Interesting project started by Michael Fremer

Buc,

Are you working logarithmically, your 0's are off. 500 LPs at apx. $35 = $ 17500.

However, they hope to make 1000 copies should the project get funded and it appears that the ones that are kicking in should get a $ 10 discount on their purchase from Acoustic Sounds.

"I would like to be able to sell it to the first 1000 Kickstarter participants for an amount that reflects the $10.00 "kicked in".

Above from the post on AnalogPlanet

Anyway, I think is a very interesting project and hope it get's on the way. The Wilson Audio Album mentioned above is close to unobtanium - a quick google check listed the last one sold for $ 80 on eBay, so the $25 for this one sounds like a good deal.

Good Listening

Peter

Digital done right can be excellent. The problem is, on so many of the modern digital recordings, the engineer adds so much artificial digital reverb that I can't stand listening to it. The CD's I have, for the most part, are not "audiophile" recordings. I probably have a couple thousand CDs. I don't keep the ones drenched in reverb or with strings that replicate pulling dental floss through one's ears. Those go into the trade in pile.

Hopefully, Mikey will do a great job on the digital side of the new album. I'd like to hear it.

Hopefully, Mikey will do a great job on the digital side of the new album. I'd like to hear it.
Oregonpapa

That's the crux of the biscuit, as Frank Zappa said.

The mastering engineer is the one who decides what we can hear from any album. Using an engineer who knows how to get the maximum from each medium would be ideal.

Will the result determine which technology is better or who is the better mastering engineer?

There is a huge sample of quality recordings out there both analog and digital in various formats. Not sure what two additional data points can prove regarding digital versus analog other than how the two cases covered are different and why. The answer would probably lie mostly in the skills of the people involved using the tools they choose to do their thing.

Even then what is determined about those two resulting recordings would have no bearing on any of the rest out there both digital and analog. Either technology might win anytime in any particular case.

Unless I'm missing something?

Mapman- fair point. I think there is a tendency for people to say: digital master= sucks. I'm more of an early/original pressing (which country, which plant, etc) kinda guy, but given that many remasters today are from digital files (not talking about stuff that started life recorded digitally), perhaps it will show that not all digital is bad. (Kind of ironic coming from me, not that I'm a basher, but have no digital in my system). The Steve Wilson re-do's of Aqualung and Benefit both impressed me compared to numerous other early and later versions on vinyl, though much of the magic was in the remix, rather than simply the mastering medium. I haven't really followed the Fremer project in detail,was aware of it and chimed in originally just to point out that it does cost real money to do this. But, your point- that every record and mastering is different, is on target in my estimation.