taipan254

Just received the newly-released Analogue Productions SACD of Stone Temple Pilots' classic Core. I also have a 24 / 96 version. I've ripped and gargle-blasted both to 24 / 16fs with PGGB at 128 bits of precision to my Mojo 2 / Preamp / Head Amp / ZMF Caldera. I remain SO IMPRESSED with DSD source material vs. PCM source material of the same recordings after gargle-blasting to PCM with PGGB. There's some level matching issues, and I'm not doing a blind A / B / X, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but the DSD source material sounds so much more relaxed, nuanced, textured, harmonically correct, and unharsh / "less edgy" compared to the PCM source material. Another fun DSD vs. Hi Res PCM comparison is Soundgarden's Superunknown. My observations are consistent between both of these recordings. I clearly do not want to make a blanket statement on DSD Source Material vs. PCM Source Material, but I am glad I am investing in SACD ripping. I look forward to eventually getting a solid, discrete DSD DAC so I can experience the full DSD 512 PGGB experience (I haven't even hit PCM at 256 bit precision yet!). In that same vein - has anyone experimented with the Holo Audio Cyan 2 and evaluated its PCM and DSD performance (subjectively or objectively)?

Dumb question so forgive me. Does output stage matter for a dsd DAC? The heavy feedback sterility of topping products would likely still deter me from considering this product. But maybe my assumption is incorrect here.

The quote above resonated with me. I’ve also been consuming music differently lately due to advancements in technology. While you, Chris, are focused on immersive audio, I've been enjoying the developments in upsampling. I've particularly enjoyed listening to DSD source files upsampled by PGGB. Since there are far fewer choices when it comes to acquiring DSD-source music compared to PCM-based music, I've been exploring albums and artists I hadn't listened to before. I've been delving into releases from High Definition Tape Transfers and ripping SACDs to compare those upsampled rips to upsampled CDs. It's been a fun journey, both in terms of listening to new music more intently and enjoying the superior sonic experience brought about by excellent mastering and upsampling. Owning music has never been more rewarding for me.

Random follow-up: Am I better off getting the DXD or DSD 256 version based on the below description: Please Note: This release was edited in DXD PCM from a DSD256 Master then the DXD edited master was used to generate the final DSD files using Merging Technologies Album Publishing. DXD (352.8KHz 24/32 bit PCM) is one of the best and least destructive formats for post-processing DSD originated digital recordings

So far, DISCOGS seems to have decent "version logging" of all the releases of any given album. Are there any other sources I should be paying attention to? This should be a fun rabbit hole. Thanks ZB!

TL;DR: I'm really into gargle-blasting DSD albums. Does anyone have any good DSD album recommendations that highlight top-notch recording quality (either live or studio?)? While I have a preference for Rock, I listen to all genres. Background: I stumbled across a few SACD rips online. They have dual layers - DSD and CD. These rips in particular are "Let's Dance" and "Scary Monsters" by David Bowie. I gargle blasted both layers. The DSD source to high-rate gargle-blasted PCM conversions sound excellent (and superior to the CD layer gargle-blasted). I know this isn't new news - I vaguely remember someone saying this makes sense given how many more samples DSD content has relative to CD as a starting point. Regardless, I've really been enamored with using DSD as a starting point for gargle-blasting to PCM (I'm using PGGB 128 on my Mojo 2). So far, my favorite albums have been Dire Straits' "Brothers in Arms" and Soundgarden's "Superunknown". I've been disappointed with a MoFI Van Halen SACD rip I found. If folks have good recommendations on DSD content that highlights excellent recording quality, I'd love to hear them! I'm agnostic to genre generally, though folks can probably tell I enjoy rock! Thanks!

Agreed, I appreciated @Archimago's article. While I don't agree with everything in it, I believe it presents fair criticism of @GoldenOne's approach to reviewing. It's valid to argue that Cameron, in his ambition to be both a subjective and objective reviewer, may not be rigorously fulfilling this complex role. I would love to see content that helps users understand why something measures well but doesn't sound great. Most modern equipment reviews, both objective and subjective, don't address this. However, such content might not generate as many clicks as a negative review of a flagship product. Leaving the question, "Why does this dichotomy of acceptable measurements and poor sound quality exist?" unanswered or unaddressed suggests, at best, a focus on click-generation over intellectual rigor, or at worst, intellectual laziness. Admitting "I don't know" and explaining the efforts made to find an answer is better than not addressing the question at all. Negative reviews are important and interesting for consumers. However, publicly criticizing a product and impacting its profitability has different consequences compared to positive reviews. If negative reviews are part of a business model, that model must be distinct from a "positive reviews only" approach. Cameron, for example, will redouble his efforts to ensure his reviews undergo the highest "quality assurance" he can muster to prevent errors and protect himself legally (as with the dCS incident). He might consider setting aside funds for legal costs or purchasing legal protection insurance. Having a lawyer on retainer could also be wise, especially as his partnerships increase and potential conflicts of interest arise in future negative reviews. In short, I believe Cameron's business model carries a higher cost than a "positive reviews only with no corporate partnerships" business model. In fairness, Cameron may not have known that when he put out the Bartok review. I think he does now. Separately dCS also acted really badly, and I'm sure numerous brands have taken note and learned lessons as well.

Hi @edwardsean - quick question! Does this model have the option for a separate power supply on the receiver end? Or is it powered from the source side?

Well, if I was the fired dCS employee, I'd probably send my resume to Tekton! And if I was the dCS MD, I probably would delegate a little less, until I trust my managers again!

I've come to the following conclusions with this whole back and forth: Regardless of right or wrong, he said / she said, details and nuance, dCS' reputation has been impaired by GS' release of correspondence between GS and dCS. Barring any proof or evidence that GS altered or fabricated any part of his story or the correspondence, it is unlikely dCS can undo any of the damage done to their brand in the next year or so. I do believe, though, time heals all / compels folks to forget bad news. As things stand now, I believe GS' reputation has also taken a hit (at least in my eyes), but not nearly as big of a hit as dCS reputation has taken. GS has certainly done a lot to piss people off - rightly and wrongly. I also believe he's definitely aggressive / overzealous in communicating his beliefs and has made mistakes in his content. I'm also disappointed he didn't want to talk to Mitch about his filters before recommending folks don't use them; this portrays a surprising lack of curiosity for someone that appears so keen on increasing their own knowledge and spreading said knowledge to others. He also seems very careless in how he communicates and interacts with his patreon community (voice notes, unfiltered / unedited opinions, etc.). To that point, the GS / PGGB drama is news to me - I wonder how widespread his sharing of PGGB content was and how impactful that was on PGGB's business - does anyone know the details?

As an afterthought, this is occupying more of my brainspace than I'd like! I'm gonna focus on some other things for a bit! This is one crazy world we live in, and I have more important things to focus on.

I respectfully disagree. The way businesses like GoldenSound and dCS handle public disagreements is important to many consumers, including myself. Although I can't afford dCS gear, I've admired their Ring DAC and overall approach for years. I also enjoy GoldenSound's content and follow him on multiple platforms. For me, this situation affects both GoldenSound's credibility and my perception of dCS' management and business acumen. While the latter may not influence my purchasing decisions, it does impact my overall opinion of the brand. GoldenSound presented evidence suggesting that dCS threatened him with litigation, while dCS claims they did not. This leaves us with two possibilities: either GoldenSound is telling the truth, which would mean dCS is lying, or dCS is telling the truth, implying that GoldenSound fabricated or altered the documents he presented. Is there any middle ground or nuance I'm missing here? Ultimately, I don't want to support content from an entity proven to be dishonest.

Eeeek! I think it is difficult for rational thinkers to take dCS' comments at face value given dCS' very obvious misstatement re: the threat of litigation. I'm not saying that we should take everything GS says at face value, but at least GS has corroborating evidence presented demonstrating that dCS is being dishonest about their communication with GS. ICYMI

Again, I have no dog in this fight. Also, I didn't see or feel anything was defamatory from his Bartok review. But here's my tactical / red-team perspective on how I see the state of play based on GS’ actions: Publicly airing dCS' attempts to have GS remove content he makes a living off of negatively impacts GS. dCS claims GS' videos are impairing their reputation (and likely their ability to sell product). GS claims he has corrected his mistake re: the clock, and that he believes dCS's pending claims are not valid / truthful. If GS believes he is right, and he stays quiet, he may not have the ability to fight with as many resources as he can muster. Therefore, going public may make sense because he: Raises awareness among his supporters - which can be used to raise money for his legal bills. Compels others associated with him and dCS to choose a side (as headphones.com has already done). Increases his own visibility for his business. Demonstrates his willingness to engage dCS in the public square - which could imply his willingness to engage in litigation as well. Publicly paints dCS in a negative light among dCS core existing and possible future customers - audiophiles that aspire to own the best possible digital gear. I'm sure dCS took these possible outcomes into consideration when attempting to compel GS to remove his video. Given that this started in late 2023 and no private settlement of the issue has occurred in the intervening 9+ months, GS' public declaration challenging dCS' claims is an escalation and signal to dCS that GS thinks he has a winning case if this were to go to court. This is, in Thomas Schelling's words from Arms and Influence, "bridge burning" behavior that demonstrates a willingness to escalate because you know you can win the final battle, were it to come. This should send a signal to the dCS to either back down or fight. Ball seems in dCS' court - do they make good on their threat to pursue legal options against GS because they really believe their claims hold water and think GS is wrong? Does this compel more private negotiations that work towards a resolution - perhaps facilitated by a good Samaritan that knows both parties? Does dCS make public evidence supporting their claims that GS is spreading mis or disinformation about their products to mitigate any reputational damage done by GS’ public rebuttal of dCS' claims?