If you like swing/jazz the Jeremy Mohney album is absolutely wonderful.
Octave records in DSD256, converts to DXD for editing, then export back to DSD256.
They used to use an analog board but now use Pyramix workstations.
Hereâs Paul McGowan on the subject directly:
First, DSD cannot be mixed or volume adjusted. It is what it is. So when we record the input microphone preamplifiers are used to set the gain.
Once recorded we have two choices for mixing: DXD or analog. In the past, we have gone analog but that has a number of disadvantages (minor). In our modern methods we chose DXD. Converting to DXD in the way we do it (on Pyramid or Zephiir) is almost (if not completely) indistinguishable from the original. I canât hear any difference.
When weâre ready to master, we leave DXD as the master. In fact, as of yesterday, you can now purchase Octave masters at 352.8kHz (DXD). We then convert back to DSD by going analog and then back to DSD at 4X and 1X.
https://forum.psaudio.com/t/dsd-mastering-and-quality/29983/4
Given this, perhaps DXD at 24/358 is the best choice for dCS owners.
I think you already know the answer, and it has nothing to do with sound quality.
PS Audio has commercial interest in pushing a DSD narrative because; (a) their flagship DACâs internal architecture is entirely DSD based, and (b) there are only a handful of competing studioâs currently putting out DSD256 material. 
4 Likes
Absent evidence or data to the contrary, I believe this is correct choice for anyone, because of the additional losses on the roundtrip back to DSD.
Thoughts?
For those interested, Blue Coast Records is organizing an information session on recording, mixing and mastering in DSD at the end of October. It is unclear if the session(s) will be free or require payment. Those interested in learning more can provide their email for more information here:
I have no affiliation to Blue Coast or any other music producer. Just sharing as an friendly fyi
Cheers!
Some weird dCS commentary in the comments of PS Audioâs âPaul Postsâ column today:
https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/hearing-inside/#comment-311924
1 Like
I just read part of it and can confirm, it is âoff the railsâ
: )
1 Like
Andreas Koch - one of Sonyâs original SACD/DSD co-developer;
And so, you know the advantage of going to [DSD] 256 wasnât really that great, for the DAC,⌠but in the A-to-D thereâs definitely a merit and thereâs an advantage.
âŚ
So what this all means is for archiving for A-to-D conversion, definitely 256, but on the DAC side, if youâre not careful, you may just ruin the whole thing.So, the sweet spot really is at 128fs.
(From @ 25:13min onwards)
2 Likes
Youâre missing out. There is some very fine music there.
Of note, @Anupc: As Iâm sure you know Andreas Koch is also the founder of Playback Designs and their DACs process up to 4x DSD (11.2 MHz).
1 Like
True! Still, given that recent video, I wonder about his candid view of the true value of DSD256 for playback. 
Interestingly, unlike Chord and MSB, DoP on the Playback Design machines are limited to DSD128; suggesting a (current?) limitation. So, DSD256 support must be via USB with Windows/32bit-XMOS-Driver or Ethernet with a software player that supports native DSD streaming (like Roon).
All that said, I still havenât really encountered any DSD256 albums thatâs âspecularlyâ better than itâs DSD128 version. Have you? If so, which?
2 Likes
I had the same thought @Anupc : )
Re: the connection, I can share that when I looked closely at the MSB Reference DAC (which I hold in high regard), I was highly encouraged to use MSBâs proprietary USB connection and not Ethernet, a point I found interesting and previously shared in another thread.
As @PAR is one of the only people on earth who possesses both the dCS and MSB stacks, he is well-qualified to comment on 2x+ DSD versus 1x SQ âŚ
âAs @PAR is one of the only people on earth who possesses both the dCS and MSB stacks, he is well-qualified to comment on 2x+ DSD versus 1x SQ âŚâ
For the record that wouldnât be me. I only have dCS digital equipment.
Iâm sorry about that Pete. I meant @PaleRider âŚ
Itâs true that MSB generally recommend their Pro ISL/USB connection over their Network Renderer. And like dCSâs recommendation of their Ethernet input over their other inputs, I believe itâs a recommendation worth following. I personally despise USB, but thatâs irrational, and itâs just something that Pinot helps me handle.
The MSB Network Renderer can deliver 256DSD. Their latest USB ProISL/USB modules deliver 512, but I believe they will be able to go higher. And I have to admit that this combo pretty much wipes out any objections to USB, with one minor exception from my point of view: they do not permit software control of the DAC for things like volume.
As for SQ differential, Iâve mentioned before, itâs difficult to have a âcredibleâ comparison between a headphone system and a speaker system in two different rooms. The experience is too different, whether a short term or long term comparison. But for a while, I did buy multiple copies of DSD albums at different rates to try and compare 64 and 128 and 256 on the MSB, listening primarily to the Stax 009/T2 combo. The pleasure in that little experiment lasted maybe 10 days. Too many factors, from recording provenance to expectation bias, made it impossible to conclude with any certainty that higher rated DSD sounded better. To me, that doesnât mean it canât. It just means I couldnât hear it on the recordings I owned. And it doesnât mean that in the future, I wouldnât find different recording rates easily discernible if recording processes were to evolve to take advantage of them. So, for me, right now, both the Vivaldi and the Select remain end-of-game.
P.S. So, why care if dCS doesnât offer a higher DSD rate? Itâs just the marketing arms race. Iâd hate to see such quality offerings regarded as second rate in the numbers-obsessed audio press and marketplace. But, from my personal POV, itâs really irrelevant. 
9 Likes
Thank you very much Greg for sharing your thoughts. You are always so thoughtful and Iâve learned a lot from your posts and DMs. My minor attempt of a contribution is this:
I expect a company that positions itself as making the best DACs in the world, to be on the forefront of technology. I expect them to do it proactively, because it wants to be there, not to wait and make its customers beg and plead for features.
Iâve owned dCS gear for over 12 years and the only reason I have recently looked more closely at other brands, in particular MSB, now is because they have these features already. I want the luxury of being able to download higher res music and do the tests @PaleRider describes myself. Maybe my conclusion will be the same, maybe it wonât be. Right now I canât, without borrowing gear, despite having âone of the best DACs on earth.â That annoys me.
2 Likes
I completely grok that.
Speaking of which, I received an indiegogo ad for the Zorloo ZuperDAC; A PC/Headphone DAC about the size of a pinkie for $70 that supports DSD256 (it uses a tiny ES9018K2M DAC chip).
ESS Tech is the Lockheed Martin of the Audio industry 
3 Likes
Bumping up this thread.
Is there any update about a plan from dCS to support DSD256?
I have got more than a handful of those spectacular HDTT transfers in the past, which I am not not able to play natively anymore with the newly acquired Rossini (of course I can if I downsample them with Roon and they still sound very good ;-)).
4 Likes
Iâm âin the same boatââŚ
Hopefully, dCS are considering this request, especially a itâs now been made by several dCS ownersâŚ
3 Likes