Universal Players that do not convert DSD to PCM?

Aren't ALL digitally recorded SACDs originally recorded in PCM then converted to DSD during mastering ? Do any digital multitrack recorders and mixers run natively in DSD ? I thought they all ran 24/192 (or 96kHz) PCM.

The DVDA standard (PCM) is theoretically a higher resolution standard than SACD (DSD) so if a player converts DSD to PCM (DVD-A) then that should not be detrimental.

Plus if a player does convert to PCM then it only needs one DAC which could then be a more expensive and more capable DAC. If it has 2 DACs then the accounting department will have to make sure that they are less expensive DACs.

So I guess I'm saying that it probably shouldn't be a consideration ... have a listen and buy the one that sounds the best.

Metralla, could you elaborate ? I don't mind being brought up to date if I'm incorrect, but your response is just plain rude.

Here's a mastering engineer describing exactly what I said above ....
http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround2001/technology/page_14.shtml

Jeff ... thanks, I understand that DSD is a delta-sigma modulation. Don't be fooled that its high sampling rate makes it superior to DVD-A because delta-sigma convertors require a MUCH higher sampling rate than PCM systems so that they can track a high slew rate in the signal with their single bit. DSD and PCM have different shortcomings, though both should be audibly superior to redbook CD.

Metralla ... you may have said "please", and "regards" but your post was still unnecessarily curt and condescending, and your followup post contained virtually no extra information, links etc. If you're going to denigrate others at least have the grace to educate us.

Iszak ... 2" 24 track onto 1" analog master is great for sound quality ... I agree. DSD direct off the analog master will be fine quality. I suspect that a DSD from a 24/96 or 24/192 PCM would also be pretty fantastic. Older ADCs are probably less good.

And you still need good mics, placement, a good room, and an engineer who doesn't feel the need to use every single piece of rack equipment to perform the mix. These things make more difference than the whole analog/PCM/DSD issue, but are often overloked by the audio crowd.

Izsak ... most mixing desks may still be analog, but the huge success of Alesis ADAT and similar (and the high cost of analog tape) means a very large percentage of the music of the last 10-15 yrs was recorded in PCM. Much was then mastered onto DAT, or CD-rom, again due to tape and equipment costs.

I remember playing with a roland digital multitrack recorder about 10 years ago. It recorded 16 tracks onto hard disk. Ancient digital PCM technology. Should have sounded terrible. But using quality (Neumann) mikes and a good room we made some recordings that sounded absolutely stunning played direct through my hifi. Better than any of my LPs or CDs.

So I maintain that the quality of engineering and the shortness of the signal path is more important than PCM vs analog vs DSD.