Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD

Copied from another site:

DXD is not DSD (direct stream digital, one bit recording). DXD is a PCM format that is a very high sampling rate of 352.8kHz / 24bit. Merging Technologies and Pyramix incorporated the DXD format into their recording systems to provide PCM like tools at a much higher standard than was available at that time. DXD at 352.8 is approximately 4x larger file size than DSD2.8 though, among avid DSD recording engineers, some may hear a more PCM like quality to DXD that is not to their liking.
The Sonoma system for recording to DSD has limited editing capabilities but can stay in the DSD format without going to PCM/DXD. The limitation for the Sonoma system is that is currently only records in DSD 2.8 (also called DSD64)
Some labels, like 2L, have chosen to record in the DXD format and release in DSD. This allow for more editing that is common to PCM. DSD as a "container" for DXD is a very suitable solution for delivering files to end users/music lovers. Some labels, like Channel Classics, choose to record in DSD and on occasion will convert to DXD for minor editing purposes. Some labels, like Blue Coast, record using the Sonoma system and limit their editing to stay in the DSD format.
What the future holds is up to the consumer. Eventually, the acceptance of DSD will provide recording equipment capable of DSD tools equivalent to that in the PCM world. As a container, DSD has proven itself to be efficient for delivering files at about 25% of the file size of industry equivalent PCM formats. As broadband continues to have bigger 'pipes', DSD could be the optimum choice for streaming and downloading our music in the future.
The best test is to listen and decide for yourself about DSD vs DXD or PCM.

Mattnshilp, I think much depends on the companies with master tapes. I have heard that SONY with the bulk of master tapes and very concerned with them deteriorating, is going to transfer them to quad DSD. If they do so an make down loads possible. The questioning is over.

Having heard a quad DSD violin recording at the RMAF, I can say most ardently that I would get as many of the SONY tapes as possible. I have also heard several DSDs made from SACDs and played as double DSD. Here too I will seek as many of these as possible.

I have 17 Quad dsd files so far. done right (native) they are remarkable through the SE Lampy GG in my system. the native PCM through the Trinity is also remarkable.

original analog remastered through Quad dsd will be a crap shoot.....with variable levels of re-mastering. my next Quad dsd downloads will be analog recordings and we will see how those go.

give me the native format 100% of the time, whatever that was/is. that is how I want to hear my music.

Hi Matt, yes i'm aware of DXD's original purpose as editing software in the mastering process. Though FIM for one have taken that a lot further & record, edit & master their cd's in DXD onto extremely pure precision-cut silver discs. Of course that is down-converted to PCM & is playable on RBCD players. But my ears tell me the sound is stunning. Very undigital as I imagine DSD would sound. My Vitus gear obviously helps. XRCD24 discs are also amazing..even my parents who have no clue about audiophilia noticed the difference. Obviously native double or quad DSD should be superior given a great DSD dac like Mike's Lampi, but I definitely feel like I want for nothing with the vast number of audiophile RBCD formats including DXD, XRCD, K2HD, SHM & Mofi 24kt gold cd's. Plus I love handling the media, reading the liner notes & spinning the disc...something you can't do with downloads.

Charles1dad and Matt, I admit I have failed to read through this post but looks like there is a discussion going on active preamps... Over the years I have gone active to passive back to active and my 2 cents are... The less "circuitry" in(terfering) with the virgin signal is certainly a good thing when looking for the pure sound, however, having said that, source amplification is VERY minimal and unless one has extremely efficient speakers (i.e. horns) amplification (i.e. pre-amplification) is generally always required...

Unfortunately, in our 'sport' money reserves are expected to be deep (by the manufacturers) and it is no secret that once in the stratosphere, 99% of cost increase gets you 1% improvement. As such, what I have found is...

The more you can afford (all else being equal) upstream gets you the best purity. In other words, your creme de la creme should be (in decreasing order) source, pre, mains, speakers - of course you can add cables in-between each one and voltage-cleanup.

I might add, this idea does make physical sense, as as the signal strength is the smallest (upstream) improvements and/or pollution is only amplified downstream.

In my own system I found I did like passive preampfification best until I found what I have now (Atma-Sphere MP-3) and my only upgrade that I still want now is going to a MP-1 (top of the Atma-Sphere line).

A Top Tier pre will enhance dynamics in a PURE fashion - something a passive pre just cannot do.

Hope this may help