the importance of analog sound in prog

Hercules wrote: As far as photography is concerned, I spent hundreds of hours doing astrophotography during my undergraduate degree, but that was in the late 60s/early 70s so was all done with film. Any analogue film has 2 properties: speed and resolution. These are related to the grain size of the silver chloride crystals which decompose on exposure to light, creating a latent image. The larger the crystals, the faster the "speed" (how quickly the latent image is formed) but the worse the resolution (detail), so it's a balancing act. For faint. low surface area objects, like nebulae, high speed film is used to avoid extremely long exposures but this limits image detail. Early CCDs were quite "coarse" with quite large pixels due to the slow computing speeds of the time limiting the rate at which information could be processed. Hence, images were quite coarse by comparison with now. But CCDs have a much higher efficiency, with up to 80% of incident photons being registered (film is typically 0.1 - 4% efficient) so this means that for a set exposure, CCDs record far more information. With the advent of space telescopes (which can take almost indefinite exposures) CCDs were the only option as the data can be sent electronically and film cannot be processed in space. Hence, astronomical images are all digital now. With more modern computers, more data can be processed and so CCDs with more pixels per mm sq can be used, leading to speed and resolution far beyond what film can achieve.

Hercules wrote: Sampling size hasn't changed for CD players? I'm amazed - I must check my data more carefully. I'm new to CD players (only bought my first one 2 months ago).

Catcher10 wrote: I will not call it 3D effects, but that can be a good descriptor....It does happen, how or why does not matter to me. Be it electronically, digitally, scientifically, audiophilally ..whatever. The aural presence of front to back and side to side imaging if you will, exists.....again how I don't care. The number of dB channel separation who cares, those are specs that most people do not even consider when buying audio gear......It always comes back to what your ears hear.   I have many, many examples like what Hercules states happens where the digital content on the CD does not have the same wide/front to back perception as the same content on vinyl does....The most immediate that comes to mind is DSOtM. The "clocks" are all over my room on every wall, I am surrounded by ringing. The CD does not have that same musical perception, ohh its nice but simply not as spatial.   The water noise at the end of Marillion's Brave on the vinyl edition is "liquid" sounding, I hear the waves going front to back and little water trickles in each channel....The CD version is just flat with some side to side but no depth of water noise. The recent Haken album The Mountain, the barbershop harmony vocals on the begining of "Because Its There" is another example of how the CD version does not compare to the vinyl version, the vocalists are in my room, the CD they are just coming out of my speakers with a really good sound but no depth. Call it a phenomenon or volume level and dynamic range...I don't care. It happens more on vinyl than CD in my case and on my system...Which is all that matters as I cannot convince anyone here, unless you were to actually be sitting with me as I listen, which you are more than welcome to!   Volume level of different instruments must be a part of it, during the mixing to give that perception of front to back sound or portions of music that sound more in the background than in front. That mastering technique maybe is what is lost, that special touch that a good sound mixer/engineer was doing to give that aural feeling.   Someone needs to clone Bob Ludwig......George Marino was another who did a fantastic job, sadly he is gone.

I would probably call it different mixes based on release format, because it's the only option that I think could realistically have that effect. What you're talking about is "panning" and that generally doesn't change once the album is mixed, regardless of format. If it's re-released then it can have a wider or narrower stereo field or even a totally new mix with new panning and depth, but I'm tempted to think what you're describing is good old-fashioned bias based on familiarity with your listening environment.

But, it is not uncommon (if the artist/record company can afford it and cares about it) to have a CD release with less dynamic range and a narrower stereo field and a simultaneous vinyl release with just the opposite. It's not that they couldn't do it for the CD, but the listening environment and expectations for 180-gram vinyl can be enought to make separate masters for vinyl records.

But keep in mind mastering is really just fine-tuning the final product. You can't change individual instruments in mastering unless the engineer wants the stems for each instrument or group of instruments. But, probably not unless it's a major label, major release.

I would add Atom Heart Mother to the list.

I'm no expert in analog or digital sound but I simply don't 'hear' this better quality in vinyl over cd's on the albums named...and I have them in both formats. I grew up with vinyl and still own over 400 pieces but I rarely play the vinyl anymore. Most have a 'muddy' sound imo and can be easily damaged too.

moshkito wrote: Hi,   There are some albums, that I still think sounded way better on vinyl than they ever did on CD, remastered, or pooped on! Some of these were very "sonic" in the work, and the remastering seems to have taken out the "expanse" of the inner vision, by moving the "instruments" around some. All of a sudden you can only see a "studio" and not the scenery in the movie, and this is my number one complaint about some of the remixes that Steven Wilson has done of King Crimson, and anyone else.   It has taken the "humanity" and "vision" out of the music for me!   Thus, it could be said that analog had something going for it, but time, has rendered that process gone and no longer pheasable or used. That is the history of just about anything anyway!   Here are a few:   Tangerine Dream - Phaedra Seventh Wave - Things to Come Focus - Moving Waves King Crimson - In the Court of the Crimson King Klaus Schulze - Mirage Robert Schroeder - Floating Music (the LP only as it could play at 33 and 45 !!!!)

ps:

Edited by Dean - October 22 2013 at 18:41

Surrealist wrote: If you scan a great master painting digitally? What do you have? A digital scan of that paining. As soon as you digitize music, it's a scan of the work. Most people don't go to art galleries anymore to see original works.  They feel an image of it on their iphone is sufficient.  Same thing with music. A book scanned and read digitally is not the same experience as reading a nice hard bound copy where you have to flip through the pages and you even smell the book glue. The age of convenience is steeped in a superficial experience.

I agree with some of what you said, but not about the 'Book' point. I don't gotta smell it to feel originality or authenticity of what I am reading. I think that is a little over the top.

progbethyname wrote: The.Crimson.King wrote: For me, any advantage vinyl might have in the spatial/front-to-back regions is nullified by the noisy-ness of the medium (pops, clicks, scratches, etc) and the fact that every time you play it, the medium is degraded to some degree.  I completed the conversion of my whole collection from vinyl to CD in the mid 90's and have never regretted it for a second. Not missing that fence nail huh? Dennis, I do not blame you one bit. I've now heard and seen both sides to the analogue and Digital coins, and I feel Digital is my prefered sound format....by a long shot actually.

Hercules wrote: Dean wrote: Trying to muster enough enthusiasm to post replies and failing.   @Drew - spot on @Doug - Probably my feelings too @Dennis - I don't believe that vinyl has any advantage in the spatial/front-to-back imaging, quite the opposite.   Front -to-back imaging is controlled by volume level, EQ and echo - it is essentially monaural so phasing and channel seperation and all that other technical mumbo-jumbo is almost irrelevant. If you think how something sounds in the distance when compared to close up then that is what you would need to mimick in the studio: obviously things further way sound quieter so you turn the level down, lower frequencies do not travel so well so the tone changes to have less bass (EQ) and those remaining higher frequencies bounce off things before they get to you (echo). When mixing a piece of music you want that to be on a more subtle and intimate scale so that you place the listener in the soundstage rather than 500 metres away from it. In practice you want to create some space for each instrument so they are not muddled and muddied by each other - and that's where the "almost irrelevant" from earlier comes into play because the left-to-right imaging can help here.   Dean, you are clearly far more expert in the digital technology of CDs than I am - my professional expertise was in mathematical/theoretical astrophysics, not electronics/acoustics and my Physics degrees date from the early 70s so are well out of date - but I suggest you actually leave aside the specifications and listen to the evidence of your ears. For example, on the original recording of Another Night from Moonmadness, on vinyl the drums appear to be coming from well behind the vocals and guitar. On CD, they all appear completely on a line between the speakers. I can't listen to Moonmadness on Cd as the spacy feel of the music is diminished. On Time from DSOM, the clocks appear to be coming from a huge space behind the speakers on vinyl, but on CD - they just sound to be coming from a linear soundstage with no space. You may not have heard this; if so, it may simply be that your vinyl playback equipment is not up to the level needed. I have heard both a Technics SL 1200 and a Linn LP12 recently and was startled by the very poor soundstaging which was no better than my CD player, but a Nottingham Audio Annalog and my own Pink Triangle Anniversary (which are more sophisticated and upmarket models) wiped the floor with it. I do not know why vinyl can do this, but my ears tell me it can. And I believe them.

stonebeard wrote: I would probably call it different mixes based on release format, because it's the only option that I think could realistically have that effect.