@stevensegal, I don’t disagree in the least about the practicalities and the economics. I’ve talked with Jared about this at quite some length. This all makes sense and it is the reality.
I truly am talking about the small ensemble and solo instrument recordings. And, I am speaking about the niche recording labels. And groups at Florilegium’s size are probably past the size of groups one might apply this to. Certainly would not work with the BFO. And certainly would not work with the small ensemble who feels the need to correct every third note in their performance. A recording of a string quartet requiring over 500 edits is not possible, practical, nor economical.
Yes, I have said, Jared records in DSD256 but he mixes in DXD on Pyramix. And, as a result, I download his DXD files, not his DSD256 files. Jared’s DXD files are today his edit master files. And, on my system, those edit master DXD files sound better than his Pyramix output DSD256 because my DAC happens to do a better job converting DXD to DSD256 than does Pyramix. But the big reason is to avoid yet another file conversion – always download the file that is closest to the edit master because every file conversion adds some artifacts.
I’ve taken the time and effort to pull this information together because the conventional wisdom is that it is not possible to mix in DSD. @paul made that statement in this thread because that is what he believed at the time. You quote Merging saying this.
But the problem is, that statement is a myth. It is not true.* And there will be some smaller niche labels who will hopefully experiment with mixing (and EQ’g) in DSD and they will be able to deliver an improved sound quality with the effort should the effort make economic sense for them.
As Gonzalo Noqué replied when I asked him why go to this trouble:
Going this route is definitively not very practical and still pretty limiting compared to the DXD path within Pyramix. But to my ears, it delivers what in my opinion is the best digital sound achievable today when recording Classical music recorded in real acoustics. So, in my mind, I can only think: Why wouldn’t I do it? Whether the difference is large or small, noticeable by many or few, doesn’t really matter. HERE
And, when I asked Jared why he laid down his microphone tracks in DSD256 when he planned to mix them in DXD, he replied: “It sounds better. And someday the tools may be available to remaster in Pure DSD and the files will be here to re-release in better sound quality.”
In the end, my efforts are not about Linn, Hyperion, DGG, or any of the vast number of large recording companies using DXD. It is purely about what sounds better. Some will pursue that goal. If enough small players head that way, perhaps someone will decide that funding development of a DSD DAW will be a good investment. It would only take a million dollars or so. 
In the meantime, let the perfectionist pioneers have a swing using the tools available. The audience will be small, just as it is today. But I’m not the only one seeking out Pure DSD files to enjoy.
- Added comment for clarity: when engineers say DSD cannot be mixed, this is both technically true and entirely misleading. When Merging says it, it is self-serving and disingenuous. The technical definition of the Sony marketing term “DSD” is single-bit PDM. To mix, one has to be working in multi-bit PDM (which is not PCM). Sony used the term “wide-DSD” to reference 5-bit PDM. Multi-bit PDM can be of any number of bits wide and still be in the PDM domain. Jussi Laako would prefer the technically more correct terms Pulse Duration Modulation or Pulse Width Modulation (PWM). But this is all going down a deeper rabbit hole for a layperson’s discussion. Thus I continue to talk simply about DSD the way most of us listeners would.