Aside from the dsd functionality, which I have admittedly not used...am I crazy for thinking the d100 does not sound nearly as good as the d1 at 24/44.1? My d1 got stolen (after 5 years of making solid recordings) and instead of tracking down a replacement, I opted to wait for the d100 release. So far i'm not sure it is a suitable replacement for the d1. My main issue is that the d100 seems to not handle high volumes as well, like say band practice in a small room. In this same room, with the same level settings, same resolution, the d1 would effortlessly produce a flawless rendering, without any -20 cut engaged. The d100 seems to distort a bit at high volumes, even when the meters are in the clear. Also, d100 seems to have more audible noise floor, whereas the d1 self noise was basically non-existent. After years of working with the d1, the d100 feels and sounds "prosumer" to me, rather than pro audio, which is what I was afraid of when I ordered it. I wish I had more time to put it through its paces, maybe I would eventually realize that it is a suitable replacement for the d1. Even the d100 user manual makes no indication of utilizing it for capturing live shows and events...which is another use I have for it. It suggests using it for stuff like recording yourself "practicing" acoustic guitar and recording nature sounds. Good stuff for sure, and stuff I do, but what about a high res recording of the SF symphony? d1...no problem. Any thoughts?