How to obtain DSD files and discs 

And basically his own track lol: "Giorgio by Moroder"

@@alexblank1913 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WXgNo5Smino.html

Cool, not heard that album yet. I will see if I can get it on Spotify, cheers mate

Giorgio Moroder is no obscure legend- He was the man behind Donna Summers awesome run of success in the 70s and is well known across the world

@@knockshinnoch1950 Perhaps just before my time, I knew little on him until "Random Access Memories" . Realizing he influenced the forming of Daft Punk, I did my research.

@@AllboroLCD He produced all of Donna Summers big hits and albums from 75-80, Call Me by Blondie, You Take My Breath Away by Berlin, Together In Electric Dreams, The Chase- theme from Midnight Express to name just a few not forgetting Flashdance and Maniac. The guy is a living legend!

@@knockshinnoch1950 That epic cheesy montage song from Scarface as well! I realized that real quick skimming through the mans catalog.

@Sblackfll You're absolutely right. That is why i trivialise all the digital formats a bit. They have ofcourse their positive points but everything stands or falls with the music that it represents. No matter what source someone uses.

Paul: * crickets *

After recording to tape and PCM for nearly 40 years and DSD for the last 20, I can tell you there is a reason why we record to DSD and not PCM -- PCM doesn't come close to DSD for frequency response or dynamics. My label is Blue Coast Records. PCM will never be DSD's equal in sound in my opinion. I can't speak for Paul, but when we record live events we bring our Sonoma or Pyramix system to the venue and record to it.. always in DSD. If you're looking to produce multilayered pop songs that need to be shipped to 100's of musicians for overdubs and use a lot of plug in's, then yes, PCM might be easier to work with and the sacrifice is sound. Our website for DSD - bluecoastmusic.com/

​@@soundconnex PCM is DSDs equal (sound quality wise), when the PCM file is created properly. For example, when a DSD file is converted into a PCM file, then, sonically, the two files have equal fidelity. So the issue is not with the PCM format. Rather, the issue is with the analog-to-digital converter hardware being used in the real-time creation process of the PCM file. Paul has acknowledged as much, in one of his other videos in reply to my questions on this topic: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ic84qiHxkYw.html In that other video's comment section, Paul wrote: "...we use the same converters (Ed Meitner custom converters) for both but obviously, inside the converters it's a very different story. Completely different technology making a DSD converter vs. a PCM converter. And (I suspect) to your point, that's where the difference may lie." If anyone makes a better real-time analog-to-PCM converter, then maybe that will negate the need for the more difficult DSD format to be used? The Lynx Hilo is supposedly at top-tier analog-to-digital converter. Maybe it would get the job done, sound fidelity wise?

@@NoEgg4u Well, I can only guess that you have never been in a high level studio situation to be able to compare competantly the same audio recording as both DSD and PCM. In one of Paul's recent blogs, he mentions comparing DSD with DXD (a PCM format) while using the Pyramix recorder and finding that DXD did not sound as good. We have found the same experience with that comparison. PCM is "decimated" DSD. Andreas Koch (Playback Designs) frequently writes about the differences and explains this decimation quite well. You might want to look up some of his papers. Andreas designed converters for Meitner and was involved with Sony in DSD's early development. He's also good friends with Gus Skinas having worked with him at Sony. I will say this... not everyone can record in DSD. It's not easy. I don't expect audio engineers to embrace DSD systems because it is also very expensive and the reality is that the choices made in recording and mixing (and mastering) will make more difference than what format is being recorded to. But, some of us who can make a choice choose DSD whenever we can as the recording medium. DSD won't fix a bad recording. It's your choice (as the listener) to listen to what makes you happy.... even if it's youtube. As long as you're listening and supporting the music, we'll all be happy regardless of formats. :) I appreciate the conversation with you. :)

​@@soundconnex You wrote: "Well, I can only guess that you have never been in a high level studio situation to be able to compare competantly the same audio recording as both DSD and PCM." Your guess is correct. Like 99.9999999999% of music enthusiasts, knowing someone that will get you into a recording studio is like knowing someone that will get you into Area 51. I used to work for Atlantic / Electra Records, in the 1990s, on 51st street in Manhattan. Not a single person in that building (that I knew) ever got into a studio. The closest we got was that once per month, we got to choose 6 CDs, for free, from a list -- and the list always sucked (seemed to be a way for them to dump their excess, non-selling albums, and come across as being altruistic. There was never a hit song anywhere on the list of available CDs. Anyway, none of this explains why PCM is DSD's sound-quality equal, when the PCM file is derived from a DSD file. PCM's format for storing the music does no harm (or no more harm than DSD). It is only a matter of properly creating the PCM file, in such a way that no harm is done. Since converting a DSD file to a PCM file yields the same sound quality, then there is a technological flaw in the real-time analog-to-digital PCM converters -- or the wrong hardware is being used. Just as no two speaker models are of equal sound quality, and just as no two amplifier models are of equal sound quality, and just as no two pre-amp models are of equal sound quality, and just as no two phono cartridges are of equal sound quality, and on and on... No two analog-to-digital converters are of equal sound quality. Does such a model exist, that can match the performance of the best DSD models? I do not know. These boxes are not reviewed like other components. I would not even know how to find a list of existing analog-to-digital converters. If you are using an analog-to-digital converter that is built-in to a $150 USB turntable, then of course the resulting PCM file will suck. So it is all about the quality of the converter. The PCM format is not at fault. It is the equipment being used to create the PCM file in real-time that is at fault. Correct that fault, and PCM will be a viable choice for creating outstanding digital masters. Cheers!

Check out the "T69 Collapse" EP by Aphex Twin. Not DSD, but very well engineered.

​@@ChiefExecutiveOrbiter It woke up my subwoofer and that's important. My subwoofer doesn't care if the bass originates from DSD or PCM. My tweeters care but high definition PCM can be as good as DSD frankly speaking.

@@ThinkingBetter in layman's terms did you like it? That second track should be a reference standard 😜

@@ChiefExecutiveOrbiter You mean "T69 collapse" by Apex Twin? That track's beat is too fast and there is no easily identifiable tune but I like to explore such creative music.

@@ThinkingBetter the 2nd track "1st 44"... will wake the subs. Appreciate your honesty and open-mindedness.

Thanks and yes, we are alright though it was a scary night.

Thanks, Steven, I think it's fixed.

@Sblackfll Thanks for the help!

My Marantz player will only play SACD’s thru the analog outputs connected to my preamp or power amp. The signal does not go thru the DAC won’t work that way.

@Sblackfll I wasn't clear in my explanation. My Marantz is also connected to my Mytek dac using a digital coaxial cable. I use that when playing regular cd's or a DVD. I think the player is made that way for copyright protection of the sacd.

@+❶ ❸３１７１❼３➃❼❹hitviaWhatsapp what does this mean

It's the PS audio box of chocolates 🍫

@@chefsteve8381 Good one! The title's fixed now, so it was wrong only for a few minutes, not a big deal by any means. Maybe the chocolates had some brandy in them! :)

Are you asking where I am sitting? I am in the warranty repair department of the engineering lab.

Yes, how can you do it?

@@ElisMissoni I guess Paul means his DirectStream Dac. I don't know if there is another, Windows friendly, FPGA programm for this.

Your are unnecessarily conflating various digital formats, e.g., uncompressed, compressed, etc. with each other. If you want to listen to recordings that, if properly engineered and produced with professional equipment, are capable of PERFECTLY reproducing audio in the range of human hearing, per the Shannon-Nyquest mathematical proofs, stick with PCM, i.e., CD quality digital audio. DSD is no less subject to imperfect recording techniques than any other format. DSD is highly unlikely to ever be more than a niche audiophile format for individuals who imagine that they have "golden ears" so don't worry about DSD replacing PCM, it ain't going to happen.

Can you please provide more detail on running DSD straight to the preamp? What is sending DSD? Over what kind of cables?

It is like a religion to him, while i think that only a minority of us will hear what he hears out of it compare to his equipment. And how many titles are available yet on DSD? Compare to streaming services who are holding 80+ millions songs which contain a lot of classics, it will takes a long time to get that amount on DSD format. ( by the time that happened, DSD itself is also replaced to something even more better i guess).

I'm so sick of people asking him what the point of high-res audio is. If you people don't know by now go listen to music on your cell phone speaker and be happy lol.

@@ChiefExecutiveOrbiter I'm sorry for having an audio system from only about 4000 Euro. That will not show my ears what DSD is capable of. But listening to music through a phone???? no, never.

@@obsprisma I rock a sub $1,000 system, but I do know putting good gas (the source) in the jalopy is the best thing you can do. Even us mere mortals can hear the difference between standard audio or high res, if not, get your ears or stereo checked. I personally not had any experience with DSD recordings, because I don't want to listen to Classical music or the 200th remaster of dark side of the Moon.

@@ChiefExecutiveOrbiter That i agree with you. That is why i do have a streaming subscription, not the 320kb version but the lossless one. Among my vinyl and cd collection. And i am more than satisfied with the quality my ears hear 😉

It has nothing to do with snake oil. Claude Shannon proved mathematically that 16-bit/44.1 KHz PCM is capable of PERFECTLY reproducing audio in the range of human hearing. Of course, humans and their equipment, engineering and production of recordings will never be able to achieve absolute perfection. The same applies to tape and records, except those formats can NEVER perfectly reproduce audio regardless of how perfect the studio practices and equipment are. But hey, if you love vinyl surface noise new right out of the jacket, clicks and pops, the vinyl degrading each and every time it is played, grossly inferior dynamic range, signal to noise ratio and poor channel separation vs CD's then enjoy. You should also sell your current auto and purchase a Ford Model T because, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Hi couldn't agree more with you, Bryan. That said, the opposite is almost always true. A great engineer can perform miracles with mediocre equipment but masterpieces with the best equipment. One shouldn't mistake great equipment as a panacea to making great recordings, but together with expert talent, magic can happen.

@@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285 Spot , perfectly put...And while the best recording( and PS Audio Playback components!) no doubt 'enhance ' the listening experience, for me, it's about the music artist 1st rather than engineer /production.. If I want the perfect 'life like ' sound, I'll play a Hi End Guitar in my ambient room. Hope you Guys were OK in the fires and it didn't affect you or people you know personally.. Take care..

Classical and jazz are not boring. If you like three chords, then listen to rock. lol I like most genres of music for different reasons.

Well the point is that there are pretty much zero DSD rock albums. But there are tonnes of jazz and classical.

Yes, DFF is a file format extension for DSD.

I have a highly resolving stack of electronics, very hifi speakers and cables to match, and I can assure you there are meaningful differences between files, particularly in the dynamic range of the playback. I think the more important question is whether you want or need to hear any difference. Be grateful if the answer is no. It's a very expensive hobby, and while the differences are meaningful to me, I have met many for whom they are not, and for whom the budget to tease any differences out would be better spent elsewhere. The endless debate about whether there is any difference is a waste of time. "Do you care?" is a much better debate to invest energy into, as it is inherently personal and irrelevant to your fellow man. I have a few Octave recordings, and many of Cookie Marenco's outfit. They are both a cut above. Recordings that make it live. The vast majority of recordings are pretty mediocre. Record, listen and enjoy whatever interests you, on the rig you have.

@@timmacklin8755 thanks Tim, best answer, and really well put in words!

@@timmacklin8755 Well said. Humans being more visual it's difficult to even know for sure if one could tell the difference in similar audio recordings, I guess only blind and double blind tests could tell, however they're much more difficult to set up than a simple pointer on an image or video. Just out of curiosity - would you be able to describe in words (how else?) the kind of differences you hear? I'm asking because I'd really like to check if I could tell the differences, too, however I don't have the slightest clue what and how to listen for. I guess it's easier when somebody goes through this with a novice, repeatedly listening to A/B material and pointing out the differences. Without something like this I don't even know what differences in dynamic range sound like. I could try to guess but I'm pretty sure I'd be grasping at straws, in the dark! Thanks.

@@dan-nutu The differences I hear are generally pretty subtle with two exceptions, 1) DSD vs FLAC usually delivers a significant difference in dynamic range, and 2) clarity of high frequencies between lowest res vs highest res, i.e. FLAC 44/48 vs 192 or DSD 64 vs 256. Dynamic range between FLAC and DSD is pretty noticable in most acoustic music when you play the first 15-30 seconds of a track back to back. Differences in attack and decay are much more pronounced, and in my experience this is the thing that, when you close your eyes, makes a recording sound live. I think sensitive ears are perhaps most sensitive to dynamic range and soundstage. DSD is pretty noticably superior in this dimension, and why I generally prefer DSD recordings to FLAC ones. The other difference between the lowest and highest resolution files are more difficult to pull out of an A/B test, as they only appear anecdotally in different sections of a recording. You can't always predict where they're going to appear so finding them and pointing them out requires more detailed listening. Comparing adjacent resolutions doesn't usually net any noticable differences, so my recommendation to people is to just download the highest resolution file that your DAC will playback. That's the only reason all the different versions are put out there... Not all DACS can play all resolutions. The final consideration is bandwidth of your streaming connection and/or storage space. I find that even playing a DSD256 file over my local network will occasionally cut out, so I tend to stick with DSD128 (DSD2X) or FLAC192. The last caveat I'll add to all this is that it ALL (ALL) (ALL) depends on the quality of the recording, which implies quality mics placed properly for the type of ensemble, the acoustics of the room and the skill of the sound engineer(s). Many recordings are not good enough to tell much difference. I find that most electrically amplified music is pretty "flat" in soundstage, the volume of sound overwhelms most recording studios, and any sense of nuance is lost. Another example would be older symphonic recordings where there would be one or two mics suspended at the front of the performance stage to record the sound of the orchestra. These recordings capture the acoustics of the hall where the performance is taking place, but not enough of the orchestra's soundstage to make different formats yield big differences. What's left? Well engineered classical recordings (which are everywhere these days) and small acoustic ensembles or soloists with good engineering. Those are really the ones where your mind can be blown by a highly resolving system of electronics, speakers and cables. Is it all worth it? Probably not for most people. That's why it's a niche hobby... I enjoy it, and that's all that REALLY matters.

The reason they sound the same is that the differences are very small. Even using some top notch headphones would probably not help.

@+❶ ❸３１７１❼３➃❼❹hitviaWhatsapp Wow thank you. BTW I'm not in USA. Could you please give this prize to others?