Old Prog Vs New Prog: Which was better recorded?

[Skullhead]

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

I think Aja would have sounded better if it had more of a live feel, a bit more improv feel to it.. less calculated, more open and communicative. The songs are wonderful, it just feels very contrived. I'm a big SD fan, but I think Royal Scam had more of a natural feel to it that makes me connect more to those guys.

[Skullhead]

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.

The case I make with classical music is that I only go to see it performed live. I think any recordings belittle the experience too much for me. It's all acoustic and the room it is performed in is HUGELY IMPORTANT. Speakers and my living room trivialize the music, the composers and the intention.

If I am there only to study etc.... then listening to recorded music of it is ok... but for educational purposes only... not for the pleasure of listening.

[Scrotum Scissor]

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

Udi, I would say Unrest by Henry Cow. Pieces like "Ruins" or "Half Asleep; Half Awake" were without question some of the most overtly intricate music ever recorded by a 'rock' group up til' then, but they pull it off beautifully - especially the sonic juxtapositions of a highly challenging intrumentation (bassoon, xylophone, double-channelled guitar, viola, electronic organ effects etc.) in a formalist compositional programme that also included half-speeding and ad-hoc multi-tracking. Cutler's drum sound - and the snare in particular - comes out of this world, helped by the guy's otherworldly technique (which is incredibly well demonstrated here), and Greaves' bass under those lines in the closing section. They even make the piano sound warm and hollow sans artificial reverb. This is masterful in 1974, IMO. Which other band would even consider to dare composing in timbral tonality?

[Leibowitz]

This is a great question. If we're only talking about the actual recording and not mixing, editing, mastering, etc., I think today there is more opportunity to do it better. I kind of like the idea of recording the basic track live in the studio with a band..and then overdubs, etc. It's not too common these days, but I feel it made for a better sound. All the same mics and equipment are still available, if an artist/band decides to go that route.

[dnieper]

Here's something else: In the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, there were usually big hurdles a group had to pass just to make it into a recording studio. And once they passed them, they had access not only to the recording equipment, but also (usually) knowledgeable engineers, producers, assistant engineers, session musicians, musical equipment, etc. And, in 1970's London at least, the ability to attract musicians like David Gilmour, Phil Collins, Justin Hayward, and Steve Howe, who were often just floating around, waiting to join bands. So when we talk about the music that remains from that era, we're only talking about the cream of the crop, which benefitted from many factors other than the analog recording gear.

[pmrviana]

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

A few classics off the top of my head:

Supertramp - Crime of the Century
Alan Parsons Project - I Robot
Bruford - One of a Kind
Gong - You
Yes - Fragile, Close to the Edge, Drama, 90125
The Art Bears - The World as it is Today
Frank Zappa - The Grand Wazoo
Fred Frith - Gravity

For more recent stuff, the latest by Bjork (Vulnicura) is just incredible soundwise.

I also love what you did on the Ahvak album. Very creative use of different ambience effects there, and as a whole the album sounds really, really great. Definitelly one of my favourites from the last decade.

[pmrviana]

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.

Better is always subjective, but at least with digital you can guarantee that it will sound THE SAME. It is a common misconception to think that digital sampling will produce only an approximation of the original sound. This is absolutely not how it works, but it is understandable that people would think that way. Common sense dictates that when you sample something, you are taking only parts of it, so where is the rest? Something must be missing, right? But, as is often the case with Mathematics and Physics, common sense can be misleading. It is mathematically proven that when you reconstruct the analog signal from the digital samples, you will always get exactly the same wave as was originally recorded, given that certain pre-conditions are met. The main condition is that the original signal must be band-limited. In practice this means that your sampling rate has to be at least double of the highest frequency you want to reproduce. If you set your sampling rate according to that rule, you can record whatever signal you want, and it can be abslutely guaranteed that you will not lose any information from the original sound wave.

The other main factor is the bit-depth, which will generate a background noise, more or less equivalent to tape hiss. But even at 16-bit, this noise level is already orders of magnitude lower than the best magnectic tapes. And there is also a process called dithering, which will not only make this noise even less noticeable, but will also allow you to reproduce information that falls between the bits (1/4 of a bit for example).

Here's a great video for those who want to understand more about how digital audio really works (includes the best demonstration of dithering I have even seen).

[trurl]

Geeze, next thing you'll be telling me the Earth is round.

[pmrviana]

Geeze, next thing you'll be telling me the Earth is round.

But.... wasn't that just another myth?

[Firth]

Better is always subjective, but at least with digital you can guarantee that it will sound THE SAME. It is a common misconception to think that digital sampling will produce only an approximation of the original sound. This is absolutely not how it works, but it is understandable that people would think that way. Common sense dictates that when you sample something, you are taking only parts of it, so where is the rest? Something must be missing, right? But, as is often the case with Mathematics and Physics, common sense can be misleading. It is mathematically proven that when you reconstruct the analog signal from the digital samples, you will always get exactly the same wave as was originally recorded, given that certain pre-conditions are met. The main condition is that the original signal must be band-limited. In practice this means that your sampling rate has to be at least double of the highest frequency you want to reproduce. If you set your sampling rate according to that rule, you can record whatever signal you want, and it can be abslutely guaranteed that you will not lose any information from the original sound wave.

The other main factor is the bit-depth, which will generate a background noise, more or less equivalent to tape hiss. But even at 16-bit, this noise level is already orders of magnitude lower than the best magnectic tapes. And there is also a process called dithering, which will not only make this noise even less noticeable, but will also allow you to reproduce information that falls between the bits (1/4 of a bit for example).

Here's a great video for those who want to understand more about how digital audio really works (includes the best demonstration of dithering I have even seen).

Until the cones in your speaker de-laminate. Which will happen. Transducers are the weak link in audio.

[Firth]

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.

Ian Anderson was talking about how stereo mixes from the late 60's and early 70's were essentially dual mono, with exaggerated separation. Console stereos had close together speakers and cartridges didn't have that great of a separation. So take one of these mixes to digital with perfect separation and AV systems with significant speaker separation, and you have something which inherently sounds unnatural. So does digital sound "bad" or did an engineer attempt to compensate for analog's faults in the past, and not uncompensate for the perfection in digital in the present. Are some engineers today stuck in the past, and yet don't understand how shitty digital is at non-linear effects such as compression?

[No Pride]

I think Aja would have sounded better if it had more of a live feel, a bit more improv feel to it.. less calculated, more open and communicative. The songs are wonderful, it just feels very contrived. I'm a big SD fan, but I think Royal Scam had more of a natural feel to it that makes me connect more to those guys.

The Royal Scam is my favorite SD album and though I agree that Aja is a little more sterile sounding, who are we to tell Fagen and Becker (or any artist for that matter) how they should've recorded their own music?! They had a very specific vision of what they produced and what you're hearing is as close to what they perceived as "perfection" as they could get. Many music artists (myself included, if I may be so bold as to consider myself an "artist") consider recordings and live performances to be separate entities, each with their advantages and disadvantages. I was pleasantly surprised to learn how much looser Steely Dan is in concert; they actually let their musicians improvise their own solos instead of rehashing what was played on the albums; something that's pretty rare in the pop realm.

[bob_32_116]

It is mathematically proven that when you reconstruct the analog signal from the digital samples, you will always get exactly the same wave as was originally recorded, given that certain pre-conditions are met. The main condition is that the original signal must be band-limited. In practice this means that your sampling rate has to be at least double of the highest frequency you want to reproduce. If you set your sampling rate according to that rule, you can record whatever signal you want, and it can be abslutely guaranteed that you will not lose any information from the original sound wave.

This is true. BUT - isn't it the case that wave components whose frequency is higher than the highest human audible tone can nevertheless modulate the the sound in a manner that CAN be discerned by the ear? Namely, in the timbre of the sound? I am not arguing analogue recording over digital, just plaing the devil's advocate here.

Also, does anyone here have a digital copy of Sgt Pepper, and tested whether their dog can hear the ultrasonic tone at the end? That would be the acid test.

[Skullhead]

Udi, I would say Unrest by Henry Cow. Pieces like "Ruins" or "Half Asleep; Half Awake" were without question some of the most overtly intricate music ever recorded by a 'rock' group up til' then, but they pull it off beautifully - especially the sonic juxtapositions of a highly challenging intrumentation (bassoon, xylophone, double-channelled guitar, viola, electronic organ effects etc.) in a formalist compositional programme that also included half-speeding and ad-hoc multi-tracking. Cutler's drum sound - and the snare in particular - comes out of this world, helped by the guy's otherworldly technique (which is incredibly well demonstrated here), and Greaves' bass under those lines in the closing section. They even make the piano sound warm and hollow sans artificial reverb. This is masterful in 1974, IMO. Which other band would even consider to dare composing in timbral tonality?

Thanks for posting that.. the younger gen here would be doing themselves a big favor to listen to that 100 times rather than all the over processed garbage going around. Real musicians the "Cow clan" and don't forget those Art Bears records either.

[trurl]

This is true. BUT - isn't it the case that wave components whose frequency is higher than the highest human audible tone can nevertheless modulate the the sound in a manner that CAN be discerned by the ear? Namely, in the timbre of the sound? I am not arguing analogue recording over digital, just plaing the devil's advocate here.

Also, does anyone here have a digital copy of Sgt Pepper, and tested whether their dog can hear the ultrasonic tone at the end? That would be the acid test.

Any supersonic frequencies would have never been recorded. Standard mics can't record them, tape heads don't record them, cutting lathes don't cut them, and more than likely your speakers can't reproduce them either. They'd be filtered out as extraneous and useless assuming they could ever even have been recorded in a pre-digital age under normal circumstances (obviously specialized equipment designed for that purpose did exist.)

I would like to see if anyone with an analyzer that picks up supersonic frequencies can find any evidence of such frequencies in any program material available today

[Skullhead]

Here's something else: In the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, there were usually big hurdles a group had to pass just to make it into a recording studio. And once they passed them, they had access not only to the recording equipment, but also (usually) knowledgeable engineers, producers, assistant engineers, session musicians, musical equipment, etc. And, in 1970's London at least, the ability to attract musicians like David Gilmour, Phil Collins, Justin Hayward, and Steve Howe, who were often just floating around, waiting to join bands. So when we talk about the music that remains from that era, we're only talking about the cream of the crop, which benefitted from many factors other than the analog recording gear.

But it's all completely interrelated. The music sounded better in the analog era, in that it connected with listeners on a deeper more natural level. They didn't just listen to music on their iphone. There was a scene because musicians had a chance to enjoy some success... there was real motivation there... and all the engineers, producers, tape machine techs.. it was all there to support and they did well because things were based upon quality not convenience. Musicians, particularly drummers had to be good to get work because there were no drum machines etc... and no digital manipulation that everyone is using today to pretend they were as good as the players of the past. Great musicians are going to hang around a real scene. Now they hang around online groups etc. Not the same, and the product is not as good.

[pmrviana]

This is true. BUT - isn't it the case that wave components whose frequency is higher than the highest human audible tone can nevertheless modulate the the sound in a manner that CAN be discerned by the ear? Namely, in the timbre of the sound? I am not arguing analogue recording over digital, just plaing the devil's advocate here.

Also, does anyone here have a digital copy of Sgt Pepper, and tested whether their dog can hear the ultrasonic tone at the end? That would be the acid test.

That is debatable, and I've never seen any conclusive study about that. In any case, if you think higher frequencies will affect the sound quality in the audible range, all you have to do is increase your sampling rate to include those frequencies. There is no inherent limitation in digital audio that prevents you from doing that. But of course, in practical terms you have to get what is available from the market, and CD audio is limited at 20 KHz. That's why some people prefer higher resolution formats like DVD-A, or SACD. For me personally, I can hear some difference between 16-bit and 24-bit, but not from higher sample rates. Anything higher than 44.1 KHz is a waste of space for me.

Regarding this ultrasonic sound at the end of Sgt. Peppers, I had never heard about that before, but I'd assume it would not be audible on CD, if it's higher than 20 KHz. If it's less than that, it should be there.

[Skullhead]

The Royal Scam is my favorite SD album and though I agree that Aja is a little more sterile sounding, who are we to tell Fagen and Becker (or any artist for that matter) how they should've recorded their own music?! They had a very specific vision of what they produced and what you're hearing is as close to what they perceived as "perfection" as they could get. Many music artists (myself included, if I may be so bold as to consider myself an "artist") consider recordings and live performances to be separate entities, each with their advantages and disadvantages. I was pleasantly surprised to learn how much looser Steely Dan is in concert; they actually let their musicians improvise their own solos instead of rehashing what was played on the albums; something that's pretty rare in the pop realm.

Excellent point, and exactly why I won't be remixed or remastered albums. Get it right the first time.. and live with the results.

[dnieper]

But it's all completely interrelated. The music sounded better in the analog era, in that it connected with listeners on a deeper more natural level. They didn't just listen to music on their iphone. There was a scene because musicians had a chance to enjoy some success... there was real motivation there... and all the engineers, producers, tape machine techs.. it was all there to support and they did well because things were based upon quality not convenience. Musicians, particularly drummers had to be good to get work because there were no drum machines etc... and no digital manipulation that everyone is using today to pretend they were as good as the players of the past. Great musicians are going to hang around a real scene. Now they hang around online groups etc. Not the same, and the product is not as good.

I would argue that good listeners should be able to tell when a musician is just over-using technology to compensate for their deficiencies.

I would also argue that when listeners are cynical Luddites about musical technology and new music in general, it makes the situation worse, not better.

[trurl]

This is about ego, isn't it. I serve my muse. To me the musical ends justify the means. In one person's world (cough) world the Beatles should not have existed beyond their period as a live band. Revolver, Sgt Pepper and subsequent albums are a lie created with the technology of the time. They used what means they had to to get music into the world. They were good players but they used studio tricks, the talents of other musicians and any technique they could to realize something greater than themselves. It was not about themselves as performers any more. This is also the technique I employed on my solo album. It was specifically done to create a virtual group of musicians that were better than me- by myself. It is specifically about using technology to make music I couldn't do on my own. Our dissenter, bless him, is not about composition. His ego is about his playing and he must draw people to himself to see it there and then, and bathe in his glow as a player, and be dismayed. And I'm ok with that. I know that even though I'm a decent player there is always someone better. The way of the gunslinger brings me no peace. I'd rather just write my music, and hear it. What happens after I don't care much about. Sometimes, other people hear them and enjoy them, and that's nice. I think the world benefits when that happens. My recordings are my legacy. Some are good, some are really pretty bad but I own them.

[klothos]

This is about ego, isn't it. I serve my muse. To me the musical ends justify the means. In one person's world (cough) world the Beatles should not have existed beyond their period as a live band. Revolver, Sgt Pepper and subsequent albums are a lie created with the technology of the time. They used what means they had to to get music into the world. They were good players but they used studio tricks, the talents of other musicians and any technique they could to realize something greater than themselves. It was not about themselves as performers any more. This is also the technique I employed on my solo album. It was specifically done to create a virtual group of musicians that were better than me- by myself. It is specifically about using technology to make music I couldn't do on my own.

+100000000000 Excellent Post

Our dissenter, bless him, is not about composition. His ego is about his playing and he must draw people to himself to see it there and then, and bathe in his glow as a player, and be dismayed. And I'm ok with that. I know that even though I'm a decent player there is always someone better. The way of the gunslinger brings me no peace. I'd rather just write my music, and hear it. What happens after I don't care much about. Sometimes, other people hear them and enjoy them, and that's nice. I think the world benefits when that happens. My recordings are my legacy. Some are good, some are really pretty bad but I own them.

Exactly!!


Also, to quote myself from earlier: There are TONS of virtuoso musicians and true players in every style of music. Most of these guys just play for the song -- keeping things simple, supporting the vox/melody, and just doing what the song calls for -- This in no way implies that a musician isnt capable of playing their asses off or writing complex pieces. They don't have a want or need to write that way nor do they feel a need to play their entire bag of tricks in a Prog band, jazz, or other type of group. That - to them - can seem self-indulgent.

[Phlakaton]

I'm pretty sure Morgan Agren recorded most of Batterie Deluxe in his little studio with pro tools with his own badass tweezin' skills... and damn if that record doesnt sound amazing to me. Pretty sure it was all digital... sure a lot of it is very electronic in nature - but the drums! Wow.

[trurl]

^^^^^^^
Morgan also was instrumental in helping Toonrack develop their Drumkit From Hell and later DFH Superior software and did some projects using an electronic kit triggering his own acoustic drum samples. Don't know if that was one though. If he did it in his project studio it might well be...

[Geoff O'Donoghue]

I would argue that good listeners should be able to tell when a musician is just over-using technology to compensate for their deficiencies.

I would also argue that when listeners are cynical Luddites about musical technology and new music in general, it makes the situation worse, not better.

^ Amen!

[chalkpie]

The case I make with classical music is that I only go to see it performed live. I think any recordings belittle the experience too much for me. It's all acoustic and the room it is performed in is HUGELY IMPORTANT. Speakers and my living room trivialize the music, the composers and the intention.

If I am there only to study etc.... then listening to recorded music of it is ok... but for educational purposes only... not for the pleasure of listening.

Ummmm....really dude? That is pretty flat-out strange. Ever heard the Mahler 9 recording with Michael Tilson Thomas/San Fran Symphony? The CD is outrageous, and I cannot imagine what the SACD layer sounds like. To live life loving classical music but refusing to listen to it because it is a recording sounds like a depressing existence to me. Life's too short brother - the composers intentions are there in spades if you open your heart and mind. IMO.