Much ballyhoo has been written about the new availability of being able to capture sound at 11.2MHz There have been a few files trickling around the internet touting native DSD256fs but in reality, all we've seen are files that have been upsampled.
A few months ago 5/4 Productions captured the first commercial recording in DSD256fs, but as I recall, this was just from a back-up unit. The "real" recording was done at DSD64fs.
There are a couple of DAC's and even a couple of ADC's that can pass native DSD256fs. One being the Horus, though this could only be done for the first time just a couple of months ago. The exaSound DAC and the Ayre QA-9 can operate up to DS256fs as well.
So, is DSD256fs all that it's cracked up to be? From what I've heard and read so far, not really. I can not tell the difference between DSD128fs and DSD256fs. I've tried and failed. Either I have tin ears, or some people have expectation bias. DSD256fs was developed to better facilitate Post Production. Long has been the problem of HF build-up working in DSD, especially using multi-track. DSD256fs pushes that HF noise up another octave so multi-track recordings will have a better chance at staying under the Scarlet book specs for HF noise.
In my studio, using music recorded from tape and location, I still think the Grimm AD1 at DSD64fs and the Horus at DSD128fs are the best DSD recording available. Which you prefer is up for debate. What I will be doing is taking my Pyramix/Horus unit to RMAF and you can listen for yourself what DSD you like the best. For me, I'll still hang on to my Grimm....
A few months ago 5/4 Productions captured the first commercial recording in DSD256fs, but as I recall, this was just from a back-up unit. The "real" recording was done at DSD64fs.
There are a couple of DAC's and even a couple of ADC's that can pass native DSD256fs. One being the Horus, though this could only be done for the first time just a couple of months ago. The exaSound DAC and the Ayre QA-9 can operate up to DS256fs as well.
So, is DSD256fs all that it's cracked up to be? From what I've heard and read so far, not really. I can not tell the difference between DSD128fs and DSD256fs. I've tried and failed. Either I have tin ears, or some people have expectation bias. DSD256fs was developed to better facilitate Post Production. Long has been the problem of HF build-up working in DSD, especially using multi-track. DSD256fs pushes that HF noise up another octave so multi-track recordings will have a better chance at staying under the Scarlet book specs for HF noise.
In my studio, using music recorded from tape and location, I still think the Grimm AD1 at DSD64fs and the Horus at DSD128fs are the best DSD recording available. Which you prefer is up for debate. What I will be doing is taking my Pyramix/Horus unit to RMAF and you can listen for yourself what DSD you like the best. For me, I'll still hang on to my Grimm....