MoFi controversy

@moonwatcher, what engineers do you know who believe that PCM does not even come close and that DSD256 and better is perfect?  You have been listening to Paul's spiel at PS Audio a bit too much. I don't think he is an engineer in any sense of the word. 24/96 is the vast majority of what is done digital today during recording. Why? 24/192 only creates more data but does not sound any better. Even if someone was to record in DSD, practically no one mixes or masters in DSD. They convert to PCM, work in PCM, and then convert back to DSD. Even Sony's DSD editing system isn't pure single bit DSD at high data rate. It is converted to 8 bits. With PCM, all the tools are, or have moved to 64 bit processing internally.  If it makes you feel any better, all those 24 bit ADCs are sigma-delta converters so essentially start as DSD, then just convert down to PCM.

Audiophile companies make stuff that audiophiles will buy. That does not mean it is better or best. Somehow DSD got a reputation within the community, not because it sounds better, but probably because the recordings were better. If you are working purely in DSD, out of necessity, you are probably doing less tinkering. Philes still like physical media too. Not many have SACD players any more, but even fewer philes have something that can play a physical high resolution digital disc on their audio system that is not SACD.

This may help people understand how an LP is made.

Much to do about nothing.

@theaudioamp i agree with you. There are many digital recording methods. 24/96 will capture everything that is on an analog tape. Sony invented DSD to be an archive format

@theaudioamp I didn't say "perfect" I said  or meant "better".  PCM is great. We've been loving it since the 1980s.  But DSD allows for far higher sampling rates such that interpolation is kept to a minimum.  Yes, Paul is very persuasive in his talks. And I have bought and played DSD64 and up files from him and Blue Coast and thought they were nice. Indeed though, the care taken in recording and using the proper mics and set up can go a long ways to making something sound good - or bad - no matter what the native recording format is. 

As computers get better and faster, why not use DSD? Maybe not today for most studios, but 20 years from now, I don't see why not. No one can argue that a more detailed representation file of a sound shouldn't (in theory) sound better than a lower representation file.  Can your human ears hear the difference on your system I guess is the real question.  

Many audiophiles have bought into wanting high resolution PCM and some say that yes, they can hear a difference between CD quality and 24-bit/96Khz or higher.  Qobuz and Tidal are proof of that.

I enjoy CD quality for the most part just fine. I can buy into the idea of recording analog master tapes to DSD256 for "backup" isn't a bad idea though.