the importance of analog sound in prog

Catcher10 wrote: ^To me the sounds are too connected and there is not enough separation in the different string sounds....the lows are just not the same on CD and the highs can be too shrilly.....

^^^^  Well, seismic shifts in music tastes like in the 80s are tough to reverse.   That was roughly the point bands decided everything should sound 'perfect' and if that meant making it robotic, it was par for the course.  You'll still find people who prefer recordings that sound that way.   They want to hear 'flawless' recordings, not recordings that sound human.  I am pretty sure that such people are not the ones craving for vinyl; in all likelihood they just rip music to Itunes direct and don't bother with any physical medium.  

The sounds captured on analog in the 70s are lost more or less for good now;  what retro bands, whether in prog or hard rock, play is a pale imitation of those sounds at best.   Forget the medium, the very instruments sound different today.   I have watched Shakti live and the sound is different in that sense from the 70s...that the musicians are still incredible is an entirely different matter.  

If what you are looking for in a contemporary CD is those vintage analog sounds you remember from the 70s, you won't get it.   For that matter, even a remaster is going to sound different because most of the time, they seem to beef up the sound and push rhythm to the front of the mix to 'equalize' it with modern CDs.   The most faithful CDs are imo the ones that were issued before the remaster craze began;  I have a CD of Virgin Killer and it doesn't sound all beefed up and 'powerful' because it is not a remaster.  So my point is simply that if you took a contemporary band with contemporary sounds and recorded them on analog, it would probably have many of the same things that you dislike in CDs of such bands.   Jerry Cantrell used to play heavy guitar in a lively, bluesy way (clearly influenced by Iommi) but many more modern guitarists prefer a very super polished approach to the instrument that I don't really like to hear in heavy music.  

Hi everyone,
This is my first post here.. actually first post on any progressive rock forum.  This topic interested me because I feel strongly about it.

I will say that the analog vs digital debate is very real and I know a very sensitive issue for many.  For reference sake I am 48 and was a freshman at University when CD's became the craze.  They were nifty little things, and we all loved the idea at the time of no clicks and pops or scratches, or our cassette tapes being eaten in the player.  I understand however, many here are probably a lot younger and didn't live through that era, but were raised in the digital generation.

My feeling is that analog can sound worse, or far superior to CD depending upon several issues.  First will be your analog set up.  The main critical components are your cartridge, your tone arm and deck, your amplifier, interconnects, speakers of course, the room's acoustic properties and your speaker placement.  Some of these issues are more critical than some of the others.. but none can be completely overlooked if you are seeking a proper set up.

I am going to guess that the posters here whom are die hard digital believers simply have not heard a proper analog set up.
It's understandable, because not a lot of people have proper set ups these days.  If I could give an analogy, I would suggest that digital music is similar to digital photography.  It looks fine from a distance as the eye can't really see the pixel properties.  Same thing in music really.  But if you start to zoom in... you start to see tiny squares of shaded colors.  Upon closer examination it starts to look like a chess board.  It certainly does not get more interesting.

A good analog system really puts the music under the microscope.  Not just the production but the performance, the ambiance and feel of the room or the subtle nature of the processing gear.

If you look at the physics of it.... a 16 bit rendering of an analog source input simply cannot compare to the original data that is being input into the computer or sampler.

Remastering in the digital world can sound better or worse depending upon what the objective was.. and if the listener relates to that objective.  This could also be called remixing the album if one had access to the original source tapes which is often not the case. 

I didn't really "get" a lot of this stuff until I got into a reasonably good analog set up.  I spent money on a cartridge, and a properly restored vintage tube amp which to me is absolutely critical.  I am listening through 4 high efficiency horn and passive radiator speakers, a pair on each side running in serial.  I have a subwoofer just barely audible or bled into my mix to fill in the low end frequencies one would only really feel in the body.

The modern argument suggests that we don't need to be exposed to frequencies beyond what the human ear can process.  I disagree with this.  The lower frequencies that can't be heard can still be felt within the body.  I am sure higher frequencies have an effect on our skin and or other parts of our bodies that can be felt or experienced outside of the ears.

I am not here to boast about my stereo.. only to say that if I have a copy of music on both vinyl and CD, and cue them up and play side by side... there is no real comparison.  It is not very subjective like wine tasting.  It's big stuff. 

I am not crazy into the audiophile world.. but I have about $2000 invested.  It's more than most would spend, but if you are posting on a site like this.. I would assume music is a pretty important part of your life.  To me it's worth it. 
Last year I sold a pair of "Belle's" to a wealthy hardcore audiophile nut who heard my system and said his $100,000 digital system paled in comparison.  He literally shook his head in disbelief, and said he really didn't want to admit such a thing.. but appreciated me sharing my thoughts with him.  He was a nice guy.

A quick thought on speakers.  Horns sound best played back through horn drivers.  And if you are into bass guitar, most of those great electric bassists used a 15 inch cone in their rack.  I suggest putting a 15 inch speaker into your system for playback if you want realism.  I disagree that the smaller cone long throw subs move air the same way.  They just don't.  I remember as a teen in the 70's going to a friends house and they would have these huge stacks of speaker cabinets, often the big JBL's stacked up in the garage and music sounded huge.. it was all about recreating the feeling of a live concert... not as things are now with ipods, earbuds and mp3 files with 500 hours of music conveniently stored in your pocket.  It was robust quality over convenience.  "Back to the Future" was not that much of an exaggeration when Marty gets thrown across the room from the sound waves from his amp .. lol.

The other big affect the digital age has had is on the musicians themselves as players.  In the pre digital age, in some ways you had to be a better player.  While they were punching in and out of tracks.. the musicians still at some point had to pull it off.  You couldn't create it by digitally manipulating sound files with pitch shifters and moving the kick and snare hits to the nearest 8th or 16th note. 

Drummers used to really have to grind out their takes.  Harder to punch drums also.  A good drummer who could really play in great time, and play creatively was very in demand before the invention of a drum machine.  Drum machines were very attractive when they came out for good reason.  A lot of advantages to a producer on the clock, and the fact that the public was open to buying that kind of sound made it even more so.

But getting back on topic here.. in the pre digital age.. as a musician, you kinda had to be better.... and this would be most evident in progressive rock... because of the virtuosity in much of the playing.  I will say that nowadays.. I am always suspicious of playing that sounds a bit "too good".  If often is simply studio digital trickery. 

Even something slickly produced like Floyd's DSOTM.  The drums are pretty loose by today's standards.  Mason's playing still sounds natural.  That record would not be made in that way today.  It would sound "better" technically, but probably not have the same effect.

So my feeling again is that the virtuosity in musicians was more "looked up to" in the 60's and 70's because even though there was studio magic going on.. it was nothing like what is going on today.. and the culture back then was aware of the honesty on those recordings in hindsight.

Sorry for the opening epic here.. just my thoughts on the subject. I hope this gives a couple readers here something to ponder.

Surrealist wrote: I am not crazy into the audiophile world.. but I have about $2000 invested.  It's more than most would spend, but if you are posting on a site like this.. I would assume music is a pretty important part of your life.  To me it's worth it.

$2000 is like, 200 albums worth of money, man.


Edited by rogerthat - October 13 2012 at 02:54

$2000 is like, 200 albums worth of money, man.

Sure.. I agree.. more than most will spend.. but there are also lots of guys driving around in classic street rods that they have invested 20K into and are living almost on the poverty line.  I have friends doing that. 

My dad was an electrical engineer who graduated top of the class at UCLA.  He worked on tube gear and saw the change to solid state.  I asked him, why did everything go solid state?  He replied, "well, it was just a lot more cost effective and for most people, more reliable".  Ok I said.. but it was not better was it?  He replied... "Oh, of course not.. it was not better"  He said it as if my comment was an absurdity.  He knew. 

The tube amps can sound great.. even phenomenal.. but if you just pick one up that works but has not been properly restored or serviced.. it can sound dreadful.  So again.. it depends.  Everything needs to be working at the proper voltages inside.  All the capacitors and resistors... the selenium rectifier.. the tubes themselves... the power supplies.

Prior to my vintage tube amp.. I was into NAD stuff.  Everyone seems to think pretty highly of that.  When I switched to the tube amp.. I almost fell over in my chair when I first heard it.  It was like.. good lord.. really?  I had that NAD on ebay within hours, and sold it for more than I paid for my tube amp.  I felt guilty doing that actually.   I could NEVER go back to a solid state amp knowing what I know now.

Surrealist wrote: What to do about it? For me personally, or at least in my own bubble surroundings, I have done a lot about it.

Surrealist wrote: Never said it wasn't my take.  I doubt I am the only one who thinks that way.. but if I am... then maybe others who read this forum might have a second thought about a few things and if it leads them to a better listening experience, then I am glad to have expressed such a "take".

That's fine but it is these claims about the media - analog or digital - that I am not very comfortable with.   You  have talked about background and experience, etc etc and that is actually a big part of the listening experience.   It's three things taken together as far an album goes  - the band, the medium and the listener.  A listener may or may not hear certain things and a band may or may not be interested in presenting certain things.   I don't need a high quality recording to be able to feel the music because I am not so much interested in the texture of the sounds.  I don't listen to music just for the sounds,  I am much more interested in the composition itself.  It is ultimately about what a listener wants to hear in the music, that's my point.   A particular listener may not like to hear the music on digital, or analog as applicable, but it doesn't mean the medium is everything, or should be everything, for all listeners.   Personally, the medium is the least important aspect of the three things I mentioned for reasons already given.  

Thanks Dean, I had forgotten the British spelling of analog.  

Surrealist wrote: $2000 is like, 200 albums worth of money, man. Sure.. I agree.. more than most will spend.. but there are also lots of guys driving around in classic street rods that they have invested 20K into and are living almost on the poverty line.  I have friends doing that.  My dad was an electrical engineer who graduated top of the class at UCLA.  He worked on tube gear and saw the change to solid state.  I asked him, why did everything go solid state?  He replied, "well, it was just a lot more cost effective and for most people, more reliable".  Ok I said.. but it was not better was it?  He replied... "Oh, of course not.. it was not better"  He said it as if my comment was an absurdity.  He knew.

Edited by Dean - October 13 2012 at 06:00

You know I gotta say this has been a very educational forum and I'm learning quite a BIT....no pun intended.
Anyway, I would love people(s) opinion in this forum about my personal set up for what I think is a fantastic listening experience.

First off. I bought a pair of SENNHEISER HD 800 headphones and as you probably already know they are considered to be the most dynamic sounding headphones on the planet right now. Also the power plant of these headphones is quite large, so these particular Cans have a really high IMPEDANCE LEVEL OF 300 OHMS. With that being said you need sufficient power to run these suckers properly, which brings me to my next point

Second-- THE AMP. I use my 250 Watt JVC stereo and I plug in my headphones with a Grado Extension cable directly I to the stereo unit. I leave the stereo on 10min to warm up the amp because the sound quality gets a bit brighter when I do so. My point here is that just using a stereo amp provides more than enough current flow to run the HD's.

Third. I bypass the single by using the AUXILLARY connection in the stereo using an Analogue single to connect to my I pod or portable cd player. For the I pod, I use a high quality Y CABLE to connect my digital music to my stereo and be Able to listen to it through the masterful headphones. So at this point I am listening to my digital music at 300kps through an analogue connection to the stereo and I feel that this sounds absolutely incredible and I am maximizing the true power that the headphones offer. I do the same thing with the cd player.

Lastly, my point is that you can utilize both digital and analogue sound singles in your listening experience. I feel I am getting a really good personal listening experience with regards to how I've set up my headphones with the proper equipment. So far I have to say that Cd quality sounds slightly better than MP3. My best listening experience is when I get a hold of CDs that are recorded in the 24BIT 96KHTZ PCM format. The headphones really respond well to these types of recordings.   In Conclusion I would love to hear anyone's feedback. Any questions, suggestions and constructive criticism is greatly needed because I know there is always a way to improve your set up. Thank you for helping me and this is all for the greater good of prog! Please don't be shy cause I know I have kind of a unique set up and I think what anyone is this forum has to say will be most helpful. Thank you my prog brothers.