I'm a Physician. I am not a fan of lawsuits. However if it deters companies going forward from actively misleading people to make a buck, then it has a purpose.
What this does is support the assertion of many audiophiles that DSD (as in SACD records) does not distort or destroy the "analogous-ness" of the original the way PCM does. There is a reason download services use DSD for ultimate sound quality in their downloads.
I entered the online audio world with that claim way back when SONY first release it's DSD recordings, and I could do comparisons of analog, PCM, and SACD releases. DSD has been accepted by critical listeners. PCM now with high bit rates and somewhat extended frequency response has nearly matched it (some would say it has matched it.) But for MoFi, they obviously felt that DSD could be used without distorting or lessening "the analog sound" of the master tapes. Doesn't excuse their lack of disclosure, but does tend to support the belief that for a decade DSD far exceeded PCM in "truthfulness" to the analog signal.
All recordings are quantized. With ‘analog’ tape the signal is generated from a stream of magnetic particles which are which are either magnetized, or not ( i.e. 10 or 0). As the tape passes over the head gap these pulses are integrated to produce a continuous signal. Usually with some ‘hiss’ noise. The wider the tape track and the faster it moves it moves the less the noise.
My understating is that these particles, and thus the pulses they cause, vary in size. But the recording itself is NOT a pure analog image of the original signal.
With digital the pulses are all the same size, and are converted to an analog signal electronically.
If there are enough bits, and they are saved retrieved accurately, the only issue is the accuracy of the DA process itself. I am not versed in the latest technology but I understand that is not an issue these days.
Also, I believe, if all the magnetic tape particles were the same size, “analog” tape would be equivalent to 1-bit digital encoding albeit with a different conversion process.
I would be interested to know (if there is someone out there who can tell us - approximately)
So that barrel of 100% whale oil that I bought is not 100% whale oil? When I asked they told me that what whale oil in it is 100% whale oil but it was supplemented with a mix of olive, nut, hemp and castor oil. It took that combination of other oils to approximate the burn, look and smell of whale oil so I would not be disappointed.
It matters not as I was told it was 100% whale oil. I was mislead. I'm contacting my local barrister to file a writ with my local magistrate and get the compensation due me.
All the best,