Old Prog Vs New Prog: Which was better recorded?

[Skullhead]

how can a digital sampling representation sound better than the original sound wave that is being sampled?

It can't. It's just not possible.

[DrGoon]

I have run my own record store for 10 years now and what you are talking about doesn't sell here. It's, as Skullhead says, techno, Rap and R & B that pays the bills around here. Now, you are correct that there is still much being made that is created from actual interactive performances, but the question is how do these artists get noticed? It's sad to say, but it seems the masses couldn't care less about real music. It is out there and there is a lot of talented musicians making real music but they aren't connecting with large audiences like they used to.

That's because the music industry has disappeared up its own fundament. There were always poorly recorded formulaic pop songs that were cynically marketed to appeal to the lowest common denominator but in the past they were marketed alongside a greater variety of more interesting artists that depended less on professional songwriters and singles chart sales. The crap always paid a substantial part of the bills for anybody in the business, but today there's no viable business except the crap. The perfect storm of easily copied digital content and inexpensive production tools has decimated everything except the gimmick singles market. Because everybody can easily make perfect copies only the honest enthusiast invests significant money in buying music which drives commercial focus further to the short form. Because everybody can produce their own music there are millions of bands releasing music and so it's hard to find the talent, and harder still to establish it as popular. Because modern tools make it possible to make the worst performers sound credible the major label impresarios seek people who look pretty, fit a marketable stereotype or who can dance.

Prog's not even related to the music industry any more. For most progressive artists it's a hobby they indulge in between their day jobs. Despite this, many artists are recording music that is as beautiful, honest and well-recorded as the best of that offered in the 70s.

[DrGoon]

how can a digital sampling representation sound better than the original sound wave that is being sampled?

It can't. It's just not possible.

That's a straw man argument. What you're listening to on vinyl or reel-to-reel tape is not the original sound. While analogue in nature, it is often of lower fidelity than digital samples. For most applications I'll take 24 bit, 96k digital over vinyl. For music that's mostly in the mid range, it's hard to beat 12 inch 45 RPM mono vinyl.

[RapidRefresh]

The problem with "analog vs digital" is that most people get confused between what is objective and what is subjective. Subjectively speaking, you can prefer whatever you like, it's all about that particular sound which resonates the most with you. If you happen to like the particular sound of tape hiss and flutter comming out from cheap cassette tapes, that will be the best sound in the world for you, and nobody will be able to convince you otherwise.

Now, objectively speaking, if you want to compare measurable quantities (frequency range, noise floor, THD, etc), then there should be no discussion on which one is better. Anyone can measure it and come to the same objective conclusions. But, we also have to understand that what is technically better will not necessarily sound better for everyone. Each person will have different tastes and may like a different "colour" to their sound which is specific to a certain medium (vinyl records, magnectic tapes, wax cylinders, whatever...).

I think the main problem with digital, and the reason why it gets such a bad reputation amongst audiophiles, is due to the poor mastering choices, which until very recently were the rule rather than the exception (and maybe they still are). The rule of mastering your CD as loud as it can possibly be has made almost every CD release in the last 25 years sound like crap. But, as you mention in you point #2, digital can sound really great when done right. It's not the fault of the technology itself (which is technically superior by all accounts), but it's really how you use it.

I like them both. For me the most important is the music. As for the sound itself, it is much more important how you record it, mix it, and master it, than whether you use digital or analog.

Great explanation of objective and subjective views on tape vs. digital. A lot of good thinkers on this site!

[No Pride]

Anyway it's not about technology and never has been. It's about ears. Eddie Offord and Ken Scott did great recordings in the analog age. Trevor Horn and Tears For Fears did amazing recordings in the digital age. Don Was, afaik, uses 2" tape to this day. Butch Vig doesn't but he gets the same sounds. It's about ears, and people, and music. Let the rest go.

I think the main problem with digital, and the reason why it gets such a bad reputation amongst audiophiles, is due to the poor mastering choices, which until very recently were the rule rather than the exception (and maybe they still are). The rule of mastering your CD as loud as it can possibly be has made almost every CD release in the last 25 years sound like crap. But, as you mention in you point #2, digital can sound really great when done right. It's not the fault of the technology itself (which is technically superior by all accounts), but it's really how you use it.

I like them both. For me the most important is the music. As for the sound itself, it is much more important how you record it, mix it, and master it, than whether you use digital or analog.

And there you have it.

[Udi Koomran]

For me the most important is the music. As for the sound itself, it is much more important how you record it, mix it, and master it, than whether you use digital or analog.

Wise words

[Adm.Kirk]

That's because the music industry has disappeared up its own fundament. There were always poorly recorded formulaic pop songs that were cynically marketed to appeal to the lowest common denominator but in the past they were marketed alongside a greater variety of more interesting artists that depended less on professional songwriters and singles chart sales. The crap always paid a substantial part of the bills for anybody in the business, but today there's no viable business except the crap. The perfect storm of easily copied digital content and inexpensive production tools has decimated everything except the gimmick singles market. Because everybody can easily make perfect copies only the honest enthusiast invests significant money in buying music which drives commercial focus further to the short form. Because everybody can produce their own music there are millions of bands releasing music and so it's hard to find the talent, and harder still to establish it as popular. Because modern tools make it possible to make the worst performers sound credible the major label impresarios seek people who look pretty, fit a marketable stereotype or who can dance.

Prog's not even related to the music industry any more. For most progressive artists it's a hobby they indulge in between their day jobs. Despite this, many artists are recording music that is as beautiful, honest and well-recorded as the best of that offered in the 70s.

Absolutely. I could not agree more. The industry is its on worst enemy.

Bill

[Udi Koomran]

But I am curious to hear what you guys consider as great sounding Progressive Rock albums

[RapidRefresh]

Ok, How about we start with Piper, Ummagumma, Meddle, DSotM and WYWH by Floyd and go from there. Sure, ItCotKC was lackluster and dull as was Days of Future Passed but these were starting points for those bands.

[trurl]

Trilogy, The Yes Album and Fragile... Dark Side and WYWH... I think Drama is a great sounding album. I think (and I know this will be controversial) In A Glass House is awesome sounding even though it's one of the driest albums on record *lol* The first two Alan Parsons Albums. I think The Green Album has very cool production even though the album has a thin eq.

Off the top of my head, I would say that Eddie Offord, Alan Parsons and Ken Scott are responsible for the vast majority of my favorite sounding '70s prog and related albums. They cover the better sounding records by Yes, ELP, PF, Ambrosia, The Dixie Dregs, Supertramp, Bowie, Mahavishnu Orchestra...

[simon moon]

The main thing that older, analog prog recordings have over modern digital recordings , is that the older recording, despite their lower dynamic range, a bit more noise, slightly limited frequency extremes, they still are able to give the impression that there was a real musician in a real space playing their instrument.

Maybe it's because many modern engineers, with access to the endless tools in Pro Tools, have become 'effects happy', but most modern recordings seem to mask the fact that there was once a musician playing in a recording space.

Take King Crimson 'Islands' for example (there are many others). On my system, I can 'see' each musician in the space they occupied in the studio during the recording session. And when the coronet comes in in the title cut, it is exactly at the height of a person standing playing a coronet. Unless I listen to a modern recording of classical or jazz, where the goal is to recreate a live performance, modern prog recordings do not have that.

There are times, when I am willing to give up the slightly improved dynamics and quieter recordings, for that 'there's a guitarist standing 8' behind my speakers, slightly left of center, in front of the drummer' that I get with old analog recordings, that are fewer with modern prog recordings.

[Phlakaton]

But I am curious to hear what you guys consider as great sounding Progressive Rock albums

Not really progressive rock --- but one band that always made my shit speakers sound great - The Police --- now this is far more simple a mix than others but damn. Their albums had punch and clarity to me. Bass drum sound - always awesome.

[RapidRefresh]

Not really progressive rock --- but one band that always made my shit speakers sound great - The Police --- now this is far more simple a mix than others but damn. Their albums had punch and clarity to me. Bass drum sound - always awesome.

Yes, this true. I used to bring a couple of Police albums with me, as well as Abby Road and others, to try out on new sound equipment.

[No Pride]

Trilogy, The Yes Album and Fragile

Yup, those are good sounding albums! I thought Selling England by the Pound sounded good too; certainly the best sounding one from the Gabriel years.

Not really progressive rock --- but one band that always made my shit speakers sound great - The Police --- now this is far more simple a mix than others but damn. Their albums had punch and clarity to me. Bass drum sound - always awesome.

Yes, this true. I used to bring a couple of Police albums with me, as well as Abby Road and others, to try out on new sound equipment.

The oldest album I use to audition stereo gear is Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly" from 1982. Gawd, that album is pristine!

[trurl]

The main thing that older, analog prog recordings have over modern digital recordings , is that the older recording, despite their lower dynamic range, a bit more noise, slightly limited frequency extremes, they still are able to give the impression that there was a real musician in a real space playing their instrument.

But that's really nothing to do with the technology per se. It has a lot more to do with engineers that have never worked the old ways and don't really know how to mic and mix, and how to be sparing with the outboard gear and effects. So, I would say it's a symptom of modern digital recording techniques but not a direct result of the technology.

[aith01]

The oldest album I use to audition stereo gear is Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly" from 1982. Gawd, that album is pristine!

Amen to that!

[RapidRefresh]

Yup, those are good sounding albums! I thought Selling England by the Pound sounded good too; certainly the best sounding one from the Gabriel years.





The oldest album I use to audition stereo gear is Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly" from 1982. Gawd, that album is pristine!

I also used Nightfly, and also Aja by SD.

[Skullhead]

That's a straw man argument. What you're listening to on vinyl or reel-to-reel tape is not the original sound. While analogue in nature, it is often of lower fidelity than digital samples. For most applications I'll take 24 bit, 96k digital over vinyl. For music that's mostly in the mid range, it's hard to beat 12 inch 45 RPM mono vinyl.

No it's not.
Take the same music, same mics, and record onto both at the same time, then compare. A properly set up tape machine will kill the digital equivalent, especially if you are talking only 24 bit, 96K. Sampling can't sound better. if you think it does, then.........

[Skullhead]

Try Getz Gilberto from 1964. Much more natural sounding than any of the SD stuff... as ear candy as those recordings are, that's far from how instruments can sound. The horns on Aja are very compressed compared to some of the beautiful Verve stuff recorded years before.

[simon moon]

But that's really nothing to do with the technology per se. It has a lot more to do with engineers that have never worked the old ways and don't really know how to mic and mix, and how to be sparing with the outboard gear and effects. So, I would say it's a symptom of modern digital recording techniques but not a direct result of the technology.

I agree.

That's why I brought up classical and jazz recordings. The engineers do know how to mic and mix.

[moecurlythanu]

But I am curious to hear what you guys consider as great sounding Progressive Rock albums

Mike Oldfield -'Tubular Bells II'

[trurl]

Aja is a bit sizzly on the top end- the cymbals on Black Cow almost sound like frying bacon *lol* But still a nice clean recording, one of my favorites. Nightfly is like Aja without the high-end hype. BTQ Skullhead, I don't know what your issue is with Aja- it's analog. Both are afaik.

Actually, given your litening preferences, and I don't mean this in the slightest snarky way, I'm serious, but I'm surprised you even like stereo. Mono suits you much better. Everything mushed all together in one channel. You do, don't you

[chalkpie]

I have said this before on other threads, but I think it was more a way of doing things. In the tape era, if you wanted your album to sound tight.. you had to really play well, even if tracking separately. This really raised the bar, and the prog musicians were generally better musicians.. often formally trained, practiced more, had better "time" and were often more creative because they spent a lot of time practicing.

I respect your opinion on this but don't necessarily agree with it. Without citing specific bands and musicians at the moment here, there are a TON of bands in 2015 that can play circles around many bands of the so-called 70's golden era. You may disagree, and that is totally cool.

As to olde vs new, I generally do prefer the older stuff in terms of *sonics*, but certainly do not feel that the music is superior in any way just because it is stamped with "copyrighted in 1973". Just like in classical music, the further we go in time, the more we can glance backwards, learn, then apply our wisdom to the current age. But to compare JS Bach to Ligeti is just silly and pointless, and I'll take a healthy dose of both, please.

[klothos]

I have said this before on other threads, but I think it was more a way of doing things. In the tape era, if you wanted your album to sound tight.. you had to really play well, even if tracking separately.

This is well stated and true.

This really raised the bar, and the prog musicians were generally better musicians.. often formally trained, practiced more, had better "time" and were often more creative because they spent a lot of time practicing.

This is a myth: There are many accomplished, technical, and virtuoso musicians in many genres - including pop. Just because a musician "doesn't do something" on record doesn't in any way mean that he/she "can't"

Bands worked together in the same room, so ideas could come together quickly while fresh, and not having to wait around for your band mates sound file to come back the next day or so.

The old way of the vintage "A and R" guy had validity. There was more competition the play the clubs were they would be hanging out. Live bands were valued more than youtube vids put together with Final Cut Pro and a Pro Tools soundtrack.

This is also very well stated and true

Progressive Rock was really just complex rock music. Complex was explored more because the culture in general was much more intellectual. People were much more broad in their life scope of experiences... not just great at typing on their iphone and texting quickly with two fingers. There were less distractions for artists and musicians. Rather than texting, they were practicing. Rather than youtubing,

Now, this is debatable. Youtube is a flowing cornucopia of lessons and tools for a budding musician to latch onto. I wish I had that technology available to me way back when instead of buying books and the occasional video............ There are TONS of awesome virtuoso young new musicians out there in new young bands...I will happily post examples if you wish

..... they were gigging for audiences that couldn't give a rats ass about facebook followers or youtube views. The musicians of that era also had real motivation and role models. There were many fine bands that were actually ALSO financially successful. How many Rolls Royce's did Rick Wakeman purchase after an instrumental prog album "Six Wives" went to #1 on the UK pop charts (can we imagine such a thing?)

On the other hand, The internet offers way more creative options for a person to get their music out there. Plus, there isnt any major label AR guy telling anybody they are "too old, too fat, too ugly, etc" to put out product. The days of the corporate label millionaire rockstar are few and numbered: Now, anybody from indie musicians to minor record labels can have stuff out there - In many ways, its a good thing.....You, as a listener, have SO many choices of what to listen to musically then you ever had in your lifetime

Many genres had very healthy scenes. Today, it's just techno and rap, some watered down country.

Really? LOL -- maybe as far as Top 40 and "charts" are concerned, but -- in 2015 -- "Top 40" and "Billboard" dont have the same meaning they did decades ago: There are many instances of indie musicians selling 6 and 7-digit downloads (example "Shoes" by Kelly) that Billboard and other official "Charts" fail to acknowledge as they are still basing their charts on sales, radio play, and other oudated means that are technically "obsolete" and thus inaccurate.

All of today's popular music is created in the sterile digital environment. The ears of the listeners have been dumbed down by decades of MP3 sound with earbuds. Ignorance is bliss.

I dont know about you, but I seem to recall a LOT of crap on the charts in the 70s and 80s, too. In the USA, Yes had ten or eleven singles released in the 1970s and ALL of them FAILED to chart on Billboard's chart -- In the meanwhile, Disco Duck hit Number 1 in 1976

There is a LOT a good new music out there.....Ya just have to look for it

[trurl]

You can't really make a case to me that classical music has not benefited from digital technology. I have a Levine/BSO Rites of Spring from the 90s that is insane. It is like being in the concert hall. The bass drum flattens you. Air moves. No analog recording I know of could begin to compare in terms of sound (and I like the performance too!) It is not a case of any "digital makes it too clear to be realistic" bullshit. The experience of being in the concert hall is replicated which, for me, is the goal of the classical symphonic recording. There is no way to argue that analog is warmer, better, that the compression of it is nice- any of that, without admitting you want a sound that deviates from the objective reality of the performance. Analog does not replicate the experience with the degree of fidelity that digital can with the possible exception of some late period recordings done with the help of DBX or Dolby-SR. Anyone that likes the older recording are free to, absolutely, for a number of aesthetic reasons, but they are liking a distortion.