Without moving my speakers or changing any electronics, I experienced some serious WOW moments in the last 14 months by just cycling in cables. IC's primarily gave the biggest bang, somewhat followed by speaker cables. I had some nice tone improvements with power cables as well, but not soundstage.
I have heard cables move the soundstage back and some bring it forward. It was quite the journey and without good speakers and preamp, it probably wasn't going to be revealed as it was. I found recordings made the biggest impact on soundstage width. Sometimes I can get the walls to sing and most times I cannot expand outside the speakers.
|
@dukebdevil , 1.3 is pretty good, getting closer to air at 1.1 is even better.
The Helix AIR DIY cable geometry achieves this by inserting the bare signal wire inside an oversize Teflon tube. Since the tube is larger than the diameter of the wire, the wire only touches the Teflon at one point. The rest of the wire is effectively surrounded by air.
I used the Duelund cotton insulated wire in the Helix Cable a few years ago. Moving to the Helix AIR geometry improved details, clarity an the image gained space and pinpoint accuracy.
Some of the more advanced brands are now using advanced insulation to achieve stunning performance.
Regards Steve
|
@williewonka just read a Morrow Audio blog. cotton is king.
- For interconnect cables and speaker cables, cotton has proven to be an exceptional insulation with a D.C. around 1.3
|
for me, this was an obvious answer. bought a used CJ PV-12 and wow! soundstage and not just LR but depth (if only we'd had MQA, I could add height -joking). EVERYTHING else same- speakers, placement, room acoustics, DAC, amp, cables, home wiring... and any recording was impacted positively.
I no longer have the CJ and have upgraded every component including house wiring. still trying to find that magic (had 3 very different amps in that setup. Perreaux- sterile, Adcom warm, then Rotel full in a good way. B&W 683) all benefited.
for another post...
next to test- using the preamp outs from Rogue Cronus Magnus 3 integrated with the Rotel and ML ESL-X. might trade in the integrated for their tube pre. I feel like the magic was in the tube preamp. (tube integrated was a compromise one chassis, better value)
|
Hi. Unfortunate amount of drivel on this. Correct answer. Your front end component is the key. Period. It either provides or it doesn't. Front end is your key.
|
|
@knownothing - without a doubt the "component" that improved my imaging are the cables.
It wasn't until I started building my own cables that I discovered this.
- i had tried many different components - amps, streamers, phono stages etc in the search for an amazing image
- I had tried sound absorbing materials and duffusers around the room
- I had tried hundreds of different speaker positions
Then I tried some pretty good cables and things started to fall into place.
I then tried making my own cables from scratch using a geometry that made sense to me and things inproved once again
Next I tried high quality wire - silver, OCC copper and OCC Silver and these made a huge improvements
Finally I tried a unique approach to insulation which made the biggest improvement in the space of the image - to the point where I now have an exceptional 3D soundstage/image way beyond the confines of my room
If you want to make some for yourself - take a look at https://image99.net/blog/
If you want to know if they actually work then take a look members comments at this thread
If you are not into DIY then I would recommend either of these two stellar brands
- Audio Envy
- Zavfino
- and if your wallet is deep enough - HIJIRI
Turns out that even the most affordable components actually have the ablity to reproduce a great image
- e.g. I tried these cables on the $350 mini system with amazing results
- I gave a pair of interconencts and speaker cables to my nephew fpr his VERY MODEST system and they blew his mind.
So to most people cables are pretty simple - right?
- it;s a piece of wire with plugs on the ends and comes in a variety of colours and prices
WRONG !
- the geometry of the cables reduces the noise floor of the cable and allows micro details to be conveyed
- the metal wire provides improved dynamic perofrmance
- the insulation reduces the noise generated within the insulation as the signal passes through the wire - even more clarity
- Take a read of this thread for more info
Getting the right combination of these factors is the key
So don't ignore your cables
Regards - Steve
|
I'm going with placement of speakers in your room. If you lack symmetry in my experience you can save yourself some money but going after stage too hard. If you have symmetry you need space to let the speakers reflect, breath, integrate into the room. If you are trying to shoehorn your stuff in the pantry, save yourself some money and go nearfield.
Treatment, source, pre, amp and cables. In my experience you have spend serious money if you want to get this to be excellent. Not so serious to be good and have fun.
|
I would also add that putting a blanket over my television mounted on the wall between my speakers does wonders for the soundstage when listening in two channel.
kn
|
@ghdprentice +1
@blisshifi “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.”
💯
I assemble my own power cables and have banished all switching power supplies from my system as I have tried to optimize everything from digital signal cables to the type of hard drive I use for my file server. Those actions have incrementally reduced noise, improved timing and added clarity to leading and trailing edges of notes in digital reproduction. But the Chord DACs I’ve used (currently a Chord Qutest) made the biggest difference in digital presentation of soundstage, with cable and power supply upgrades adding definition to various elements in the sound field. I can only imagine better DACs would provide even deeper insights into spatial information in recordings.
To suggest as some do that modern DACs are all “audibly perfect” and that modern electronics have no role in how we experience sound stage in our systems “unless they are badly broken” is just not consistent with my experience with my systems.
kn
|
|
|
@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.
|
OK, here we go. I asked this question in part because of recent discussions on ASR and Head Fi Science Forum about measuring soundstage and if different DACs could contribute to a listener’s perception of soundstage in their system. It ended (for me) in a protracted lecture in how modern DACs, or any other piece of modern audio electronics that measure well could not possibly contribute to perceived soundstage, and if the listener perceives it, it is entirely down to ‘expectation bias’. Speakers, placement and room, yes, electronics (and especially digital electronics), a hard no. I started this post because I am curious about what others on this forum think about this issue and I wanted to be open to any responses without coloring the discussion, at least initially.
My experience is that yes, room, speakers (or headphones), and placement in the room including listening position are primary. Of course if there is not a good representation of soundstage embedded in the original recording, then reproducing what isn’t there in the first place isn’t really what I am after here. My second system is at my workstation and nearfield where tiny differences in my head or speaker position make a big difference in how I perceive soundstage.
My main system is a combined AV/music system where the speakers are on the wall, so and soundstaging there is limited to lateral and height with elements of depth being sacrificed. I am OK with that if I am getting good lateral presentation with accurate timing and tone from my gear and my speakers. I have been tinkering with my main system (same receiver and speakers) for over a decade to get the two channel (non-dsp) sound I want, and here is what I have noticed:
-speaker cables matter in my system. I went from entry level multistrand wires to solid cord cables with higher quality materials and design elements and this made a noticeable difference in both tone and soundstage presicsion
-replacing the stock metal jumpers bars on my small budget speakers in my second system with OCC silver plated copper jumpers with teflon dialectric had a big impact on higher frequencies and soundstage - these were from China, not the kind that cost more than the speakers themselves.
-changing phono cartridges matters
-phono preamp matters
-wait for it… digital front ends/DACs matter, and matter a lot in my system to my ears. If you include the DACs in my disc players and receiver, I’ve used at least eight different digital front ends my main listening room and four in my second system at work.
Just some examples of the differences I heard in different digital front ends include running PCM raw data from a disc player to my Arcam AVR and using the internal DACs provided a wide soundstage but no center fill, even when adjusting the the toe in on my speakers. The sound of this arrangement was also a little hard and sterile, but the bass through my sub was very clean and tight via the digital level in. On the other hand, the soundstage using Arcam irDAC and bypassing the digital processing in the Arcam AVR was concentrated in the center, much more musical, but the bass was a bit more wooly. When I swapped the irDAC for a Chord QuteHD, the soundstage opened up considerably, to the width and height of by analog front end, but with more precise placement of vioces and instruments. These differences were not as striking as those provided by swapping speakers, but were not subtle. Of course mentioning such effects on the science forums resulted in scorn and an impassioned defense of the castle. YMMV.
kn
|
@musicfan2349 +1 I would be interested to hear from a qualified electronics or audio engineer as to how a power cord or fuse can impact on soundstage. Not interested in opinions from audiophiles from the school of wishful thinking.
|
First it is so evident that if spatial information is not encoded rightfully from the recording engineer NOTHING will ressuscitate this information lost for ever...
Then the recording is not a factor which we can control. I did not even mention it.in the right system /room no album present the exact same soundstage. This difference correspond to each recording. We speak about a system/room able to create more so or less so an interesting soundstage for sure already encoded in the vinyl or dac.
@livingwellinco : "The soundstage is unreal." Really, man!
Now saying that only reveal you know nothing about the relation between physical acoustic and psycho-acoustic... And the importance of sound direction for evolutive survival of man as a prey ...And hunter... And sound direction perception ( and the impediment of stereo crosstalk )is the COLLECTIVE perception which our brain create the soundstage impression because of the specific acoustic parameters between 2 speakers and room. Do you call colors illusion? It is not even wrong, it will be an ideological abuse of words.
The soundstage is a real perceived phenomenon which can vary for each of us even with the same system/room... But it is there...
|
@bigtwin
Food for thought or perhaps some really don’t know-nothing Lol. Regardless there’s always room for entertaining humour, bravo you slid some of that in there.
|
The recording is probably the most important followed by the speakers and their placement.
My speakers are 7.5 feet apart center-to-center, but the Rhodes fills the entire "front of the house" (26 feet), and then some. Some on the JBL forum have said they even experience a wrap-around.
If you can’t get a really WIDE soundstage, way beyond the speakers, on the Rhodes on this cut, fergitaboutit.
|
@michaellent +1 for the recording being the boss. I would recommend reading, "Making of Rumors" (classic Fleetwood Mac album). It's written by the sound engineer Ken Caillat. Lots of insight of how they make the special sauce.
The recording is the boss. The second most important thing is speakers/ placement/ room treatments.
|
@blisshifi Thank you for the kind response. You are likely quite right about the OP's intent behind his/her original question. My response was meant to get them to consider that soundstage is "set" way before the needle hits the vinyl. I suppose that subtlety was lost which is completely my fault. 😉 (Being quite sincere!)
I'll have to dig out some mono recordings of mine and give them another listen for what you are talking about regarding depth. Thank you for that!
Happy listening.
|
@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.
|
This is not as simple as just ’the room and speakers’ though they ARE very important in the chain.
You see the entire thing from the studio and mic’ing, the sound engineering, the pressing and onwards affects the stage. Let’s say you have a jazz combo where the musicians are close-mic’ed. Then more of the "soundstage" will be in the engineers’ and producer’s hands. They will control where an instrument appears in the "soundstage". Early Beatles recordings are great examples of this. If OTOH the mics are out in the room away from the artists, then you would get more of the studio’s acoustic signature in the recording with less specific placement other than perhaps left and right. Orchestral recordings done with only a couple of mics are excellent examples of this.
Do monaural recordings have "soundstage"? 😉
NOW we get to our "speakers and room" components. I have a pair of electrostatic speakers that are very sensitive to placement, especially as regards the soundstage. Contrary to what one would think, if I toe them inwards, the stage gets wider and less focused. As a consequence, the ’sweet spot’ though wider is slightly less satisfying. OTOH, if I toe them outwards a bit, the stage is very tightly focused at the cost of having a very narrow sweet spot. (And boy do I mean narrow!)
With regards to the influence by any components, other than speakers, I would suggest that your sources (LP, CD, Digital) which read and reproduce the recorded signals followed by your preamp would influence the sound stage. And finally, of least influence will be your amplification. Why? Good amplification will affect the quality of the reproduction in the chain (dynamics, frequency response, etc) but has little bearing on where an instrument will appear on the stage.
At the risk of causing controversy, I fail to see how a powercable might affect soundstage.
Happy listening.
|
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.
|
Then room acoustics, specially first reflection points on sidewalls.
|
Where the sound comes out: Speakers.
|
Man, Ive spent the last few years chasing this and am finally satisfied. Soundstage has so many different aspects and I don't think it's a simple answer. It's going to depend on your room and setup.
1.speakers. Your other components will have a role but nothing on a system defines how it sounds more than the speakers. Id they can clearly and truly reproduce the recording that's a huge first step.
2. Placement. Where your speakers are in the room and how they are tied in. This is super speaker and room specific. For me, I use no toe in as my speakers still create a perfect center image with no toe in. Having no toenin maximizes the width of the soundstage. I have tried toe in before I changed some other components to try and achieve more image focus but always missed the depth too much. I'll say that this part, setup, is one of the most viral things you can do. Read the directions that come with your speakers. Call the manufacturer and ask for tips. It will take a lot of time but you'll get a lot of mileage here.
3. Source. I'm an analog guy so having a turntable, arm and cartridge that can accurately pick up the recording is crucial. Without that, you'll never get proper center image or depth or width of soundstage.
4. Amplifiers. This one surprised me. Id been looking to achieve more depth of soundstage and had changed all other components, largely to no avail. When I upgraded my amplifiers (Atma-Sphere MA-1s) I was blown away by the increase in clarity, space around the different instruments and voices. This space and clarity really enhanced imaging and depth.
5. Preamp. This is the one I changed the most chasing the depth. What I found was that while the preamp is the heart of the system in a o lot of ways, it didn't have that much impact. It does define the overall tone of the system but it wasn't until I proved my amps that I was able to hear the full potential of my system.
For full details see virtual system
|
This is a valid question about one's system. To reduce an answer to "it has to be in the recording" is not helpful. Of course. OP didn't ask how to make all of his music have same. I think he gets that. But yes, speakers with high quality drivers and with XO components having tight tolerances followed by geometry/acoustic symmetry of set up in the room/listening position. Then room acoustics. My experience is that the prior are about equal and combined account for the largest contribution. For equipment i found each piece about equal in contribution as I upgraded. Sure, one bad link and the whole chain fails and you might not detect satisfactory imaging at all.
|
|
@michaellent +1! You hit the nail on the head! Soundstage is in the source! Pop/Rock recordings made by multi-tracking in a studio are nothing like a well-miked symphony orchestra where the recording engineer attempts to capture the spaciousness and dynamics of the sound field. Take a listen to John Culshaw's Ring Cycle with Solti/VPO done during the early years of the Stereo Era! Or the Lewis Layton recordings of Reiner and the CSO, particularly Zarathustra and Pines/Fountains of Rome!
|
Not just the recording - also how a recording is mastered.
Easy to test: take 2+ master versions of the same album and compare at same volume through the same kit.
|
|
|
The room and everything in it. A few days ago, Juan of @blisshifi made a days visit where he moved the listening position, speaker placement, subwoofer phase/crossover frequency and volume and the result was that he transformed the sound without changing any components. The soundstage expanded in all dimensions, the speakers disappeared , imaging improved and tonality was better for all of the changes. My room is fairly well damped with nine 4” thick “bass traps”, corner traps, carpet and so on. I’m now curious as to what his system sounds like in that every component in his system has been carefully selected, starting with speakers that cost more than my 200mph car…ok 198mph and it is completely off the grid..ie. Battery powered.
|
I have to agree when you feel you have a great system and soundstage it is a combination of the right pieces. I was very happy with my system and read on here about putting slugs in place of fuses. Someone mentioned the Swiss Digital fuse. I did some research and all the reviews were good and they had a money back no questions guarantee. I thought hard but went with the reviews and got some. Best money spent in a long time. The sound stage is unreal. Got a pair for some VTL 240 monoblocks I use. I was very relieved when they performed as advertised. I didn’t think I needed to do anything more and was concerned about damaging what I had. Thinking minimal difference at best but I was wrong. Far better. It is worth looking into.
|
All components contribute. But, I guess speakers first, then preamp, and all the rest including interconnects and cables. You don’t want any weak links.
|
In my experience, synergy between amplifier, speaker, and the listening room play a dominant role recreating sound stage, granted it is captured and recorded. Of course, your playback system should be able to faithfully extract this information. Speaker placement (Hey, it is free!) is very important. Speakers placed too close to the back wall, or too far out can also distort the sound stage. Floor reflections as well as side wall reflections also alter the sound stage.
|
Thanks folks, this is interesting. I assumed most folks would start with the speakers, but it’s interesting how many started with the recording. Keep it coming.
kn
|
@elliottbnewcombjr , I totally agree with you!
Just a quick observation from me. After not having changed a component in almost a year, I took a leap and spent close to 4k on a new vacuum tube preamp with self generating power. I could not believe the enhanced separation and much improved sound stage. So, for me at least, my preamp upgrade made a big difference with regards to the OP's question.
|
@mazian +++
The soundstage is created by the RECORDING ENGINEER when the recording is being MIXED. If it’s not recorded onto the source recording in the sources, digital source nowadays, no equipment ie. media playback equipment, at any cost, will create one in your room.
YES. Speaker placement in the room is very important. Toe in, distance from sidewall and back wall, and ceilings, acoustics treatment, all play, a role in creating a soundstage. if you don’t get it right, you won’t get a soundstage.
Again…No matter what, you won’t get a soundstage, if it’s not on the source media!
There was a thread just a couple of days ago that reviewed this topicl.
Bent
|
All your components and the recording.
|
|
Very good question...
I would say speaker placement (back wall, rear wall, toe in/out) seating position are probably the most important. Of course, recordings and components all contribute to soundstage.
|
I have a CD that is produced specifically to test the placement of your speakers. Sorry I can't give you the name as I'm not at home for a couple months. This recording consists of a dozen tracks with explanations of what instruments you are hearing and exactly where you should be hearing them. It's proof positive that the sound stage is in the recording. Sure your equipment can play a part in the enhancement of the sound, but you can't reproduce something that's not there to begin with. Since the recording is designed to maximise speaker placement, it would stand to reason this is the place to start?
|
Speakers placement
Acoustic treatment
Synergistic Research FEQ Carbon Frequency Equalizer
|
Source, amp, cable all contribute to soundstage.
But most important one is speaker.
I had gone through lot of speaker through my 45 years of audio history.
But line array speaker like Scaena seems to give more realstic soundstage.
Wison speakers are also famous for sharp focus, deep and wide soundstage,, but can sound when overdone.
Thomas
|
For me personally
1 Speakers (speaker placement)
1a acoustic treatment
2 amp and preamp had about the same influence
3 upgraded to discreet DAC
Everthing else was minor compared to these.
|
Soundstage is recorded on the source. So look for components that reproduce the source most accurately.
This is true but misleading...
There is a recorded album acoustic trade off choices by a recording engineer,yes, and to convey it without too much loss by a dac and amplifier is one important thing yes, but to translate this reproduced set of bits and electrical impulses in your room ask for a speakers /room tuning and controls...
And the impact of speakers/room controls in the soundstage and imaging creation comes from the huge impact of the pressure distribution zones of the room , the position of speakers/listeners, the timing of waves, the reverberation control, the balance between reflection-absorbtion-diffusion , etc...
Acoustics rules the gear and his experience from design to listening not the reverse...
Soundstage and imaging are acoustics concept not gear design concept...
|
If we talk about power-cord, than the most contributing component is hands down -- power line.
|
As mentioned, the soundstage is in the recording. The components either reveal or obscure that to some degree, so they all matter.
|
Now I am only going by the numerous posts that have made this claim, but it would appear it's the power cable attached to your conditioner or amp. 🤣
|
