How strange - in 2020, someone reported in this forum that they had been doing DSD512 on a Mac with the Ares II, but could not get their Holo Audio May to do more than DSD256 from the same computer.
Edit: I think if you look at the PCM specs, you’ll see what they mean is that you can be assured of a minimum of DSD64 using any of the inputs. This is not a maximum for DoP on the USB input specifically.
I’m not sure about this as there is a also a limit the upsampling algorithm can handle it. Does anybody tried to upsample a track to DSD 1024 using HQPlayer for example?
It’s unlikely you will find one but would be interesting if this is something that appeared in a spec sheet of a DSD 1024 device (which by the way, giving the number of those devices on the market, could probably be counted with fingers) 
The Holo May states it could do DSD 512 in it’s manual, you are right. Does @sridavid can maybe tell us more about it if he still got this unit?
The May manual does say DSD512 over DoP, though I wonder if that is exclusive to Windows, or Windows and Linux. There are a number of DACs that will do DSD1024 over native DSD to Windows, or Windows and Linux, but are limited to DSD256 over DoP with MacOS. I’m supposing it’s a matter of driver/kernel support on Windows and Linux that is lacking in MacOS Core Audio.
In the same post, sridavid says he has no problem with DoP512 on a Mac with a Denafrips Ares, so that would answer affirmatively regarding DSD512 on MacOS, and be a hopeful sign regarding DSD1024 on Windows/Linux.
I want to see the results of any listening tests using multiple subjects (subjective or double-blind) that will provide definitive evidence that modulating PCM to DSD512 or DSD1024 provides a tangible level of auditory/sensorial perception in contextual harmonic and dynamic energy; in direct comparison to modulating PCM to DSD128 or DSD256 as auditioned through the average audiophile playback system…
Personally speaking, I don’t want my DAC running at the red-line of its performance… I want the headroom of running at cruising speed.
I don’t think that people who prefer listening to PCM modulated to DSD512 or DSD1024 do this via a set-up which is comparable to the “average” audiophile playback system.
So in this point you might be right.
Matt
I’d even like to see a multi-subject study (subjective or double-blind) done on one of the most sophisticated playback systems in existence, that can provide definitive evidence of tangibly perceptible, contextual harmonic and dynamic energy in modulating DXD to DSD512 or DSD1024 as directly compared to DXD modulated to DSD128 or DSD256…
High End listening is not about scientific studies. It is the subjectivity of an individual who prefers listening to the highest DSD rates in comparison to lower rates and finds pleasure in it. If you go over to WBF you will find a lot of these people. It is similar to drinking coffee on high end espresso machines or wine tasting.
Matt
That’s okay and I understand the nature of that sort of cognitive-bias… However, when these sorts of things are used as marketing points, then I want to see evidence of the rationale for the existence and application… I enjoy a fine wine… if I get a chance to indulge… however, I’ll need a consensus or a personal experience, before I buy into the hype… Now my feelings are different when a native DSD recording is modulated to DSD512, but the catalog of these products is not wide enough… so the limited DSD512 products become ‘showpieces’ for the technology, and are far from mainstream.
We all here on this and other forums are far from mainstream. Some people do offline upsampling of ordinary files in order to create new ones in the GB area which need a lot of storage space: A toast to PGGB, a heady brew of math and magic - Software - Audiophile Style
This month I will visit High End Munich which is also far from mainstream. It is just interesting to listen to these audio systems, to get new impressions and to compare to my own set-up.
Matt
Yes, this is also my opinion. I can’t make such a test, maybe never, I don’t have such a DAC, don’t know anybody who has and also a place (store?) when can test. Anyway, in a public place can’t make such tests because: 1. Need to have a very good special mood 2. Proper files 3 Proper software 4 At least one hour 5 To not be disturbed by anything/anybody. It’s not like mp3 vs flac. Until that I think it’s (just) marketing. It’s a consume society. They need to sell and sell and sell.
Plus I don’t have an absolute hearing and perfect perception. So even if it is a difference maybe I will not notice. So why to waste my money? Just because others, maybe paid to say something or with a better perception than mine or not such pro think it’s better? To be in “trend”?
And then there will be the tedious remasters of the remasters of the remasters!
I’d like to see the multi-subject study (subjective or double-blind) comparison of PCM and DXD up-sampled by PGGB, directly compared to PCM and DXD modulated to DSD128 and DSD256…
When I speak of “mainstream” it is in the context of the high-end audiophile experience.
I am not fond of offline upsampling like PGGB and mentioned it only because I think it is even more esoteric and outside “mainstream” than on-the-fly upsampling to higher rate DSD.
I also mentioned that I don’t think that you get any consensus about SQ with “scientific studies”, but YMMV.
Matt
Well, without personal experience, a consensus derived from a variety of folks with various levels of hearing acuity and listening skills, brings us closer to a reality less fettered by cognitive-bias…
Maybe, but that doesn’t matter much for your personal listening behavior. In the end you choose the software and hardware components of your audiophile system and listen to the music you like. Even when a study claims that there is no difference but you hear one it might be very important for you. Further, studies are like fashion, some change every season, good luck…
Matt
