Luna, you are correct, they often remix the remastered cd's. Still, I have any number of cd's that replicate what I hear with analog, ie. strange imaging.
I also simplified what can happen in the studio during mixing. It is not only mixing boards, but miking techniques, the mikes used, the recording space, limiters, faders, equalizers, compressors, etc., all can affect imaging as well. The amount of tools they have is almost unlimited, its no wonder there is almost infinte possibilities in reproduction of soundstaging/imaging.
As Dan ed alluded to, there are some who don't prioritize imaging on the sonic palette, Art Dudley of Stereophile being perhaps the best known. There is no doubt a system with good imaging can make some of these anomalies more difficult to listen to. As for myself, I don't prioritize imaging, but I find it critical to reproducing a more live experience in the home, three dimensional images (holographic) can be a thrill. One's system can excell in all sonic parameters if one is willing to work for it, I don't want to deny myself anything in the sonic palette. It sounds like your system does imaging pretty well, enjoy it for what it is.
As for the differences between digital and analog. You should be hearing more of these anomalies with your digital setup. Digital has more inherent seperation, which should exasperate sounstaging cues, on the other hand, analog often has a larger soundstage which tends to have the same effect. I would suggest your digital is homogenizing imaging, shrinking the soundstage to the point where everything sounds more centered.
One more issue in the recording chain I almost neglected, and perhaps the most critical of all. In monitoring the playback in the recording studio, the systems they use likely don't image or soundstage anything like our home systems. Look inside many recording studios, and they have speakers tacked to the wall, they haven't a clue as to what we're going to hear at home!
I also simplified what can happen in the studio during mixing. It is not only mixing boards, but miking techniques, the mikes used, the recording space, limiters, faders, equalizers, compressors, etc., all can affect imaging as well. The amount of tools they have is almost unlimited, its no wonder there is almost infinte possibilities in reproduction of soundstaging/imaging.
As Dan ed alluded to, there are some who don't prioritize imaging on the sonic palette, Art Dudley of Stereophile being perhaps the best known. There is no doubt a system with good imaging can make some of these anomalies more difficult to listen to. As for myself, I don't prioritize imaging, but I find it critical to reproducing a more live experience in the home, three dimensional images (holographic) can be a thrill. One's system can excell in all sonic parameters if one is willing to work for it, I don't want to deny myself anything in the sonic palette. It sounds like your system does imaging pretty well, enjoy it for what it is.
As for the differences between digital and analog. You should be hearing more of these anomalies with your digital setup. Digital has more inherent seperation, which should exasperate sounstaging cues, on the other hand, analog often has a larger soundstage which tends to have the same effect. I would suggest your digital is homogenizing imaging, shrinking the soundstage to the point where everything sounds more centered.
One more issue in the recording chain I almost neglected, and perhaps the most critical of all. In monitoring the playback in the recording studio, the systems they use likely don't image or soundstage anything like our home systems. Look inside many recording studios, and they have speakers tacked to the wall, they haven't a clue as to what we're going to hear at home!