Boy, did you yank my chain with this one, Brad.
Sorry for the rant but here goes:
Sitting here listening to this and I'm like, "So? This is a scandal"? LPs have been pressed from digital masters for years. Has this guy been living under a rock? I'm sorry, but the cost is in the licensing and the pressing, at least if it's a decent pressing since these are mostly remasters of existing content. Having recorded (not at any extremely high end level) using both digital and analog I can say that to my ears, working from the 24/192 copy of an analog capture and mix is no different than working with the analog mix other than that no analog has been harmed in the making of the master. In fact, the master from the digital mix is cleaner by one layer since we're not building tape hiss making the pass from the mix file of the analog recording to the master file of the analog recording. Personally, I prefer less tape hiss. And less surface noise on a pressing, which brings me to point number two:
Having purchased several remastered vinyl albums and box sets, I can say I've never heard a bad record from Mo-Fi. For one, the pressings are quiet. Which is more than I can say for that crap foisted off on me by Mercury/Phonogram when they ruined a wonderful remastering job by Bob Ludwig of Dire Strait's studio albums with noisy as hell pressings. And this isn't the only example of over-priced POS badly-pressed vinyl in my collection.
If the original is recorded analog, give me a 4X DSD master and a clean pressing any day over AAA vinyl where no one in the pressing plant gives a shit. And while I'm very interested to hear other perspectives, I'd really love to get Miles' take on this as his recording rig is light years better than mine ever was and he's also worked in both analog and digital domains.