Vinyl Versus CD SDA Soundstage

K_M

Schurkey wrote: »

F1nut wrote: »

If you've got wider soundstage with SDA speakers when playing vinyl, I'd be asking myself why the CD rig or source discs (apparently) have less separation between L and R. This is about stereo separation, (the difference between the L and R channels at any instant in time) not analog vs. digital, not vinyl vs. polycarbonate, not grooves vs. pits. The theoretical advantage goes to the CD. If that's not what you're hearing, 1) there's something wrong with your playback system that is blending L and R on the digital side, 2) there's something wrong with your system that's exaggerating L/R separation on the phono side; or 3) the theoretical advantage in channel separation that CDs have is not being utilized when the CDs are mastered. There were numerous discussions about CDs being mastered "Hot" (excess treble) when the medium was new. There is considerable proof that dynamic range has been compromised on CDs for years--the so-called "Loudness Wars". It would be no surprise to discover that CD masters have deliberately-blended the two channels to some kind of "glorified mono" rather than the real "stereo" that they're capable of.

.

or 4. There is simply something inherent in making vinyl with that huge article I cited, that changes how or what is pressed to the record, that messes with the sound.

Did you read all of the stuff that goes on to make a record?
I mean how much mucking about they do with the sound and music, just to make it a viable sound on a disc?

Schurkey

K_M wrote: »

or 4. There is simply something inherent in making vinyl with that huge article I cited, that changes how or what is pressed to the record, that messes with the sound.

Yes, they do a lot of dicking with the material before it gets immortalized in grooves (or in pits.)

The issue is that SDA is dependent on the difference between what's recorded on the left channel versus what's recorded on the right channel. More difference, MORE SDA EFFECT. So if the crucial element for SDA is the difference between L and R, and vinyl has a known deficit there (for example, having to blend bass into "mono", which REDUCES the difference between L and R) why is there more SDA effect on the medium that should have less? Either there are "blending" errors on the CD side, or "false separation" errors on the vinyl side. Either one could be due to the material recorded on the source discs or to the specific equipment involved.

As alluded-to earlier, I can't judge since I dropped vinyl like a broken rubber thirty years ago. I still have a turntable and a preamp with phono input. I had plans to digitize my pitiful small album collection, but never got past the third album. However, I don't think having more separation on vinyl than on CD--and therefore more SDA soundstage on vinyl--is widespread. My thinking is that there's a problem somewhere in the original poster's equipment. That's why I suggested the "Test CDs".

K_M wrote: »

Did you read all of the stuff that goes on to make a record?
I mean how much mucking about they do with the sound and music, just to make it a viable sound on a disc?

Oh, I completely agree. The thought of multi-track recordings where they don't even bother to keep the absolute polarity the same (and preferably correct) in all the tracks makes me cringe.

It's a friggin' miracle that what we recover from the media is as good as it is, considering how many cooks are in the kitchen, there's no set recipe, the pots 'n' pans aren't clean, and there's no guarantee that the oven works properly.

Good music conquers bad recording and playback equipment. Which is why I have to stop what I'm doing when I hear the instrumental ending of "Sultans of Swing" playing on a table radio...and why I wish that song would never end. It also partially explains why there's still a market for bottom-feeder music playback equipment. If you can get goosebumps from Dire Straits played on ChiCom mass-market dreck, why do you need D'Agostino?

oldschlpolkie

We have a store in our town called half price books and they have used albums for pretty inexpensive price. Not always the best selection but sometimes I find a diamond in the rough!

K_M

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I recall Matthew Polk saying the market was going to smaller (and cheaper) speakers and that was the main determinant behind discontinuing SDAs.

A lot changed around that time period. Surround sound was becoming big also.

I think it just became far easier to integrate 5 smaller speakers and a subwoofer.

StevieB

Just an observation in regards to the SDA's size, there must still be a market for large square speakers. Looking through the music direct catalog, there's a line, Vandersteens, that appear to be strikingly similar to SDA's, so maybe the hope of a new polk line isn't out of the question?

K_M

StevieB wrote: »

Just an observation in regards to the SDA's size, there must still be a market for large square speakers. Looking through the music direct catalog, there's a line, Vandersteens, that appear to be strikingly similar to SDA's, so maybe the hope of a new polk line isn't out of the question?

Im pretty sure Vandersteen, may be shooting at an entirely different target though.

The SDA effect needed 2 sets of speakers next to each other, and that required a fairly wide enclosure.
That effect can easily be created electronically now, so there is no real requirement for the side by side drivers etc.

I think it was a novel and great idea at the time, that maybe just ran its course.
For Any item to sale and make a profit, there must be a consumer base that wants or desires it.
Outside several hundred in the forum, Im not convinced that a customer base exists, not even sure if a huge customer base existed back in 1991. Usually something that is making money, will be continued.

We bought both our SDA speakers used, and at about 1/3 new price.