A few years have passed, and by now I can see that ASR has heaps more DSD threads on top of what was already quite a lot. For me, DSD had ceased to exist once I began to understand it in greater detail thanks to ASR. I also began to realise the benefits of Bluetooth audio, of HE AAC v2 and OPUS files, and DSEE HX, and how convenient PCM is for editing and listening. I read this article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/music/2022/08/05/mofi-records-analog-digital-scandal/ and was reminded of DSD. Why would MoFi not use high rate PCM?
That's a good question about MoFi - and I think it's gotten overlooked because of the analogue/digital aspect of the controversy. But I would guess they used DSD because it's viewed as more "pure," "audiophile," and/or "analogue-sounding" than PCM. To be clear, I don't believe this myself, and I agree that objectively there is no evidence to support the view that DSD is superior. I'm just saying I can see how MoFi would think DSD would be the "best, most purely audiophile" way to digitize analogue master tapes.
Along with that, DSD works in a way similar to modern Delta-Sigma DACs, so they might have felt that DSD would provide for the least conversion among different types of digital sampling when they ran the signal through the DAC hardware in their mastering chain. Again, I'm not saying I think that matters - but they probably do think it matters.
And finally, MoFi also puts out a lot of SACDs. So they probably have a DSD workflow for that, which makes more sense given that DSD is SACD's format. And so if they feel it's proper and appropriate for that workflow, it makes intuitive sense to use essentially the same digitization process for the production of LPs too.
One final, semi-related note: If you look online at interviews with mastering engineers - the guys at MoFi, Bernie Grundman, Robert Ludwig, and pretty much all the others - you will find that famous mastering engineers who have a track record of producing excellent-sounding masters and remasters, hold some technical beliefs that are just false (or at least not supported by any known evidence). But they still produce great-sounding results, which is what's important (at least to me). I think we are fortunate that most of the inaccurate technological beliefs these guys hold are about things that they
think make a difference but actually don't. So while DSD didn't make those MoFi releases sound better than PCM would have, it also didn't make them sound worse - so no harm. Same deal with mastering engineers who go on about how mastering at 192k instead of 96k produces clearly superior results - it provides no audible sonic benefit, but it also does no audible sonic harm to the final result.
Even Bernie Grundman's attachment to tube gear probably makes very little if any audible difference in the masterings he ends up with - and regardless, it's still part of the production process rather than the playback chain, and so if tubes
do add a smidge of euphonic warmth or take a little edge off a master tape originally mastered with harsh treble, and we enjoy the sonic result, then who cares if he believes tubes are higher-fi than solid state or that analogue is higher-fi than digital?
I mention this because I don't think it makes sense to publicly go after mastering engineers based on the idea that they are "helping spread false information that's harmful." Of course we should feel free to point out inaccurate things they might say. But I think it's pointless and often counterproductive to, for example, go after them directly about this stuff if they happen to log on to one's favorite music or hi-fi web forum, or to spout vitriol or snark about them. When hi-fi reviewers, YouTubers, and hi-fi gear makers spout false information, absolutely go after them with both barrels - they're on the playback/reproduction side of the industry and hobby, which is where fidelity is the guiding principle, and there's no excuse for BS in that realm. But mastering engineers are on the creative/production side - they might have misguided beliefs, but they're not trying to sell snake oil, and the gear and formats they prefer in their mastering chains has no impact on the end-consumer pricing of the CDs, SACDs, and LPs they've worked on.
So as long as Bernie Grundman keeps making amazing masterings and doesn't get into DAC and amplifier design, I'm grateful for his work and couldn't care less what he believes about digital sampling theory.