For example, the sound quality on Comus "First Utterance" is a bit ropey at times, with the bass barely audible, but that's not the band's fault in this case, I would still rate this album as 5 star in spite of this.

 

Equally there are tracks that really should not have been included on an album because the sound quality is so poor.

 

The bonus tracks on Godbluff ("Fosaken Garden's (Live)" and "A Louse Is Not A Home") spring to mind.

 

What possessed the record company to think that putting tracks with such poor sound quality on the album was a good idea is anyone's guess!

For me, some of the earlier Gabriel era Genesis albums suffer from muddy sounding mixes. It wasn't until the Lamb that they were afforded production values deserving of their material. That said, King Crimson's the Construkction of Light from 2000 is very wearying to listen to (too much compression robs the playing of whatever dynamics it may have possessed at source and everything just sounds so flat and sterile) The Nice's earlier studio material usually paled in comparison with the heights they reached in the live realm and they finally bowed to the inevitable on the 3rd album (a half live/half studio hybrid affair which finally addressed some of these issues) Although I'm not a big fan of the album, Trout Mask Replica sounds like it was captured on a Dictaphone and then bounced to cassette at least 3 generations after the fact. (Van Vliet eschewed using traditional headphones to record his vocals which are commensurately out of sync with a backing he could only hear via the latency of speaker bleed) Similarly, the Crim's first officially sanctioned bootleg (Earthbound from 1972) is a war-crime against fidelity. Patrick Moraz's the Story of I is blighted by an original '76 mix that buries much of the intricate textural detail provided by up to 16 Brazilian hand percussionists when in tandem with the electronic band.

I wouldn't say I'm much of an audiophile but will always mention in a review if I feel there could be perceived shortcomings in this area. As an aside, what do the members of PA think about the fairly recent phenomenon of bands repatriating the best sounding bootlegs from their history, cleaning them up with audio restoration software and making these available for purchase by fans (King Crimson Collectors Club and ELP Best of the Bootlegs, I'm looking at you)?

Bad quality impacts on the listening experience, so yes: it impacts on reviews as well.

I'm the first to admit that the perceived underlying content trumps any considerations of fidelity but what you are basically saying is that the rest of us will not be able to experience the music as it was intended unless we invest in technology that you deem fit for the purpose of aesthetic evaluation. With arrogance like that you should be levitating in front of us.

I already made a remark about this topic in another thread. sound quality is in my opinion a typical male issue; I have yet to meet a woman who cares about it. this does not mean that all men care about it, but if somebody cares about it it is a safe bet the person in question is a man.

I am actually of the opinion that sound quality can be too good. this makes the music appear sterile.

music should in my opinion be recorded live (for studio albums live in the studio). the reason is that with live recordings overtones are being created that won't come up if each voice and instrument is recorded separately. this does in my opinion enrich the musical experience

Hi,

I think we have had our ears blasted with the high quality of a lot of things, going as far back as the Beatles and Rolling Stones, who made enough money to get the very best to record them and put them on the album.

Roll it forward some 7 years, and you find that Pink Floyd set another standard for quality and beauty of the sound, but unlike the 2 previous bands, PF had the sense to allow individual instruments to have their sound stretched (for lack of a better word!), and when you hear the guitar, it sounds just beautiful.

Met a friend here in Vancouver around 1998 or so, that had been recording a band, and it sounded really nice, and the leader walked in and didn't like it ... why? He wanted it to sound like Nirvana, and he didn't care for all the fancy quality of the recording and the so many microphones all over the whole thing!

IF, the sound quality was a serious issue, bootlegs would have taken it in the shorts a long time ago ... but in fact, the quality of the music in many of them, specially PF, GD, TD, Dylan and another handful, was outstanding, and TD had a legitimate issue ... they could not tune things the same in each and every place, and get exactly the same result ... so in some cases the starting point for this or that, by Chris, was what he was able to bring up ... and remember that many times, what they worked with was stuff they found far out in the stage while playing ... you couldn't rehearse that because you could not redo it, and the synths then did not have the ability to reproduce it ... until a few years later, when TD said they traveled with 24 Mac's to carry some of the stuff they wanted, and they begun to sound more "familiar" to your ears and albums.

As for reviews ... I don't do "sound" ... but the real issue is that for many bands, TODAY, it is all about the "sound" and not about the music, and as both The Edge and Andy Summers showed in a couple of VH-1 specials, they unplugged the effects and ... you gotta be kidding me ... if you wrote that the Music Department would have thrown you out for not being competent.

Somewhere in the middle, I think, is the answer ... but for reviews? Reminds me of the issues 25 years ago, with Chinese Films all coming out with hand held cameras, which had one excellent side benefit ... it was way cheaper than the behemoths to film anything! And it was not very good in my estimation, and if you see Wong Kar-Wai's stuff, what he does today is basically the same, but it's clean, smooth and well done, compared to those "experiments", which were OK, but nothing great!

I don't think I ever gave a review on sound only, but half the metal stuff ... is all about sound ... even though some of it seems quite well done in terms of notes and instrumentation, I have a feeling that if it was unplugged, it probably was nothing much doggy do about nothing!

Hi,

This is true. I bought a pair of ESS Heil AMT 1's in 1974 or 1975, and anything I played on it sounded way better than the average stereo, and it was massive for things like Pink Floyd ... mind you they both cost $750 then ... think about that!

There was, already, a massive push towards the higher and better fidelity of the music, and hearing Tangerine Dream on these speakers is a dream, and you can NOT GET THAT EXPERIENCE ON THE MP3 player you got, or iTunes, which has the worst quality of material ever found anywhere. The sonic experience just is not there, and a review of the music without realizing that PF actually went with the intent of working that atmosphere, to make music better. Sadly, there were too many "hit bands" that did not care about the quality of their music and if you want to hear some samples of a station in 1974 full of these crap recording bands compared to a PF or a couple of other bands ... you won't like the result!

There is something to be said for the "fidelity", but it should not be more important than the music, but ... when it comes to DSOTM ... that statement takes a big hit!

Sound quality has been VERY important to me--from the beginning (and one of the reasons why it's so difficult for me to like/enjoy live albums). I can remember rejecting a lot of the albums my brother was introducing me to in the late 60s and early 70s based solely on sound quality. And then came Dark Side of the Moon with its amazing clarity--and Mobile Fidelity releases and then Japanese pressed 100% virgin vinyl albums, and then CDs. I always have loved the clean sound of these high-production releases. 

The conundrum herein lies in the fact that sound quality is so dependent on equipment which is then dependent on money. While I hate to believe that money is a key determiner of good music and good quality sound, it would be hard to argue against it. (It pains me to think that leisure--the thing that allows us to have time to explore our creativity--is so related to socioeconomic status and financial comfort/backing cuz I want the realization of human potential to be available to everyone.)

I belong to those who say "leave this to the individual reviewer's taste"; it may but doesn't have to, all fine by me. Surely music is for the ears and is about how it sounds, so sound quality is a part of the experience. I tend to be forgiving though as long as the quality of the music can sufficiently shine through.

Then there's music for which the sound quality is more or less important. Much electronic music is about the sound; Talk Talk's last two albums needed their brilliant sound for all the detail to be appreciated; Eloy end 70s and early 80s sounded stunning and that was a major selling point; on the other hand I don't think that sound quality, or the lack of it, would be a major factor in anyone's appreciation of, say, "Close to the Edge", or some instrumentalist-focused music such as much fusion. That Cardiacs are maybe not the best when it comes to production affects the Sea Nymphs albums much more than the actual Cardiacs output that probably works with any kind of sound.

Bald Jean wrote: I already made a remark about this topic in another thread. sound quality is in my opinion a typical male issue; I have yet to meet a woman who cares about it. this does not mean that all men care about it, but if somebody cares about it it is a safe bet the person in question is a man. I am actually of the opinion that sound quality can be too good. this makes the music appear sterile. music should in my opinion be recorded live (for studio albums live in the studio). the reason is that with live recordings overtones are being created that won't come up if each voice and instrument is recorded separately. this does in my opinion enrich the musical experience.

But you are contradicting yourself - you actually say you do care about it, too, except in different ways ("too sterile") from many. And I can identify with that to some extent. I like a "lively" sound, and I often prefer live albums for this reason. (Although they can be awful when done wrongly.)

yes, I was aware of this apparent contradiction. perhaps it would be more accurate to say I don't care about it the way others do.

what really astonishes me though is that no-one else seems to have this issue with the lacking overtones. for me these overtones are such an important part of the music

All good observations, though I'd say your first point is probably only true for women listeners, whereas women musicians I imagine are quite aware of and concerned with mix and production.   I think of Joni Mitchell, Kate Bush, Tori Amos, Adele, many others.   And I'd agree with your second point about overproduction, or 'overgrooming'.   It can remove the character of the set and sterilize the music.

Also a great observation about live-in-the-studio being an underused approach.

My hi-fi (Pink Triangle Anniversary TT, SME V arm, Ortofon Cadenza Blue cartridge + Audiolab 8000C/8000P amps + Mission 753 Freedom speakers) is incredibly revealing.

Any faults in the mix/recording can make some music unlistenable, unenjoyable and hence it colours my review.

I definitely don't always judge the quality of production and mixing, since a lot of the time, it doesn't really affect the overall listening expereince to a huge degree, but I did feel like it was worth mentioning in this particular case along with my personal views on the music, as they were both issues I had with the album as a whole, even after the countless listens I've given it through the last couple of years.

 

It's certainly a tricky subject. My favourite album Brain Salad Surgery has way too much compression and distortion. Eddy Offord was sorely missed especially when you compare it to the previous album Trilogy which was spot on production wise. So I probably should deduct a mark for it but I could never do that!

I do like the grainy analog approach of some retro bands such as Elephant 9 and Astra. That is what I really want not the sterile approach that is more typical. However I think the music is always 99% of the thing and sound quality 1%. So really its better to stick to commenting about the music  .

Hi,

A really great example of this is NEKTAR's Sounds Like This ... and the funny thing is ... that was EXACTLY what you heard in concert ... the band was that tight and good!

Hi,

I'm not sure this is totally true. 

If you have a great singer, that knows what he/she is singing about, you can have a home recording set from the nickel shop at Amazon, and that person will still sound good ... why? The voice -- their instrument -- is flawless in its delivery and no one can miss that!

You and I will likely say that it is a shame that it was not recorded with better equipment, but a great singer and deliverer of words is rarely concerned with the external side of their work ... they will still sound good!

The quality of the recording, is not the reason why something is great ... it was PF's adjusting to the sonic nature of "sound" that helped DSOTM, and DG makes sure each and every note is heard ... and that it sounds perfect ... and that is more on the player than it is on anyone else ... but you and I will always agree that it makes it all sound even better! You can even hear how good it was in the bootlegs ... which after a few times, you know the difference ... THE PLAYER and the BAND!

It really is as simple as this to me. If it sounds like I'm listening to your band through drywall, over the phone, underwater, it's ruining your art for me.

Yep, 'Frenetic' is blowing smoke up his backside. Ask yourself the question: why do VST/AAX/AU/RTAS audio plug in manufacturers flood the market with best selling products that offer to 'replicate the vintage analogue productions of yesteryear from right inside your DAW'? Stick the words 'Abbey Road' on the packaging and bedroom producers will be robbing the aged and infirm to buy them.

SQ matters huge to me also, it can very much affect how I respond to the music as well it can determine how much I spin that record. Herc's key word above is "revealing". I have many examples where the SQ is dismal and you don't hear or pick up the nuances that make a passage engaging. 

There are many delicate sound structures in classic prog, most reissue CDs from the 90's were done horribly, brick-walled to death, which is still occurring BTW, and all u hear is a wall of noise. Dynamics and resolution are gone. Pick up a well recorded, properly mixed and mastered album and you will hear these nuances and it will affect how you react to the music, if not then you have a hearing deficiency. 

Like Herc my system is very revealing, some may ask "how do you know this?" Two reasons, 1) Go and listen to a high end system, it costs you nothing to do this. 2) I grew up with analog, and clearly remember how my records sounded back in the day, today's analog gear are light years better than what I had in the 70/80s. So my 70's records sound different, but what I hear now are all the nuances that my Lyra Delos cartridge is capable of reproducing, as well the audio gear before and after it that helps immensely. 

I don't review here, but did on another site that does not exist anymore and it (SQ) clearly makes a different impression.

I have 3 copies of this brilliant album and my best sounding version is the 2008 Nick Davis remix mastered at 1/2 speed. The blanket from my speakers has been removed, the sound is much more open and revealing compared to my 1972 original issue that is simply veiled, this is a known thing on all Genesis early albums....but I only know this because I have a base to compare, then and now. I do have a 1978 German pressing copy that sounds pretty good, much better than my 1972 version. \

There are many many versions available, not all are done well, if you really want to find those well done records you have to research.

I'm not sure what you mean Steve by "Almost all audiophile grade recordings were done back in the day on analogue equipment....." Take for example ITCOtCK, original copy tapes were botched, this is a classic known story. The tape recording heads were either misaligned or very dirty when creating copies for other countries to master from, the original recording had been stolen. They had to use these copies to create what we have today, albeit what Fripp, Tony Arnold and SWilson have done is pretty awesome now.

You can read about it here.

http://www.elephant-talk.com/articles/fripp-st.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.elephant-talk.com/articles/fripp-st.htm

so that's all cleared up then

As someone that records, mixes, and masters music as a professional hobby I fail to see how your comment contradicts mine. Of course it was analog, what the hell else would they be using...? How does that preclude some recordings sounding more clear than others...?

Even other users have chimed in with personal experience with clarity of sound on this one. I have two versions of the album and while the 2008 remix is obviously the most clear, my other copy (assuming a 90's pressing) sounds plenty passable mix-wise.

No idea about the Jellyfish album.  But about Aja, while it's not sterile, I would definitely call it an album that's too well recorded, to the point where all the rock and roll energy is sucked out of it and it sounds more like a jazz ensemble.  Entirely possible that that's what they wanted, this topic as with many others becomes about us listeners projecting our likes and dislikes on the album independent of the makers' own goals.  That said, for me, Royal Scam is the album I love to play in the mornings on the commute (especially Monday mornings ) because it's so kickass while Aja works better in the evening or on cloudy, rainy days.  It's very languid and luxuriant but energetic it isn't.

I agree with other posters that there is such a thing as overproduction, both in terms of modern compressing habits, and due to sterility of sound (like mentioned Aja vs previous albums).

Determine?? No

Be considered and critiqued?? Absolutely.

Might as well use a classical music example, but I'm not sure that it can make a difference on many of the folks here ... 

A rock'n'roll staff has .... 4 lines ... Frank Zappa liked 10 or more if he could ... now try opera ... some 20 lines on the staff ... and YOU WILL NOT HEAR EVERYTHING REGARDLESS OF HOW IT IS RECORDED.

For this reason, Stokowski was known for moving the instruments around on some recordings, so he could get the emphasis he wanted, and for recording ... right after WW2, this was incredible, and no one could imagine that anyone would mess with the orchestra setup and sittings!

Sound is AN IMPORTANT PART OF MUSIC ... however, it should not be the music! Unplug the effects if you don't believe me!  Now comes the ugly duckling ... things like Tangerine Dream are more about bringing the sound to life ... now you are really stuck! 

Thirdly, a monkey cannot record music, equalize it, mix it and master it. There appears to be plenty of monkeys that record music as a professional hobby. How do I know? I recorded music professionally for 45 years, starting out in NYC and then went to Nashville before going with Capital Records in California and then returned to Columbia Records in NYC. Before retiring in 2013, I was a freelance mixer and lacquer cutter in London. And in most of my later time I was employed to fix the botch jobs recorded digitally by numerous "professional hobbyists". Mixing and mastering engineers make good coin cleaning up after people. I'm not saying that you're of simian class, however, your credentials may impress the man on the street but they don't mean much to a professional who spent so much time fixing digitally recorded disasters.

Edit: friendlier response.

Hi,

Actually ... really simple!

If it is Tangerine Dream, you go with "sound"!

If it is the Rolling Stones (heaven forbid!), you go for "quality"! (... because the sound is the same and has been forever for many "progressive bands"!)

Post some of your work and back up those big, friendly words.

I genuinely expected you to come back with a list of proof. I'm interested in hearing your work. Where can I hear it?

Oh, people know how much I hate to talk about myself.

 

My first big job before going with Capital was recording these series of concerts for Wally's Mobile with another engineer doing about half the concerts. The tapes sat on the shelves for years before being released by Rhino in 2014. The mix could be better but I had no control over that, naturally, but the mastering is excellent. People often ask me about CSN&Y. Stills was a pain in the arse as he was the group's MD. He didn't think that I had a clue as what I was doing and was partially right. But I threw enough technical BS at him to get him off my back. Young was great and only cared about his mic being on! Nash would meditate in his trailer with Joni Mitchell so I almost never saw him except at sound checks. Crosby was always in his trailer doing god know what and Stills often sound checked for him.

 

You can look up the album credits on discogs or wiki or whatever.

Genuinely impressive, sir; bravo!  I did have a look on Wiki, and I won't dox your last name. You undoubtedly have more industry experience than me, and I unabashedly bow to said experience. I am indeed essentially a monkey playing with knobs in comparison LOL .

Hi,

I like to be careful with that thought ... why? You can take the best and use the best and make a mediocre band sound better than it really is, and it will show in concert and the necessary adjustments to make them sound right on stage.

Conversely, a band that already has the sound, ie, Tangerine Dream let's say, the "quality" is not as much an issue, because all of the recording is about the threads and pieces of music that are all on top of each other ... or you could try Klaus Schulze that ends up with 30, 40 or 50 of these on top of each other (see the DVD with Lisa and one special there where the engineer finds a bit that is unclear and unfinished) ... something that even you and I can enjoy, but we will all have a real hard time following a single strand ... since they all change and often become something else.

Rock music, has set its own limitations ... and we think that if Alan Parsons does your local band, it will be far better than the local recording guy who has never had the chance to even smell the far out stuff. AND THAT IS AN ILLUSION.

The remasters ... seems like everyone thinks this and that ... here's an idea for you that you want to check out ... they are not any better ... than the original! They may "sound" better, or clearer, but in the end, it's still the same piece of music, and you are inferring that the music is different than the original ... now we're talking about something else ... INTERPRETATION, and classical music is a perfect example ... the RITE OF SPRING under Bernstein is completely different than the one from Solti, or Karajan ... and their interpretations DO BRING UP very different feelings, with the different setups and recording designs to get a specific effect out of it all.

SW, can not change the ORIGINAL, PSYCHIC feeling of the pieces of music he is "remastering" ... !!! He can only make it look like that the instruments are setup a bit differently and that the mixing of the bass, or drums is better used in the new mix design ... and yes, it will sound better to your ear and mine ... but for you to say that the music is DIFFERENT ... is going way too far and not on par with the music itself ... at that point I say that there is some serious confusion to what we think and how we interpret or describe what we think is happening.

There is only "one music" ... the original, and its feeling is what brought us to it ... and any remix/remaster is not going to change the music .... 

Weird factor #69: 

Most folks are listening to these things on the mp3 and from the tube ... I wonder how they determine that the 'sound" or the "quality" is more important. Now, if you have a super nice stereo and can ACTUALLY HEAR these differences, you will more than likely say something ... but I doubt it will be about the music itself ... it will be about its presentation ... and that has nothing to do with anything else!

Oh, I meant docs in general, read something about dolphins.

Ah, thanks, thought I'd ask since found it against your credits on the net.

If I was interpreted as defending digital back there, I apologize because I wasn't! I'm always biased towards analog; I think that's how it should be done as much as possible. Digital is great for certain things but nothing will top the correct mic, placement, mix...all done by a skilled ear!

Hoping your not confusing here.....Pretty much everything today and past say 20 yrs is recorded digitally, there is little that is done in the analog realm meaning recorded to 2" tape. Eric Clapton's album I Still Do from 2016 was recorded to tape and I have a few jazz albums that were recorded to tape, there is more being done but digital is the standard.

It's what happens after that determines the quality of what we hear.....This is where the sh*t happens LOL.

SteveG wrote: richardh wrote: Going back to my argument that sound quality doesn't matter , I would certainly think that good music always shines through. I've always loved every remix or release of Foxtrot because the music is brilliant. Abacab will never become a great album regardless of the sound mix because you can't 'polish a turd' . Ultimately the music is pretty much everything and as long as you can hear different instruments and the vocals then that is all there is. Admittedly though a live experience can be a different matter . I do believe that the penchant for just turning up the volume regardless is a terrible idea. I remember seeing ELP in 1992 and they had the confidence to let the music speak for itself. BUT that changed and now going to see bands live is very hit and miss. King Crimson were absolutely superb from this aspect of things when I saw them but that seems to be a rare experience. Surely there is some point when the sound quality is so bad that the recording is unlistenable. You don't have a single unlistenable album?

 

Not really although my collection is only about 1500 or so and gradually streaming is overtaking actual purchases. 

One album that I hate sound wise is Discipline but ultimately it's the music that puts me off. If they released a live album (of material from Discipline) I might like it better but I doubt it would overcome my feelings about the music.

I've also expressed a dislike for the sound of IZZ - Don't Panic but then I was pulled up for that and told off by a regular poster! Apparently Muse - Simulation Theory is a very bad example of modern sound mixing (way too compressed) but I quite like it. In general , however, my feelings about the music comes from the music and not the sound. 

Can you give me an example of an 'unlistenable album'?

When I speak of analog, I'm talking golden era prog, dudes. '67-'77.

 

I can understand that, IZZ often have an odd sound on their albums but I can't quite put my finger on what it is. Laura Meade's otherwise brilliant solo album has the same issue. It has some kind of synthetic feel to it which may be a result of the recording method (i.e everyone recording their parts separately). I don't know.

I have said umpteen times before that as much as I am an analog, vinyl is 95% of what I do, guy that I feel digital recording is the best way to capture live/studio music today. The technology to capture everything the mic is picking up in the studio is best served by recording in the digital form. That being said that sound can be way too clinical sounding, as some have mentioned, what you are describing is exactly what a lot of music lovers hate, the emotional disconnect with music today.

But with anything, not all digital media (that we hear) are good CD, hi-rez files as well in vinyl. I have a mountain load of new records that also include a CD version and in almost all cases the vinyl is the preferred media. Very easy as the CD is redbook restricted to 16/44 while in most cases the vinyl was created from the 24bit master.

For sure analog recordings from the 70s were for the most part amazing, and still sound that way. But I have zero issue with buying new recordings pressed to vinyl that are digitally recorded. There are some garbage ones though, the most recent one is Ozzy's new album, overall absolute krapp on vinyl and even the CD, there are threads on this everywhere. 

I'm not a "must be analog recording!!!", it simply needs to be done well with care in the mix and mastering whether digital or analog.......and I'm pretty happy, but it will always be vinyl version for me.

Hi,

I'm not sure I am reading this correctly but what you are saying is that the WAY that things are recorded ... separately ... and then are blended together with sticky glue to make them smoother in coming together, is the issue, and has nothing to do with analog or digital. Or with sound quality at all ... we know the quality will be there, it's a given, but will the "whole thing" mesh well or not? As much as I like some of the things SW has done (for example) I'm not sure his "redo-this//redo-that" has improved anything ... they simply kissed up to the regular listening audience of mp3's that might not be as clear/aware of the "recording" abilities and process and how much it has affected all the music we listen to! I mean listening to the Rolling Stones today is really no different than yesterday ... but listening to some other things "re-done" is a much bigger and weird thing for me ... and the same effect was created when a famous conductor changed the orchestra sittings, so he would have the emphasis he wanted for the piece of music that was to be used for the film FANTASIA ... 

I think that things like DSOTM was a digital setup (afaik) and it came together fine ... but one of the things that hurt SW in his earlier re-this and re-that, was the fact that he was separating things too much, and while you can hear each person really well, but in the end, the effect is "clinical" for me, and has nothing to do with anything else ... and yes, it "changes" the complete sound a bit, so the more recent ears that are USED TO THIS KIND OF THING can now hear it in the same style ... but funny bit here ... his own recordings of his own material do not have that "separation" as much, and in fact, his latest piece (Personal Shopper) just about sounds like it's live ... AND NOT MEMOREX!

I think that we are mixing too many factors in this discussion and the "generic terms" we are using to describe this or that are going everywhere ... making it worse. I'm not sure that we can even "define" sound quality and sound at all ... and am betting that for most listeners, it is the same thing! 

Catcher10 wrote: ... I'm not a "must be analog recording!!!", it simply needs to be done well with care in the mix and mastering whether digital or analog.......and I'm pretty happy, but it will always be vinyl version for me.

Give it 5 or 10 more years and "analog" will be history ... same thing with beta, cassettes, vinyl, and now CD's ... all going away slowly ... the bad side of it for music is that the art that often comes with it will also disappear and people will not see a band as well as we did ... in the sense that it will be harder to distinguish which of them is for real and which is just another band on a bar tour!

What I am saying is that today if a band goes in to the studio, it's 99% recorded with digital gear. The sound is saved as a hi rez digital file could be 24bit or even 32bit as 96khz or 192khz sampling. From this file the mastering work begins, mixing and final mastering. To me this is the best means to capture all the music that is being played, simply because of the resolution capabilities and dynamics, which are beyond human hearing anyways in the digital realm.

Again, after that is where the krapp end product happens, due to engineers that are not doing or don't how to do a good job of mixing and mastering.

SW is an excellent engineer and reason he is asked to do many reissues is because of the PT albums he has mastered originally, they are seen as some of the best sounding of late. So people like Fripp use him to remix/remaster older recordings because SW's ear is what some of these artists are looking for. Remember what you hear on a release is what the artist and engineer decided, we all know that is not always best. There are many engineers who do amazing work, those should be what you look for.

DSOtM was not recorded digitally, not sure what you are talking about, Abbey Road had 16 track tape recorders as well 8 track decks, I believe a combination of both were used........But that album is 100% analog.

You've forgotten an important part of the album process, especially these days - the editing. I'm sure very little of what you hear on an album these days resembles the musician playing a song from start to finish. Lots of composites between different takes, little mistakes getting erased, parts getting copied and pasted, individual notes getting moved so the rhythm lines up perfectly with the grid, little adjustments to tuning (I reckon a lot of producers mix with their eyes rather than their ears in these two regards... can't have a single note 99% accurate, it must be 100%!).

This is probably where a lot of the "human" element of modern recordings goes down the toilet; producers and artists would rather it sounds like the best damn MIDI track ever rather than letting it sound like a bunch of people making music.

Now, you're probably saying that this can't happen in prog recordings - the musicians are too "authentic" and opposed to pop music tricks... But I'm willing to bet it happens more often than you think. I can definitely hear autotune all over the place on modern prog albums. The bands that don't do it probably get criticized as being too "retro" and "derivative". Studio time is expensive (and a high opportunity cost even if it's a home studio), parts are complex... artists probably learn the song so it's good enough live, and then realize that it doesn't sound as polished in the studio - compared to the other artists who "fix" their music.

As far as digital vs. analog... I'm sure lots of things were "fixed" back in the days of tape, but digital makes it so much easier. They'd probably fix the really bad issues in the days of tape - but in the digital era, they can automatically fix most things that aren't 100% aligned to the grid (pitch or rhythm!).

I really don't understand how musical and artistic value can be diminished. That would make virtually all live versions of tracks inferior. Don't get it.

Thank you! 

Back in the good old days, there were at least 10 Pink Floyd bootlegs that were far better than the albums! The sound of it may have been a bit low or sometimes muddled, but if you listened to the music, it was superb and out of this world.

IF we're talking "sound" as the complete "band" then it doesn't matter to me how it's done ... but if we're talking "sound" as something that we notice makes the band completely different and not be as good live, or as good in the studio ... maybe I'm silly, but that band isn't really that good and doesn't deserve the ratings at all!

I would find it strange that a band would not know the difference of what we discuss here ... and a lot of details are picky, but I think they all make a difference.

Good way of putting this.....In the music realm what I find gets lost is the slam of a musical passage if the mix or mastering is subpar, as well quiet passages that should evoke emotion also may not exist because of loudness wars issues, everything is the same volume wise. Things like sustain of a note or cymbal crash or a simple hit where the note should carry on and give you that final feeling, but when not there just gives you that dry hump feeling at the end of the album or song.

I think you can really miss what the artist was trying to convey emotionally, it's like an unfinished sentence, you get the idea but not the full feeling. 

The problem is if you are not aware of this on certain releases and search out the corrected reissues, you'll never know the difference.