Component contributions to “sound stage”

I agree with most on here, but I would like to stress that the room itself is the most important component, not just its acoustics or the treatments within, but also the available size and the placement and positioning of the speakers within. It won’t be possible to get a very deep or wide soundstage if the room is too small or too big depending on the speakers’ performance and placement. We often talk about reflections being our enemy, but leveraged and managed properly (with treatments), they can become one of our best friends.

In addition to all the components listed, I’d also like to add that the number of subwoofers of an appropriate pedigree based on the room size and shape help to clear our room modes and advance beyond soundstage limitations set by the room and speaker. 

@musicfan2349 I totally agree that the recording and mastering process is an ultimate source of where soundstaging happens, but I don’t think the OP was intending that to qualify as a “component” in the original inquiry (I am assuming this and can be wrong). Yes, it can be a variable such that you can seek a better mastering of a particular source, but often, we as listeners don’t have control over how that is delivered to us until we put it in our room.

FWIW, I’ve heard incredible mono recordings that have incredible depth. Yes, the width is homogenous left to right, but layering is a special characteristic of mono. The Analog Productions remaster of Louis and Ella is an exceptional example of that.

@knownothing A few months before I became a dealer two years back, I was on a search to upgrade my own DAC. I owned a modified PS Audio DirectStream MKI (in which the transformer and LPS mods I performed improved and increased the soundstage) to an exploration of over a dozen other DACs. In each instance, using the same cabling and remainder of system components, each DAC presented the stage a bit differently. Some DACs presented a more forward stage and excelled in depicting width, while others presented further behind the speakers with decent depth and less width. Some DACs excelled at neither, and few excelled in every dimension.

While the DAC chip and conversion process itself should not be responsible for altering the presentation of the soundstage, the rest of the design and engineering of the DAC, including how it manages a low noise floor to the design of its analog stage, can contribute to how the stage is presented. Even the T+A DAC 200, which is one of the most popular units I sell, has a “Wide” setting on its front face. When disabled, I believe it caps frequency response at 20KHz or 50KHz (I am too lazy to look in the manual right now), whereas when enabled, it allows up to 200KHz of information through. While that focuses on the frequency response, and despite the threshold of 50KHz-200KHz to be well beyond the capabilities of human hearing, most (including myself) can actually hear the soundstage widen.

In my experience, noise, whether it be power line noise, EMI, jitter and others are all culprits for poor staging. Any noise alters specific frequency and timing, which will affect reflections in room and different intersections of frequencies, phasing, etc. Our pursuit of happiness in our audio systems are largely around a search for realistic presentation and harmonics of music, countered by the elimination of noise and reflection in most ways possible. I say “most” because some noise with regards to harmonics are preferred, and soundstage width sometimes cannot be truly replicated without the right types of reflections which help to more accurately paint an accurate picture of the space.

Even studios and live recordings are often captured with noise and reflection as part of the equation.

Why, thank you. :)