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

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. :-)

Newbee,

Your description makes sense.

Not sure I agree that solo instruments necessarily occupy the entire soundstage in all cases you identified though.

It is not the case with omnis I have heard, which are OHM and MBL. Have you actually heard these properly set up?

There is a greater sense of room ambience perhaps with properly set up omnis, but soloists are located just fine, in fact the mbls are the best I have ever heard at doing exactly that in that they have the deepest soundstage I have heard yet the best specificity.

OHMs I have heard do it almost as well, however I have never heard a soundstage with OHMs as deep as with mbl. I attribute that mostly to differences in room size during audition and the fact that mbl is true omni and OHM Walsh only pseudo omni ( sound in wall facing directions is attenuated with sound damping material located inside the can to allow closer placement to walls). Old OHM Fs and Es were true omni, but I have never heard those.