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

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.

Lewm,

I would not suggest that your speakers specifically are "deficient". All I'm saying that it is not always the case that vinyl always does imaging and sound staging better. In your case, apparently this is true, in mine it is not. Both formats produce similar results that are both competitive with the best I have heard in my case, at least that is my assessment.

I believe based on my observations that when one format sounds categorically better in this regard, something unique is going on in that sources signal path that accounts for it. It may be a combination of multiple factors that add up to less rather than any one thing. The configuration of the speakers in the room could be the culprit. My big OHM 5s cannot work their magic as well without room around them to breath, for example. Same true of many large speaker designs: mbls Maggies and many floorstanders, based on my experience. Sometimes, the system may be capable excelling in this area, but the room is the constraint. In some cases, inferior recordings in this regard might sound better because they do not requrie as much room to breathe properly. Smaller speakers like monitors generally do imaging and soundstage better in smaller or cramped rooms I have found. Bigger is not always better (except in bass levels perhaps but too much of that is not necessarily a good thing either).

Also, having run many speakers on various quality sounding systems over the years, I also know that some speakers do imaging and soundstaging better than others because they do so even with lesser electronics up front and set up in the same room. I've heard this with the OHMs and Triangles in my system representing the best and most other speakers I have tried trailing behind those to various degrees.

Not if you like snap, crackle and pop.

It is always interesting to hear how superior vinyl is to digital. The vinyl comeback certainly has invigorated the industry, and really helped Stereophile have something to talk about, and create a "buzz". But again that buzz has helped the Industry, so that is good, but it does not make it totally true. In my system, where I have bought several lp/cd/sacd/dvd-a duplicates, I would be willing to say the vinyl / digital comparisons sound different , not always one or the other necessarily better. I think once you get personal agendas out of the mix, and the bias one way or the other, both systems can sound fine.