DSD is better than PCM!

[dualazmak]

No, the most I have done is see the frequency content of the SACD red book layer and my 44.1/16 convertion using Spek, which is a free program. Both versions look the same on Spek and sound the same.

If you would be interested in trying MusicScope 2.1.0 (Windows OS only), please simply PM me.
As for Adobe Audition (for many OS systems, I believe), you need to get/purchase official license from Adobe.

 

[Audiofire]

DSD means don't stress, dude

 

[Sokel]

I have compared waveforms and frequency profiles of ripped DSD vs DVDA vs BluRay vs lossy versions of the same mix and mastering. In all cases *where these are the same* the only potentially substantial difference (i.e., in the audible range) I've seen was the LFE. LFE content for multichannel is all over the map generally (some mixers barely use it, some use it only for the lowest bass, some put full range content in it) but between different formats of the same mix/mastering, the difference comes from the bandwidth limit conventions for the LFE channel of lossy formas (AC3 and DTS) -- typically their LFE contents are lowpassed at 120 Hz..

However, the common (often selectable) LFE lowpass setting in most AVRs is either 80 hz or 120 hz anyway, so the audible difference would be minimal.

NB too that how an AVR is 'supposed' to treat LFE varies from format to format, regarding whether or not to account for a 10dB level offset..

Needless to say none of this has conceivably much to do with the flowery claims for one format for the other made by their proponents. The main channels aren't different in the audible range--- unless the mastering has been obviously altered..

I have a funny story about LFE back in the day.
Playing the usual suspect 5.1 SACD through Jriver always sounded fuller down low at first compared with the two channel version,

So I searched why and found out that I was just down-mixing the 5.1 to 2.0 channels and the famous LFE was part of it

Live and learn