Theory That Musical Genre Preference Drives Loudspeaker Preference

[bonzo75]

This simply isn't a thing. If anything, when mastering an LP, its good practice to have the producer of the project to provide a master file that has no DSP processing other than normalization. This allows the LP to be more dynamic than the digital release on account of the digital release is usually compressed so it will play nice in a car. The LP has no such expectation.

sorry I am not comparing here same digital recording with its LP recording, but digital music from digital era Vs vinyl from the golden age

 

[Atmasphere]

sorry I am not comparing here same digital recording with its LP recording, but digital music from digital era Vs vinyl from the golden age

No worries. The considerations haven't changed in that time. You're still dealing with the same human hearing bandwidth and the need of the speaker to handle the power of the amp. Digital or analog has nothing to do with it.

 

[PeterA]

I can think of a number of LPs that are classical and don't have compression. Compression is merely a time saving thing for LP, which translates directly to 'money saving' since an LP mastering engineer costs as much or more as a high power lawyer.

Pop releases these days are far more common than classical; I wonder if there even are any classical recordings being produced by major labels on LP. At any rate, there isn't anything about digital that might change the choice of loudspeaker used.

Ralph, in your experience, do there seem to be more vinyl or digital front ends in SET/horn based systems? If one format is more common, to what would you attribute that?

 

[Atmasphere]

Ralph, in your experience, do there seem to be more vinyl or digital front ends in SET/horn based systems? If one format is more common, to what would you attribute that?

The feedback we get from customers doesn't mention SETs but they do mention horns. I've not really seen a correlation to a certain speaker or speaker type vs analog or digital.

 

[bonzo75]

No worries. The considerations haven't changed in that time. You're still dealing with the same human hearing bandwidth and the need of the speaker to handle the power of the amp. Digital or analog has nothing to do with it.

so are you saying digital recordings have soundstages and ambience of the concert hall, for example, as good as the golden era vinyl? I am not asking you theoretically what’s possible, but have you in reality found that

 

[Atmasphere]

so are you saying digital recordings have soundstages and ambience of the concert hall, for example, as good as the golden era vinyl? I am not asking you theoretically what’s possible, but have you in reality found that

Modern digital recordings seem a bit better than older stuff at doing lower level detail.

This is purely anecdotal of course:

I used to do recordings on an 8-channel Otari tape machine, adding in the effects during mix down. I would mix to two channels on a digital recorder and burn a CD to play in my main system. I found that I had to add reverb at a higher level than I was hearing during the mix (from analog) to get it to sound the same way when played back off the CDR. I transported the digital recorder to my main system and found that the problem was the recorder itself; it used a hard drive for its media, which should be fairly robust. Even at higher scan frequencies I ran into this phenomena.

With newer recorders I've not run into this.

So if anything I would expect if there is a difference, IME the digital system won't play the low level ambience as well as the analog, but that really has nothing to do with the speakers. In the example above I used a pair of old AR3xs in my music lab; they were ancient and I could hear the difference on them with ease.

 

[bonzo75]

Modern digital recordings seem a bit better than older stuff at doing lower level detail.

This is purely anecdotal of course:

I used to do recordings on an 8-channel Otari tape machine, adding in the effects during mix down. I would mix to two channels on a digital recorder and burn a CD to play in my main system. I found that I had to add reverb at a higher level than I was hearing during the mix (from analog) to get it to sound the same way when played back off the CDR. I transported the digital recorder to my main system and found that the problem was the recorder itself; it used a hard drive for its media, which should be fairly robust. Even at higher scan frequencies I ran into this phenomena.

With newer recorders I've not run into this.

So if anything I would expect if there is a difference, IME the digital system won't play the low level ambience as well as the analog, but that really has nothing to do with the speakers. In the example above I used a pair of old AR3xs in my music lab; they were ancient and I could hear the difference on them with ease.

ok, we are discussing different things and different experiences. If you find digital recordings that do the ambience as naturally as the good decca concerts, then you have special digital knowledge.

 

[Atmasphere]

ok, we are discussing different things and different experiences. If you find digital recordings that do the ambience as naturally as the good decca concerts, then you have special digital knowledge.

As far as I can make out, we're simply talking about resolution, of which I think more is better.

Your prior comment

Digital requires the equipment to do more. Artificial pumped up soundstage for example.

suggested that digital recordings have an enhanced sound stage, which I've not experienced. The newer digital gear is pretty impressive, but I don't see how that would influence someone to go with a particular loudspeaker. To be clear I've not found that digital does anything that requires more out of the playback equipment, other than perhaps requiring a bit more noise immunity.

 

[bonzo75]

Your prior comment

suggested that digital recordings have an enhanced sound stage, which I've not experienced.

Ok, my post caused a misunderstanding. what I meant is that digital recordings are flatter and don’t have as natural a soundstage that differs from recording to recording. Therefore they need the system to pump up the soundstage, while the good vinyl recordings just need to let the soundstage on the LP flow through. Hope that clarifies.

 

[Rexp]

Ok, my post caused a misunderstanding. what I meant is that digital recordings are flatter and don’t have as natural a soundstage that differs from recording to recording. Therefore they need the system to pump up the soundstage, while the good vinyl recordings just need to let the soundstage on the LP flow through. Hope that clarifies.

This is a digital recording, has great natural sound stage and depth. So I would say most digital recordings are poor not all.

 

[Al M.]

This is a digital recording, has great natural sound stage and depth. So I would say most digital recordings are poor not all.

View attachment 120810

Actually, lots of digital classical recordings have great soundstage and depth, as well as ambience. As long as the system allows you to hear it. My speaker drivers are 7.5 feet from the front wall, that helps, and you need electronics that are not noisy and thus allow for low-level detail, which is crucial for soundstage depth and ambience, to come through.

Of course pop 'n stuff is a different matter.

 

[PeterA]

Ok, my post caused a misunderstanding. what I meant is that digital recordings are flatter and don’t have as natural a soundstage that differs from recording to recording. Therefore they need the system to pump up the soundstage, while the good vinyl recordings just need to let the soundstage on the LP flow through. Hope that clarifies.

This is exactly how I understood your post. It’s about the information on the recording and the system getting out of the way.