If a DSD64 recording is remodulated to DSD128 or higher it will make it ‘easier’ for the DAC to convert back to analog (depending on the DAC…). It does not in any way make the original recording ‘better’, but may improve the sound quality depending on your gear.
DSD 128 is definitely better. I’ve used it for making recordings with the Tascam DA-3000 and Korg MR-1000, and there is no question that 128 is more accurate to the source.
Yes, the DSD 128 file is noticeably better than SACD. Knowing that the quality of the sound can be even better is a bit frustrating for the owner of many SACDs.
I have a DS DAC, it only reads DSD 128.
SACD uses a certain amount of compression to get it on the disc particularly on multi channel so arguably a DSD64 download may have slightly better fidelity?
It certainly makes sense to record at a higher bit-rate than DSD64 but don’t confuse that with remodulation to higher bit rates. The Rachel Podger recording was originally captured to DSD256 and is available remodulated to DSD512.
i agreed both down or up: sound litle “less” at least the pcm i try, i guess is the same with dsd;
better the original 256 than a “compression” to sacd!
what i had experience is that dsd 512 sound more clear and clean
according to nativedsd . com there is no a native dsd 512 or dsd 1024 !
it seems nobody can reproduce dsd 512 today
but what you think could be a sound improvement 512 vs 1024? it feels 256 is enought and for the very litle clean “touch” of 512 i dont know if it really matters
IN ALL CASES in the end i think 1024 can do nothing at all for the sound