The answer to your question is yes.
The new DOP (DSD-over-PCM) standard I mentioned is
NOT DSD converted to PCM; rather it is the actual DSD data sent over packets (which can then be sent via S/PDIF or USB); it is real DSD. The DSD is "reassembled" on arrival into its original form and then converted by the DAC as DSD. This is different than the option on many players - including Oppos - to convert the DSD to PCM. And, yes, it requires a DAC that supports DOP - which includes supporting DSD. (Incidentally, in practical terms, most DAC chips already support DSD; it's the signal routing and handling that has to be modified to separate out the DSD and route it to the DAC chip.) I'm not quite sure what's involved in terms of player software supporting DOP (if you Google it you will find more details).
Now: why *I* am not a fan of DSD:
1) The original marketing "explanation" about how DSD sounds better because it "looks" more like an analog waveform is specious (meaningless); it isn't true but it sounds like it makes sense - and Sony made some very nice brochures back in the day. SACD actually has better frequency response than a Red Book CD (which you may be able to hear); it also has a nasty noise spectrum, which requires very heavy filtering to actually play (an SACD can indeed deliver frequencies to almost 100 kHz, but the S/N at ultrasonic frequencies is VERY poor - to the point where you need aggressive filtering to keep from melting your tweeters).
2) Sure, the DSD layer of most SACDs I've listened to sounds slightly different than the red Book CD layer; but what does that
prove? Every remaster of an album sounds different; if I take DSD content and convert it to 24/96 PCM using two different converter programs, the results of that sound different (due to subtle differences in the processing), and I'm sure if I converted my PCM stuff to DSD it would sound equally different; and it isn't fair to compare a SACD to Red Book CD anyway - because SACD is more equivalent to 24/96 than Red Book's mere 16/44. So I'm not at all convinced that the differences I hear between an SACD and a HDTracks 24/96 version are there because one is DSD and the other PCM. Any time you convert anything you introduce subtle differences. (
If you want to say that SACDs sound better than Red Book CDs, then you
may have a point. I will agree that many SACDs sound better than many CDs; I'm just not convinced it's
BECAUSE they're DSD.)
3) DSD is very difficult to master because most consoles cannot do processing in DSD. This limits DSD recordings mostly to the equivalent of "direct to disc"; if you want to do any fancy mixing you have to convert to PCM, do your processing, and then convert back again; at that point it's sort of silly to call it "a DSD recording" any more. You could see this as a benefit or a drawback. This is why you see lots of small ensemble classical, folk, and jazz music as DSD and not so much rock and pop. (Apparently there are technical reasons why it's hard to write editing software that can edit in DSD - or maybe the real reason is that there isn't enough demand for it.)
4) SACDs have copy protection. I like to RIP my CDs onto my music server; SACDs won't let me do that. Sure, you can download DSD music but, to be honest, so far I haven't found a single legitimate DSD title that I want to own. (If it was a download I could convert it to PCM, or play the DSD version directly in FooBar - it's just that NONE of the groups I like is ever released in DSD other than on an SACD - which is copy protected to prevent me from putting it on my server). And, yes, there are lots of illegal SACD bootleg rips around if you know where to look - but why bother? In contrast, pretty well
ALL PCM HD digital audio files can be played on any computer and any DAC - and, of course, put on my music server.
5) Finally, it's just another standard to support. Assuming that I did really like some band that was distributed on DSD only, then I would have to support the format just for them. In that context it's sort of like having a car that runs on BioDiesel - even assuming that you accept its "virtues", it's still a nuisance. I'll admit that to me personally it's not much of a nuisance (my Oppo plays SACD discs, and my computer plays DSD files), but to many people it will mean having a much shorter list of DACs or players to choose from... and I'm still waiting to hear the compelling reason as to why they should bother.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to be interested in doing the final comparison..... record the same performance, simultaneously, from the same mixer feeds, in 24/96 PCM and DSD, and compare them.
(Every place I've seen so far that offers both HD PCM and DSD masters in one or the other, and then converts into the secondary format, so any difference you hear may well be the conversion software.)
Then, assuming there is any discernible difference, determine if one or the other is actually better - or if they're just slightly different.
(Of course, you need to find an analog mixer - otherwise the audio will be going through the mixer as PCM - and you can't do much if any post processing.)
Sorry to go off on a sidenote, solarrdad, keith....
WHat I was wondering is if there is anyway to get DSD pure direct from a downloaded file to a DAC that is capable of DSD decoding simply using an SPDIF output device like coax or optical (ie. anyway but HDMI) ? So I'm talking about pure DSD not DSD converted to PCM along the way to the DAC.
I'm nearly speechless! I thought about using an SPL meter but... I'm too lazy. 
But most definitely I did pay attention to the volume because I think that is something that some folks overlook. 
