So what happens if MoFi starts selling their DSD256 transcriptions of master tapes?
Why does MoFi use DSD256? I’m sure they have a reason they didn’t just use DSD128.
As mentioned, NativeDSD has DSD512 content.
What happens when people who own music in those formats find they can’t play them on a dCS except perhaps via Roon?
This must be one of the busiest evenings ever on the forum 
DSD512 is all post-process upsampled. I wouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole. 
Does your dCS DAC process anything as native 16/44.1?
If not, then upsampling is OK at some point.
I have mine set to upsample everything to 2xDSD.
I’d rather chose for myself how and when any source gets upsampled, not someone else (like NativeDSD, and certainly not with HQPlayer).
ps: The Vivaldi Upsampler gives incredible flexibility on when and how sources get upsampled.
Yes, but even without the Vivaldi Oversampler, you’re always technically oversampling when using a dCS DAC.
(Emboldening mine.)
dCS DACs oversample in several stages, eventually presenting the Ring DAC™ with 5-bit binary data at between 2.822MS/s and 6.144MS/s (depending on unit and settings). The Mapper decodes the data to a minimum of 32 digital signals, one corresponding to each binary state, then it scrambles the order of the signals. The Mapper randomises small matching errors in the Ring DAC core, converting what would be harmonic distortion to a small amount of extra noise.
The new Mappers are a milestone in the development of the dCS Ring DAC™, which forms the heart of Vivaldi 2.0, Rossini 2.0 and Bartók 2.0. Taking over a year to model and implement in software, the new Mappers greatly improve on the very technology that makes dCS unique. The 5-bit binary music data obtained after the oversampling and digital filtering stages is assigned, or mapped, onto forty- eight latch outputs at the core of the Ring DAC™. These outputs drive balanced current sources which are mixed, filtered, and amplified to produce the analogue output signal. The new Mapper algorithms have been developed to run at higher speeds while better avoiding mismatches that occur between outputs, further reducing any errors correlated with the signal. The results are superior linearity, even at very low signal levels.
This sophisticated Mapper functionality is implemented in the Ring DAC™ through dedicated FPGAs, offering dCS the power to improve and change these fundamental algorithms through software updates. This unprecedented flexibility also allows the user to choose their desired Mapper from a simple menu item. Version 2.00 software allows for two new Mappers (Mapper 1 and 3) together with the original (Mapper 2) for comparison. Subjectively, both new Mappers bring more detailed, expressive, tonally-complete, and full-bodied character over the original, but each offer subtle differences in sound that users can choose between, depending on their preference and ancillary equipment.
Fact remains I’d rather chose how and what Upsamples my sources, not someone else.
I agree with you DSD256 would be nice.
Ha ha! Like being on Head-Fi!
This is the probable answer. Good thnking!
Judging by this reply I think there’s a generational gap here that won’t be closed no matter what arguments I bring.
I’ll just leave it at : the new generations don’t remember/care about spinning vinyl and cds (though I did, and it was horrible) and nostalgia won’t work on them 
While it may work for mechanical watches, I’m going to bet against digital audio companies surviving with the same approach.
And the future of “high fidelity” is not infinitely upsampling 40 year old formats , it’s a paradigm shift, just like what’s (finally) happening in programming.
If you’ve heard properly done Atmos and heard car drive across the middle of the room and
crash into the wall , glass smashing that sounds like it came from the car, none of it from the speakers
(and this on relatively “cheap” gear), i’m not sure how you can go back to thinking higher sampling rates, or a slightly different tonality is impressive. Especially for the asked prices. Yawn.
That said, the music we love is still on old formats, just trying to put these “technological leaps” in perspective.
What people call “Fidelity” is just the audio companies putting the effort in “designing”/ “Tuning” the sound to sound a certain way…in most cases “real”. The tools to achieve this have been around for ages. They get better, sure. Sometimes unnecessarily so (Chord claiming -350db is audible but using a 5$ power supply because that noise isn’t audible so it doesn’t matter ), but I’m not sure who still thinks most of the cost of their dCS dac is in the hardware, and not the R&D and software.
Adrian - Perhaps your ‘horrible experience’ with spinning vinyl/CD’s was due to listening via 2 channel systems incapable of delivering what folks here care so much about—having truly musical experiences that are highly satisfying on multiple levels. Advancements by leading audio companies such as dCS contribute significantly to the systems that deliver these experiences, which is why people are on this forum—we care deeply about all of it and enjoy sharing thoughts and discoveries.
So great that you are an Atmos fan, however, your insistence of belittling what clearly matters to folks here is not impressive or helpful.
It’s always “you haven’t spent what I’ve spent to hear what I’m hearing” over here . That’s what put me off even auditioning dCS for a while.
FWIW I only use headphones with my Rossini (which I love), and my point was I wouldn’t want to deal with the inconvenience of having to use physical media. Simple as that.
And the Atmos thing was just to point out that the world is evolving towards things that are orders of magnitude more complex than stereo audio, and audiophiles are still getting sold that hey need to re-clock their routers for their audio to sound better (thankfully, not by dCS).
Also pointing out that current marketing spiels won’t work with generations that were raised with tech, and what the current target audience wants is clearly different from what I expect the “Apex” of audio tech will be in a few years.
I don’t see anywhere where Adrian came off as belittling. I’m - demographically - clearly in the same camp as the “rest of us” and not in Adrians, but I’ve enjoyed reading what he has to say.
If anything was belittling, I’d say it was Greg with his “pffft” thoughts on Atmos. (And I pretty much always enjoy and often learn from what Greg has to say, so this is nothing against Greg! I too had my 5.1 etc. channel fling over 2 decades ago and walked away rather quickly).
You go Adrian; it is nice to see that millennials are able to afford and enjoy dCS.
In terms of 7th Feb, my own speculation is that it’s going to be truly an advancement so likely the next step up from Vivaldi. If not, dCS needs to get a new slightly more fact-based and less hyperbole-prone marketing agency
This guy properly did his Atmos system!
Well, I don’t think that way, and I don’t think you could be more wrong about “over here.” This is one of the most accepting, least judgmental audio communities I have ever encountered. Notice how there are no sig lines with copious equipment details; many of us don’t even have such info in our profiles. I still remember every step of what it took for me to be able to enjoy what I enjoy now, and no one’s assessment of sound should ever be based on what they’ve spent. We have a lot of people here who have spent a lot of money, and many who have spent more or less. None of that matters. And one of the great things about this forum is that it doesn’t judge one’s sonic assessments or system enjoyment based on money [my little snark about WBF was pointed in that direction; too many over there quite literally judge equipment based on cost]. But we do all have opinions about what we like!
I’ve heard all that; I own all that. You may be right about this being generational; if that’s what you primarily care about, then actual live musical fidelity is not your standard. And you also may be right that it’s what current younger and future generations will prefer, and it may well up-end the market we see right now. It’s just not what I want with music. Yawn [your word] indeed.
So that’s how I “can go back to thinking higher sampling rates, or a slightly different tonality is impressive.” Maybe you did not mean to be condescending with that, but you succeeded. You’re probably a great guy to share a beer with, but your put-downs of some of the things that more than a few of us care about here are not appreciated by me. I apologize if anyone took my “Atmos? Pffft.” comment as belittling, but in my defense, it was contained in a post that started with [RANT IN GOOD FUN]. It was meant to be the sort of lively stuff one might have while sharing beers. 
This will be my last response on this matter.
My first word was “Perhaps”. You are the one that stated your experiences spinning discs and vinyl were “horrible”. Descriptions create impressions…
Well they do say never meet your idols, but damn Greg…
That comment was not aimed at you, I’ve actually found you one of the most reliable sources of information around on most topics. If I remember correctly, even on buying studio grade clock cables over audiophile ones. Taking things further, I’ve also replaced my Crystal Cable interconnects with Starquad Van Damme’s and couldn’t be happier.
I define musical Fidelity as “hearing it as it was recorded”. Ofc it makes no sense to try and remaster 2.0 content in Atmos, and I did not mean Atmos (or any object based 3d audio tech) music will replace Stereo any time soon. It’s like an 8k tv. What we’re listening to now should stay Stereo.
What I meant is that It all starts from the source, and there are already better ways of creating music. Until there’s a vast catalogue of music recorded, mixed and mastered natively in Atmos, it’s all a moot point. Even then you’d probably need a separate dac/system to enjoy it properly, but it scales to your hardware. Imagine the recording being tailored to your specific system from inception.
My initial point being It would be great not having to get another dac for this, the way Linn are leveraging their components for Stereo and Surround. No Dolby support yet, but it seems like they’re ahead of the curve on this
What can I say, maybe I’m biased as an developer, but I’m honestly surprised you disagree considering I remember you having a similar background, not to mention the Apple thing
