There's nothing new about DSD. Have you ever heard about SACD? It's been around for quite a while. Has it been a successful format? I would say no. Wild theories are suggesting this might be related to the fact that not many people see the benefits...
By the way, there are about twelveteen threads about this topic already. If you're really interested, you can spend hours, probably days, reading.

Oh, I'm slow.

Quote from: xapz on 2015-11-11 22:55:02

There's nothing new about DSD. Have you ever heard about SACD? It's been around for quite a while. Has it been a successful format? I would say no. Wild theories are suggesting this might be related to the fact that not many people see the benefits...
By the way, there are about twelveteen threads about this topic already. If you're really interested, you can spend hours, probably days, reading.

Oh, I'm slow.

Yeah, I should have been clearer. I'm talking about mostly the "newer" DACs. But thanks.

The business argues nothing can capture the analog sound as real as dsd.
This reminds on the funny video about the Blade Runner SACD remaster by Kevin Gray. The SACD is mastered analog. Funfact is that the source for the remaster is solid 24bit PCM.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=6R0DSM1DLks
One of my first contacts with dsd on SACD was The Mission soundtrack by Morricone that is a great sounding cd but suddenly has noise as SACD that must have been intentionaly added to make the recording audiophile mud.
Of course dsd is inconveni
ent enough to handle to have that audiophile touch. It is pretty impossible to do even simple EQ things or volume changes in the digital domain to it. Gapless playback is not a given.
Most theories why it sounds better are very weird especialy when comparing it to something like 24/88.2
So yes, i guess it is another attempt to not only sell us the same music one more time but also new hardware. What is now available as dsd64 will soon be sold as dsd128 or later in multibit dsd and so on.

There is no attempt,to sell you anything: DSD and SACD are dead. Having said that I have about 120 SACDs and they sound better than any other format.
You don't have to like it, it is not for everybody, but not so surprisingly the only stronghold of SACD today is classical and jazz which are genres where quality really matters.

Quote from: duchski on 2015-11-12 03:29:29

There is no attempt,to sell you anything: DSD and SACD are dead. Having said that I have about 120 SACDs and they sound better than any other format.
You don't have to like it, it is not for everybody, but not so surprisingly the only stronghold of SACD today is classical and jazz which are genres where quality really matters.

Of course they do. HDtracks just started to add dsd.
The rest of your post is pretty much daydreaming. Tos8 anyone?

Quote from: Wombat on 2015-11-12 03:53:39

Quote from: duchski on 2015-11-12 03:29:29

There is no attempt,to sell you anything: DSD and SACD are dead. Having said that I have about 120 SACDs and they sound better than any other format.
You don't have to like it, it is not for everybody, but not so surprisingly the only stronghold of SACD today is classical and jazz which are genres where quality really matters.

Of course they do. HDtracks just started to add dsd.
The rest of your post is pretty much daydreaming. Tos8 anyone?

Thank you...That is part of why I asked this question...also the past few years of new DSD Dacs.

As for SACD, it wouldn't surprise me if Duchski can hear a difference. They were after all marketed at audiophiles, and therefore they were often mastered better than regular CDs, but as the AES SACD vs. CD blind test showed, if a SACD was simply downsampled to CD standard there would most likely be no audible difference (although one trail did yield 8 out 10 correct and two trials did yield 7 out of 10 correct - out of 554 trials). So, better mastering and production is what we all want, as that is what makes music sound better - not higher sample rates :-)

More important is if all this is audible, but which is where theory and practice differ. So, if you can get your hands on some good sounding DSD files you can convert them to PCM and see if you can hear the difference.

There is no inherent advantage of DSD over PCM which will make the same music tracks audibly better.

I have often wondered, since SACDs contain a Red Book audio layer also, if that layer is purposely messed with to make the SACD layer sound better.

I did read somewhere that DSD is being used as an archival format by record labels.  So, the "master" is in DSD format. and CD quality PCM is generated from that master.  But that may just be because the equipment being used to master is Sony.

I did read somewhere that DSD is being used as an archival format by record labels.  So, the "master" is in DSD format. and CD quality PCM is generated from that master.  But that may just be because the equipment being used to master is Sony.

I have often wondered, since SACDs contain a Red Book audio layer also, if that layer is purposely messed with to make the SACD layer sound better.

I did read somewhere that DSD is being used as an archival format by record labels.

So, the "master" is in DSD format. and CD quality PCM is generated from that master.  But that may just be because the equipment being used to master is Sony.

I have often wondered, since SACDs contain a Red Book audio layer also, if that layer is [qpurposely messed with to make the SACD layer sound better.

I have often wondered, since SACDs contain a Red Book audio layer also, if that layer is purposely messed with to make the SACD layer sound better.

The common preference for vinyl shows that poorer technical performance can be preferred by some.

Quote from: apastuszak on 2015-11-15 15:53:48

I have often wondered, since SACDs contain a Red Book audio layer also, if that layer is purposely messed with to make the SACD layer sound better.

Does anybody have any other examples than "Dark side of the moon"?

It's funny how I compared that SACD to the regular CD release and couldn't hear any difference.

I haven't heard that many other SACDs though, but for the ones I've heard I couldn't hear any difference between the SACD layer and the CD layer, so I assume they just downsampled them and that was it.

Some of the SACD 'laserdrops' I've compared to their CD rip versions (by measurement), were essentially identical.  Others weren't.

• Either could press the same material with the same mastering on both layers, but that means they sound the same, and there's no reason to charge more for the SACD.
• Or they could put the better version on the SACD layer, and the more aggressively mastered CD version on the CD layer. Now the problem is that the CD layer will sound louder, which many people will instinctively prefer. Even though the SACD layer actually sounds better when compared at equal loudness, the first impression will be the opposite.
• Or they could put an intentionally crippled version on the CD layer, which doesn't sound louder than the SACD layer. The problem with that is that the simultaneously released CD will sound louder than the CD layer of the SACD, which probably will not get unnoticed. Furthermore, they now have to prepare 3 versions of the same, one for the SACD layer, one for the CD layer of the SACD, and one for the separately released CD, all of which will be different. That's a lot of expense for a con trick that's likely to backfire.