Jump to content
IGNORED

Does anyone know where to find DSD versions of any artists anyone has heard of?


bigbob
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am curious about DSD, but all I have found are recordings of obscure artists, that quite frankly I have never heard of.

I suppose if you are interested in exquisite music from new artists then DSD might be of interest, or if you only like Classical, Opera or Acoustic Jug Bands, then it might be worthwhile to invest in a streaming service, and additional hardware.

Tidal advertised it's Premium service as "CD Quality" for $19.99 a month.  I am curious if DSD is really a viable option if you just want to be able to hear music that you know about, or is it the exclusive domain of very high-quality recordings of artists you have never heard of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bigbob said:

I am curious about DSD, but all I have found are recordings of obscure artists, that quite frankly I have never heard of.

I suppose if you are interested in exquisite music from new artists then DSD might be of interest, or if you only like Classical, Opera or Acoustic Jug Bands, then it might be worthwhile to invest in a streaming service, and additional hardware.

Tidal advertised it's Premium service as "CD Quality" for $19.99 a month.  I am curious if DSD is really a viable option if you just want to be able to hear music that you know about, or is it the exclusive domain of very high-quality recordings of artists you have never heard of?

 

http://store.acousticsounds.com/c/391/DSD_Downloads

 

https://www.nativedsd.com

 

http://www.findhdmusic.com

 

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Thank you...I knew that there was a DSD recording of Miles Davis, "Kind of Blue" somewhere. Now I must ask, is there an appreciable difference between a DSD download of that Classic over an HDTracks 24/192 FLAC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bigbob said:

 

Thank you...I knew that there was a DSD recording of Miles Davis, "Kind of Blue" somewhere. Now I must ask, is there an appreciable difference between a DSD download of that Classic over an HDTracks 24/192 FLAC?

SACD of course is encrypted DSD, so any of the fine Mobile Fidelity releases are available. A good source is Music Direct, since they own Mofi.

SACD is a little problematic to rip, but if you have an Oppo 10x or a BD player that's compatible, it's possible to rip SACD to DSD64 so a computer can playback.

 

As for Kind of Blue, acoustic sounds has that album on DSD, I would give the nudge to the rip of the Mofi SACD a bigger thumbs up.

AS Profile Equipment List        Say NO to MQA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, One and a half said:

SACD of course is encrypted DSD, so any of the fine Mobile Fidelity releases are available. A good source is Music Direct, since they own Mofi.

 

2

 

Great, I am familiar with SACD and have a number of the Mobile Fidelity recordings in my collection. I have found them to be exquisite. Thank you. Being a Computer Audiophile on the Cheap, I am very satisfied with 24/192 HDTracks offerings, and I honestly can say, if DSD sound better than that, I cannot imagine the intensity of those Eargasms...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2018 at 8:44 PM, bigbob said:

 

Great, I am familiar with SACD and have a number of the Mobile Fidelity recordings in my collection. I have found them to be exquisite. Thank you. Being a Computer Audiophile on the Cheap, I am very satisfied with 24/192 HDTracks offerings, and I honestly can say, if DSD sound better than that, I cannot imagine the intensity of those Eargasms...

I actually have at least 10+ different releases and formats of Kind Of Blue. The MFSL DSD (ripped from SACD) sounds very good, however I give the 2007 Japan SACD (ripped to DSD) the upper hand, it is by far the best version I have ever heard!! (Including late ‘80’s CD Rips, Vinyl Rips, original Vinyl Mono Rips, etc. ). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2018 at 3:44 AM, bigbob said:

 

Great, I am familiar with SACD and have a number of the Mobile Fidelity recordings in my collection. I have found them to be exquisite. Thank you. Being a Computer Audiophile on the Cheap, I am very satisfied with 24/192 HDTracks offerings, and I honestly can say, if DSD sound better than that, I cannot imagine the intensity of those Eargasms...

A lot of hyperbole at audiophile sites. The 24/192 and DSD sound a little different. Both sound great. Some prefer one, some the other. Depends on you and on your system. 

You might like the DSD better. I doubt you will get an eargasm. If you do it might mean    

You need a sex therapist :D

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2018 at 3:35 AM, One and a half said:

for Kind of Blue, acoustic sounds has that album on DSD, I would give the nudge to the rip of the Mofi SACD a bigger thumbs up

 

Just to make sure there’s no misunderstanding, that DSD download is an older remaster, not the same as the MOFI 

 SACD. It’s good though. But I personally prefer the 24/192.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, firedog said:

But I personally prefer the 24/192.

 

And that might be because the 24/192 is actually a remix from the original multi-tracks.

 

So it avoids any intermediate layer of tape, they went straight from the analog session tapes to the final mix in the digital domain, skipping a generation of tape hiss, wow and flutter, and other analog anomalies that are inherent to the typical 2-track stereo analog master.

 

The above taken in the context of the explanation in the HDtracks "About This Album" tab, further explains that due to this album's popularity the 2-track stereo master has at this point become worn, due to age and multiple uses beginning in the 1993 with the Sony Columbia "Master Sound" 20-bit SBM transfer for release on gold Redbook CD, the very first time the actual 2-track master tapes had been removed from the vaults in decades.

 

Once those master tapes are exposed to air, they begin to oxidize, and that coupled with use for various reissue projects on both digital and vinyl starts their ultimate deterioration.

 

Now thats not to say the original stereo master mix is destroyed or in unusable condition, nor does it mean someone might not prefer the original mix, but that 24/192 download is the 2013 transfer of the original multi-track session tapes and it sounds that way, a layer of haze is removed and the resulting pristine window into the original recording sessions is downright eery.

 

It sounds as if you are in the control booth at the Columbia 30th Street Studios, an absolutely fabulous and stunning remix that stays very faithful to the original yet eclipses it in terms of transparency, detail, and dynamics. Even those who own a perfectly good sounding version of the original mix (starting with that aforementioned Sony/Columbia Master Sound Gold CD release which itself was revelatory at the time), if you are a fan of this album you absolutely can't go wrong with the stellar remix on 24/192 download.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=z_p7Qbb_LAo

 

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Boycott Radio Paradise

Boycott TIDAL

Boycott Warner Music Group

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Solstice380 said:

@bigbob Acoustic Sounds has the Analogue Productions versions of The Doors and the Creedence albums in DSD @ $25 a pop. Very good.  (As good as they’ll ever be,)

 

Thanks, I found a source for everything I would want to here...but being 'on the Cheap', I am sure DSD only sounds incrementally better that 24/192 FLACs.

 

And I am happy without me jumping through $25 hoops.

 

I was going to test the iFi nano, and it seems like a whole lot of trouble to play them...so I will get excited in 5 years, when the Next Big Thing ( following in the long line of THX, Betamax, Dolby on cassettes, Quad, MQA...) makes DSD available for 99 cents an album. :)

 

If I am happy with 24/192 (88,96) FLAC quality (and I am) it would be tough to expect me to upgrade at $25 per album.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bigbob You asked!  LOL.  Actually, the DSD versions I referred to are the Analogue Productions remasters which do sound significantly better than the Sony versions.  But I understand where you are coming from.   They ain’t cheap!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, firedog said:

A lot of hyperbole at audiophile sites. The 24/192 and DSD sound a little different. Both sound great. Some prefer one, some the other. Depends on you and on your system. 

You might like the DSD better. I doubt you will get an eargasm. If you do it might mean    

You need a sex therapist :D

 

When I claim to be the 'Computer Audiophile on the Cheap,' it isn't just a marketing gimmick (Like Crazy Bob's Discount Stereo Warehouse Prices) but my reality.

 

Two questions go into my buying decisions, how does it sound?, and can I afford it?

 

The ability to afford it is what makes me look at Absolute Sound and Stereophile and wonder if I can hear it 'Almost as good' for what I can afford, and that is always answered in the affirmative. 

If I have an HDTracks quality FLAC, a DSD would have to earn her $25...and I am too cheap for those high-priced gals...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Les Habitants said:

 

So with that the thread can be closed?

In other words you asked in the thread title where to get DSD versions "from artists anyone has heard of", and when provided that information specific to downloads, it then quickly turns into a discussion of your unwillingness to pay much for anything.

---clip--

No, it's not "cheap", and neither are 24-bit downloads (or DVD/Blu-ray media) in the PCM format. You have to pay to play when it comes to hi-rez, as with most things.

2

 

You know, I was Cheap before I ask the question.

I really didn't have an interest in replacing all the Hi-Res files I already have.

I was testing an iFi DAC with DSD capability and thought it would be worthwhile to find a "free download to try" but what I found were all rather obscure artists. Someone guided me to a resource where I could buy all my favorite artists for $25 per album. 

           ---"it then quickly turns into a discussion of your unwillingness to pay much for anything." 

 

Unwillingness is not the issue, limited resources to buy the "Next Big Thing (DSD)"

is the reason why I don't want to sack my library of PCM FLAC files.

 

Shoot, it has only been a year, since I discovered Hi-Res Audio in the form of 24/96 files. I have been collecting HDTracks since.

 

They are expensive, but to my ears, well worth the price, compared to 16/44 Redbook CDs--which by the way, are available for free at your public library--to rip into FLAC files.

 

I don't have an SACD player or a Blu-Ray, so adding those to my collection from a rip is not an option.

 

And that means if you feel as though this thread should be closed, I simply wanted to know where to find all this "DSD" material.

 

I am happy with 24/192 and will challenge anyone with a system like mine to hear the difference.

 

At best, it cannot be as big an improvement as my Synergistic Reseach XOT cross-over transducers and Nordost Valhalla Reference speaker ribbons, or the Denon AVR-2805 with AL24 processing in Pure Direct mode.

 

Audiophilia Nervosa has as a symptom, the desire to seek and acquire the next Big Thing.

 

My friends at Schiit, Jason Stoddard, formerly of Sumo, and Mike Moffat, formerly of Theta, have shown no interest in either DSD or MQA, which is to say: 

 

P.T. Barnum said it best, "There's a sucker born every minute."

 

As for me and my house, "I am listening to the best Schiit money can buy!"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bigbob said:

I really didn't have an interest in replacing all the Hi-Res files I already have.

 

Nor should you, especially since they too (PCM downloads from HDtracks or elsewhere) cost a pretty penny, so not wholly unlike DSD in that respect.

 

39 minutes ago, bigbob said:

 ...compared to 16/44 Redbook CDs--which by the way, are available for free at your public library--to rip into FLAC files.

 

And that is of course, illegal. You should not be supporting the idea of copyright infringement or illegal copying/redistribution of CD media content you haven't paid for. That is a fact and not an opinion.

 

26 minutes ago, bigbob said:

I am happy with 24/192 and will challenge anyone with a system like mine to hear the difference.

 

Except that often there is different mastering or sometimes even a different tape source involved, and that typically is audible, so probably not a great idea to issue challenges over that which you haven't even heard.

 

31 minutes ago, bigbob said:

My friends at Schiit, Jason Stoddard, formerly of Sumo, and Mike Moffat, formerly of Theta, have shown no interest in either DSD or MQA, which is to say: 

 

P.T. Barnum said it best, "There's a sucker born every minute."

 

The guys at Schiit are both respected and entitled to their own opinion on such matters, but that is absolutely not in support of or equating to your sucker born every minute analogy as it relates to DSD or SACD. Rather, it is to say Schiit sees no big commercial value or business case for offering DSD in their own products. Many other also well respected manufacturers have taken a different route, and neither stance is the one and only acceptable "right answer" or conclusion. Schiit is well in the minority with their stance I might add, DSD compatibility in the DAC market is damn near ubiquitous at this point, and doesn't need to cost a ton, case in point the iFi products as one example.

 

46 minutes ago, bigbob said:

the desire to seek and acquire the next Big Thing.

 

Neither SACD, nor DSD downloads are even remotely the next "Big Thing", and probably never were at any moment in time. If SACD were ever considered in that light, it would have been roughly 1999-2000 or so and that enthusiasm quickly evaporated.

 

DSD downloads as the next "Big Thing"? That never actually happened at all, though if you believe the mainstream audio press there was a still briefer period than as with SACD, roughly late summer 2013 or so if memory serves, when the record labels and a couple of download distributors attempted and failed to create such a buzz. So not the next "Big Thing" audiophilia dilemma you are suggesting, actually very old news by now, closing in on 5 years ago.

 

 

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Boycott Radio Paradise

Boycott TIDAL

Boycott Warner Music Group

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Nor should you, especially since they too (PCM downloads from HDtracks or elsewhere) cost a pretty penny, so not wholly unlike DSD in that respect.

 

 

And that is of course, illegal. You should not be supporting the idea of copyright infringement or illegal copying/redistribution of CD media content you haven't paid for. That is a fact and not an opinion.

 


 

 

 

I am not endorsing anything illegal.

 

If you borrow a book from the library and make a Xerox copy of the information you are seeking it is called "fair use".

 

The music on a CD is ripped for personal use--whether you purchased the CD or whether it is from a public library is also "fair use".

 

Offering those files for sale, or distributing the music in a peer-to-peer  (And since everything I mention is so "old" -- like Napster) that might very well run afoul of the law.

 

In our World today, I understand the attorney's  pursing Spotify for using Music without proper licensing, and that may well be a settlement in the millions of dollars.

 

Do we really think that the DOJ is interested in pursuing a library user, who makes a xerox copy of a book he checked out? Lordy, I hope they have better things to do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

The guys at Schiit are both respected and entitled to their own opinion on such matters, but that is absolutely not in support of or equating to your sucker born every minute analogy as it relates to DSD or SACD.

 

Rather, it is to say Schiit sees no big commercial value or business case for offering DSD in their own products.

 

Many other also well-respected manufacturers have taken a different route, and neither stance is the one and only acceptable "right answer" or conclusion.

 

Schiit is well in the minority with their stance I might add, DSD compatibility in the DAC market is damn near ubiquitous at this point, and doesn't need to cost a ton, case in point the iFi products as one example.

 

 

 

 

The Barnum quote applies to all Audiophilia, not specific to Schiit.

 

I enquired of Schiit about exploiting amp chips--Class D-- in their form factor.

The response was immediate--that there was no place at Schiit for Class-D. (period)

 

Then they announce the  Vidar at $699 each (Vidar is nothing less than a no-excuses, exotic-topology, Class-AB, linear-supply, microprocessor-controlled, power-doubling, dual-mono-ish, intelligently-managed, drives-almost-anything power amp. No Class D, no switching supplies, no fans, no compromises, nothing in the signal path but music—for a three-figure price tag.)

 

 

If the goal is to make the stereo you have, sound the best it can, within the budget you have--then Schiit is the blue-collar, workingman's audio company. (Their flagship Yggdrasil at $2399, a Freya tube pre-amp at $699 and a pair of Vidars at $699 each gives you a State of the Art front end for $4496)  Some folks pay that in sales tax on some high-end esoteric hand-made Class A whatever.

 

I tend to appreciate that with their respective backgrounds, the folks at Schiit know their market, and I am one of them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Ripping a CD that you have borrowed from a library and retaining a copy after you have returned the CD to the library is copyright infringement, not "fair use".

 

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

 

 

"So what is a “transformative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general guidelines, and varied court decisions because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation."

 

Now I understand that the legal principle involved--and as the article, you referenced did not speak to using a CD from the library.

 

I would think there is huge canyon between ---Spotify, a commercial enterprise using copyrighted material in their paid service, without proper licensing --

and a 60-year old man checking out 10-CDs on his library card, so he can hear Benny Goodman's Greatest Hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Ripping a CD that you have borrowed from a library and retaining a copy after you have returned the CD to the library is copyright infringement, not "fair use".

 

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

 

 

 

 

But it is OK to buy the CD and ripping it?

 

If ripping were such a great concern, would not the software that performs this task be better enforced by banning 'rips' with a Digital Copyright embedded in the CDs at manufacture.

 

And any computer which could bypass the protections would be like an illegal still--which turns corn mash into white liquor--without the benefit of paying the taxes to the Revenuers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

The issue here isn't the actual ripping of the CD but the fact that ripping a CD that you've borrowed from a friend or the library means that there are now two copies of the CD in existence, once which has the copyright owner(s) have been compensated for and one for which they haven't.

 

That is understood. I am still reading the entire article you referenced and have yet to find an applicable case law citation for CDs borrowed from a library.

 

Not a fair use. Downloading songs is not a fair use. A woman was sued for copyright infringement for downloading 30 songs using the peer-to-peer file-sharing software. She argued that her activity was a fair use because she was downloading the songs to determine if she wanted to later buy them. Important factors: Since numerous sites, such as iTunes, permit listeners to sample and examine portions of songs without downloading, the court rejected this “sampling” defense. (BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005).)

 

Not a fair use. A defendant in a music file-sharing case could not claim a fair use defense since he had failed to provide evidence that his copying of music files involved any transformative use (an essential element in proving fair use). Important factors: The court held that the defendant was confusing “‘fairness’ and ‘fair use’—in the end, fair use is not a referendum on fairness in the abstract …” (Capitol Records Inc. v. Alaujan, 2009 WL 5873136 (D. Mass., 7/27/09).)

 

The words "File-sharing" is the Res gestae (Latin "things done") in both of these holdings.

 

It would be my opinion that using the music for private use is legally different than offering copyrighted material in a peer-to-peer file sharing structure, giving access to folks who never "borrowed" a CD, and making their own rip.

 

--but I am a cheap audiophile, not an attorney...

And I will reiterate--I sure hope that the USGov have better things to do with their limited resources.

 

Spotify not paying license fees and retired man listening to Benny Goodman would be analogous to people being prosecuted for misdemeanor marijuana possession when 29 states of the 50 have de-criminalized it or made it available for medical use legally at the state level.

 

Each District Court in the Federal Judiciary has a limited number of prosecutors and staff.

 

Pursuing library violations of fair-use is like the IRS busting Wesley Snipes before April 15--to serve as an example-- and get would-be tax cheats something more to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...