No, it is not an echo. They actually printed them more than once.
A good taste of DSD--what is your experience?
Over the last year or so I've pushed to get my digital front end to sound better. I loosely define better to mean just that and "a touch more analog sounding."
My tube DAC is DSD 256 ready. I had to use third party software to stream DSD to the DAC from my Mac Air. I bought 6 DSD albums from Acoustic Sounds.
While I generally think Redbook sounds great on this DAC and 96kHz files don't sound that much better and Redbook. With DSD, the margin is greater for the better. Everything still depends on how good the original recording is though.
Some older recordings I tried, such as John Lee Hooker and Elvis, sound superb in DSD. And through a 300B amp the vocals are scary real in the listening space. The downside to me is cost of the albums, limited DSD library available, and the age-old problem for me of not having an album to hold and read. I'm not fond of doing the ritual exclusively on a laptop.
I'm curious as to the experiences of others. If you have embraced this format, how do you run it and what changes to your system or listening habits have you made ,if any, to accommodate it?
My tube DAC is DSD 256 ready. I had to use third party software to stream DSD to the DAC from my Mac Air. I bought 6 DSD albums from Acoustic Sounds.
While I generally think Redbook sounds great on this DAC and 96kHz files don't sound that much better and Redbook. With DSD, the margin is greater for the better. Everything still depends on how good the original recording is though.
Some older recordings I tried, such as John Lee Hooker and Elvis, sound superb in DSD. And through a 300B amp the vocals are scary real in the listening space. The downside to me is cost of the albums, limited DSD library available, and the age-old problem for me of not having an album to hold and read. I'm not fond of doing the ritual exclusively on a laptop.
I'm curious as to the experiences of others. If you have embraced this format, how do you run it and what changes to your system or listening habits have you made ,if any, to accommodate it?
Showing 4 responses by glupson
The Rolling Stones SACDs (and "DSD CDs") are hard to compare to 1990s Virgin remasters. Mainly because they are different albums (Virgin did not have rights to those early ABKCO albums, I think). Otherwise, comparing The Rolling Stones' first album from one of the early days of CDs with these SACDs is apples-to-apples and SACD is objectively much better. However, it may be too good in some way. |
jbhiller, It was not much of a work. It was from memory. To answer your question about embracing the format and how to run it, etc... SACDs get converted to .DSF files. It is for convenience (less clutter in the room, simpler access, portable application, and so on). Then they get played through the...DAC on the SACD player or through the Walkman. Vinyl records get copied into DSD (64x) and follow the path above. |
"I have some Rolling Stones DSD CDs produced by ABKCO in 2002."I think geoffkait is asking about a batch of CDs (NOT SACDs) that say "DSD" on them. I would think that they are same as CD layer of initial hybrid SACDs. Just converted from ISO files, or something like that. This is a picture of one of them. Note the sticker. https://www.cdandlp.com/en/the-rolling-stones/between-the-buttons-version-us-dsd-remastered/cd/r1188... https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/rolling-stones-dsd-cd-releases-which-ones-are-good.287412/ |