Width of Stage

Hearing symbols..wow!

Playing my album, I can only hear the crash and shimmer of the cymbals on my system. Got me a  '59 mono-beautiful!

Must be missing something on my copy. 

Sorry, couldn't resist. Too much quarantine time. 

@millercarbon I don't disagree at all.  

Good to know. Thanks.

btw it should go without saying this site has the worst spell check anywhere ever. It turned "dig" into "did" and "yards" into "years". Oh well.

One question for sabrejet about the stage being wider with LP. This same thing has come up a few times recently. In my experience this is a combination of greater image focus and greater sense of the original acoustic space.

Take something like the cymbals. Any system any format they are somewhere off to the left. The better it gets the more palpable and precise this becomes until they physically embody an exact location in 3D space and you can practically see the light shimmering off them right along with the sound. Its been so long and the system has improved so much its hard to remember but it sure seems to me like they never really moved very much if at all but instead the sense of dimensionality became so much stronger they seem so much more real and that is what creates the feeling of bigger.  

This sense is of course much greater with LP because of its much better balance between leading edge transients and harmonic development of the fundamental tone, a crucial set of details thrown all out of balance when the signal is chopped up and reconstituted digitally. 

The other thing that happens is the sense of the natural acoustic signature of the recording venue comes through more clearly and so greatly improves the sense of space that it makes the whole stage feel wider and bigger. LP has to me an even bigger advantage here as the subtle balance is even more critical here with the digital sense of space seeming whispy and skeletal by comparison. 

So that is what I'm curious to know, is that your experience too?

If you can hear them on your LP and SACD, but not CD, unless your CDP has some issue, the odds are it is just not mixed the same. They are mixed differently, more often than not, especially a 25yr old CD, not to mention the record likely has some compression of the highest volume peaks that brings out the rest.

Is there any point in pointing out that the following statement shows a lack of understanding of the timing of multi-channel digitized audio (or any digitized system) for that matter?  All that matters is the analog bandwidth, jitter, channel to channel timing jitter, and signal to noise ratio assuming the sampling rate is sufficient to capture the analog and allow reasonable analog filters. Sampling rate has literally no effect on timing beyond supporting the analog bandwidth. Absolutely none. It is a common misconception that it does, but it does not. No room for a full course on Nyquist here, but feel free to research.

Okay so you play your record, stylus traces the groove. Which by the way the smallest squiggles on the groove wall are so incredibly small they’re on the order of some large organic molecules. So incredible detail. No idea how many times you’d have to sample to trace an organic molecule but got a pretty good hunch its more than thousands per second, and probably up there in the millions. Orders of magnitude at any rate above any current or even proposed rates of digital.

All that matters is the analog bandwidth, jitter, channel to channel timing jitter, and signal to noise ratio assuming the sampling rate is sufficient to capture the analog and allow reasonable analog filters.

No room for a full course on the history of Perfect Sound Forever, MP3, etc. But feel free to research.

Which does not change at all that what you stated was categorically wrong. Why not take the time to learn something critical to the hobby instead of repeating inaccurate information and misleading people?

No room for a full course on the history of Perfect Sound Forever, MP3, etc. But feel free to research.