Just a question:
The label bottom right saying „mastered in DSD256“ means either „transferred to DSD256“ or „mastered in DXD“, right?
No – mastered in DSD256 is the correct description. It is possible to do cuts and tails and crossfeeds while still in the Pure DSD domain in Pyramix DAW. No PCM involved. This is what Cookie Morenco describes doing for her Blue Coast releases, it is what Tom Caulfield does at NativeDSD for those labels for whom he is mastering (like Eudora and Cobra and Just Listen).
Ah I see… it’s a little confusing to me what’s the difference between editing, authoring and mastering.
However I’m aware that e.g. EQ changes (which are not applied in this case) are only applied in mastering.
LOL! I agree. My understanding is that the process of taking the source tapes/files to a final production release (however one is doing this) is “mastering”. The mastering process includes editing, post-processing sweetening (EQ) if desired, and certainly assembling the production tape/files.
It is possible to EQ the recording on-the-fly through the mixing board as the signal passes to be fixed on whatever recording media is being used (tape or digital file), just as it is possible to mix the signal levels of the various microphones on-the-fly. Yes, it is more commonly done in post, but it is possible.
Thanks, Ruston. I don’t think either Cookie or I have figured out how to do tops and tails in DSD on the Pyramix. Maybe you have some info you could share with us?
@Paul, I can’t explain it. I’ve only been told by three people that it is possible with all Pyramix releases after v12. Tom Caulfield (NativeDSD) could walk you through it, I suspect. I have a call with him later today and I’ll ask.
Boy @rushton you must’ve made a major investment in HDTT to be listening to all their DSD256 files!
Truth: I review music for Positive Feedback (here). It is a volunteer activity in retirement for my friend Dr. David Robinson, editor-in-chief. I don’t get paid. But, I am most fortunate to get courtesy copies of albums for review both from HDTT and NativeDSD. There is no obligation to comment favorably, just to listen and write about what interests me. I listen to a lot of DSD256 and DXD files, which was my brief from Dr. David. 
If I can share here, that is simply a way to give back to the community.
@paul, I talked with Tom Caulfield. He said he does not know how to do this in Pyramix either. He uses HP Signalist Player Pro for this function. He only knows of doing a “DSD Render” in Pyramix in which the edit points are done in DXD (that 10-100 millisecond splice) leaving the rest of the file unchanged from the original DSD. He says the majority of files he receives from labels doing Pure DSD recordings are edited this way. And, NativeDSD considers them “Pure DSD” for purposes of provenance.
Tom further says he knows that Merging had developed the capability to do level changes in DSD. Their DSD guru, “Fred,” developed this before he left the company about 4 years ago. But Tom doesn’t know if they ever implemented it in the digital workstation. This DSD level change capability is what Merging implemented as the digital volume control used in their NADAC player – it changes volume level completely in DSD. Hopefully, Tom will hear back from Merging about this with more than “read the manual.” 
I will also re-contact Gonzalo Noqué at Eudora Records to see if he can clarify what I thought he told me that he was doing in his DSD recordings. It may be he’s simply doing this DSD Render and I misunderstood. When I hear back from either Tom or Gonzalo, I’ll post an update here.
All very interesting!
That’s what I expected…everyone uses the most sweeping interpretation of what leaves a good impression 
Does the whole status mean, Bob Witrak either also masters DXD when the label “mastered in DSD256” is used, unless he uses HP Signalist or knows the mysterious Merging way still to be explored? I assume if he uses the latter, you could also ask him about the riddle instead of Tom & Gonzalo?
Thank you, Rushton. You are providing a great deal of interesting and useful information.
It is not correct to say this is mastering in DXD. It is not. 99.9% of the file is retained in DSD without being touched by PCM. It is only these 10-100 millisecond splices we’re talking about as being done in DXD with the DSD Render function. This is not a DXD Mix function in which the file is pulled fully into DXD for post processing. I can’t hear a 10-100 millisecond splice.
But, good suggestion – I’ll email Bob and see if I get a reply about this.
I would understand if he doesn’t consider those splices as a conversion of the whole thing to PCM, but then again, the lack of mentioning such a step and instead declaring “mastered in DSD” would be a quite free interpretation….as then either he mastered in DXD or he didn’t master at all but just edited.
Let’s see how it is, but my impression of everything from the Mofi debate to DSD declarations I learned of so far (I don’t want to compare the extent of the matters at all) seems to be less transparent than it could be. That the one or other measure or step might have no big sound quality effects thereby is a different topic (as it was at the Mofi case).
Not true. Bob’s terminology is fully within the understanding of the recording industry and fully transparent to anyone conversant in the industry. NativeDSD, who are adamant about transparency of provenance, would say this is Pure DSD and would say that Bob’s files are Mastered in DSD. This is completely unrelated to what MoFi was doing with their marketing and should not be conflated.
Note that it is “mastered in DSD256” because the file transfers are made from tape directly to DSD256. Then the editing keeps it in DSD without moving the file into PCM (except for those edit splices done via the Pyramix Render function). This is industry standard and fully transparent.
Yes as I said I also wouldn’t compare the extent of Mofi”s intransparency with this at all.
I would also agree, that the general music content is still pure DSD if only splices were done in DXD.
I’d just say it’s better to explain that, than to use labels like “pure DSD” and “mastered in DSD” (which leave it out) without explanation.
If it has sound quality impact or not is independent of this discussion imo.
@jazznut, what we may like or prefer does not determine how the world around us communicates. Bob’s communication is perfectly aligned to industry standards and how the industry discusses this. None of this is misleading. If it has not been clear for your understanding, then I’m glad we’re discussing it. We need to be educated consumers. My wife always tells me “Read the nutritional labels” and then she says, “If you don’t understand, do some research.” It think the same applies in our work as consumers of high end audio.
If it’s industry standard to name a DXD spliced DSD recording “pure DSD” and “mastered in DSD” (although the only thing “mastered” there is the DXD splice), then I can live with that and would just have own, slightly higher demands
You have a real “thing” about “mastered” – and I don’t understand your hang-up over the term. The source is an analog tape (Point A). The end product is a digital transfer of that analog tape presented as a downloadable file (Point B). The process of getting it from Point A to Point B is called “MASTERING”.
Wikipedia: Mastering, a form of audio post production, is the process of preparing and transferring recorded audio from a source containing the final mix to a data storage device (the master), the source from which all copies will be produced (via methods such as pressing, duplication or replication). (link)
While I understand your point, this strikes me as form over substance.