No offense, but the day I’d give any scientific credibility to the outfit you quoted would be a cold day indeed. Do recall that PMcG himself created the myth of I2S connections being sonically superior to USB (without evidence) simply because he was eager to sell thousands of his Directstream/Perfectwave SACD/DAC combos (which individually go for $6,999).
While bestowing such greatness on this arcane data transport protocol (for which he created a proprietary pinout), he fails to mention that he was only able to circumnavigate Sony’s DRM rights and access the unadulterated digital signal from SACDs if he used that specific connector. A small caveat, that is what we call a “conflict of interest”. So maybe not such a trusty source when it comes to DSD vs. FLAC?
Getting back to facts and evidence, and I say this as an owner of reams of DSF and SACD ISO files and a cabinet full of SACD discs, there’s truly no evidence for DSD sounding any different than FLAC. It’s a slippery subject because it really isn’t possible to cogently compare pulse code modulation to pulse wave modulation, or qualify the tangible differences between 1 bit sampled millions of times vs 24 bit sampled thousands of times. Apples and oranges.
But we can calculate the amount of data contained in these samples, and as I said previously, DSD64 roughly “correlates” to 24 bit FLAC 88,2, in terms of the sheer amount of data contained in two files digitized from the same analog master. ALL of this is really sketchy scientifically, but since PCM 176.4/24 bit contains TWICE the amount of audio data than DSD64, THEORETICALLY it should sound more detailed (note I didn’t say “better”—just more authentic to the original master, assuming the master is an analog recording).
There’s an endless number of responses to this interminable question filling up hard drives all over the web, half saying hi res PCM is better, half saying DSD is better (ie a random distribution). Because what we have definitively proven, empirically, is that the human ear, particularly the adult human ear, is incapable of discerning differences much past 16 bit, detecting a dynamic range more than 96 dB (which is what a Red Book CD is, by design!), or hearing a frequency range outside of 20-20,000 hz—and by adulthood that upper number caps off around 17,000hz and steadily declines year after year (especially among frequent music listeners).
So what can be legitimately extrapolated from this info, using validated mathematical equations, is that anyone who claims to be able to discern differences between samples in the rarified air of these outrageously high sample rates is exemplifying cognitive bias, another scientific principle that has been validated, conclusively.
It is these very susceptibilities we have as humans that convince us to part ways with many thousands of dollars for a DAC that a similar DAC with the exact same chipset can duplicate exactly for several hundred dollars, or less. It’s also the same reason headphone manufacturers refuse to adopt the Harman standard, because those tuning variations are what keep us off-balance and convince us that we need a $4,400 headphone to accomplish what a $1,399 headphone can easily perform for us at nearly a third of the cost.
I have my own opinion about which format I prefer, but I prefer not to share it with this nice person, because I’ve been through my own journey trying to get others to persuade me in one direction or another, only for me to eventually discover after much punishment of my wallet that I have to come to my own conclusions through trial and error—there’s simply no shortcut around this, because as I said, there an infinitely equal number of opinions on both sides of the fence.
Half the fun of this hobby is engaging in these kinds of discussions, and experimenting to our heart’s delight. Everyone’s opinion counts, as long as they are enjoying listening to their music. But given the potential costs involved, and the number of bad actors there are out there, I’ve made a personal choice to never speak authoritatively or dogmatically about the pricier choices—because even though I’ve spent my share of excess cash in this pursuit, I try to offer information that has been proven. And if I’m pressed for my preference, I always state that it’s only my preference. Because that’s all it is.
And I never, ever quote the preferences of parties with a stake in the game, especially when they offer their own opinions without backing it up with hard evidence. Not until I find a way to buy stock in their interests and qualify for a corporate discount! Peace…