[HiFiGuy528]

Personally I have never been a fan of DSD because it is so difficult to manage in my music library and it requires third-party software to playback.  Now that we have so many streaming options, TIDAL, Music, etc., buying $30+ DSD files seems silly to me.  I much prefer to buy a used CD and rip it in AIFF or FLAC.
 
I like to get your thoughts.

 

[JaZZ]

I'm not convinced of DSD at all, quite the opposite. The fact that it doesn't allow editing definitely makes it obsolete. As others have pointed out, it seems as if 99% of the purely digital DSD recordings have once been edited in PCM, the rest has remained unedited (with corresponding tonal deficits).
 
Also, the format itself is dubious, with its high noise level and a mathematically poor high-frequency resolution:
 

  Take the 2,822,000 samples per second. Divide them by 16,000. You get ~176 samples per ¹/_16,000 second. So you have 88 samples at your disposal for one half wave. With a triangle wave you can use 44 samples saying «up» and 44 samples saying «down» in a row – representing 44 amplitude values. With a sine wave it's a bit less, because you have some deviating samples in between to achieve the sine shape. So that's the dynamic resolution disposable at 16,000 Hz with a pure sine wave. With a complex signal it may be much less.

 
Above numbers refer to DSD64; DSD 128 would have double that.
 
It's possible that DSD sounds better with some (cheap) DACs suffering from severe linearity problems with PCM, though, or those that are DSD based anyway. But still the files size is unproportionally larger than necessary compared to PCM files with allegedly similar resolution.

 

[limpidglitch]

I can care less about DSD…

 
…seems to imply that one do in fact care for DSD, and as such duplicates the alternate statement, or at least isn't its complete negation.
Put in an other way: if you can care less, you logically have to currently care some.
 
Maybe you meant to write "I couldn't care less…"?

 

[HiFiGuy528]

  I'm not convinced of DSD at all, quite the opposite. The fact that it doesn't allow editing definitely makes it obsolete. As others have pointed out, it seems as if 99% of the purely digital DSD recordings have once been edited in PCM, the rest has remained unedited (with corresponding tonal deficits).
 
Also, the format itself is dubious, with its high noise level and a mathematically poor high-frequency resolution:
 
 
Above numbers refer to DSD64; DSD 128 would have double that.
 
It's possible that DSD sounds better with some (cheap) DACs suffering from severe linearity problems with PCM, though, or those that are DSD based anyway. But still the files size is unproportionally larger than necessary compared to PCM files with allegedly similar resolution.

 
That is interesting.... Thanks you!
 
@limpidglitch good catch.  Unfortunately, I can't edit the text.

 

[yay101]

I've only heard a few DSD tracks and haven't been impressed. Definitely not enough of an impression to start a new collection in yet another format.

 

[RRod]

One thing that grinds my gears about DSD is that there is a whole slew of albums whose 5.1 tracks are stuck in DSD format on the SACD, which means either going through the pains of getting the right kind of PS3 for ripping or using the analog hole.

 

[HiFiGuy528]

  One thing that grinds my gears about DSD is that there is a whole slew of albums whose 5.1 tracks are stuck in DSD format on the SACD, which means either going through the pains of getting the right kind of PS3 for ripping or using the analog hole.

 
Yeah, ripping SACDs with a vintage PS3 is not for the average Joe and very time consuming.  Another issue I have with some SACD is the mix was no better than the CD.

 

[obobskivich]

I think DSD is interesting, historically, but as far as consumer releases my biggest gripe continues to be that it's relatively proprietary/non-standard thing. I can't put an SACD into my PC and play it like I would a CD or DVD-A. I can't put an SACD into my car. I can't get a portable SACD player. etc It just has never struck me as very user friendly. Even on PC with digital downloads, you're either relying on some "magic" external box (which I'm not convinced isn't just providing you with a DRM key more than anything else), and/or special software plugins/players, in order to even handle the file(s). It's not as "stupid simple" as working with a more established format like flac, ALAC, WMA-L, etc. And all of this for an encoding scheme that, in ideal circumstances, is just as good as PCM can be (e.g. both are theoretically capable of high dynamic range, low noise, and full-range reproduction). If there wasn't any proprietary-ness to overcome, I doubt I would care one way or another.

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

 I can care less about DSD.

 
I couldn't care less about DSD.
 

 Give me a great sounding PCM DAC that supports up to 24/192kHz.

 
Well, actually, no to that too. I don't mind too much if it does, but "give me a DAC that supports up to to 16/48," would cover my position in theory and "...up to 24/96," in the real world, because that covers all the music formats I am likely to acquire.
 
Thanks for asking.

 

[eugenius]

I'd pay 2$ extra for DSD support. I'd pay 20$ extra for 24/96. I'd pay 2$ extra for 24/192 over 24/96.
I'd pay 100-200$ extra for a good USB input since that makes my experience better.
I don't care about high-res or DSD as a significant way to improve sound quality.

 

[Tambourine Guy]

  I'd pay 2$ extra for DSD support. I'd pay 20$ extra for 24/96. I'd pay 2$ extra for 24/192 over 24/96.
I'd pay 100-200$ extra for a good USB input since that makes my experience better.
I don't care about high-res or DSD as a significant way to improve sound quality.

Well said! I personally do like the sound of DSD, some of them at least.  the problem is the confusion surrounding how to stream them. : ( and after all the messing around, there are only a few tracks I like that comes in DSD.  It's like those TVs that come with stupid 3D glasses.  It's funny to try it in the first 5 minutes... then the glasses stay firmly in the draw.  After all, how many times can you watch Aviator? 

 

[Deftone]

there is not any music i like in the DSD format so i havent made the effort to listen to it and i dont think i ever will, CD rips all the way.

 

[rcoleman1]

I've purchased a couple of DSD titles mostly out of curiosity and I have to say that I was truly impressed with them sonically. But what I've found is that only a few albums that I like are available, which makes me wonder why more artists, download sites etc. aren't trying to cash in on the format. So I've instead relied heavily on ALAC and FLAC files to feed my music hunger, which I mostly rip from CDs.

 

[Tambourine Guy]

  I've purchased a couple of DSD titles mostly out of curiosity and I have to say that I was truly impressed with them sonically. But what I've found is that only a few albums that I like are available, which makes me wonder why more artists, download sites etc. aren't trying to cash in on the format. So I've instead relied heavily on ALAC and FLAC files to feed my music hunger, which I mostly rip from CDs.

I think this is because DSD belongs to Sony and the whole purpose of having DSD in SACD was to prevent people from extracting its copyright contents. Downloadable DSD is kind of a legal grey area right now.  

 

[auee]

I appreciated the sound of the few DSD titles I listened to on a friends system. However, they are just too large to be practical for me. I just had to upgrade from 2TB drives to 4TB drives and a large library of DSD files would mandate the expenditure of substantial funds just for storage. Am I wrong about this?