Your response illustrates why no one is sensing any headway in the conversation. Because the next logical thing I would say is "symmetric ringing is only a problem if said ringing is audible", and then we get back into debates on ABX.
I will say that my main beef with DSD is simply that it requires a whole new paradigm for doing what we can already do audibly well. I have trivial access to all kinds of DACs that will decode up to 32/192 with no issues, but I would have to intentionally buy something to get DSD decoding on, say, my Linux box. And for what content? And for what audible benefit? For what *provable* audible benefit?
I agree regarding the logic of audibility of said ringing.
However - and that is BIG however - I feel that eliminating a potentially audible problem altogether is better than debating whether it is audible or not. One unknown less is ALWAYS better than one more. In music heard live, there is NO filtering (except HF rolloff as a function of the distance ) vcausing any form of ringing - yet all known forms of recording introduce some. DXD and DSD come mighty close to the perfection, DSD is faster in reaction times.
I still find it hard how we - or pardon - I - can hear the difference in high end response beyond the frequency I can still reliably hear sine wave AND over headphones/speakers that roll off waaaay too early and have curtailed response in the treble to boot. It still comes trough , despite all the imperfections in between.
I was appalled to see the measurements of most headphones - even high end models - after being used to performance of phono cartridges. Loudspeakers are generally even worse, specially if the acoustics of the room is allowed to take its toll.
I agree there is far more important to get better microphone(s) and headphones/speakers than worrying about DXD vs DSD. Yet it is now 60 years since the original Mercurys etc have been recorded - and STILL it is possible to get out of the originally pressed vinyl records ever more by the use of a really good turntable. No one is going to do that with early digital recordings - because machines that read them now are so far better than the recordings themselves it really does not make much sense.
By recording now to DXD or DSD, we create libraries for the future. And DXD/DSD capable DACs can be had from approx $200 or so - to the sky is the limit. They are available NOW, not like phono gear that took at least three decades to sort of catch up with what was in the grooves since around 1955 - and did and does cost a small fortune and will/can never be "cheap".
I will post a few DSD128 DFF files - excerpts - for which I have obtained permission - next week , time permitting.
So that you can have some true unprocessed DSD - only taken out of an entire concert, maybe there will be some fade in/out - end of story. Nothing else done to the original file.
"Provable" audible benefit. ? About the same thing as classic mechanical gear shifting and electronic gear shifting in racing bicycles. Yes, classics is lighter, yes, it is more reliable on the dark side of the Venus, it does not require getting new frame, is cheaper, can be adjusted by almost anyone, etc, etc - that is precisely why I do not want to go any near the new electronic shifting bikes. Because they say once tried, all of the above reservations evaporate in thin air, cost be damned...
With bikes, the only cost effective solution for getting electronic shifting is complete new bike - with DXD/DSD, it is only DXD/DSD capable DAC (and possibly better computer), software that can play DSD natively + storage . They also generally play regular PCM better than DACs only few years old.
For music in pure dsd: https://www.nativedsd.com/
![size]](http://files.head-fi.org/images/smilies/wink.gif[size=13px][/size])
