MoFi controversy

I find it amusing and ironic that all this mess will eventually pass. Going forward most albums WILL be natively recorded digitally. Only albums made prior to perhaps 1990 might have analog master tapes.  I do not own any MoFi vinyl (only a few of their CDs), but is the issue that you all feel you were misled by MoFi more than the quality of the audio?  Many engineers feel that DSD256 and higher offers as much of an "analog" sound as we are likely ever to get from "digital". PCM doesn't even come close.   Those ancient master tapes are slowly deteriorating. They sure don't sound the same today as they did say in 1950.  Many of the really old ones have to be baked in an oven carefully for hours before they can even be played. What is truth?  Will we ever know? All we ever have is an approximation of it.  I know many feel mad and more than a bit agitated that they paid premium money for a product that had a digital source when they thought it was AAA all the way - and limited.  I came close to buying the Alan Parsons Project "Eye in the Sky" but didn't not because I didn't think it would sound good, but rather because a reviewer noted how crappy the packaging was with blurry photos not even as good as the 1982 original and no extras at all except for a freaking advertisement. Smaller labels do a far better job than that for better prices. 

Ah, buyer beware.  But as some have noted, this "hobby" is small, and getting smaller. Eating our own due to indignation will ultimately make it smaller.  MoFi has waited too long now to issue a real apology though. They really dropped the ball.  If they had been forthcoming and more transparent perhaps they could have made the case that all these precious old deteriorating analog master tapes need to be recorded to DSD256 while they still can be so that they aren't lost to posterity. 

But this will pass. Twenty years from now people will wonder what all the hubbub was about, if they think about it at all.

Speaker wizard Andrew Jones left ELAC and went to Mobile Fidelity.  His new work for them is supposed to come out later this year. Do you think the interest in his speakers among audiophiles (at whatever price point they come in at) will be compromised any by this controversy?

@bukanona that depends. Not all studios are using DSD for recording because editing it later on is a pain in the ass, and many engineers have not yet been trained on how to best use it or the necessary tools. I would think most studios are going to keep using whatever "digital" recording tech they use because they want to get as much bang for their investment as possible and they don't want to have to send their engineers back to school or get them training.  

But hopefully one day they all will. DSD256 and higher will be worth it - at least assuming there are people around who care about quality in the future. 

For now, I've heard 24-bit/192KHz is used by many, others might have higher PCM resolutions. 

@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.