Anyone to discuss DSD worth and why it was invented by Sony and still used by Sony only? (answer: profit). PCM is superior to comparable DSD - PCM won't have trailing high freq noise, and requiring low pass filter to cut it off. No need to reencode your FLAC, or MP3 to DSD. You've been fooled again...
bravomailNo one is encoding their files to DSD. Those of us that enjoy DSD get tracks that were mastered with this in mind in the first place. Much like native 4k compared to checkerboard/upscaling. The only unfortunate thing is DSD is pretty genre limited so unless you're really into classical or orchestral pieces, you're SOL.
bravomailThere's quite a bit just plain wrong in what you've written. Sony and Phillips came up with DSD, as well as 16 bit/ 44.1 Khz PCM. The intent was to create a "futureproof" format that they could use to digitally store their masters. SACD picked up on this, and used the DSD encoded tracks. PCM is not superior to DSD. There is no easy way to do an apples to apples comparison of the two formats. DSD files are delta-sigma modulated, and PCM is ... pulse code modulated. That makes a direct comparison difficult. As to the filter, nearly all DACs are delta-sigma at the end of line. As such nearly all DACs noise shape to some degree, pushing the noises out of the audible spectrum. I don't see how creating less noise in the part of the music you are reproducing is harmful.
Finally, you are correct in the "don't re-encode your music". If there are negatives associated with DSD or PCM then re-encoding from one format to another will give you the worst of both worlds.
So why DSD? DSD gives listeners a chance to hear recordings, usually sourced from studio masters and not specifically compressed and processed for streaming loudness and mobile device storage. Not every DSD recording is an improvement over the original, and the lack of material available means the format is likely dying, like betamax.
OldManNikoASR had extended discussion on DSD and destroyed it. DSD is made to be impossible to process on PC. To thwart pirates. That it's sole purpose. PCM is superior to DSD in all ways.
bravomailNeither is superior over the other. They're different flavors of the same thing: "Both DSD and PCM are “quantized,” meaning numeric values are set to approximate the analog signal. Both DSD and PCM have quantization errors. Both DSD and PCM have linearity errors. Both DSD and PCM have quantization noise that requires filtering. In other words, neither one is perfect."
https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/
It'll boil down to your DAC essentially. So again, different strokes for different folks. No superiority as both formats are "technically" flawed to some extent one way or another. Choose the highest quality files for what you listen to that your DAC natively supports and just enjoy your music.
jaydunndidditanother quote: I'd be curious to see any evidence of 'better transients / dynamics' in DSD compared to PCM.
Who needs evidence in presence of strong opinion?
jaydunndidditanother quote: Have a lock here : https://www.nativedsd.com
Abt. 1,500 DSD albums is not bad as availability, it will take 30 years for you to buy all at a realistic pace of 1 album / week ...
1,500 is not bad... by comparison Discogs has about 3.5 million CDs listed
bravomailhttps://www.nativedsd.com/information/about-dsdAccording to that page, "unless otherwise indicated, NativeDSD offers only DSD Edit Masters, sourced from DSD session recordings," but even that is not entirely true. Take for instance this album. According to Sound Liaison it was recorded in 352.8 kHz PCM, yet this is not mentioned anywhere on the NativeDSD page. The only clue that it was sourced from PCM is that they offer a DXD version for download. Since the entire premise of the site is the superiority of DSD, I really think they ought to be clearer about this. I guess they realised that pure DSD recordings are rare as hen's teeth and expanded their definition of "native" a little so as to increase the size of the catalogue
bravomailGood job at deflecting. You link to an amateur audio enthusiast site and ignore information from actual engineers in the industry, as well as the history behind it all. There is a bilbliography for all sources linked in my article as well for further follow up and dissection from the industry and engineers. You should actually read them. It's rather educational.
It still doesn't change the fact that neither are superior as they have the same inherit flaws that have to be resolved via filters of some sort. That, you cannot argue. You can prefer whatever you like or, as I stated, listen to whatever files your DAC handles natively. This isn't rocket science.
Funny how I've been purely objective here and have not chosen sides and all you've done is beat your chest and blurt every subjective piece of anecdotal evidence possible.
bravomailI agree. DSD comprises of expensive albums, and huge music files that technically don't provide any benefit beyond 44.1kHz/16 bit files (see detailed explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiZqYnd5g8M). But MQA 96kHz/24 bit is cool to have if its convenient (like the Masters albums on Tidal).