoft and IBM, surfacing in the early '90s.
DSD – DSD is the true audiophile digital format, created by Philips and Sony for use in Super Audio CDs (SACDs). The benefit of DSD is that sampling rates go up to an incredible 2.8MHz or 5.6MHz, which is 64 or 128 times the rate of CD. However, it does so at 1-bit depth, rather than the up-to-24-bit rate you'll get in some of these other formats. So every time it captures audio data, it captures less, but does so with astonishing regularity. 5.6MHz DSD will eat up almost 5GB in an hour.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PCM VS DSD ---这篇文章 细看一下也很不错
谈论了 PCM与DSD 优缺点！ 值得一看的文章
DSD的痕迹（图5）代表方波优于前两PCM的痕迹，它看起来在菲利普斯宣传册图片非常相似（除了它是模糊的）。像192khz照片，DSD信号开始由方波提取的第一和第三谐波。但DSD的精度是有代价的，，，，，，
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~·
http://www.audiophileaddicts.com/2014/11/dsd-audio-simple-explanation/
http://1pmn.com/meinv/5567.html
http://www.stereophile.com/content/sony-scd-1-super-audio-cdcd-player-direct-stream-digital#OGwyX3KYTG0kUlL9.97
本帖最后由 Salinx 于 17-2-3 05:21 编辑
PCM VS DSD 比拼---------这篇文章 细看一下很不错
http://craigmandigital.com/education/PCM_vs_DSD.aspx
谈论了 PCM与DSD 优缺点！ 值得一看的文章， 强烈推荐！
翻译：DSD的痕迹（图5）代表方波优于前两PCM的痕迹，它看起来在荷兰菲利普宣传册图片非常相似（除了它是模糊的）。
像192khz照片，DSD信号开始由方波提取的第一和第三谐波。但DSD的精度是有代价的，，，，，，
PCM VS DSD 比拼---------这篇文章 细看一下很不错
http://craigmandigital.com/education/PCM_vs_DSD.aspx
谈论了 PCM与DSD 优缺点！ 值得一看的文章， 强烈推荐！
翻译：DSD的痕迹（图5）代表方波优于前两PCM的痕迹，它看起来在荷兰菲利普宣传册图片非常相似（除了它是模糊的）。
像192khz照片，DSD信号开始由方波提取的第一和第三谐波。但DSD的精度是有代价的，，，，，，
I was at a Hannover tradeshow, perusing a Phillips Electronics brochure, curiously titled “SACD – Why do we need it?” The event was the Tonemeistertagung, and the brochure was a message to the consumer explaining why SACD is better than CD or DVD-Audio. While this particular booklet was quite benign in its assertions, there was one particular page that caught my attention. On the page was a depiction of a 10kHz square wave and two other pictures, one a graph of the square wave processed by PCM, and the other processed by DSD. The graphic showed that a 10kHz square wave, when passed through a DSD analog-to-digital-to-analog chain, looks much more like the original square wave than the same signal passed through a PCM A-D-A process. In fact, the PCM signal came out looking like a 10kHz sine wave! Was this right?
I was curious about two things. The output of the PCM converter seemed way too sinusoidal, especially to someone like myself who has been involved with high-resolution digital audio for so long. I knew that at lower sampling rates a 10kHz square wave would look pretty shabby, but the sine wave aroused some suspicions. This particular page was, after all, designed to show that SACD sounds better than DVD-Audio. The other thing that raised my eyebrow was the cleanliness of the DSD graph. It looked nearly identical to the square wave – not nearly shabby enough, I thought.
When I got back home, I thought I’d try out the comparison first hand, just to check Phillips’ homework. The following illustrations are well-known to some, and the ensuing analysis has been discussed at great length by those more entwined in digital audio processing than myself. I simply found the assertions in the brochure to be quite bold, and worth looking over. I used an analog 10kHz square wave generator, a dCS A/D converter, a dCS D/A converter, a good old-fashioned analog oscilloscope, and a digital camera. I ran the signal through directly to the scope (Fig. 1), then through the converters using 44.1kHz PCM, 96kHz PCM, 192kHz PCM, and finally, DSD.
Figure 5 10kHz square wave sampled with DSD
The noise created by Direct Stream Digital is tremendous, so tremendous, in fact, that Sony/Phillips have created a noise-shaping system designed solely for the purpose of disguising the inherent noise in a DSD signal. Explained briefly, the noise created by DSD’s one-bit sampling is shifted out of the lower frequencies, and shoved up into the ultrasonic range, thereby making the noise “inaudible.” We can see that the system is not quite perfect, as the 10kHz signal is still tainted by noise. But this noise is not the only fly in the ointment.
The blurring in Figure 5 is caused by imprecise traces along the vertical and horizontal axes, which are much more significant than the noise superimposed on the traces themselves. These imperfections in the DSD signal are, respectively, amplitude imperfections and time domain imperfections. Were one to zoom in on the DSD signal, one would actually see amplitude fluctuations of 50% peak amplitude, and time domain errors similar to the 96kHz rise time deviation. The defect, when compared with the PCM photos, illustrates perfectly the reason that DSD is incapable of reproducing the same transient twice. Note again the precision with which PCM represents the signal. If DSD cannot identically represent a simple square wave over a very short period of time (as compared to the PCM models), the time domain errors caused by DSD sampling are too great to precisely and accurately (remember those terms from first year physics?) reproduce a sound.
What conclusions can be drawn from this photo gallery? Well, one must certainly point out that a 10kHz square wave does not make for a very memorable listening experience. However, it does help dispel the myth that DSD’s one-bit sampling is the panacea to the world of digital audio. We can clearly see that with this particular waveform, PCM produces a much more faithful copy of the original with both accuracy and precision.
Now, at the upper end of the audible spectrum, we toy with the age-old (and sometimes annoying) digital question: can humans really perceive sound above 22kHz? I am of the opinion that ultrasonic harmonics make a difference. Otherwise, I’d be working at 24-bit 44.1kHz, and not bothering to open this discussion. The significance of the preceding graphs is certainly in the ultrasonic. Remember the noise-shaping issue with DSD? Well, the noise in a DSD signal increases dramatically as the frequency increases. In fact, DSD’s noise level can be up to –40dB in the ultrasonic range1. 24-bit PCM has a consistent noise level of –144dB across all frequencies. This means that DSD’s ultrasonic characteristics are tainted with noise as the listening frequency goes up. How can warmth and harmonics be reproduced in such a maelstrom? It’s like listening to an ultrasonic cassette. This is, by the way, why most SACD players are made with a built-in 50kHz rolloff filter. Though Sony and Phillips tout a 100kHz frequency range, the spectrum must be halved at the player’s output. Since such a barrage of ultrasonic energy tends to fry tweeters, the rolloff is necessary to protect equipment incapable of handling this sonic assault. So much for the efficiency of one-bit systems.
My most significant conclusion points simply to more questions: How does an engineer work with DSD? Do you roll the room off at 50kHz or leave it at 100k? Where is the peace of mind that your work will be accurately reproduced once it leaves your studio? SACD – Why do we need it?
1Ingvar Öhman, interviewed by Niklas Ladberg, Elliott Sound Products
