Tri Planar / ZYX Universe soundstaging

My question in simplistic terms; does the above combo have a more pronounced (smaller) sweet spot? Is that a trade off for either of these components or other products at this level?

I would think not but here is why I ask.

Currently in mid-stride with my analog rig, I added a TriPlanar 7 to my Aries2 with the Universe (X low output). After spending some time with the setup I found a point of adjustment where things sound good in the center sweet spot but there is a slight but noticeable change in focas moving off center. Its different than with the 10.5, as it should be in some ways, and it is different than from sources as well.

This is a temporary situation and I may have a different table in a few more weeks.

What I am experiencing just enough to ask the question. With all the adjustments on the Tri to dial it in and using the Universe, should you expect a fantastic sweet spot with more fall off away from there?

Thanks for your input, Terry
The short answer to your first question is, "yes", and it's direct evidence of the TriPlanar's superior imaging (a function of its more stable azimuth, which produces lower crosstalk when properly adjusted).

A component that allows higher and more variable crosstalk (JMW) will produce fuzzier and less stable images across a broader listening zone than a component with lower and more stable crosstalk (TP). The TP sends better-differentiated information to each speaker (especially the tweeters) so smaller differences in listening position become more audible.

With all the adjustments on the Tri to dial it in and using the Universe, should you expect a fantastic sweet spot with more fall off away from there?
In my experience, yes to both questions - depending on the speakers.

Speakers image differently, depending on their HF extension and phase coherency. We both have first order mid-tweeter Xovers and exceptional HF extension, so I'd expect great imaging from both our speakers.

Different speakers also produce different sized sweet spots, depending on their off-axis HF rolloff. I don't know about your ribbons but images change in my setup if I move my head L or R by just an inch. Soundstage depth and image integration are nearly as sensitive to fore/aft head movements. OTOH, our off-center listening seats have very indifferent imaging, or no imaging at all.
My experience with the combination is that it can image much the same way that analog tape does.
Thank you Doug, this is new and interesting. BTW I run Vandy 5As which I think highlight this effect to some degree wth their first order xovers.
Atmasphere, could you elaborate more on how this similar to imaging from analog tape. I assume you are refering to master tapes?

Thanks Terry
Hi Terry, certainly. If you have heard a proper reel-to-reel system, one thing that strikes you regardless of whether it is a master tape or a dub, is the quality of imaging solidarity and the black background. Also, there is simply no strain when reproducing serious musical climaxes. LPs by contrast have some image drift which you don't notice until something comes along (like tape) that shows what I am talking about. LPs also have an irregular background noise caused by the surface condition (including dirt) and, as it turns out, mis-tracking.

This is what the Triplanar and ZYX can do so well- tracking- such that there is no image 'jitter' and the background is obviously quieter. I used to think a number of my LPs were simply less than stellar- that there was some surface noise. Its vanished under the ZYX stylus, plus now there is no hint of strain on climaxes- it could be CD for all that's worth except that it sounds right :)