Back to analog ..was it a mistake???

"Depth, width, and height of the image is ALWAYS superior with vinyl compared with CD"

Not the case at all with my system. I guess I must be doing something right.

just like some speakers are more efficient and easy to drive than others, not all are equally easy to get to do soundstage and imaging well.

But if you start with speakers that do those things well, and have them set up well to enable them to do it (including decent amplification), the source format pretty much is a non issue.

That is the case in my system with the OHMs and largely the case even my monitors, though perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent than with the omni and highly coherent OHMs. Almost everything I play has huge soundstage and accurate imaging, including FM and even home recorded cassettes. Even mono lps and CDs have a clean and natural sounding multidimensional aspec to them, though the soundstage is then restricted mostly to within the two speakers, though still with execellent depth, at least on decent recordings.

Each format has its limitations even when done to the max, but soundstage and imaging need not be one of them IMHO and experience.

Mapman, Your comment, to me at least, reinforces the difference that we all may have in how we define 'image' or 'soundstage'.

We have discussed this before and I think we agree, that it is possible to have great soundstaging including the impression of depth which can be given by electrostats, omni's, panels, etc, yet be really unable to maximize the aspect of specificity.

For me one of the reasons I can find CD superior to vinyl is that vinyl has a groove noise that prevents you from having a totally black background. It is, IMHO, this black background that facilitates specificity, and can enhance all other aspects of soundstage as well. But, if specificity is not (as) important to you it is easy to overlook it absence.

Now if I had a vinyl system as well considered and used with the audio system that Fsonicsmith has put together I can appreciate his findings, but I do wonder if he has exerted the same effort in maximizing the potential of a total audio system based on advanced digital playback.

It would be fun someday to hear two separate systems in the same room, one max'ed out for digital and one for analog. Then the real argument of 'superiority' could begin. :-)

I am a huge fan of analog and I have a really good digital setup as well. I like the digital, but not as much as my analog. Having said that, though, I have spent a lot of time and money getting my analog setup to sound as good as it does.

I have no doubt you should be able to get an analog setup to meet or exceed your digital, but how much would you have to spend in terms of time and money is hard to know.

I am not familiar with your particular setup, so I do not know what the potential for it is, or if you would need to replace some or all of it.

It also seems to me that maybe you prefer the sound of digital. Since you are so happy with the sound of your digital rig, it may not be worth your efforts.

Newbee,

Not sure I am clear what you refer to as specificity? Is that essentially imaging accuracy, ie being able to identify specific location of instruments and such within a focused soundstage? I believe all formats are capable of doing that well as well, at least to my satisfaction, which requires that I be able to identify location of specific instruments or recording tracks relative to each other as I please during listening, at least to the extent possible which is largely determined by the recording quality and technique, which varies widely from recording to recording, but similarly regardless of source format.

Different source types (vinyl, FM, cassette tape) may be subject to different types and levels of background noise in general that may mask some details, but the cues needed for the stereo soundstage/imaging trick are still there under noraml conditions unless things get abnornally out of hand noise-wise.

CD may have noise/distortion in the time dimension as a result of jitter as well with similar detrimental effects, although this kind of distortion/noise may not be as easy to identify by ear as other types associated with other formats. I believe jitter can negatively impact the cues needed to simulate a 3-d soundstage optimally with digital recordings much as other noise types might mask these cues in other formats. However, under normal good conditions, these cues are present in all formats and some speaker setups will be able to reproduce them better than others.

mapman, First a correction - I meant Lewm, not Fsonicsmith.

I appoligize for my assumption we agreed on something that we apparently do not.

For me specificity is hearing a signal unrestricted by system resolution, either from speaker design, sustem set up, or noise originating from the source or associated hardware or software. Whether its tube hiss, groove noise, phono noise floor, what-ever. It is noise, it can be audible and it contributes to the overall sound and resolution of the information in the source software.

In a perfect world resolution would be absolute and noise would be non-existant. But it is not so this is all a matter of degrees. When I listen to vinyl what I notice is groove noise, recording noise floor from recording system equipment, as well as all of the surface noise. This noise, when extant, is probably most noticible, if at all, by a loss of sharpness in image outlines on the sonic stage. Obviously this 'sharpness' can never exceed your equipments ability or your set up to maximize it.

That is one of the major distinguishing features between cones in boxes and electrostats, panels, and omni's. The design of the latter speakers contemplates an expansion of the sound thru utilization of room surfaces and thereby enhancing the sense of sound stage (where the former speakers (boxes/cones) do not and often, unless carefully set up, can present a closed in or smaller soundstage.) This obviously comes at a sonic cost, a lack of specificity, for example the original Maggies sounded great so long as you only listened to orchestral stuff, but never a solo vocalist or a solo instrument which filled the entire stage. There have been a lot of attempts to modify these types of speakers by inclusion ribbons, electrical delays, etc, to correct or compensate for the design but nothing is IMHO as successful in gaining the greatest resolution as those cone/box speakers which are designed to produce that effect.

I hope that sharpens up for you my meaning of specificity. :-)