A comment on the idea that perception of sound is an emergent property
and not reducible to perception of test tones or snippets.

As a composer, I've discovered that my brain can sense a pattern before
I consciously understand that pattern. It might be that I enjoy some
music, then go to analyze it and find some simple underlying pattern.
I'm also playing algorithmic music right now, in which I creates music
based on mathematical patterns, not sure what it is going to sound
like, and sometime upon hearing it, I sense clear theme and unity,
although there is nothing concrete to point to.

Take rhythm. If you tested people on their ability to detect regular
and irregular rhythm... let's say we beat a drum on quarter notes, and
each beat could be a little off (a little early or late). We do an
experiment to measure the limits of what people can detect. Say, it has
to be 10 ms off before they can detect an irregularity.

Now have a drummer play music on that drum. Have him shade and inflect
the music by the way he plays, including slight timing variation.

Now the timing various will *not be heard as timing variation*, it will
be heard as *musical expression*

The experience of musicians strongly suggests that first experiment
doesn't have much of a relation to the second, and very likely, the
listener would be sensitive to details which are actually smaller than
10 ms.

To summarize: there are many ways we become aware of a pattern out in
the world, and not always through direct conscious apprehension. It
stands to reason that the limits on perception would be dependent on
the situation.

I think this idea could use some rigorous investigation, and it seems
that nothing like this as been done before. There appear to be no
experiments about the ear's performance which attempt to use subject as
a whole person. Or if there are any, I'd like to know about them.

Mike

In article ,
wrote:

A comment on the idea that perception of sound is an emergent property
and not reducible to perception of test tones or snippets.

As a composer, I've discovered that my brain can sense a pattern before
I consciously understand that pattern. It might be that I enjoy some
music, then go to analyze it and find some simple underlying pattern.
I'm also playing algorithmic music right now, in which I creates music
based on mathematical patterns, not sure what it is going to sound
like, and sometime upon hearing it, I sense clear theme and unity,
although there is nothing concrete to point to.

Take rhythm. If you tested people on their ability to detect regular
and irregular rhythm... let's say we beat a drum on quarter notes, and
each beat could be a little off (a little early or late). We do an
experiment to measure the limits of what people can detect. Say, it has
to be 10 ms off before they can detect an irregularity.

Now have a drummer play music on that drum. Have him shade and inflect
the music by the way he plays, including slight timing variation.

Now the timing various will *not be heard as timing variation*, it will
be heard as *musical expression*

The experience of musicians strongly suggests that first experiment
doesn't have much of a relation to the second, and very likely, the
listener would be sensitive to details which are actually smaller than
10 ms.

To summarize: there are many ways we become aware of a pattern out in
the world, and not always through direct conscious apprehension. It
stands to reason that the limits on perception would be dependent on
the situation.

I think this idea could use some rigorous investigation, and it seems
that nothing like this as been done before. There appear to be no
experiments about the ear's performance which attempt to use subject as
a whole person. Or if there are any, I'd like to know about them.

Mike

Mike, you once again bring up highly interesting points. May I point
you to a scholarly journal that I'm just starting to get into: The
Journal of Music Perception http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/mp/
I read it at a university library. Very interesting stuff, in my view.

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

A comment on the idea that perception of sound is an emergent property
and not reducible to perception of test tones or snippets.

As a composer, I've discovered that my brain can sense a pattern before
I consciously understand that pattern. It might be that I enjoy some
music, then go to analyze it and find some simple underlying pattern.
I'm also playing algorithmic music right now, in which I creates music
based on mathematical patterns, not sure what it is going to sound
like, and sometime upon hearing it, I sense clear theme and unity,
although there is nothing concrete to point to.

Take rhythm. If you tested people on their ability to detect regular
and irregular rhythm... let's say we beat a drum on quarter notes, and
each beat could be a little off (a little early or late). We do an
experiment to measure the limits of what people can detect. Say, it has
to be 10 ms off before they can detect an irregularity.

Now have a drummer play music on that drum. Have him shade and inflect
the music by the way he plays, including slight timing variation.

Now the timing various will *not be heard as timing variation*, it will
be heard as *musical expression*

The experience of musicians strongly suggests that first experiment
doesn't have much of a relation to the second, and very likely, the
listener would be sensitive to details which are actually smaller than
10 ms.

To summarize: there are many ways we become aware of a pattern out in
the world, and not always through direct conscious apprehension. It
stands to reason that the limits on perception would be dependent on
the situation.

I think this idea could use some rigorous investigation, and it seems
that nothing like this as been done before. There appear to be no
experiments about the ear's performance which attempt to use subject as
a whole person. Or if there are any, I'd like to know about them.

Mike

Mike, you once again bring up highly interesting points. May I point
you to a scholarly journal that I'm just starting to get into: The
Journal of Music Perception http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/mp/
I read it at a university library. Very interesting stuff, in my view.

Thanks for the pointer.

By the way, I wrote that post in the middle of the night when I
couldn't sleep but had just taken a sleeping pill. I was somewhat
horrified to see the grammatical and spelling errors when I looked at
it again this morning.

In any case, to summarize:

It's my assertion that the performance of the ear/brain system cannot
be usefully gauged in a bottom-up, piecemeal fashion that ignores what
we know about the perception of music as a whole. I will look at this
journal. I can bet you right now that almost every article in this
journal will imply a model of the ear/brain system, from which
listening protocols could be suggested. Quick-switch testing operates
in ignorance of these models.

Mike

wrote:

Take rhythm. If you tested people on their ability to detect regular
and irregular rhythm... let's say we beat a drum on quarter notes, and
each beat could be a little off (a little early or late). We do an
experiment to measure the limits of what people can detect. Say, it has
to be 10 ms off before they can detect an irregularity.

Now have a drummer play music on that drum. Have him shade and inflect
the music by the way he plays, including slight timing variation.

Now the timing various will *not be heard as timing variation*, it will
be heard as *musical expression*

The experience of musicians strongly suggests that first experiment
doesn't have much of a relation to the second


Whoa, time out. I'm afraid I must disagree vociferously with your
conclusions.

Some musicians are more sensetive to timing variations than others.
Regardless of how much nuance -- shading, inflection, musical
expression [sic] -- the drummer puts on a pattern, some listeners will
hear those timing variations and be able to identify them as such. Some
sensetive (and experienced) musicians will even be able to point out
that shading, inflection et al are being achieved *via* timing
variations.

Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:

Take rhythm. If you tested people on their ability to detect regular
and irregular rhythm... let's say we beat a drum on quarter notes, and
each beat could be a little off (a little early or late). We do an
experiment to measure the limits of what people can detect. Say, it has
to be 10 ms off before they can detect an irregularity.

Now have a drummer play music on that drum. Have him shade and inflect
the music by the way he plays, including slight timing variation.

Now the timing various will *not be heard as timing variation*, it will
be heard as *musical expression*

The experience of musicians strongly suggests that first experiment
doesn't have much of a relation to the second


Whoa, time out. I'm afraid I must disagree vociferously with your
conclusions.

Some musicians are more sensetive to timing variations than others.
Regardless of how much nuance -- shading, inflection, musical
expression [sic] -- the drummer puts on a pattern, some listeners will
hear those timing variations and be able to identify them as such. Some
sensetive (and experienced) musicians will even be able to point out
that shading, inflection et al are being achieved *via* timing
variations.

The point of my post was not to strictly categorize and
compartmentalize listening experiences. You rightly point out that
there is a whole spectrum of listening intentions. The point is that
there is no reason to suppose that the limit of human sensitivity from
one situation applies to another situation.

Mike

"There appear to be no experiments about the ear's performance which
attempt to use subject as
a whole person. Or if there are any, I'd like to know about them."
--Michaelmos

I'm an amateur musician (classical guitar; formerly piano and
harpsichord also) who attends lots of classical, unamplified, concerts
and recitals.

For many years (I'm also 65 years old...), I enjoyed listening to LP's
on my stereo system which has generally been decent and remains so.
When CD's were introduced, I embraced them but soon was noticing that
my listening enjoyment had markedly declined. Eventually it reached
the point that I hardly listened to recorded music any more. These
days, when I do listen to CD's, I have to stop after an hour or so
because I'm feeling so uncomfortable--with a feeling akin to growing
anxiety. I also have always noticed, except on a very few CD's, a
harshness in the sound, mainly when listening with speakers, but also
to a lesser extent with headphone use.

During these post-CD years, my collection of approx. 800 LP's, mainly
classical with some jazz and other genres, had literally gathered dust.
There have been whole years in which I probably did not listen to one
LP.

Recently I decided to give my LP's another go, and behold: I can listen
for hours, with either speakers or headphones, and experience something
close to what I experience when I hear my own live music, or the music
at an (unamplified) concert.

I realize that there's a longstanding a fiercely partisan debate about
the relative accuracy or authenticity of digital versus analog sound.
I can report that analog sound, for me as one accustomed to hearing
live unamplified music virtually daily, is closer to the living
experience than digital reproduction, and that analog sound does not
create uneasiness in me, while digital reproduction on similar-level
equipment, does.

I hope this doesn't sound off-topic; I think it's germane to this
thread because nobody has succeeded yet in demonstrating why people
react differently to different modes of sound reproduction. I believe
this is truly a case where there needs to be consideration of "the
ear's performance" with regard to "the subject as a whole person."

jonrkc wrote:
"There appear to be no experiments about the ear's performance which
attempt to use subject as
a whole person. Or if there are any, I'd like to know about them."
--Michaelmos

I'm an amateur musician (classical guitar; formerly piano and
harpsichord also) who attends lots of classical, unamplified, concerts
and recitals.

For many years (I'm also 65 years old...), I enjoyed listening to LP's
on my stereo system which has generally been decent and remains so.
When CD's were introduced, I embraced them but soon was noticing that
my listening enjoyment had markedly declined. Eventually it reached
the point that I hardly listened to recorded music any more. These
days, when I do listen to CD's, I have to stop after an hour or so
because I'm feeling so uncomfortable--with a feeling akin to growing
anxiety. I also have always noticed, except on a very few CD's, a
harshness in the sound, mainly when listening with speakers, but also
to a lesser extent with headphone use.

During these post-CD years, my collection of approx. 800 LP's, mainly
classical with some jazz and other genres, had literally gathered dust.
There have been whole years in which I probably did not listen to one
LP.

Recently I decided to give my LP's another go, and behold: I can listen
for hours, with either speakers or headphones, and experience something
close to what I experience when I hear my own live music, or the music
at an (unamplified) concert.

I realize that there's a longstanding a fiercely partisan debate about
the relative accuracy or authenticity of digital versus analog sound.
I can report that analog sound, for me as one accustomed to hearing
live unamplified music virtually daily, is closer to the living
experience than digital reproduction, and that analog sound does not
create uneasiness in me, while digital reproduction on similar-level
equipment, does.

I agree with you that it is closer to the living experience. I think
the most rational explanation for this is that it better conveys the
patterns on which we base our experience of music (whatever patterns
correspond to "grooviness" or "sadness" or so on). Could it be the
distortion inherent to analog that makes it more lifelike? I doubt it,
since life is itself a huge variety of "colors" which weave themselves
into complex patterns.. it's hard to see how imposing a single
coloration on life would make it more lifelike. In fact, in my
experience the distortions inherent to analog tape or vinyl TAKE AWAY
from the lifelikeness.. but it is so much better to begin with that it
ends up better anyway.

Mike

Or, allow me to offer a completely different theory, one which has
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the "sound" of the media:

The reason listening to LPs for hours on end is more "engaging" is
because, unless you have some ancient BSR record changer, you've got to
PARTICIPATE in the act. You have to get up and go flip the record every
15-20 minutes. There's not nearly enough time for you to get comfy
and/or relaxed and/or bored and/or antsy etc. Your attention *has* to
be focussed on the music or else it'll end and then you'll find
yourself listening to "sccrrritchhh, sccrrritchhh, sccrrritchhh,
sccrrritchhh..."

I've often advocated a 40 minute maximum per CD, with 10-15 seconds of
silence after the 20 minute mark. I think the *pacing* of an LP is
(through sheer coincidence) physiologically ideal, and the urge to cram
more and more music onto a single CD just defeats the goal of inviting
the listener in to a concise sound world...regardless of what that
world sounds like.

Don't know how much it matters. But I do agree your idea has something
to do with it. 20 minute sides were just about perfect.

Tom Petty on "Full Moon Fever" did record a 40'ish minute CD.
Halfway through it, he put in some swishing noise, and announced
in deference to people with cassette/LP we would allow time for
other people to flip the tape or turnover the LP. Then continued
with the second half of his CD.

I also find I sometimes skip just enough music so I end up with
30-40 minute sessions per CD. Guess if I could program in a pause,
that I would have to re-activate would be even better.

Dennis


"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
...
Or, allow me to offer a completely different theory, one which has
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the "sound" of the media:

The reason listening to LPs for hours on end is more "engaging" is
because, unless you have some ancient BSR record changer, you've got to
PARTICIPATE in the act. You have to get up and go flip the record every
15-20 minutes. There's not nearly enough time for you to get comfy
and/or relaxed and/or bored and/or antsy etc. Your attention *has* to
be focussed on the music or else it'll end and then you'll find
yourself listening to "sccrrritchhh, sccrrritchhh, sccrrritchhh,
sccrrritchhh..."

I've often advocated a 40 minute maximum per CD, with 10-15 seconds of
silence after the 20 minute mark. I think the *pacing* of an LP is
(through sheer coincidence) physiologically ideal, and the urge to cram
more and more music onto a single CD just defeats the goal of inviting
the listener in to a concise sound world...regardless of what that
world sounds like.

An observation, and a pet theory that's nagged at me for a long time:

1. A black-and-white photo (or movie) often conveys stronger emotion
than a color photo or movie. (Remember film buffs' outcry against
"Colorizing" b&w movies?) The absence of color focuses the viewer's
mind more forcefully on pattern and emotion than a color version could.

2. I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable. But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling? The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

In any pleasurable pursuit, humans seek variety as antidote to boredom
and burnout. Why should it be different for listening to music? I
suggest that the tedious regularity of digital recording and
reproduction may in fact be subconsciously perceived and contribute to,
if not cause, the sense of uneasiness and eventual fatigue experienced
by many listeners, in particular musicians.

The notion of a 40-minute time limit is apt. Almost never does one
experience music for even that long at a stretch at a concert--a
classical concert, anyway. Even most operas don't subject the listener
to paying attention for that long at a time. And I readily admit I've
been perturbed since the introduction of the CD by my inability to
participate actively in the "music-making," e. g. by cleaning records,
untangling cassette snarls, tweaking stylus overhang or anti-skating,
etc. It seems almost an insult for the "music" industry to tell me in
effect to put the CD in the player, shut up, and listen--till the
product disintegrates after a few years, that is, which has happened
with two or three of my CD's already, while my vinyl remains perfectly
playable after fifty years of sub-ideal storage.

I have many recordings on CD that I wish were on LP instead.

jonrkc wrote:
An observation, and a pet theory that's nagged at me for a long time:

1. A black-and-white photo (or movie) often conveys stronger emotion
than a color photo or movie. (Remember film buffs' outcry against
"Colorizing" b&w movies?) The absence of color focuses the viewer's
mind more forcefully on pattern and emotion than a color version could.

This is an interesting line of thought. I've thought about this,
too--for example, could a distortion somehow work to better convey the
emotion or intention of the musician?

There are several difficulties. One is that analog distortion acts more
to "color" than to strip color. A better question might be: can you
convey the emotion better by tinting a photograph red?

Well, yes, *for some photographs.* For others, red might be all wrong,
and green work better.

The difficulty is that analog distortion is the same mechanism
regardless of what type of music is playing, what mood it conveys, and
so on. And yet many musicians, who are intimately familiar with how the
"colors" of sound are layered to create a specific musical intention,
report that analog is superior in *all* or nearly all music.

The other problem is that if the question were how a distortion
*improves* the art (as opposed to making it more realistic), then a
reproduction might be favored over the live experience. Among the
population of experienced musicians that interests me, that simply
doesn't happen. Reproducing music *never* improves it.

However, if you want to keep discussing this.. the question of how
distortions create a subjective effect.. I'm very interested.


2. I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable. But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling? The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

In any pleasurable pursuit, humans seek variety as antidote to boredom
and burnout. Why should it be different for listening to music? I
suggest that the tedious regularity of digital recording and
reproduction may in fact be subconsciously perceived and contribute to,
if not cause, the sense of uneasiness and eventual fatigue experienced
by many listeners, in particular musicians.

I predict that you will get sternly lectured to about digital signal
theory. The only point I will make here is to suggest that life
never operates strictly within the bounds of our theories about it.

I think that analog more accurately reproduces certain patterns in the
music, for whatever reason. It sounds more like live because it *is*
more like live.



The notion of a 40-minute time limit is apt. Almost never does one
experience music for even that long at a stretch at a concert--a
classical concert, anyway. Even most operas don't subject the listener
to paying attention for that long at a time.

I just take a break from listening to CD whenever I need one. It hasn't
improved CD relative to analog.

And I readily admit I've
been perturbed since the introduction of the CD by my inability to
participate actively in the "music-making," e. g. by cleaning records,
untangling cassette snarls, tweaking stylus overhang or anti-skating,
etc. It seems almost an insult for the "music" industry to tell me in
effect to put the CD in the player, shut up, and listen--till the
product disintegrates after a few years, that is, which has happened
with two or three of my CD's already, while my vinyl remains perfectly
playable after fifty years of sub-ideal storage.

I have many recordings on CD that I wish were on LP instead.

Agreed.

Mike

jonrkc wrote:

I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable.

You are correct: that *is* scientifically untenable.


But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling? The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

If, for the sake of arguement, we try to go along with your
scientifically untenable theory, it breaks down right here. Claiming
that the "molecular structure of vinyl (imposes) an element of
randomness and variety lacking to digital media" conveniently ignores
the fact that ALL digital media has a molecular structure that is just
as "random" [sic] as that of vinyl.

I can understand how you might think the random distribution of
magnetic domains on a piece of audio tape might equate with a
non-regular sampling -- though, considering each magnetic particle is
approximately 0.5 micrometers & tape speed is anywhere from 2 to 30
ips, it doesn't take a whole lot of math to figure out that "sampling
rate" isn't anything to get too excited about -- but the molecular
thing doesn't fly. EVERYTHING is made of molecules!

jonrkc wrote:
2. I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable.

INdeed it is scientifically untenable, as first demonstrated by
Nyquist over 75 years ago and thoroughly demonstrated by
Shannon over a half century ago.

The *effective" sampling rate of ANY information channel is
effectively slightly over twice the bandwidth of that channel.

But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling? The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

The difference being that a random process generates artifacts
that are not correlated with the signal, and that is EXACTLY the
reason behind the dithering process. It, in fact, randomizes the
errors in the same fashion as the random processes in magnetic
tape, the major difference then being quantitative and no longer
qualitative., in the sense that the random errors are typically an
order of magnitude lower in current digital end-user delivery
systems as compared to the best current analog end-user delivery
systems.


In any pleasurable pursuit, humans seek variety as antidote to boredom
and burnout. Why should it be different for listening to music? I
suggest that the tedious regularity of digital recording and
reproduction may in fact be subconsciously perceived and contribute to,
if not cause, the sense of uneasiness and eventual fatigue experienced
by many listeners, in particular musicians.

The notion of a 40-minute time limit is apt. Almost never does one
experience music for even that long at a stretch at a concert--a
classical concert, anyway. Even most operas don't subject the listener
to paying attention for that long at a time. And I readily admit I've
been perturbed since the introduction of the CD by my inability to
participate actively in the "music-making," e. g. by cleaning records,
untangling cassette snarls, tweaking stylus overhang or anti-skating,
etc. It seems almost an insult for the "music" industry to tell me in
effect to put the CD in the player, shut up, and listen--till the
product disintegrates after a few years, that is, which has happened
with two or three of my CD's already, while my vinyl remains perfectly
playable after fifty years of sub-ideal storage.

I have many recordings on CD that I wish were on LP instead.

jonrkc wrote:
An observation, and a pet theory that's nagged at me for a long time:

1. A black-and-white photo (or movie) often conveys stronger emotion
than a color photo or movie. (Remember film buffs' outcry against
"Colorizing" b&w movies?) The absence of color focuses the viewer's
mind more forcefully on pattern and emotion than a color version could.

2. I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable. But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling? The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

As so often happens, you have valid analogies. Some engineers will
probably jump on you for not expressing these in their own language;
however, that is a very narrow view on their part. There's a lot about
analog which provides variation

- variation in cartridge alignment from beginning to end of the record

- wow and flutter

- signal-dependent distortion mechanisms and noise

It's an interesting theory that variation of any sort would make a
recording more musical. The basic problem is that live music has the
things we love about music the clearest of all; when distortion = 0,
the music is best. However, I value the kind of thinking you are
doing.. trying to make a direct correlation between forms of distortion
and aesthetic experience, rather than using "distortion can sound
pleasing" as a catch-all explanation for anything a listener reports.

Mike



In any pleasurable pursuit, humans seek variety as antidote to boredom
and burnout. Why should it be different for listening to music? I
suggest that the tedious regularity of digital recording and
reproduction may in fact be subconsciously perceived and contribute to,
if not cause, the sense of uneasiness and eventual fatigue experienced
by many listeners, in particular musicians.

The notion of a 40-minute time limit is apt. Almost never does one
experience music for even that long at a stretch at a concert--a
classical concert, anyway. Even most operas don't subject the listener
to paying attention for that long at a time. And I readily admit I've
been perturbed since the introduction of the CD by my inability to
participate actively in the "music-making," e. g. by cleaning records,
untangling cassette snarls, tweaking stylus overhang or anti-skating,
etc. It seems almost an insult for the "music" industry to tell me in
effect to put the CD in the player, shut up, and listen--till the
product disintegrates after a few years, that is, which has happened
with two or three of my CD's already, while my vinyl remains perfectly
playable after fifty years of sub-ideal storage.

I have many recordings on CD that I wish were on LP instead.

On 25 Jan 2006 00:25:06 GMT, "jonrkc"
wrote:

An observation, and a pet theory that's nagged at me for a long time:

1. A black-and-white photo (or movie) often conveys stronger emotion
than a color photo or movie. (Remember film buffs' outcry against
"Colorizing" b&w movies?) The absence of color focuses the viewer's
mind more forcefully on pattern and emotion than a color version could.

It's generally acknowledged that this impression has two sources:

1) Lighting cameramen really were better in those days.

2) We are accustomed to seeing gritty and emotional images in
monochrome via newspapers.

OTOH, check out the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan for an
opposing viewpoint on the emotional impact of colour images.

As for still photographs, it's regrettably true that there are very
few modern photographers whose work can hold a candle to the masters
of the monochrome era.

2. I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable. But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling?

No, it isn't.

The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

Absolute nonsense. Digital recording uses dither to achieve randomness
in its individual samples, the real difference is that this randomness
is achieved with *vastly* greater dynamic range than is possible with
any analogue medium.

I have many recordings on CD that I wish were on LP instead.

I have many analogue recordings which I would much prefer to have on
CD. I could then dispose of my turntable.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering