Funny guy. He’s said stuff before in his blog and in person to me at Axpona that were a bit odd, so to speak, but hey…
The DSD thing is just sort of wierd. For me, my “conversion” to being a believer in DSD happened with an early Sports Walkman CD player (bright yellow and grey plastic, I think it may have come with a band to attach it to a limb for running. It had an optional memory buffer so you could shake it a certain amount without skips. I never used it that way…)
Anyhow, I could not get my head around how something ONE BIT could sound so good. What WAS this mysterious format? I mean, I was just getting into higher PCM rates in recording, what with DAT recorders and ADATs doing 48kHz sampling, etc…ONE BIT? But of course it had an enormously high (at the time) sample rate, if you wanted to look at it in terms of multiplying the BR x the SR.
But it just sounded great. And this was in a sense like the DS DAC - it was converting 16/44 CD to 1 bit. It was just more linear sounding and natural. Less of the cursed digititis-sound of most CDs of the day. I hooked the mini stereo line out up to my stereo with a Y cable. In some ways, it was better than my CD player in my good system (not sure what the system was then…nothing to write home about, but better than average).
So I can think of practical and technical reasons not to like DSD, but it’s always been a superior and more natural-sounding format than PCM to me, from day one. Nowadays, the distinctions are not as marked, but I don’t see any reason to dismiss it the way he does.