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

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.

I did a long edit of my post but too late sadly and I'm too lazy to do it over again. :-)

But for what it is worth, consider when evaluating user definitions of soundstage, that some folks prefer nearfield (for the sake of discussion) a 6' triangle arrangement, some mid field say a 10 to 12 foot triangle, some far field 15 to 20ft triangle (a HUGE room!) and some want to hear their music as they party and walk about the room. Ask each of them what kind of 'soundfield' they prefer and why. They just might give you the same answer, but consider if the experience they describe with the reality of if the equipment and room set up is possible of delivering it. I raised this issue not so much to raise issues of speaker design so much as to illustrate that one persons perfect soundstage, height/width/depth, may not be optimum for another. That was all. I had a kneejerk response to the use of the work ALWAYS.

Mapman, Seems we both agree and disagree. Where i would take issue with your response to my initial post about soundstaging is the implication that because I can distinguish differences in soundstaging between vinyl and my particular cdp, then there must be something deficient or "wrong" with my speakers. I don't get it. If the speakers were "bad" at soundstaging, then I would not get good results with any front end component.

You could fairly argue that my cdp might be subpar, however. I don't really know nor do I care to find out. It is a highly tweaked Sony SCD777ES with a Superclock IV run by a 12V batt, among many other mods. The change from SuperClock2 to SC4 and batt power was associated with a marked improvement in soundstaging (hence my conjecture that reducing jitter improved soundstaging) but still not quite as magnificent as what I get with vinyl, where the soundstage extends from floor to ceiling and from wall to wall. This is using Sound Lab M1 ESLs. But all this is OT. In every other way, CDs and SACDs sound great in my system, as a secondary source that could not replace vinyl.

i own several turntables and over four decades of collected vinyl. i love records, but i would never recommend jumping back in with the sharks if you haven't been in the tank for decades. cd's are fine.