2. digital
  3. 151699-18279

A good taste of DSD--what is your experience?

Over the last year or so I've pushed to get my digital front end to sound better.  I loosely define better to mean just that and "a touch more analog sounding."

My tube DAC is DSD 256 ready.  I had to use third party software to stream DSD to the DAC from my Mac Air.  I bought 6 DSD albums from Acoustic Sounds. 

While I generally think Redbook sounds great on this DAC and 96kHz files don't sound that much better and Redbook.  With DSD, the margin is greater for the better.  Everything still depends on how good the original recording is though.  

Some older recordings I tried, such as John Lee Hooker and Elvis, sound superb in DSD.  And through a 300B amp the vocals are scary real in the listening space.  The downside to me is cost of the albums, limited DSD library available, and the age-old problem for me of not having an album to hold and read.  I'm not fond of doing the ritual exclusively on a laptop.  

I'm curious as to the experiences of others.  If you have embraced this format, how do you run it and what changes to your system or listening habits have you made ,if any, to accommodate it?

128x128jbhiller
audioman58's avatar
audioman58
4,134 posts
 
I have let it bleed on DSD and I try down loading it .i had to convert it 24 176
and was not too happy with the sound quality . Maybe 
buying from HD Trax   Their masters iwould be noticably better since they know proper editing l I will try a few , just not a lot variety out there at the moment .
waipuna's avatar
waipuna
7 posts
 
I have the mobile fidelity vinyl , early European vinyl. The sacd versions outshines them all. Stones albums just were never well recorded. Especially the crap they sent over here in the early days.
porscheracer
132 posts
 
I have a bunch of SACDs that I have ripped to DSF files and play them via Roon/HQPlayer to my DirectStream DAC which supports up to DSD128.

Regardless of format or resolution, the mastering is the single most important element to getting great sound. I have listened to SACDs that sound terrible compared to a 320Kbps AAC rip. You must start with a good mastering.

But, format and resolution matters too. I have the SHM SACD of "Sticky Fingers" and also had the SHM CD. Both share the exact same mastering. But, the DSD64 tracks of the SACD sounded better than FLAC tracks of the CD. Mostly in was in clarity and resolution. There was a little better voice and instrument isolation with the DSD64 files too. But, I would have been completely happy with the CD version if that were all I had.  
jafant's avatar
jafant
19,602 posts
 
jbhiller

Excellent information as above. I enjoy DSD titles from the Telarc (Jazz) label. Yes, this (DSD) is a 1-bit transfer process that yields better A/D conversion to my ears. I still enjoy those older 1980's first generation/original pressings (tape drop-out, tape hiss) as well.
The DSD format and process will clean up those specific original pressings on CD/SACD. Regarding hi-rez downloads or streaming I hear variations of digital glare that is not presented on physical formats.
In time, I suspect, that technology will improve to correct digital glare, artifacts.

Happy Listening!
jafant's avatar
jafant
19,602 posts
 
2nd note;

regarding The Rolling Stones catalog on CD/SACD, I own the entire catalog from 1986 on CD as well as the 2002 SACD titles from ABKCO.
Additionally, I own the selected 1994 CD titles from Virgin.
No doubt that the 1994 editions are an improvement on the 1986 first pressings. The presentation and sound is clean and detailed by comparison.  The 2002 editions take presentation and sound one step further by adding better instrument separation.
1994 vs 2002 is an apples to apples example indeed. 
No, DSD,  is not a marketing gimmick to my ears.

Happy Listening!
More to discover