No, the DSD256 is the HDTT version, The DSD 64 version a SACD from Mo-Fi. I played the SACD on my PST and the DSD from my Esoteric streamer. The SACD images are flatter and more CD like, and the DSD256 version is denser more 3D. The piano on the DSD256 is on the left side and drums are on the right side. The SACD the piano is on the right side and the drums are on the left side. I don’t know which is correct.
Released today - Saxophone Colossus in a gorgeous Pure DSD256 transfer. I’ve been listening and comparing over the past hour, and this is unquestionably the best sounding digital transfer of this remarkable album in my library. Is it better than vinyl? Sorry, can’t tell you that. But I’m not losing sleep given how superlative this release sounds.
Review is here. Download here.
(Edited: to add link to PF review)
3 Likes
Another insanely excellent release today from HDTT. This is one of the great Mercury Living Presence recordings, now finally available in DSD256/DXD. In this case, the DSD256 transfer was post processed in DXD then converted back to DSD256. It simply trounces the CD and sounds far better than my recollection of the Classic Records 33rpm LP reissue that I used to have.
Review to come. Download here
2 Likes
When I have the Airlens, I’ll do the kind of shootouts against the AP 45 RPM for this and a few similar ones 
What’s interesting with this whole development of higher DSD rates, is, that if it’s true, what Paul, you and others say, how much better (and I don’t doubt that) DSD256 is than DSD64…which is told to be much much better than PCM even of high rates…and if all this progress can be observed when copied from a tape source…then (sorry for the harsh words ) what the all time promoters of digital sold to their followers, how superior digital with each single step at each time already was, was a constant screw up of people since the 80’s through now (but we all knew this anyway, too).
And although I guess DSD256 might be good enough, I say “through now”, because I also guess, that in a few years DSD512 or DSD1024 will probably reveal even more out of a tape source and a record will possibly still reveal differences between a DSD256 and a DSD1024 source … although today no one seems to hear a difference between DSD256 and a live feed…as the promoters didn’t hear a difference between DSD64, Hires or Redbook PCM and a live feed all the time before…it’s a crazy scene…I wonder how digital photography could become more than accepted without all this bs
What should be done now by the record labels is, archive the REAL master tapes with at least DSD256, as I think, it will be too late for many of them sooner than later and then again only records of them exist as better “copies”. But I think most did this archiving with 16/44 or 24/96 already and don’t plan to upgrade this, as it was announced to be perfect at the time
+1 @jazznut. Is this the only hobby where perfect is a temporary thing? 
It seems a little so to me.
Not that in other cases of digital or general technology, the world wouldn’t change daily, too…
But neither in case of photography, computing, certain TV technology or any other kind of audio components than digital based ones or name what you want…not in any other example than digital audio components, perfection was claimed by even dogmatists along a 40 year development at each stage of current state of the art, just to be revised again after the next better step was done. In all other cases I can think of, it was always obvious that we’re constantly at a compromised stage of development…just in digital audio, no difference between the original source and a digital copy or recording was heard (by so many promoters) all along the way of its development path…just to be corrected as soon as the technology certainly further improved. This up to a point until tape copies (this technology existing for even a few dozen more years and been “beaten” by digital since the 80’s) are seen as some of the best sources for demonstrating the potential of 2022’s digital technology status
All this is certainly not speaking against HDTT releases, which indeed often seem to demonstrate state of the art digital sound…it’s just crazy that they do…and how serious would one take those digital promoters who told their story again and again…if they do the same again today? Relaxed I’d recommend
3 Likes
Ah, yes, 1982 it was when I was told I could get rid of my vinyl because “perfect sound forever” was here. 
Marketeers are forever hyping.
Hmmm, but I also recall reading stories that similar was said of the first acoustic horn wax cylinders by those who heard them at the time. And I recall being told that I’d never need more than 20MB of pixel resolution for my digital camera. I think the camera in my cell phone now has 50 (downsampled to 12.5 for final output, to be sure).
As Jazznut has pointed out, we tend to think we have perfection until we have time to recalibrate what we’re hearing or seeing, and until something superior becomes available that allows us to make the cognitive differentiation. Methinks this occurs in all technology, not just digital audio.
It will be interesting to stay tuned to further developments in audio. Yet, it always surprises and delights to find how little has changed in ultimate listening enjoyment when one hears the quality achieved by the recording community of 50-60 years ago.
Was my vinyl playback in 2018 sota? Pretty much, yes, for the time. Is it surpassed today? Probably - viz. the newest Kronos Discovery table and arm. Time to celebrate the creative energy of our designer/engineers.
1 Like
Yes, all things constantly improve…this was out of question.
Yes, people were excited about the first acoustic horn wax cylinders (but a first excitement is something different than a claim its sound can’t be distinguished from the original, and I think no one claimed that at the time).
Indeed at a certain time, the camera megapixel amount was considered sufficient for every demand, but this was not really quality related and disputed, rather magnification related. Certainly also not true, but very quickly a constant improvement process was accepted fact and no perfection claim against analog photography, nor a constant perfection claim at each stage of digital camera evolution was observable….it was clear, the current one is still flawed (or good enough for the own demand) and next years camera will be better again…also that analog always enables bigger prints and dynamic range. Digital is the general favorite for convenience reasons.
Not exactly “we” and valid for everything ;-). I would even say our basic thinking is “nothing is perfect, just possibly perfect enough for one personally already.”
I only know selective blanket perfection claims by people who decided for something for concept, principle or cost reasons, not wanting to question it.
I didn’t question the enthusiasm for the first CD and each further step the technology made…just the accompanying perfection claim, which I indeed don’t remember to have experienced with any other kind of product or technology preference, not car, bike, watch, amp, camera, turntable etc.
Decided to sample Bill Evans “Interplay”. Ordered DSD 256 format. Realized too late that the DSD Sr. supports DSD256 only on the i2s. It is not an option in my case since 1) I am using the only i2s connection to the PSAudio transport and 2) my streamer does not have an i2s connection.
Have reached out to them to see if I could do an exchange for DSD128. Waiting for a response. Will also be ordering the CD to see if my ears can discern the differences. I do like to own physical media.
@Sohail , I assume you’ve ordered from HDTT. If you ordered the DSD256, they normally include links to download all the lower resolution files in addition to the DSD256. Check the link they sent you for the download. This is the last one I received for a DSD256 order. You will see it includes links to download the DSD128 and DSD64 and PCM files in addition:
2 Likes
@Rushton: Thanks for the reply. I did order from HDTT. This is where the link took me to.
I truly appreciate the time and effort that you have been putting in your posts. They are very informative.
2 Likes
Hmmm, yes that is the alternate link they provide. I don’t know why/when they do one vs the other. So, best path is the one you’ve chosen: see what HDTT support can do to solve the issue. They are typically very accommodating.
1 Like
After your purchase, HDTT will send you a email link (SendOwl) for the download. Click on the download and you should get this.
1 Like
Here’s a couple more DSD256’s I’m playing right now and the sound is mesmerizing!
These HDTT recordings are really something else!
2 Likes
I’ll give them a day or so and then contact them again!
Thanks for suggesting Another Git Together. I’ve had that sitting in my “to play” queue for a while and you prompted me to play it now. Very nice performances here! The combinations with fluegelhorn and trombone are a treat to hear. I do really enjoy Art Farmer and Grachan Moncur III.
Comparing alternative file formats… Some thoughts below to share.
For grins, I’ve been comparing the DXD edition of this album to the DSD256, as interpreted by my DAC. I always encourage folks to listen carefully to how their DAC processes the various file formats because each DAC designer is making different choices.
As I was listening to the DSD256 file, I thought it sounded a bit veiled and somewhat lacking in transparency – not what I normally expect to hear.
Normally, I’ve been preferring Bob’s DSD256 files now that he’s transferring from the tape in DSD256 before editing in PCM when needed. (Bob tells us very clearly on the webpage for this album that “This release was edited in DXD PCM from a DSD256 Master then the DXD edited master was used to generate the final DSD files using Merging Technologies Album Publishing.”) So, in this case, the DXD file is the earliest edit master. Keep in mind that every conversion step adds some artifacts to the sound. As explained to me by some folks who should know, mathematically it can’t be any other way.
In the case of this particular album, I prefer the sound of the DXD file as played through my DAC to that of the DSD256 file as generated by the Merging Technologies Album publishing software. Through my DAC, the DXD file is just a bit more open sounding, a bit more transparent even though I know my DAC is also converting the file internally from DXD to DSD as the first step in its internal processing.
I figure this is just a difference how the algorithms used for converting the DXD file to DSD are interpreting the signal.
My point here is that we can’t simply assume that the DSD256 file will be the better sounding in our respective systems. In this particular case, and in my particular system, the DXD file sounds better to me. Using some other DAC, the results may be different. Listening to a different album, the results may be different (in fact, are different in my experience). This is why I will download both the DSD256 file and the DXD file from HDTT when given the opportunity.
So, go figure. Just another of those many variables that haunt this hobby of ours as we move further out to the lunatic fringe – where my wife tells me I reside. 
For those who may ask, my DAC is one of those designs that converts everything to DSD internally and then modulates the DSD up to crazy high frequency before rolling the signal into analog (Playback Designs MPD-8). There are several manufacturers who do this. I believe the PS Audio DirectStream DAC works similarly.
What do you hear in your system? I’d be interested in comparing notes.
I think it makes sense that each additional conversion step degrades sound, even those of which some might say they are transparent.