MoFi controversy

Anyway, it seems like one of their advantages is process, apart from custom made Tim de Paravicini analog paths (probably preamps, amps and modifications to the lathe?). They are able to cut an acetate, have it plated and pressed and listen to it, as one would a regular LP.

@whart FWIW dept.: the correct term is 'lacquer'. Acetate is the paper material used in early reel to reel tape, as opposed to polyester. It breaks easily but does not stretch and sheds far less that polyester tape. So if you work with such a tape for a remastering project, it typically won't need baking.

Whether an uncompressed digital source file was used for the LP mastering is another matter entirely and depends largely on the producer of the project.

Thank you Ralph (@atmasphere) for this very informative post in its entirety and for your particular comment above. Moving on from redbook vs vinyl, do you have any thoughts on the dynamic range of high resolution files (considering they were produced to take advantage of the range) and its performance in a low-noise, caching local server with a stellar clock and architecture? Yes I know that many digital front ends aren't up to the task, but there are a few that I believe are.

@blisshifi I'm sure they work fine! As with all things, so much in digital depends on execution. I would not expect any greater dynamic range if you are dealing with sources that use compression to begin with. But you might have greater resolution. 

I haven't read through all the posts, but have people also seen the recent article in Absolute Sound?

@twoleftears  I can't find it on their website.  Do you have a link?

Glad to hear the One Steps sound so good.  I haven't ponied up for one yet -- maybe I should.

If they really sound so much better, it doesn't bother me that there is a digital step in their creation.  Is the difference audible?  Is it better or worse with a digital step?  My ears probably couldn't hear the difference.