Whatever adjective you use, there's no guarantee you'll be able to replace it if it breaks.I think of it as fortuitous rather than accidental.
Whatever adjective you use, there's no guarantee you'll be able to replace it if it breaks.I think of it as fortuitous rather than accidental.
Mine is a Sony BDP-S5100. Maybe from 2013? I figured it was not the first or last 40 bucks that I'd waste. @Kal Rubinson gives the links where all the info is. Data wants to be free.Neat, having such a device sure would open up a lot of options. Can you give my any details on your device?
Nope, didn't ask just went "ARRR!" and started the download. *chuckles*Did you ask?
Perhaps you are fortunate in that many Sony UHD are among those with ripping capability.
I understand what you mean. Though I'd rather not gamble around on ordering some old 2nd hand product, hoping that the hack will work.For me, price isn't the issue. I already have suitable hardware. I simply dislike the idea of relying on accidental features in order to access music I've bought.
I was referring to DSD256.DSD64 isn’t 25x larger than 24/44K; not even close. Do you know what the storage capacity of a single-layer SACD is? Hint: it’s not 30GB. You are orders of magnitude off here.
Heh, you guys in the U.S. sure have it easy in that regard.Mine is a Sony BDP-S5100. Maybe from 2013? I figured it was not the first or last 40 bucks that I'd waste. @Kal Rubinson gives the links where all the info is. Data wants to be free.
Had I adopted your criterion, I would not have thousands of the files on my NAS that I now enjoy. If the player breaks, I still have them.Whatever adjective you use, there's no guarantee you'll be able to replace it if it breaks.
Exactly.I understand what you mean. Though I'd rather not gamble around on ordering some old 2nd hand product, hoping that the hack will work.
Yes, I have a couple of albums of about 40GB that are of a single-work (e.g., multi-movement symphony) but they are the equivalent of a 2-disc release. They are not all DSD; one is a FLAC!DXD would have a similar filesize. IIRC I have seen @Kal Rubinson quote some ~40GB number for an album in another forum.
I was referring to DSD256.
DXD would have a similar filesize. IIRC I have seen @Kal Rubinson quote some ~40GB number for an album in another forum.
Gotcha. From what I understand, there are inherit advantages to upsampling DSD64 to DSD128 or higher, such as pushing noise artifacts further away from the audible spectrum. This is a bandaid on a what some may consider a self-inflicted wound, but worth noting nonetheless when asked “why” someone might want dual or quad DSD.
His comparisons aren't exactly fair, though.Jussi from HQP has measured DACs that perform best with DSD 256 input. Ask him for the details.
why?His comparisons aren't exactly fair, though.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/new-dac-chipset-from-akm.14391/post-454955why?
Miska liked to show improvements in some specific products with DSD upsampling but Archimago also showed you how DSD upsampling can degrade things.
I don't know. Maybe he has a DSD fetish.why?
That is the best way to put it mansr, DSD is indeed a fetish, it has no technical reason to exist for distribution, so the community around it engages in audiophile BS. I would just point back to post 2 of this thread... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/the-sound-quality-of-dsd.14773/#post-459542I don't know. Maybe he has a DSD fetish.
That is the best way to put it mansr, DSD is indeed a fetish, it has no technical reason to exist, so the community around it engages in audiophile BS. I would just point back to post 2 of this thread... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/the-sound-quality-of-dsd.14773/#post-459542
Thanks for proving my point, not a lot of evidence included there... How many blind and level-matched tests have you done between PCM and DSD? I mentioned the first of what I did in post 2. DSD offered no advantages, only disadvantages. I have done more with the same result.Given the choice between red book and DSD, I’ll go with DSD. Plenty of “technical reasons” why, and is the exact reason DSD was adopted by many users.
Every recording is available, probably not to the end user but studios do not work with redbook. They actually need the other formats.Not every recording available in DSD is available in high res PCM.
Thanks for proving my point, not a lot of evidence included there... How many blind and level-matched tests have you done between PCM and DSD? I mentioned the first of what I did in post 2. DSD offered no advantages, only disadvantages. I have done more with the same result.
DSD should never have been allowed out of the chip, that is what it was designed for and where it is handled properly. Sony used it for distribution because it could not be copied. Then it became an audiophool fetish...
That is the best way to put it mansr, DSD is indeed a fetish, it has no technical reason to exist for distribution, so the community around it engages in audiophile BS. I would just point back to post 2 of this thread... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/the-sound-quality-of-dsd.14773/#post-459542
Ah... so in:TIL redbook cd is multichannel
Given the choice between red book and DSD, I’ll go with DSD. Plenty of “technical reasons” why