Is DSD download already an extinct format?

"I have listened to 192/24 PCM versus double DSD of the same material using SACDs as the source and double DSD wins hands down. "

Tbg always manages to determine what sounds better when comparing two very similar things. Can I assume he is unbiased in his judgements? Is anyone? I wish I had his ears and his unabiding trust in what I hear. I hear things that both sound really good in significantly different ways all the time and am still challenged to say which is conclusively "better".

On the other hand, I am pretty good I think at detecting noise and distortion when I hear it and have no doubt then that something is amiss, but still lots of reasons why still possible.

I think I've pretty much heard it all and have come to the conclusion that there is not always a clear winner when comparing two different things done well. Its more a matter of individual tastes and perspectives, which ALWAYS vary.

Mapman, you ask good questions and provide good counterarguments. DSD is not universally better than PCM in the sense that all DSD recordings are better than PCM recordings.

As for the technical reasons, I'm just a simple organic chemist, not an ee, computer scientist, or physicist. I'm smart enough to leave such discussions to those who know what they are talking about. I'd rather take an empirical approach here, allowing my ears and emotional response to music to trump technical considerations, although I don't want anyone selling me snake oil, either.

I have a limited sampling--one, which is somewhat short of being statistically significant. I'd like to have more samples, but I'm not going to blow my entire estate at $25 each to run the experiment.

My fascination with DSD is based on what I hear from people I trust, who are in a better position to make statistically significant judgments. Also, I have a general preference for the sound of cds that were produced from DSD masters. It's by no means a universal preference, but I don't have many bad recordings in my collection that were recorded in DSD, while I have more than a few bad recordings that came from PCM masters. In all fairness, I have a wall full of wonderful PCM master derived CDs. That observation is proof of nothing, but it is enough to keep me interested in native DSD files.

If Sony lets us down here (again), it is not the end of the world. As you have pointed out, PCM properly implemented can be extremely good. All I'm asking here is that Sony implement a marketing strategy that allows the musical cognoscenti an opportunity to determine the real value of hi rez in general, and DSD in particular.

Mapman, I have been enjoying dramatic improvements in my audio reproductions the last several years. This has many roots but I will not bore you with them. What has happened is that I am getting realism that I never thought was possible and I have learned how fragile that realism is.

When I play the double DSD version, I hear the decay of notes that are absent when I listen to the PCM 192 version. And there more detail in general. It may not be dramatic but it is thrilling and, I thought, impossible.

"Mapman, I have been enjoying dramatic improvements in my audio reproductions the last several years. This has many roots but I will not bore you with them. What has happened is that I am getting realism that I never thought was possible and I have learned how fragile that realism is."

Same story here.

PCM has not gotten my attention to date. Too many other fish to fry until the unique value might become clear.

I am a computer systems/software engineer by profession and am tasked to understand new technology daily in my role. Adding DSD to my list of things to try to understand better when the right time comes.

Since there is hardly any DSD or even high res music available I agree. DSD is dead in the womb.