DSD256 content is slowly catching on. I have about ten albums in that format and I need to transcode them in Roon to play them on my Rossini.
dCS have stated in the past that DSD256 could easily be integrated, once the demand is there. I think not would be a good time, the demand is there.
4 Likes
Yes DSD256 compatibility is good direction. Best Regards Robert
I wonder if all the units currently sold by dCS have the computing performance to support DSD256? Would the Bartok? While I understand that the Bartok benefits from much ātrickle downā tech from its bigger brothers, I am unclear if the platform has the same computational power and therefore ability to support DSD256 in the future.
I also agree that DSD256 is becoming more available. I am not sure we are yet at a tipping point of demand. I myself also have about a dozen DSD256 albums - which I purchased in the higher resolution to 1:) try it out; 2) āfuture proofā these albums so i donāt have to buy them again at the higher resolution in the future. For the time being, Iām happy with Roon down sampling. I am considering a Bartok and/or Rossini and would like a better understanding of what the hard limits are regarding these platforms. SW upgrades are good until the HW runs out of steam.
They do.
It is and does.
This is the issue. The total number of titles is still extremely small and although there is demand in terms of individual customers making requests like this, the number doing so is a small minority in comparison to our total customer base.
This feature is on our radar, but we havenāt defined its position in our roadmap yet.
1 Like
New member here. Currently evaluating the addition of a dCS component to either my headphone rack or speaker system. Lack of DSD256 wonāt keep me from doing so, but its imminence would get me to the shop that much faster! 
1 Like
Not to try to oversell, but I just wanted to mention that a review of my past purchases at Blue Coast Music reveals that nine of my twelve full album downloads are in DSD256. Similarly over at NativeDSD, an increasing amount is available in 256 and 512. As I said earlier, the current limitations did not prevent me from deciding to order a dCS componentāthough I ended up ordering the beginnings of a Vivaldi stack rather than either a Bartok or Rossiniābut I do think it is a good idea for one of the leaders in the digital industry to be not only among the best in SQ, but also at or near the forefront of capability. I suspect that few people would actually cross a dCS component off their list merely because of a lack of >DSD128. But why invite them to?
4 Likes
Greg , in project management terms and using the MoSCoW system ( M= Must have, S = Should have etc.) DSD 256 currently must be at best C= Could have. Currently even though there are some titles at Blue Coast and Native DSD they are only a part of the catalogues of what are in any case boutique operations.
Considering the development costs to dCS I would guess that such a feature would remain low in priority at present. I write as someone who bought and downloaded an album from Native DSD in 256 by accident
1 Like
Mmmmmmmmmaybe. Obviously, I probably see it as a āShould have.ā Too many other market contenders have it. I play 512, and have since mid-2019, on my MSB, and theyāre not exactly cutting edge In the feature set arms race. Stuff like dCS exists to be the best, no? Differences in view point.
2 Likes
They have supported MQA so why not dsd256. Seen from me not a priority according to limited Ā« true Ā» dsd 256 titles and limited improvement compared to dsd128.
Yes differences in point of view
2 Likes
Andrew, among other things, presumably in order to support DSD256, at a minimum, the streaming boards need to be firmware upgraded to support 11.28Mbps (or 24bit/705.6kS/s for DoP) instead of the current 5.64Mbps upper limit? Or remain at 5.64Mbps but increase the bit depth to 32bits for native DSD streams? Or have I got my math wrong? 
Ironically, there appear to be only new DSD256 recordings and analogue tape transfers to be added to the catalogue, none in DSD128 recently, most likely due to the fact that the currently most popular DSD-ADCs max out at DSD256 or DXD, and many experts agree it may be the sweet spot so far as the recording side in concerned (as to playback, I really donāt know) - so yes, when DSD256 becomes available for my dCS units, Iāll definitely want to add it.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
2 Likes
Welcome David! And thanks for your other post about upsampling (with which I am generally in agreement). I would love to get 256 and 512 done in the Vivaldi stack. Some of the latest Blue Coast and Native DSD stuff is pretty amazing on the MSB Select II.
To avoid misunderstanding, Iāve used an Upsampler since about 2001 (my first was a dCS Purcell, which I still have, even if boxed and stored in an adjacent room). Experience with dCS upsampling made me assume, incorrectly as it turns out, that it might be worth investigating elsewhere as well. Since then Iāve heard lots of non-dCS upsampling over the years, and liked none of it. Not sure whatās technically different, my perception in this case is solely based on sound, in my own system, and even more so the systems of others. There, Iāve often found a lot to say in favor of NOS playback. I remember seeing your moniker on other boards and know you not only have a dCS Vivaldi, but also what many consider the worldās finest R2R ladder DAC. Iāve auditioned a number of such designs without and in conjunction with e.g. HQPlayer upsampling, and for the most part preferred NOS (most part meaning, whenever recordings were played, such as classical or jazz, that used natural instruments, unamplified, real piano vs. synthesizer etc., human voices, you get the gist, non-dCS upsampling almost inevitably sounds artificial to me there). So if anyone asked me today whether the fact that Iām a dCS user makes me an advocate or fan of upsampling, Iād have to say no. Itās appears to be the exception rather than the rule, and Iām clueless as to why Iām hearing what Iām hearing, because I know people who keep extolling the āmagicā of this and that latest filter, until I ask them to quickly turn everything off for a quick comparison to NOS playback. Iām digressingā¦
Back to DSD256: needless to say, Iāve heard DSD256 (or RBCD upsampling) on non-dCS DACs only so far, including ones where it seemed worth investigating such as Playback Designs and (at least five different) Lampizator, plus of course countless others at audio shows (those are passing impressions for the most part). The crucial step up seems to me from DSD64 (the lack of treble extension and/or phase shift, no doubt due to filtering of out-of-band noise) to DSD128. DSD256 would be nice to have, as itās gaining importance as a native recording format. DSD512 is an upsampling (remodulation would be terminologically more correct) format only at this stage. Iām one of those audiophiles to whom music and sound quality is whatās important - the obsession with numbers (as in: cars that have more horsepower, power amps that output more watts, digital formats with ever increasing sampling frequencies) means nothing to me. The proof is in the pudding.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
4 Likes
An off-topic question: itās my understanding that DSD sounds better āenhancedā on the Select II than ānativeā - while that would seem logical for an R2R design, itās just a term for PCM conversion. Which sounds better to you?
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Hi David. Iāve gone back and forth on that setting. Right now, itās on āNative,ā and thatās where I tend to keep it.
Cool. Have you had an opportunity to compare remodulations at different DSD sampling rates that are based on e.g. the same DXD master (such as the ones available at NativeDSD)? If so, whatās your impression on the differences between DSD64-512 (also, of course, relative to said DXD master)?
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
David, I took a run at that a while back when some 256 tracks that I cared to hear became available. After a while of switching back and forth on the MSB using a playlist to load up different versions of the same tracks), I became convinced of Teddy Rooseveltās aphorism from a different context: āComparison is the thief of joy.ā I could find nothing consistent to guide me toward any āsuperiorā format or conversion.
I spend whole weekends with audiophile acquaintances and friends comparing stuff, sometimes blind, sometimes not. At home, ever since I quit designing speakers and auditioning equipment for others, I try to avoid comparisons, for the exact reason you mention. Also, I listen to a lot of classical music (i.e. ātime-consumingā versus bits of this and that), including historical, and canāt be bothered to listen to music only because itās well-recorded (except, of course, once). Iām one of those audiophiles who believes the term āHigh Fidelityā should be taken more literally again, i.e. I want to hear whatās on the record, but I wonāt allow sound quality to dictate my musical preferences. So, what Iām hearing in higher-rate DSD is a musically relevant step up from DSD64 to DSD128, after that, incremental improvements that may be nice to have, but ironically, seem to add to the enjoyment principally in poorly designed DACs, whereas great DACs manage to (almost) get out all one needs to hear from RBCD playback. Iām being my usual rational self, of course - from a purely emotional perspective, I agree high-resolution playback adds texture, realism, even a sense of flow that brings the listener closer to the experience, or in philosophical terms, keeps the listener in the present where oneās mind belongs. Having said that, Iād be curious to hear what DSD256 would sound like on a Vivaldi stack, especially given itās an increasingly popular recording format, as I believe cutting-edge digital gear should always be designed (or in this case, updated) to play back (all) native recording formats.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
1 Like
I do not see that the situation has changed at all from the response provided by Andrew from dCS back in January to a similar request at the beginning of this thread:
"This is the issue. The total number of titles is still extremely small and although there is demand in terms of individual customers making requests like this, the number doing so is a small minority in comparison to our total customer base.
This feature is on our radar, but we havenāt defined its position in our roadmap yet."
Bluntly dCS are not going to spend the many tens of thousands of pounds necessary to provide access to a handful of titles from mainly little known artists on three boutique labels for a fraction of dCS owners.
1 Like