Seeking more 3d imaging, deeper/wider soundstage


I'm considering replacing either my amp or my pre. My system is profiled in my system link. Which do you think would improve soundstage/imaging more:
Replace the P3? I'd consider used McCormack, or a passive line stage, but my amp clips at 5v, which is what my DAC puts out when using the XLR outputs, and I'd like to try those someday...not sure a passive is a good fit for my system? Plus I require a remote. That's a deal breaker.
Replace the Rotel RB-1080? I'd consider parasound (a21 is a bit too pricey for me), used McCormack, odyssey, maybe even older krell or classe. I want XLR inputs tho.
Budget is $900-$1200 for either. Music spans the full gamut, excluding hip hop and country. Room is small, 12x12x8. I'm going to throw up some affordable foam acoustic absorption this summer (foam factory). Thnx in advance.
realremo

Showing 4 responses by raymonda

You need real instruments played in real space and recorded correctly for ultimate 3d playback. The rest is, at best, smoke and mirrors.
My comment was not meant as being judgmental of musical taste, but rather as a recording engineer with 33 years of experience meant to reinforce the fact that real 3d sonics, or something that can best approach that is both system and source sensitive. I can create a very interesting sonic picture via multi track but it will never approach what I can create using purest micing techniques of real instruments in real space.

Use this type of recording for set up and you'll have a very good set up for other types of recordings.....within reason, at least.
Don't expect 3d imaging from hip hop...rap or most pop music....it just isn't there. Try some nicely recorded live jazz or classical to determine what your systems baseline is.....of course the above recommendation with set up and room treatment will need to be done first.....but if the source recording is not 3d..your playback will never be.
This is getting pathetic. So what that people don't agree on the fine details and specifics. Maybe to a degree what everyone is adding, in their experience, is the truth. I know that there is truth to what everyone has added. An inexpensive system....With the right set up....with the right room treatment....playing the right source .....can image like just fine. I could put together a sub $2000 system that could do that. I would have to by thrifty and used.....but I could also spend mega dollars and have that system for lunch in the imaging department...As long as set up, room and source was maximized. Control these 3 variables and you can get more with wise equipment choices and more money....but there does come a point of diminishing returns.

Everyone has what they believe to be the best advice. So be it. My point with source was made....not too many people seemed to care much about that and continued to make recommendations without asking the op what specifically he listens to, e.g. name 10 of your most frequently played albums. You might find that we are trying to turn grape juice into wine....or maybe not.

In any regard, lighten up...let folks speak their minds or defend their own point. Don't take it so personally that someone's wording and opinion is not of your liking. There are many shades of grey. This is a hobby and should not degenerate into such pettiness.