Large scale that really showcase acoustic soundstaging, depth, and space

[mtemur]

There is monophonic bass on most vinyl releases; @microstrip is right in my opinion , as well as @Al M., @DasguteOhr, and @Argonaut.

Most lacquers (though not all) are cut with summed bass frequencies below 90Hz or 100Hz. When I prepare digital masters for vinyl, I sum frequencies below 120Hz. This is done to ensure proper tracking, as bass panned to one channel makes it difficult for cartridges to track accurately. Additionally, this method doesn’t pose a problem because human hearing cannot detect directionality below 120Hz. However, while summing bass is a common practice in lacquer cutting, it is not mandatory. Many vinyl releases feature bass panned to one channel (i.e., stereophonic bass), early 50s and 60s records with ping pong stereo like Contemporary or Stereo labels.

I’m not sure of the exact frequency that cutting engineers like KG, BG, and RKS sum their bass at, but as far as I remember, KG mentioned cutting below 70Hz or sometimes even 40Hz -though I could be misremembering.

On the other hand, @Mike Lavigne is not wrong either in my opinion. He mentioned the realistic bass on vinyl, especially in direct-to-disc releases, and I agree with him. Summed or not, bass from vinyl sounds more realistic; the kick of the drum, the attack, and the decay of electric and double bass are better reproduced on vinyl, IMHO.

BTW, while it’s not mandatory, it is generally recommended to sum frequencies below 300Hz when cutting with direct metal mastering (VMS82).

 

[microstrip]

I agree with Mike; what in the world are you talking about?

Ron,
It is an old subject, in fact since vinyl became stereo. Due to vinyl resurgence it has been discussed ad nauseum in audio forums. It is so much well known that I will not spend time writing on it and just questioned ChatGPT for you
As expected, it is a general answer that does not cover exceptional cases.

Quote from CHatGPT - I could not get a complementary opinion from DeepSeek .

Vinyl bass is monophonic because of the physical limitations of vinyl records and the way stereo grooves are cut and played back. Here’s why:

1. Avoiding Groove Distortion and Skipping
Stereo records encode left and right channels in the groove walls (one side for each channel).
If deep bass were in stereo, it would cause large vertical groove movements, making the needle jump or even distort the groove.
2. Preventing Phase Cancellation
If low-frequency sounds are out of phase between left and right channels, the vertical movement of the stylus could cancel out, leading to weak or inconsistent bass playback.
Engineers sum bass to mono (centered) below a certain frequency (often ~150Hz) to ensure stable, even bass response.
3. Mastering Constraints
Vinyl mastering engineers use tools like elliptical EQs or bass summing processors to collapse bass to mono.
This ensures proper playback on all turntables and prevents stylus tracking issues.
4. Speaker and Acoustic Considerations
Most club sound systems use mono subwoofers, so stereo bass would be ineffective.
Human ears struggle to localize deep bass, so summing it to mono has little perceptual impact.
This is why records are mastered with monophonic bass—it's a practical and necessary adaptation to the physical format! ️

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you, Francisco, Argonaut and mtemur!

 

[Al M.]

There is monophonic bass on most vinyl releases; @microstrip is right, as well as @Al M., @DasguteOhr, and @Argonaut.

Most lacquers (though not all) are cut with summed bass frequencies below 90Hz or 100Hz. When I prepare digital masters for vinyl, I sum frequencies below 120Hz. This is done to ensure proper tracking, as bass panned to one channel makes it difficult for cartridges to track accurately. Additionally, this method doesn’t pose a problem because human hearing cannot detect directionality below 120Hz. However, while summing bass is a common practice in lacquer cutting, it is not mandatory. Many vinyl releases feature bass panned to one channel (i.e., stereophonic bass), early 50s and 60s records with ping pong stereo like Contemporary or Stereo labels.

I’m not sure of the exact frequency that cutting engineers like KG, BG, and RKS sum their bass at, but as far as I remember, KG mentioned cutting below 70Hz or sometimes even 40Hz -though I could be misremembering.

On the other hand, @Mike Lavigne is not wrong either. He mentioned the realistic bass on vinyl, especially in direct-to-disc releases, and I agree with him. Summed or not, bass from vinyl sounds more realistic; the kick of the drum, the attack, and the decay of electric and double bass are better reproduced on vinyl, IMHO.

BTW, while it’s not mandatory, it is generally recommended to sum frequencies below 300Hz when cutting with direct metal mastering (VMS82).

Great to have your confirmation. Yet actually, my post didn't say if vinyl is monophonic or not. It was only implying that if it is, it doesn't matter.

Technically, (most) vinyl bass is monophonic, vinyl has poorer channel crosstalk, vinyl has less dynamic range. True, but I always find it amusing when some digital enthusiasts are pressing those points, and some vinyl enthusiasts are becoming predictably defensive or are even in denial or try to explain away things ("you can listen below the noise floor" -- no, you can't). But guess what, all those "technical" points don't matter much, or even at all.

Vinyl can sound fantastic, and voraciously dynamic too.

Digital can sound fantastic as well.

How it sounds is all that matters.

 

[DasguteOhr]

Great to have your confirmation. Yet actually, my post didn't say if vinyl is monophonic or not. It was only implying that if it is, it doesn't matter.

Technically, (most) vinyl bass is monophonic, vinyl has poorer channel crosstalk, vinyl has less dynamic range. True, but I always find it amusing when some digital enthusiasts are pressing those points, and some vinyl enthusiasts are becoming predictably defensive or are even in denial or try to explain away things ("you can listen below the noise floor" -- no, you can't). But guess what, all those "technical" points don't matter much, or even at all.

Vinyl can sound fantastic, and voraciously dynamic too.

Digital can sound fantastic as well.

How it sounds is all that matters.

Most recordings have no more than 20 dB dynamic, more would be difficult to provide 100 times the power for a short time, which is where many amplifiers fail. Crosstalk plays a minor role, it is much more important that both channels of the cartridge have the same phase angle and output voltage, and how well the phono amp adheres to the specifications of the RIAA characteristic curve.

 

[microstrip]

Jut to re-focus, the OP was not addressing on format preference, just addressing large scale, acoustic sound staging, depth, and space in vinyl phono stages.

Is we accept, as many people do, that very low frequency stereo sound is very relevant in creating these feelings, finding adequate recordings to evaluate this aspect is critical. This should be considered because in many recordings, the vinyl signature due to its artifacts can add an artificial sense of added spaciousness and some phono stages can enhance it.

Never though about it before, but a possible way to evaluate a phono sound stage for these aspects staying in the analog domain could be feeding the preamplfieir from a tape machine through a reverse RIAA attenuating stage - I have used it to repair an old phono stages, but (anti-missile shield connected) connected to a CD player.

 

[microstrip]

In answer to the OP's question I nominate Reference Recordings' Symphony Fantastique.

And Francisco . . . ain't no bass on this recording that's monophonic!

Oops, I hope Peter is not reading this thread ...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

@tony22 said

>>>>>>I said ‘large scale’ to include possibilities other than symphonic classical. But I’m looking for (primarily acoustic) records that do a really great job at producing wide and deep soundstaging plus great image placement. I’m testing two phono stages and one criticism I’ve read for one of them is a claim that it may not do large scale soundstaging very well. Need good material for comparative purposes.<<<<<<

Jut to re-focus, the OP was not addressing on format preference, just large scale, acoustic sound staging, depth, and space in vinyl phono stages.

he absolutely was specifically wanting records to use to evaluate phono stages. i posted his original post above. he did not say direct to disc, or all analog, or particular era.

maybe you are referring to @tony22 's personal format preferences? not sure how that fits though.

 

[microstrip]

@tony22 said

>>>>>>I said ‘large scale’ to include possibilities other than symphonic classical. But I’m looking for (primarily acoustic) records that do a really great job at producing wide and deep soundstaging plus great image placement. I’m testing two phono stages and one criticism I’ve read for one of them is a claim that it may not do large scale soundstaging very well. Need good material for comparative purposes.<<<<<<

he absolutely was specifically wanting records to use to evaluate phono stages. i posted his original post above. he did not say direct to disc, or all analog, or particular era.

Surely - if he had not posted specifically for vinyl I would have recommended exactly what he wants in digital format.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Surely - if he had not posted specifically for vinyl I would have recommended exactly what he wants in digital format.

what did i not understand about your comment i responded to?

 

[microstrip]

what did i not understand about your comment i responded to?

Except in preference, as far I saw, your comments do not contradict anything I posted, what should I answer? I was not addressing preference.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Except in preference, as far I saw, your comments do not contradict anything I posted, what should I answer? I was not addressing preference.

nevermind; re-reading your post i now see how i misunderstood your meaning. all good.

 

[microstrip]

nevermind; re-reading your post i now see how i misunderstood your meaning. all good.

Thanks - I made it now more clear.

 

[Lagonda]

How is it being monophonic relevant to the point Mike was making? Micro put a random point to make vinyl bass look less appetizing - I doubt you are saying he was correct there

Micro does not listen to music, he measures it ! And now his new best friend ChatGPT can tell him what sounds good and is in stereo, it is a wonderful new world where you can be a internet active stereophile without having to use your ears at all !

 

[bonzo75]

Micro does not listen to music, he measures it ! And now his new best friend ChatGPT can tell him what sounds good and is in stereo, it is a wonderful new world where you can be a internet active stereophile without having to use your ears at all !

Yes GPT told him about vinyl in general. I had forgotten his googling habits. Guess wrt the hobby he is a shallow seek

 

[Al M.]

Crosstalk plays a minor role, it is much more important that both channels of the cartridge have the same phase angle and output voltage, and how well the phono amp adheres to the specifications of the RIAA characteristic curve.

Yes, someone once did a test and found he couldn't hear a difference in stereo separation at values better than 25 - 30 dB channel separation (consistent with other data, if I remember correctly). So if digital features something like 90 dB channel separation that's all fine and dandy, and maybe even impressive, but it's kinda irrelevant, too.

I say that as a digiphile who exclusively listens to digital at home *). I could gloat about the technical data of the medium, but hey, does it matter? Methinks not much.

_________________

*) I have extensive experience with vinyl in friends' systems and love that medium, too.

 

[tony22]

Well, this has turned into a rather interesting discussion I hadn’t expected, but that’s the beauty of WBF! A thanks for the suggestions - I have the Berlioz Ron recommended and a couple of others mentioned in other posts, so I spent a nice evening listening to music. Never a bad thing. The listening helped me to confirm my initial suspicions - compared to my XP-17 the Gold Note does generate a slightly less wide and less deep soundstage. It’s also a bit closed up top, but keep in mind this is all with the existing IC in place between phono pre and preamp. I’ve certainly spent no effort as yet to figure out how to optimize the GN in my system.

 

[Kingrex]

The OP asked for recordings that sound a particular way. Bonzo side tracked it, but I agree with his point. The recording, room and equipment all have a profound impact on sound.
I do have classical recording mic at a distance that sound ok. I like close mic with many mic recordings. Usually. Maybe I am more about dynamics and localization of instruments. Clearly defined instruments. I don't worry about a wrap around you head as much.

I do notice my 845 has less depth in SS. My KT88 can put an instrument outside the room at times.

I wish my vinyl operated in my new room. The remodel is far slower than expected.

 

[DasguteOhr]

Yes, someone once did a test and found he couldn't hear a difference in stereo separation at values better than 25 - 30 dB channel separation (consistent with other data, if I remember correctly). So if digital features something like 90 dB channel separation that's all fine and dandy, and maybe even impressive, but it's kinda irrelevant, too.

I say that as a digiphile who exclusively listens to digital at home *). I could gloat about the technical data of the medium, but hey, does it matter? Methinks not much.

_________________

*) I have extensive experience with vinyl in friends' systems and love that medium, too.

the devices will probably achieve this, but I see no hope for the media with these values
There are a few relevant values, such as the phase angle of the cartridge.
This is like the group delay for loudspeakers.
This improves focus, depth, width and the allocation of sound events. If you try it out, you will set your pickup to the same value as possible for the channels and you won't care about the few dB of crosstalk disbalance.
This is the important value..try it

 

[Kingrex]

You guys really pooped all over the OP thread with the usual daily bickering and toxic name calling.