[analogsurviver]

   
do you think a redbook cd upconverted to 24/192 would sound better?

Yes and no. Depends what software and hardware combination(s) is being used. There are software players that can correct for most if not all defficiences in say a lowly redbook. But it takes one hell of a computer and understanding/experience on the part of the user. But better is lower resolution done right than something potentially better but not executed well enough. This is where $ inevitably will kick in - a really well done redbook will outperform a poorly made "higher rez", whatever that might be, PCM or DSD. 
 
This is why I decided not to go with Foobar2000 ABX plugin comparator - it can only ABX in PCM, meaning you can not compare native DSD vs PCM under ABX .
Even "sighted" AB will at least give away there was change from PCM to DSD - there is slight switching noise, again dependant on software adjustment and actual hardware. And that actual hardwares can sound sufficiently different one from another to mask the (dis)advantages of either PCM or DSD - often preffering one and shunning the other. And/or vice versa.
 
But given the same kind of attention to detail ( with inevitable price increase ), upconverted 24/192 should have the edge. IF the soft is clever enough to "recostruct" what should have been there in the redbook but can not be due to the very redboook itself.
 
Not a straight answer, but one I believe is close to the truth. 

 

[BLACKENEDPLAGUE]

  Yes and no. Depends what software and hardware combination(s) is being used. There are software players that can correct for most if not all defficiences in say a lowly redbook. But it takes one hell of a computer and understanding/experience on the part of the user. But better is lower resolution done right than something potentially better but not executed well enough. This is where $ inevitably will kick in - a really well done redbook will outperform a poorly made "higher rez", whatever that might be, PCM or DSD. 
 
This is why I decided not to go with Foobar2000 ABX plugin comparator - it can only ABX in PCM, meaning you can not compare native DSD vs PCM under ABX .
Even "sighted" AB will at least give away there was change from PCM to DSD - there is slight switching noise, again dependant on software adjustment and actual hardware. And that actual hardwares can sound sufficiently different one from another to mask the (dis)advantages of either PCM or DSD - often preffering one and shunning the other. And/or vice versa.
 
But given the same kind of attention to detail ( with inevitable price increase ), upconverted 24/192 should have the edge. IF the soft is clever enough to "recostruct" what should have been there in the redbook but can not be due to the very redboook itself.
 
Not a straight answer, but one I believe is close to the truth. 

 
 
upconverting redbook would be like converting an mp3 to flac, nothing is lost and nothing is gained
 
And as far as ABXing different resolutions in foobar, you can EASILY tell because there is a slight pause while the system switches between them. It doesn't necessarily sound better

 

[analogsurviver]

   
 
upconverting redbook would be like converting an mp3 to flac, nothing is lost and nothing is gained
 
And as far as ABXing different resolutions in foobar, you can EASILY tell because there is a slight pause while the system switches between them. It doesn't necessarily sound better

Not necessary true. Some software may well be clever enough to add what was not recorded originally ( anything above 22050 Hz in redbook ) - and another may not. The first "with improvement" should have an edge over the one "without improvement". 
 
What you say holds true for PCM only - because ABX in Foobar can not play DSD natively and will covert it to highest resolution PCM your hardware will support if you configured foobar correctly. 

 

[BLACKENEDPLAGUE]

anything added is by definition coloration

 

[analogsurviver]

  anything added is by definition coloration

Meant was adding WHAT BY DEFINITION IS BEING LEFT OUT OF REDBOOK - that is to say anythhing above 22050 Hz . If the soft is clever enough, it can recalculate the omissions - but it is then up to the exactness of the algorythm which even if executed perfectly, does not necessary mean it recreates precisely what has not been recorded due to the restrictions of redbook.
 
Similarly have been re-recorded historical recordings - some even around 100 years old -  using the measurements of devices with which they were originally recorded  and applying the appropriate measures that added (most of) what could not have been recorded at the time due to technical restrictions, using most up to date software. Mechanical recording had a very limited frequency and dynamic range  - by applying the correct transfer function, it is possible today to get quite close to the real sound .
 
It was NOT meant adding anything else but omissions due to technicalities - that would indeed be coloration and it is best avoided at all costs.

 

[BLACKENEDPLAGUE]

  Meant was adding WHAT BY DEFINITION IS BEING LEFT OUT OF REDBOOK - that is to say anythhing above 22050 Hz . If the soft is clever enough, it can recalculate the omissions - but it is then up to the exactness of the algorythm which even if executed perfectly, does not necessary mean it recreates precisely what has not been recorded due to the restrictions of redbook.

 
You can't put something back that wasn't there in the first place. Once the audio is trimmed for cd, that cd will never ever regain the lost frequencies.
 
And your example of historical reproduction, the software is once again adding something that was not there. I could make my stereo sound like an opera house but it doesn't mean my music was recorded in an opera house

 

[analogsurviver]

   
You can't put something back that wasn't there in the first place. Once the audio is trimmed for cd, that cd will never ever regain the lost frequencies.
 
And your example of historical reproduction, the software is once again adding something that was not there. I could make my stereo sound like an opera house but it doesn't mean my music was recorded in an opera house

You CAN - if it is precisely known what was omitted - and that info can be obtained by measurements of the device that made the original recording. It goes from "Mary had a little lamb" to the last recording done in less than ( insert your choice either in analog, PCM or DSD ) . But you also have to know not only the characteristic(s) of the recorder(s), but also microphones used at the original session(s).
 
It is the last ditch effort and should be used with the extreme caution and judging by ear what is still "acceptable" - and preferably one should use equipment that does not possess such limitations. This has been around only  for approx last 10 years or so, maybe a bit longer - and that is in recording terms very recently.
 
Various software players acommodate varying degrees of possibility to cater to these differences http://www.audioholics.com/how-to-shop/best-audiophile-music-software - here the lenghty review describing one of the most dedicated journeys in computer audio http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/xxhighend/3.html - I admit of only glancing at it, as computer system requirements are a "bit" above what I consider reasonable and have on my radar as a reasonably forseeable future addition.  And I  would not touch anything not supporting DSD with a barge pole - but the purpose of this post is to underline the difference of adding what has been omitted due to limitations of equipment used for the original recording - NOT additions it would take to make a recording originally made in a closet sound like a cathedral - or opera house, if you prefer. That is beyond the scope of "additions" I had in mind.

 

[pchemist]

So any word from the industry insiders on whether Sony plans to release its SACD catalog on DSD for download? As you all know, this would obviate the need to (a) find the SACDs that interest you, most of which are likely out of production; (b) obtain an SACD-capable PS3 downgraded to an early-gen state; and (c) rip the SACDs.  Are they waiting to see what happens with Pono?  

 

[gr34td3str0y3r]

But I gotta get my hands on that portable DSD audio player that holds 6 albums ripped from SACD off TPB which were mastered from 16/44 pcm! 
 
I just ordered a new DAC that has DSD... Kinda hard to buy a new dac today that DOESN'T have DSD. I am going to at least try it out. But I can see where this gets out of hand. 
Before you a-holes stole all the money out of my wallet I had a nice big MP3 collection dating back from the late late 90's.
Now I have have a whole brand new collection of FLAC.
In anticipation of my DAC delivery I went ahead on downloaded some DSD files.
Zeppelin 1-4 from reel to reel vs the flac vinyl rip version, vs my dusty god knows what bitrate mp3 copy.
Past that the only DSD file I can find on the net of something I would actually listen to and already have so that I could compare is Gabriel's So 

 

[BLACKENEDPLAGUE]

  But I gotta get my hands on that portable DSD audio player that holds 6 albums ripped from SACD off TPB which were mastered from 16/44 pcm! 

 
Come on now you're just being a jackass

 

[bmoura]

  So any word from the industry insiders on whether Sony plans to release its SACD catalog on DSD for download? As you all know, this would obviate the need to (a) find the SACDs that interest you, most of which are likely out of production; (b) obtain an SACD-capable PS3 downgraded to an early-gen state; and (c) rip the SACDs.  Are they waiting to see what happens with Pono?  

They already are! 
 
Check out the Super HiRez section of the Acoustic Sounds web site.  It even includes "I Robot" by Alan Parsons in DSD Download - which was never released by Sony Music/Arista on SACD. Along with many others from the Sony SACD releases.
 
http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/101234/The_Alan_Parsons_Project-I_Robot-DSD
http://store.acousticsounds.com/c/372/DSD

 

[pchemist]

 
They already are! 
 
Check out the Super HiRez section of the Acoustic Sounds web site.  It even includes "I Robot" by Alan Parsons in DSD Download - which was never released by Sony Music/Arista on SACD. Along with many others from the Sony SACD releases.
 
http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/101234/The_Alan_Parsons_Project-I_Robot-DSD
http://store.acousticsounds.com/c/372/DSD

Neat, thanks for the links, I had no idea.  This motivated an internet search, which uncovered this thread from computeraudiophile:  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-music-downloads-and-streaming/sony-direct-stream-digital-downloads-now-available-super-hi-rez-17904/
 
In it one poster (gabeg) writes: "these are titles that were done by AP [Analog Productions]. Even though they were licensed from Sony, the AP Sacds have been available for a while so I wouldn't consider these brand new. When Sony's transfers that have never been available hit the streets...that'll be news."

 

[LoryWiv]

I am struggling to find a straightforward method to convert DSD-DFF to DSF, as the latter permits tagging and former does not. I tried Miska's tool and the windows context menu interface from the thread at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/dff-dsf-conversion-21715/.
 
I cannot get either the dff2dsf.bat utility or shell context menu to work, and concede I am a little challenged with command line and registry queries / edits as suggested in the thread. Previously, I think KORG AudioGate lite could do this but have read that the currently available freeware version is severely limited in output and export options, essentially crippleware, and the full version requires purchase of a KORG product which as a music lover but non-musician I don't have use for.
 
Does anyone have a relatively simple, GUI based method for accomplishing this DFF --> DSF conversion?
 
Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[junker]

  The problem is, take a look at the output of many popular-music SACDs on an audio analyzer--and see how many of them are converted straight from 16/44.1 PCM. Short answer: lots of them.

 
Many of them? Can you support this? Where is this listed?
 
And the few cases of this are somehow different than the many misrepresented PCM offerings on HDTracks (i.e. Beck w/ MP3s)?
 
 
 
And just for you to see where I am coming from...I have more DSD than PCM mostly from SACD rips (~1000) so I'm not saying it's widely available or anything but for me it's a requirement. And in my experience many SACDs are very well put together (i.e. direct from Sony / Columbia master tapes etc). A lot of great classic rock, jazz, classical, etc. I'm not too concerned if I won't find Taylor Swift on Spotify or DSD. IMO it's a red herring to compare these formats - It's not: Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD; VHS vs. BetaMAX; Mac vs. PC; DVD-A vs. SACD; iDevice vs. Android; or vinyl vs. digital. Software-based music has greatly leveled the playing field between these formats with regard to playback. And lastly, sometimes you just can't find something in hi-res PCM that existed in DSD. This goes both ways of course.

 

[cggkevin1976]

Speaking of Super HiRez, I was looking through the DSD downloads and noticed "Nojima Plays Liszt". Since I like Liszt, I checked it out. In the DSD format, it states "Natively recorded at 176/24, price for DSD 24.99. There was a handy link over to the 176/24 format which is priced at 29.99. It is these types of business practices that make it so hard to support Record companies and the sites that sell their product. On Amazon I can often buy the physical CD including shipping cheaper than I can buy the lossy MP3. One Hi-rez site will only sell the whole album while another will sell individual tracks. TIDAL may yet make it into my future.