MoFi controversy

@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.

Optimize. You seem to be stuck arguing from your own set of facts. But the omitted fact is that RBCDs suck compared to a high quality LP played on a "very good" system, and any critical listener can hear that. I’d say RBCD is only a cut above MP3. If this were not the case, we wouldn’t be where we are now, and there probably would not even be an Analog Forum. I am not arguing about hi-rez streaming or even SACDs here, but in your original diatribe you managed to leave out all the physical aspects of playing a CD, not to mention the limitations imposed by RBCD standards in and of themselves, whilst harping only on those related to playing an LP.

Now here I go contributing to exactly what I hoped would not become the subject of this thread, digital vs vinyl.  Sorry.

@atmasphere said: "FWIW dept.: the correct term is 'lacquer'."

Thanks Ralph. I guess I always used the terms interchangeably. Not sure where I picked that up. We were still kids, I think, and one of my friends while in high school started engineering at a local studio. It was great fun for me to visit him at night when he got free time. Probably 1972. Old habits.