[dnullify]

This is your best option but that particular cable arrived with a short with my order. Musicteck is supposed to get cayin branded cables next week that should be better quality. I'm​ going to wait till that one comes in myself.

I'll keep an eye out for those cables myself too...
 
 
 
Just out of curiosity, is anyone actually using DSD? I can't find any music I actually listen to in DSD for sale anywhere! What's the point of 32bit capable dacs and players if there's no music in those formats?
 
I'm entertaining the idea of buying one of my favorite albums in 24/96 to compare to my lossless CD rips, but I don't know if $18-22 is worth it. I've never actually tried anything above 16bit.

 

[Jimster480]

 
I'll keep an eye out for those cables myself too...
 
 
 
Just out of curiosity, is anyone actually using DSD? I can't find any music I actually listen to in DSD for sale anywhere! What's the point of 32bit capable dacs and players if there's no music in those formats?
 
I'm entertaining the idea of buying one of my favorite albums in 24/96 to compare to my lossless CD rips, but I don't know if $18-22 is worth it. I've never actually tried anything above 16bit.

Its just marketing, there is basically no music in DSD and the music that is in DSD is usually from Analog sources anyway meaning that even if it would be better (as the theory/claims of DSD go) it isn't because its just translated and therefore actually worse than just a normal analog source.
There is no way to have 32b music either as we cant get the noise floor that low, so 24b is really the maximum even if 95% of music is in 44.1/16b.

 

[iponyrobot]

Mine came, took about a week. Has got the branded cable. Im a total newb, but tested radiohead burn the witch on sony z5 and my new N3, I am very happy with the sound. Buttons and the case are a bit...but, for the price I feel its reasonable. I could well grow into them yet.
 
Im just using Sony brass mdr ex650 are they good enough or could i improve spending under 100 dollars?
 
cheers.

 

[dnullify]

 
Its just marketing, there is basically no music in DSD and the music that is in DSD is usually from Analog sources anyway meaning that even if it would be better (as the theory/claims of DSD go) it isn't because its just translated and therefore actually worse than just a normal analog source.
There is no way to have 32b music either as we cant get the noise floor that low, so 24b is really the maximum even if 95% of music is in 44.1/16b.

Ah, that makes sense. I doubt i'd be able to hear the difference between 16b lossless and 24/96, but curiosity is killing me.

 

[Jimster480]

 
Ah, that makes sense. I doubt i'd be able to hear the difference between 16b lossless and 24/96, but curiosity is killing me.

Yea I have heard both and couldn't tell the difference but its also hard to tell if the music was recorded in 24/96 or was just converted.

 

[originalsnuffy]

 
Its just marketing, there is basically no music in DSD and the music that is in DSD is usually from Analog sources anyway meaning that even if it would be better (as the theory/claims of DSD go) it isn't because its just translated and therefore actually worse than just a normal analog source.
There is no way to have 32b music either as we cant get the noise floor that low, so 24b is really the maximum even if 95% of music is in 44.1/16b.

 
Ah, um, I would treat this as a personal opinion versus a fact.  This is not the place to get into this debate.  This discussion occurs all over head fi and I would suggest a search on the topic.
 
Short answer....and its  a $20 experiment.   Get a copy of Kind of Blue from HDTracks at 24-192.  If that does not sound wonderful to you, then for you hi res is not worthwhile.
 
DSD files are harder to find....easiest way to get some for testing is to find somebody who knows how to rip SACD sources.  Computer Audiophile is the place to go for that info.
 
DSD makes the most sense for analog sourced material and material actually recorded in DSD.  The least useful source of DSD files is music orignally recorded in PCM; in that case conversion to DSD in my view makes no sense at all.

 

[originalsnuffy]

 
Yes the Headfonics review seems pretty accurate to me and it does make clear the weaknesses of the X1ii...if the processor isn't powerful enough I don't think any firmware updates will speed it up but the N3 has no lag and works exactly as advertised. The bluetooth works well too. It's nice to get a DAP that works this well after just being released.

 
Bruce, if I recall you were not too impressed with the Shanling M2.  I gather you are more excited about the N3?

 

[Atomka]

   
Ah, um, I would treat this as a personal opinion versus a fact.  This is not the place to get into this debate.  This discussion occurs all over head fi and I would suggest a search on the topic.
 
Short answer....and its  a $20 experiment.   Get a copy of Kind of Blue from HDTracks at 24-196.  If that does not sound wonderful to you, then for you hi res is not worthwhile.
 
DSD files are harder to find....easiest way to get some for testing is to find somebody who knows how to rip SACD sources.  Computer Audiophile is the place to go for that info.
 
DSD makes the most sense for analog sourced material and material actually recorded in DSD.  The least useful source of DSD files is music orignally recorded in PCM; in that case conversion to DSD in my view makes no sense at all.

Took me about 4 sec to find, it'll give it a try ! Thanks

 

[Jimster480]

Ah, um, I would treat this as a personal opinion versus a fact.  This is not the place to get into this debate.  This discussion occurs all over head fi and I would suggest a search on the topic.

Short answer....and its  a $20 experiment.   Get a copy of Kind of Blue from HDTracks at 24-196.  If that does not sound wonderful to you, then for you hi res is not worthwhile.

DSD files are harder to find....easiest way to get some for testing is to find somebody who knows how to rip SACD sources.  Computer Audiophile is the place to go for that info.

DSD makes the most sense for analog sourced material and material actually recorded in DSD.  The least useful source of DSD files is music orignally recorded in PCM; in that case conversion to DSD in my view makes no sense at all.

I'm not saying that 24/192 music cannot sound better. What I'm saying is that most music is not recorded in any higher res formats and most of what is out there and available (without paying through the nose) is 16/44.1

Dsd makes no sense to me since 99% of music isn't recorded in DSD and as such converting your music from PCM to DSD makes no sense.

 

[originalsnuffy]

I'm not saying that 24/192 music cannot sound better. What I'm saying is that most music is not recorded in any higher res formats and most of what is out there and available (without paying through the nose) is 16/44.1

Dsd makes no sense to me since 99% of music isn't recorded in DSD and as such converting your music from PCM to DSD makes no sense.

 
I think you missed a key point here.   If you are interested in older analog recordings, hi res can be very helpful.  Both hi res PCM and DSD.
 
Yes, if the file is recorded digitallyin PCM,  DSD is a waste.  
 
But on the other hand most modern studios record at 24 - 96 so hi res PCM allows you to hear what the mixing engineer hears.
 
Keep in mind that the comments started with DSD then veered in Hi Res in general.

 

[Jimster480]

I think you missed a key point here.   If you are interested in older analog recordings, hi res can be very helpful.  Both hi res PCM and DSD.

Yes, if the file is recorded digitallyin PCM,  DSD is a waste.  

But on the other hand most modern studios record at 24 - 96 so hi res PCM allows you to hear what the mixing engineer hears.

Keep in mind that the comments started with DSD then veered in Hi Res in general.

If it's available then ya. But most streaming services don't offer them and its hit and miss.
I'm not debating quality, I'm debating availability in the real world.

 

[groucho69]

   
Ah, um, I would treat this as a personal opinion versus a fact.  This is not the place to get into this debate.  This discussion occurs all over head fi and I would suggest a search on the topic.
 
Short answer....and its  a $20 experiment.   Get a copy of Kind of Blue from HDTracks at 24-196.  If that does not sound wonderful to you, then for you hi res is not worthwhile.
 
DSD files are harder to find....easiest way to get some for testing is to find somebody who knows how to rip SACD sources.  Computer Audiophile is the place to go for that info.
 
DSD makes the most sense for analog sourced material and material actually recorded in DSD.  The least useful source of DSD files is music orignally recorded in PCM; in that case conversion to DSD in my view makes no sense at all.

Huh! At HDTracks I get "

This product is not currently available due to region restrictions." But it let me down load the sampler ​

 

[docholliday]

 
I'll keep an eye out for those cables myself too...
 
 
 
Just out of curiosity, is anyone actually using DSD? I can't find any music I actually listen to in DSD for sale anywhere! What's the point of 32bit capable dacs and players if there's no music in those formats?
 
I'm entertaining the idea of buying one of my favorite albums in 24/96 to compare to my lossless CD rips, but I don't know if $18-22 is worth it. I've never actually tried anything above 16bit.

I have quite a bit of music in DSD. Some of it is rips of my SACDs (they never made a functional portable SACD player), but a lot of it is masters that I've captured in DSD off the analog recording consoles that I've worked with. Some of it is recorded from live shows using a Sony D100 and others from a studio deck. 
 
16/44 vs 24/96 vs DSD64 is quite noticable, but only if captured in the highest resolution. Some remasters are re-captured from analog tape into a DSD format, others are captured into 32/352 or similar. Mixing and mastering is done at the high resolution to allow headroom for the effects (EQs, compressors, gates, etc) to function without clipping. When it's all done, it's finally mastered down to a release format of 24/96 or 16/44. Even big commercial studios, such as Capitol, only record in 24/192 up front. The higher formats are for mixdown and mastering when you start combining a bunch of 24/192 tracks.
 
Most commercial music (stuff that you'd buy) is limited in it's chain to the lowest resolution that was used in it's production. Yes, some re-masters do sound really good (ignore the technical crap about noise floor and all that - in the end it only matters if the remaster sounds good). The Doobie Brothers Greatest Hits remaster on HDTracks may not be anywhere technically perfect and isn't "audiophile" grade crap. But, the remastering engineer did an excellent job of bringing out instruments and resolution. It's available in 24/96 and 24/192. Both show decent extension in a spectro. The 192 is probably overkill, as is most HDtracks stuff in 192. A lot of the Fleetwood Mac remasters are also really good.
 
And then there is the crap in 192 or DSD where it's just up-res'd with a bunch of +6 EQ pushes.
 
It all comes down to whether those albums you want in 24/96 was remastered in high quality or not. Don't forget that you really need good phones or speakers and a proper listening environment to hear the little differences. 

 

[BrOtO]

Even Smartphones like Vivo xplay 6 is bringing native DSD support and associated know-how in their smartphone UI..
So , i guess somwhere some paradigm shift is happening , which hasnt reached us yet..

 

[docholliday]

Even Smartphones like Vivo xplay 6 is bringing native DSD support and associated know-how in their smartphone UI..
So , i guess somwhere some paradigm shift is happening , which hasnt reached us yet..

And a lot of it has to do with the DAC chip manufacturers producing chips capable of DSD decoding, so the device manufacturer's are just using the chip to it's full advantage. If it exists, why not use it and advertise it?