In analogsurvivor's defense, he may not be at leisure to just post samples willy-nilly. Still, though, it's not unreasonable to ask for a summary of experience.
As far as the "does anyone have DSD" question: yes, I own an SACD player and have heard my fair share of DSD content on it. I find no real benefit to it. Sonically the differences are non-existent, and it loses pathetically in terms of usability to PCM, whatever the sampling rate. Of course I'm sure someone will say "no you need the new super-er kinds of DSD with more megasamples!", but really, honestly, there is no need on the user end. On the recording end, I still haven't seen any good case for recording in DSD rather than PCM, besides typical "it's more like analog" drivel.
I am a free lance recording engineer. And although I do get to keep the masters, I no longer keep any rights (except moral).
Save for some super rare occasion, original DSD recordings get mastered in PCM - in my case, 192 32bit floating to be exact (economy reasons related, there are better tools to edit DSD if $ ). If the last hole on the least important most faintly audible instrument plays a wrong note, that player can block publishing the whole recording - and I can not do absolutely nothing about it. There is around 90 players in a typical symphonic orchestra...
Sometimes, after a "certain" amount of time, some of the players who did make mistakes that are more or less uncorrectable , do thaw and allow publishing an otherwise good recording. Sometimes, they do not. Beyond my control. If not available on Youtube, Vimeo, etc, etc publicly, I have to ask permission if I want to post any sample(s).
I can only hope to finally see the green light for a recording of one of the top opera voices today - more than preparing the master for CD and giving it to the singer in question at first convenient opportunity is something beyond anybody's capability. Specially as the recording was limited to a single evening session (said singer knows the schedule for the next three years in advance ), meaning the singing also can not be up to aspirations of the singer ( NO feedback - after three years ! ) - and it is well possible to clash with the singer's exclusive contract for recording with another recording organization. Yet this recording is FAR closer to the real voice of the singer in question than anything commercially available.
I do not think you would enjoy it in this case in my shoes ...
Best one can do is to be "politely annoying/pushy" - HOW much - that is a million dollar question.
As regards DSD : SACD is DSD64, and it was WRONG to be allowed out in the open. The first DSD that is "useful" is DSD128 - and by the time DSD512 is reached, there should be low enough distortion, high enough signal to noise ratio INCLUDING out of audio band noise, etc, etc. - but economic reality says I will have to satisfy myself with DSD128 for some time to come.
DSD is best used for "direct to ..." recordings that are not meant to be mastered at all (except markers/tracks/eventual fade in/out) - IF the musicians are up to the task and can survive publishing the amount of imperfections played. To those who would rather die than not make edit every half second I can see DSD looking like a joke.
Still, although DSD to PCM and vice versa is NOT lossless process, DSD can be converted to any PCM and then edited as usual.