When is a DAC too old? Have they peaked for a while?

I know folks who rip their LPs on 128fs Korg recorders, so I guess you're wrong.

 

For those archiving their Vinyl in DSD or making SACD rips the DSD file playback feature is NOT irrelevant.

 

NAD M51 is almost there, with HDMI input, but only PCM based, not DSD.

 

What about yourself? Do you do any DSD64 or DSD128 recording/playback (no info in your profile)?

 

I'll soon be archiving all my SACDs to 64fs DSF files.

 

That's what I wrote in my post.

 

I think that SACD labels are simply waiting for the manufacturers to build more DSD-capable DAC's. Once the infrastructure is there, they will start offering DSD downloads...

 

My Monarchy22 20 bit dac from 1990 still sounds sweet detailed and musical. Newer dacs sound cold and sterile and too bright to these ears.

 

The problem with DSD as a distribution format is not only the current lack of hardware compatibility on the consumer side, but also the fact that few labels record in DSD, for reasons of convenience. SACDs are being mastered from PCM recordings, but creating DSD downloads from PCM files wouldn't make sense.

For future audiophile reissues, making DSD transfers from analogue tapes available for download would be an interesting idea, as a niche.

There is however the risk that in the longer term, when SACD disappears (replaced by hi-rez/multichannel downloads), DSD will disappear too.

 

With the renewed interest in DSD among audiophiles there is a chance we'll see more companies using the format in the future

 

I think that couldn't be more wrong, but we'll see. If high res downloads are .000001% of the record buying population, DSD fans are .0000001 of that.

Precious little market there. More than likely, 24/96 will become the standard. But I guess the archiving angle isn't bad.

I can't say I'm having much trouble with archiving a little bit of vinyl at 24/96 though. Plenty happy with that.

And there's always, RTR. Studer will be here next week!

 

Some companies are already testing the waters...

http://www.channelclassics.com/aboutdsd
http://www.channelclassics.com/podger-33412.html

 

^ Pressed hybrid SACD at $23.61 & DFF download at $41.97? Something is wrong here

 

And classical music downloads of DSD, .000001% of that market.

I bet there aren't 1000 people world wide that would be interested in this. If the majors couldn't make high res go with popular titles, this is going to be a very slim chance of anything happening.

Sorry, can't see ANY commercial viability here.

 

You may be happy with 24/96 but there are audiophiles who won't stop at 96kHz

 

As far as the audiophile market is concerned the potential for DSD is huge, the format could replace RTR, Vinyl and 24/96 .

 

You're drinking your own cool-aid.

If SACD and DVD-a couldn't get traction with the majors behind it, I think DSD is going to have a very steep uphill battle.

I'm more than happy with 24/96. And considering that I've got almost 10,000 CD's, the thought of buying ANY more titles over AGAIN in DSD, is slim to none.

 

Blue Coast just sent me a free DSD download tonight. They have been doing a few releases.

 

I'm not optimistic given their problems but Sony is sitting on a ton of unreleased and released-via-sacd DSD files.

If they supported it things could get interesting.

It does appear as though hirez PCM is the current standard for better quality downloads.

 

I'm curious what companies like Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab or Analogue Productions think about the idea of offering their DSD studio masters as downloads.

 

I can see a scenario where this happens. Probably need DSD DACs to take hold and for physical media to become hard to find which will sort of force the increased acceptance of downloads among audiophiles.

The only question in my mind is what the major labels think of this. And how the contract works. For instance Mofi probably has rights to release a specific title with a certain time period on hybrid SACD. So questions arise...

Does Mofi have the rights to the DSD file?

Where they even legally able to keep the DSD file once the production run ended?

Would Sony/Warner/Universal license the DSD file to audiophile labels to make money?

Would there even be enough money in it for Sony/Warner/Universal?

 

In many ways, the big labels completely blew it by not developing their own massive iTunes store.

Would Sony or Universal or Warner or whomever try to build their own site? Or band together to offer a major storefront?

One thing in DSD download's favor is the mastering work has largely been done.

I'd sure love to hear more of Mark Wilder's DSD work. He's done some classic jazz albums.

 

I would also include EMI on these label lists above.

 

I'm amazed about this. Audiophiles flipping gear with great frequency? That's unheard of.

Next we'll be hearing that audiophiles are upgrading their phono cartridges/phonostages before they're actually at the end of their useful life.

It's no wonder that people feel the need to change their gear frequently when they're spending time on audio boards reading about how the new greatest thing is better than everything else. And each new "greatest dac under $2k" that "performs as well as or better than anything from $5k to $15k" is touted as the final word in musical reproduction at it's given price point...until the next "greatest dac under $2k" comes a few months later...as the saying goes, "Spend enough time in a barber shop, and you'll end up with a haircut."

 

DSD is a niche within a niche. I see no advantage, particularly as the Sony/Philips conspiracy guaranteed that DSD would be heavily encrypted. As for DSD v. PCM, I really don't see enough difference once you get to 24/192. By then, any difference would be swallowed by the self-noise of the playback gear and the environment it's playing in anyway.