i just do not find that because it is DSD or PCM it necessarily guarantees a quality sound. Its just a different delivery system for digital files.
james
Hi James!
That's a good answer!
It is interesting what you can read and wby DSD is superior to PCM. Some even go as far as to say the designers of the first CD machines made a mistake when they chose PCM which is not really true. While DSD is almost as old as PCM, DSD system requires a lot more physical space on an optical disc than CD, which at the time, was meant as a 14-bit format. It wasn't until Sony joined Philips that they suggested a 16-bit system with a 74-minute runtime which enlarged the diameter of the disc from 100mm to 120mm. So, the designers didn't really do any mistakes back then, they did the best they could.
What is somewhat bothersome is the nature of how DSD was introduced to the world. Sony is now advertising DSD like the next best thing and yet, it was them who prevented the format from succeeding in the first place. It was a disc that could have been played only on a dedicated SACD machine and apart from the analogue recording, you could not copy the content of the disc.
Like a friend likes to say - Antun, if your system sounds fantastic now, surely it will sound fantastic in 10 or 20 years. If you buy a new Audi now, it will be an Audi in 10 years and still far better than any modern Chevrolet no matter how many stickers they put on it.
But let me ask you, in terms of the processing demands, what is more difficult for BDP tp play back - PCM (24/192) or DSD?
Cheers!
Antun