That’s what I’m thinking, since my .DFF files don’t sound quite as good as the base .ISO files. I’m thinking the older Sonore transfer wasn’t as bit perfect as it should of been, and I will redo my comparison between .DFF and .DSF with a cleaner transfer.
No, No. I am running in true stereo via DSD to the Denafrips. I just flip on the Pro Logic once and a while on a Stereo signal for shits and giggles. It’s odd that a .DFF file sounds near identical to the .ISO, but the .DSF is much narrower and doesn’t engage the processor, I’m gonna chalk that one up to the quality of the Sonore. But I do know that the Sony spec was only meant for 2 channel and figure it is doing a Lt/Rt mixdown and dropping the Ls/Rs matrix info that the .DFF retains. Just a guess.
My Multi setup runs via HDMI into the Oppo 105D 6 Discreet channels. I’m actually listening to a Multi .ISO now through Audirvana and it is playing properly. I’m curious if a new .DFF/.DSF file will sound identical or better without as much processor load.
You are overthinking this entirely. The Sonore application you refer to is simply a Java applet graphical user interface (GUI) that allows you to point and click as opposed to having to use a command line interface (CLI) such as Terminal or Console. It is not the SACD ripping engine itself, that application is called sacd_extract, the Sonore GUI merely instructs sacd_extract via point and click.
Sonore’s links point to the EuFlo enhanced version of sacd_extract, which is the most updated version available, and while I have no idea if TRAX is doing anything differently, I do know for sure that the EuFlo enhanced version of sacd_extract is bit perfect and thus offers the same sound quality as the SACD itself.
In other words, you can compare the SHA-256 hash of an SACD ISO rip using the above to the SACD itself and they are identical. Further, if you use SACDExtractGUI instead of ISO2DSD as your GUI tool, then you can also see a measurement during the rip itself of the audio frames and disc sectors ripped, vs. those found in the SACD’s Table of Contents (TOC), If they differ, it is because your disc has suffered some sort of physical damage, or it is dirty and needs to be cleaned.
I used to do more SACD ripping (like you, to .dsf, because it handles metadata better than .dff IME). But I found that subjectively I preferred the PCM versions upsampled to high rate DSD over the DSD64 versions from the SACD rips, all else being equal. For that reason I haven’t bothered to do any SACD rips in quite a while.
If you rip your SACD’s as .iso → to .dsf files, you can then convert the .dsf files to 352.8kHz PCM (DXD) files using a program like TRAX or DSD Master, and others, and get the benefit of the higher resolution recording when subsequently modulating to (higher resolution) DSD again…
I do have an offline converter (Audio Inventory). But other than Native DSD (the company), it’s almost impossible to be sure a recording isn’t the result of conversion itself. So my usual practice is to either play Native DSD downloads without conversion, or buy the PCM version and let Audirvana upsample. Just personal preference.
It depends on where the discs are purchased… I generally find there is good information about the origins of the majority of SACD content… However the point is, there is benefit in converting pure DSD64 recordings to 352.8kHz PCM/DXD and then modulating to a higher resolution DSD sample-rate so to retain and realize as much of the original resolution of the DSD recording as possible, rather than starting with lower resolution PCM as you are describing…
Many of the Native DSD catalog are produced as native 2.8MHz DSD64… These recordings contain far more resolution than lower resolution native PCM recordings… Of course Native DSD provides DXD content and in this case you are starting with a high-resolution recording but still not at the resolution of 2.8MHz DSD64… It’s always best to modulate the highest resolution PCM file to 1-bit DSD due to the nature of the captured contextual harmonic, dynamic and spatial elements imbued in the original A/D encoding.
In the context of SACD mastering, it is the source signal that matters, and these masters are generally archival quality, be these PCM digital or analog (tape, vinyl) or native DSD or a result of a mastering process that includes transfer of PCM digital to analog-tape/electronics and then encoded as 1-bit 2.8MHz PDM or higher.
