DSD vs PCM .. Truth or Myth

Most SACDs are SQ compromised IMO because they are converted from PCM originals, or PCM intermediate stages even if they are originally recorded in DSD. That is because mastering is a practical impossibility in DSD.

So the best sounding SACDs are often directly from analog material, all the mastering having been done in analog. AAD disks with no PCM involved.

@melm

There is not a single DSD recording that did not start off as PCM. Even if worked on in DXD, that’s still PCM (24/352.8). You can’t transfer analog straight to DSD either, at least not to my knowledge.  
  
Still, my claim about it not being better over PCM still stands. There are no downsides to listening to PCM that DSD can fix, as PCM is 100% transparent (given a good enough bitrate/bit-depth/sampling rate of course; a 128Kbps AAC track on YouTube is different than a FLAC transfer from CD).

@mzkmxcv. What absolute rubbish.

Recording direct to DSD is common and widespread and many find it the preferred method to get as close as possible to the original event. 

See for example Blue Coast https://bluecoastrecords.com/about/about-ese-extended-sound-environment

@folkfreak

I am skeptical if recording straight to 1-Bit (DSD) is possible. If you have to do any editing at all, it has to enter PCM, as even DXD (the editing format for DSD) is PCM.

DSD is no more accurate “to the original event” than PCM; the very fundamental of digital audio, Nyquist-Shannon, states so. 
 
The difference between the formats are very insignificant. DSD just records quickly if the waveform is increasing or decreasing (meaning a flat waveform cannot be reproduced accurate, luckily we don’t need to worry about that), whereas PCM takes samples that 100% accurately captures the original waveform.