[wout31]

Love the idea of a transport. I would also like to have my Yggy2 be able to accept DXD. There are some nice DXD titles out there. It would be nice to be able to light up that unused light on the front of the Yggy.

This looks to me like "The bigger the numbers, the better the sound" idea in many audio lovers minds.
More watts in an amp, more speakers in a line array, more bits and higher sample rates in a digital file.
It mostly results in more noise or a much higher strain on the system without any audible improvement. It may sound different due to the strain and the noise, but very rarely better.
What is the available catalogue that was originally recorded and mastered at this high level?
Take a DXD track and look at it with Musicscope and look where the music stops and the "nothing" begins.
16 bit 44.1 kHz is in 99% of the cases more than enough to reveal all the recorded music with all it's details.
Like Mike has more than once stated, Our DAC's are for the music you own, not the music you have to buy (at ridiculous high prices for the extra inaudible parts)
This could be a good read http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3928
Maybe also look at the best recordings microphones in the world and frequency response.
Neumann TLM 102 max. 19.9 kHz.
Rode NT1A max 20.9 kHz
Shure, AKG, Beyer, Behringer, etc. all the same numbers.

 

[porchwizard]

DXD is 24-bit / 352.8 kHz PCM. It can be in a container such as FLAC or .wav. It is sometimes used during studio editing/mastering, but I'm skeptical of its value for consumer audio.

I'm holding out for 32/768

 

[Ableza]

It is still PCM.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

I was skeptical about DXD at first. But after I have heard these records...

https://lawo.nativedsd.com/albums/LWC1153-bach-toccatas-preludes-and-fugues
https://rcolive.nativedsd.com/albums/RCO16006-berlioz-symphonie-fantastique-op-18

Now, I would not buy a DAC without support for this sample rate. I`ve tried to encode this to 16/44,1 - the record is still good, but DXD sounds significantly better.

 

[Ableza]

I was skeptical about DXD at first. But after that I have heard these records...

https://lawo.nativedsd.com/albums/LWC1153-bach-toccatas-preludes-and-fugues
https://rcolive.nativedsd.com/albums/RCO16006-berlioz-symphonie-fantastique-op-18

Now, I would not buy a DAC without support for this sample rate. I`ve tried to encode this to 16/44,1 - the record is still good, but DXD sounds significantly better.

I am sure there are products out there you can choose from.

 

[wout31]

I was skeptical about DXD at first. But after that I have heard these records...
ttps://lawo.nativedsd.com/albums/LWC1153-bach-toccatas-preludes-and-fugues
https://rcolive.nativedsd.com/albums/RCO16006-berlioz-symphonie-fantastique-op-18
Now, I would not buy a DAC without support for this sample rate. I`ve tried to encode this to 16/44,1 - the record is still good, but DXD sounds significantly better.

the record is still good, but DXD sounds significantly better different. And I like it better!

 

[ScubaMan2017]

Are you using wireless to stream your music. Sometimes it`s as easy as just using a wired connection to fix the drops.
(Do Chromebooks still have a port for wired internet connections? They might be to thin.)

My Acer 15 Chromebook only has USB ports (two 3.0 and 2 type-C). I agree with you @HumanFly ... often it's easier to forget about WiFi & go wired (I got relief by switching only to the 5GHz radio). If the drops get too bad, I throw my tunes on a USB key and walk it over to my listening nook.

 

[ScubaMan2017]

I thought maybe it was something new I was unfamiliar with... but I like your definition.

...also needs a Flux Capacitor...

 

[Ragnar-BY]

I am sure there are products out there you can choose from.

Well,I assume it was the case when my English is not good enough to say exactly what I meant to say

I know Schiit opinion about hi-res and its up to them how to make their DACs. It was just my 2c about DXD. I mean, that now recording labels have access to better hardware, better software and there are channels for direct sales of such records. Argument "all good music is in 16/44" is not that strong as it was five years ago.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

the record is still good, but DXD sounds significantly better different. And I like it better!

There are a lot of things which I could say are just "different", but when it is better - it is better. And that was exactly the case. Initial DXD file had better dynamics, greater sense of details and it was much more entertaining to listen to.

 

[winders]

There are a lot of things which I could say are just "different", but when it is better - it is better. And that was exactly the case. Initial DXD file had better dynamics, greater sense of details and it was much more entertaining to listen to.

I get I could setup a test with a DXD album and Redbook album, both with same exact mastering, and I bet you would not be able to pick the DXD recording out from the Redbook recording.

 

[Ableza]

Well,I assume it was the case when my English is not good enough to say exactly what I meant to say

I know Schiit opinion about hi-res and its up to them how to make their DACs. It was just my 2c about DXD. I mean, that now recording labels have access to better hardware, better software and there are channels for direct sales of such records. Argument "all good music is in 16/44" is not that strong as it was five years ago.

Your English is great. I would not try to post in Polish.

I will end my part of this DXD discussion by quoting Mike Moffat, speaking about another technology, but I am pretty certain the philosophy would also apply here: “If it becomes the dominant audio technology, or even a very popular second-place format, we would have to evaluate it in the same way we evaluate other ... standards, such as home theater surround formats, Bluetooth codecs, and MP3 variants.”

 

[RCBinTN]

Your English is great. I would not try to post in Polish.

I will end my part of this DXD discussion by quoting Mike Moffat, speaking about another technology, but I am pretty certain the philosophy would also apply here: “If it becomes the dominant audio technology, or even a very popular second-place format, we would have to evaluate it in the same way we evaluate other ... standards, such as home theater surround formats, Bluetooth codecs, and MP3 variants.”

Well quoted, sir. Makes sense to me.

I am perfectly happy with my Schiit MB DAC and 16/44.1 Redbook music.

If DSD or DXD sounds better then go for it!
After all, it's a personal experience. You're not going to sell me any DXD recordings

 

[Ragnar-BY]

I get I could setup a test with a DXD album and Redbook album, both with same exact mastering, and I bet you would not be able to pick the DXD recording out from the Redbook recording.

In one of Jason`s chapters (I don`t remember in which one) there was a good story about tests. How he could not tell the difference between amplifiers in improperly organized test.

When I`m trying a new food, I just taste it. No special conditions, no weighted portions or calories calculating. Because this is how I normally eat. When I want to understand if something sounds better or worse, I just listen to it (usually for a long period of time). I trust my ears and my perception of sound. Otherwise there is no point in all this expensive audio gear, which could be easily "outperformed" on paper by a cheap off-the-shelf-DAC.

There is no sense in telling me I could not tell the difference, because I hear it clearly and have no doubts about it. You can convert that albums and listen to them yourself. If you could not tell the difference.. Well, my congratulations, it makes things easier for you, that`s great.

 

[wink]

This is wrong on many levels

..

..

.