It would be nice if someone could demonstrate that DSD sounds better than PCM in a double-blind experiment. Just as a sanity check, you could record the PCM from the DSD output to discover whether PCM is perceptually transparent. Advocates of DSD are often skeptical of double-blind experiments, which itself is a red flag.
So DSD is just storing [the equivalent of] the digital pulse part of a class-D amplifier? That seems completely pointless...<p>My feeling is there's a one to one transform between the 1 bit world and the multi-bit world, which means that they're mathematically the same and any perceived differences are merely the result of poor A/B testing.
It sounds a lot like someone making money. You play these over your $150,000 speakers with $10,000 speaker wire and you can pretty much hear the money hitting the table.<p>I heard this story on my way to work this morning and was just shaking my head. There are probably going to be a lot of people wanting to try out this newfangled $50 album, though.
Whether DSD is even good or not is still something hotly debated. It's not at all suitable for editing. I'm really scratching my head why NPR reported a story that is so one-sided.<p>The fact-checking here is poor. They're presenting it as DSD vs MP3 when really it's DSD vs PCM.
But no one's talking about FLAC/DSD for archiving and MP3 for casual listening... which should be the point.<p>The history of music (even if you don't like today's pop) should not be stored in 320 kilobit/s CBR.
Here is a link to what must apparently be the new range of Sony hi-fi equipment the article talks about (but doesn't link to) in the first paragraph: <a href="http://www.whathifi.com/news/sony-launches-high-resolution-audio-product-range-and-hi-res-downloads-site" rel="nofollow">http://www.whathifi.com/news/sony-launches-high-resolution-a...</a>