Solid state amplifiers and sound stage, especially front to back "depth"

@jjss49 Thanks. Might spring for it. 

@hilde45

fwiw

https://www.ebay.com/itm/124794699355?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&...

sacd/cd version

I don't have a turntable, so I cannot try "Test Record 1 - Depth of Image ( Opus 3 Disc # 79-00 )". Alas.

also, maybe an old F like myself already mentioned this great tool….

Test Record 1 - Depth of Image ( Opus 3 Disc # 79-00 )

playing it now on the reference system….miles and so many layers of depth……

Even my ancient Audionics of Oregon CC2 one of the first of the Otala inspired low TIM amps, is a 3D imaging champ….

IF you want to better understand the why do some research on the speaker and electronics design genius of Charlie Hansen ( RIP ) one hint low to zero negative feedback :-)
I miss him

@tomic601 @jjss49 advised the same thing. On my watch list.

Ayre…. Miles of depth 

Thank you for the kind words Hilde, the 535 it is definitely undervalued, my current 535 loan probably doesn’t have much left from its original guts, it has Chris Hoppe’s power supply and other mods https://hoppesbrain.com/ but the sound with 4 ohms speakers like the Klipsch is great considering its value. I had some years ago a Yamaha AS2100, more costly than the modded 535, as good as the Yamaha is can’t compete with this 535, it is an increíble value in Hifi

Edit, I'm a little cynical with a slight oversight here, the Yamaha comparison is totally unfair, the Yamaha was an integrated, the 535 front end is an Atmasphere MP-1, duh 

@luisma31 I love that story and hope you get back the gear you clearly deserve.

FYI, I have the Adcom 535 amp and it really does a lot for it's age and non-hi-end nature. In my opinion, it's way undervalued on the used market, because it's great in a pinch!

@hilde45 interesting discussion, I just noticed that this seemed to have steered into the tubes vs SS conundrum and I may have missed it but the old speaker synergy could have been overlooked.

I have been going through some changes in my audio system, mainly because I have been struggling with work and money related matters, this is on its way to be solved so I think I will be fine.

I purchased some time ago atmasphere MA-1s, incredible amplifiers which I fell in love with. Initially were used with Klipsch P37F and the Soundstage was great, the detail and transparency unique. Then I acquired AudioKinesis Azel speakers, a big step upgrade over the Klipsch and better sounding with the MA-1s.

Along the way I tried many other tube amps with the Azels, different tubes too, SET amps, PSETs, nothing was comparable to the atmasphere.
Full disclosure I have always been a fan of tube amps.

I had to put the speakers Azels for sale, great speakers, got back the Klipsch and putting the Klipsch with the atmaspheres back so disappointing, not the same lows, glary highs, I thought the Klipsch were really bad, further changes I had to sell the MA-1s too, the day these were picked up I felt like something was lost, but hey you have situations sometimes.

Spent about 3 weeks without music or audio, good friend of mine loaned me a cheap inexpensive modified Adcom GFA-535, hey I don't like SS but this will allow me to listen in the meantime while I restructure my life and Financials.
Connected the Adcom to my Klipsch without expecting anything different that what I would get from a bose single speaker. Wow, the Klipsch became a completely different speaker, meaty, the woofer excursion provides excellent bass, the glare was gone, probably because of roll off on the highs.
Now the Adcom distorts like the atmasphere never did / will, the transparency of the atmasphere is not there either (that magic is lacking) but this doesn't mean it is not musical. I knew the P37F was 96 dB of sensitivity and in my mind for some reason I had 8 ohm nominal which in paper should be good for tubes, going back to the spec it is actually 4 ohm nominal and a few phase issues.
I consider Ralph a friend, a superb smart guy and completely accomplished individual so I'm not trying to compare the atmasphere gear to anything here or detract from it, I'm just mentioning it because it is what I owned. All I'm saying is something most of you know already.
My Klipsch I would never again try to use it with tube amps, I would never also use these for anything else than rock electronic casual listening. My ideal system would still be atmasphere with high efficient speakers for something special.
Just don't make this thread another SS vs tubes discussion, me personally I found now that completely detracting from something (SS in this case) made me blind to reality.

I have a Lyngdorf 2170 (modded up a bit).

Over the last few years I’ve done many of the usual things aimed at optimizing SQ in every parameter most audiophiles pursue.  Depth of soundstage remained elusive.  I had some depth, but nothing I would consider particularly noteworthy, much less bragging rights.  

Then, about 3 months ago, I put some upholstered ottomans (the size of small-to-medium-sized subs) in the corners behind the speakers and on top of them I placed oak plywood boards 54” H by 16.5” wide that bridge the corners of the room.  And I moved the speakers further into the room by about an additional 10”.  Tweeters are now about 45” from the front wall.  The only add’l thing I’ve done since is add inexpensive spring pods under the speakers.  They been there for about a  month and improved SQ in many ways, but I’ve not removed them to make sure—yet.   I’ve not taken add’l measures to see if I can improve depth even more (treatment on the front wall, perhaps?). But for me, the depth is now unreal.  Not incrementally better.  An entirely different league.  The depth is now perhaps THE standout aspect of my rig’s performance.

Please know, the ottomans, the boards and moving the speakers further into the room improved MANY things, not just depth of soundstage.

I’ve not experienced one amp having depth and another not—in the same set up.  Kind of a tough one for ya, seems to me.

Good luck.

@mahgister i do not normally go to live performances as at home i have better  SQ, in average. But if you are at q live unplugged performance, where you expect the sound will come from other than from the scene? 

@tweak1  If all the factors are the same and the difference is only the amp and the depth disappears, I don't understand how your comment applies.

Most likely it is your dac, pre and cabling. See my comments in the "class D is it dry" thread

Thanks for your interest...

It look complicated but it is not.... It is only fun....

And if i could do it, me who is not crafty at all, anybody can do it...

My best to you.... Enjoy your room one step at a time....

@mahgister Thank you so much for the links. The Science Direct one looks very good. I will look at the others. 

I am willing to experiment and also alter my room, perhaps not as much as you. So, I hope there is some kind of solution here that does not require as much effort or complication as it seems. I cannot look for a "needle in a haystack" but I can take time to make improvements if there is a clear process that is incrementally better.

I just listened to Canadian Brass back album Goldberg Variation....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhHa8Pfw2E8


The sound is NOT between the speakers at all....

Completely filled my room coming from different directions and i feel surrounded by them....

Then for snratio and mijostyn claiming that it is impossible that the sound fill my room but must comes only from between the speakers it is like i said for sometimes now plainly false by simple acoustic law used in room treatment (timing reflection) and room control (marking out the 2 frontwaves coming from each speaker for each ear and tuning the room also for the specific speakers)....They call that "tricks" without knowing that all acoustic is mastering of " tricks" linked to general laws and phenomena known from millenia and mature with Helmholtz....Roman and Greek and Egyptian already used big amphora in room theater like i used my tubes and Helmholtz his bottles....



Then you can use this excellent recording and interpretation to guess where you are with your room control...

If your sound stay in between the speakers you are not there.... If you are immersed in the soundfield forgetting where are the speakers you are there.... Between these 3 extremes there will be levels of listener envelopment....from an imaging locked between the speakers to an imaging surrounding you....


When you have that like me for 500 bucks you dont think about an upgrade.... The sound will be better if i was upgrading my Sansui bor a Berning amplifier and my Mission speakers for i dont know what....But i can live happy with my 500 bucks system thanks to maturity design of my dac and vintage amplifier and speakers but thanks for the most part to acoustic control without which i know welll that the sound will be imaging BETWEEN the speakers not all over my room with me in them....I know because it was the same gear i used for the last 5 years before acoustic control, before vibrations control and before my relative control of the electrical noise floor....

I apologise for my long posts....

 thanks for your interest and   my deepest respect....

Mahgister, helmholtz controls sound very interesting. Can you refer me to some threads where they’re mentioned so I can read up on them? All the best,

i never see someone who use a grid of Helmotlz resonators with tubes and pipes consisting of 2 or 3 sections with a volume and 2 necks of different diameter...i see boxes with cavities and holes which are also resonator specifically tuned for some frequency...

I created this reading an article about the first frontwave law and when arguing here with an "objectivist" about the importance of acoustic few months ago...

This article:

The relation between spatial impression and the law of the first wavefront - ScienceDirect

I can send it to you if you give me your adress...

And read that to an introduction:

https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/Helmholtz.html

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1805/1805.04014.pdf


This is not simple but it will give you an idea why i used volume with double neck of different diameter

http://www.ica2016.org.ar/ica2016proceedings/ica2016/ICA2016-0491.pdf

I adjust all my grid by trials and errors and by ears but this will give you the "gist" of the matter:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Waves/cavity.html


There a plenty of materials to be inspired on the net just typing Helmholtz resonators...


The idea of the grid like i use it now around 40 tubes and pipes with orientable and adjustable neck or double neck is nowhere....i found nothing resembling my idea save "Argent lens room tuner"....

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/noisy14.htm
But the argent lens room tuner inspire me BUT this cost thousand bucks and after my experiment i realize that i could do better a NO cost... I did....

The first article about the firstvrontwave law was the more IMPORTANT...

I realize that i must tailor the room for the speakers and not the speakers for the room (elkectronical equalization)

Then i realize that i could place some resonators near the bass driver of only one of my speakers and some other resonators near the tweeter of the pther speakers, it is the way i used to MARKING OUT for each ear each speaker with a different enhenced and damped frequency different for each speaker.... This made easier the recognition of direction of the sound in my room by the brain...

I placed many different resonators in 3 other locations after the speakers, near the lateral reflection area, and behind my listening position...

It take near 3 months of adjustment but it was fun....

It is complete now EVERYTHING sound natural.... It was trials and errors but it is way more easy to do then most people think....

Anyway the cost was near zero bucks....

And many albums now sound like if the orchestra fill the room....

I think that even if the gear is important, for average gear under 10,000 bucks, then orfinary gear, it is the acoustic which is very important way more than electrical noise floor control or vibration control...

for me passive material treatment (homemade) so good it is now was not enough.... The grid made my system a new one...

I will never upgrade because the cost will be arounf 15,000 bucks to kill my 500 bucks very satisfying system....

I feel no frustration now listening anything that is better than my system... They are better but i lag behind not too far for the price i paid. The ratio S.Q./price is the key....

If you need some information feel free to ask...

I am not an acoustician by the way but even if what i described seems complex mathematically, it is very easy to design if you are crafty.... I am not and it take me 1 hour to design my 6 first pipes....

You must use some aborbing stuff in the basis of the tube...if the tube is the volume for the neck i used straws if different diameter the smaller possible to a few millimeters...i Plugged smaller straw for example in finer one with tunable lenght by cut which made them easy to insert in one another.... I modified them on the spot with listening experiments...


Try 3 sets of 3 like the argent room lens but with tubes of diffent volume and size, it could be made not too horrible aesthetically.... If you are in a living room i am afraid that you will not be able to do that without divorce.... I am sorry....
😊
My best to you...

Agree, Erik. 
Mahgister, helmholtz controls sound very interesting. Can you refer me to some threads where they're mentioned so I can read up on them? All the best,

No one is going to like this, but asides from room acoustics behind and in front of the listener, frequency changes can really alter our perception of imaging, and in this regard, I can see tube gear, more susceptible to speaker impedances, being more likely to produce some of these effects.

On the contrary many will like what you say....
Because it is right...

An Helmholtz resonator damp some frequency and enhance and diffuse some other.... It is a physical acoustical fact...A grid of many modify the pressure zones of the room and the imaging detph perception for sure...

And you are right this have an impact on imaging and his articulation with the soundstage and also with the listener envelopment factor in relation with source width...

But tube gear or not, if the S.S. is well designed like my vintage Sansui AU 7700, it work....

For tube gear effect atmasphere explained clearly why it is so and why you are right...

But no tube gear can replace acoustic control, and  acoustic control cannot redeem a bad S.S. design....

My best to you....

No one is going to like this, but asides from room acoustics behind and in front of the listener, frequency changes can really alter our perception of imaging, and in this regard, I can see tube gear, more susceptible to speaker impedances, being more likely to produce some of these effects.

The most recent podcast from Darren and Duncan sheds some light on the issue of left right and depth soundstage, particularly the kinds of factors involved in the design responsible for enhancing or limiting them. Also some interesting comments about class D amps and soundstage. Look for the episode with the title mentioning sonic holography. 

@niodari FWIW we've been working on a class D amp of our own design for the last 4 years. It **should** not matter to reproduce depth if the amp is tube or solid state. But the simple fact is most solid state designs have troubles in this regard- but not all. 

Thanks @lowrider.. for letting me know the credits of @atmasphere . I had a quick look at the site, it made a solid and convincing impression on me. I wish him all the best in his art of design perfect tube amplification.

I think it's safe to say that Ralph is a Renaissance Man.

@niodari
The company is Atma-sphere Music Systems. No affiliation.

Thanks to recent posters. 
@avanti1960  Speaker positioning cannot be the factor responsible, as previously explained. Thanks for other insights, though.

front to back depth has for me been more about speaker positioning than amplification.  
depth is only limited by how far from the wall you can pull the speakers into the room.  it is an excellent way to listen when your speakers are 5 feet from the wall or even more.  

stage height and width are more amplifier dependent.  i had a mid line solid state integrated and the stage was tiny, like a small window.  A-B' many times.  
my tube integrated and separates had the tallest, widest stage by far.  
tube preamp with good solid state amp is also nice.  
tubes rule by far, solid state sound stage size depends on quality of the amp.  

hilde45 OP2,010 posts05-21-2021 9:05a
....I have returned the amp. I'm open to suggestions.

hilde45,
I just in-home auditioned a pair of Valvet A4 monoblocks and kept them.  They're solid state class A and compared favorably with my tube and other SS amps for soundstage depth and width.  They get tone, decay and airiness right. (Caveat: with my speakers and all the rest)  ~$8K and 30 day trial period.
Cheers

Kind of late to the party but my Belles Aria Integrated has an awesome soundstage.  Im moving on to a Raven Nighthawk which supposedly has exceptional soundstage width so we’ll see...  

I’ll report back with my findings / opinions 

Thanks @ghasley  for letting me know about the business of @atmasphere - sincerely i didn't have that info and don't see from where i could have it. Hence, the question  required an answer (for me i mean). And thanks @atmasphere  for your kind response (by the way, which instrument you play - i used to play and like the most base). Now I understand your motivation and again, i am not at all against tube amplification. In fact, i spent > 20 years mostly auditioning a tube amplifier. But, the most of the things are relative and i found it really useful to compare tube amplification with SS. I tried a McIntosh SS class A/B amp. My first impression was that it was delivering a cleaner sound, but other things were not as good as in my tube amp. Now I think that i reached some equilibrium/satisfaction with the current class D in my main system. I could also like your tube amps but am unable to carry out the necessary study (even don't know which amps you produce): I still enjoy analysis of different sound reproductions and comparisons  between them (far below your authoritative level).  

I trust your perception - are you a musician or a sound engineer?

I play in a band and have been playing since I was about 4 years old. I also run a recording studio that has LP mastering capacity. But I make my living as a designer for a high end audio company that makes amps and preamps.

@niodari I was just comparing the question you asked as a question that shouldn’t require an answer.


@atmasphere builds some of the more highly regarded tube amplifiers in the world. I am not a customer of his and I have never owned an Atmasphere amplifier or preamplifier but his street cred is legit.

Hey @ghasley.. I would not ask such a question to Dalai Lama - i know there exists no verbal answer on it (i do hatha yoga can reach physically all asanas  -  this not necessarily " enlightens" you; in general,  the meaning of "enlightened" is quite vague and speculative). 
And which question do you mean (or did you mean 
" ... asking the Dalai Lama what is his profession")? 
By the way, if you still ask to  Dalai Lama the question you stated, i guess he would just reply that each person decides what  "enlightened" means for him. 

@niodari Your question for @atmasphere is the equivalent to asking the Dalai Lama if he understands what it means to be enlightened. 

@atmasphere 
I trust your perception - are you a musician or a sound engineer? 
These things are subjective. There is more air with tube reproduction
that makes it very pleasing but not necessarily plausible. I mean, the
real sound is a bit different. What I hear in my SS class D gear - I consider it more real. It depends on you whether you prefer pleasing or plausible. I like both.  

Again, i personally enjoy very much tube reproduction, but at the same time, I consider the sound stage, in particular, somewhat "artificially exaggerated" (but pleasing) after comparing it with the other system.

IME it takes a really good solid state amp to keep up with tubes in that regard. Having made my own recordings which I've released on LP and CD, I've not found that tube amps exaggerate depth.

@hilde..I didn't mean a real echoes of course but something similar compared to the SS reproduction that i have in my another system with Cherry Megaschino Class d amp and Wired4Sound STP 2 pre. STP does make the already good sound stage of the Mega wider - somewhat comparable to tubes but more real and natural. Again, i personally enjoy very much tube reproduction, but at the same time,  I consider the sound stage, in particular, somewhat "artificially exaggerated" (but pleasing) after comparing it with the other system. 

@niodari Thanks for that. Being honest, I cannot say I've heard the "echoey" aspect of the tube sound stage. Then again, maybe I've yet to hear the right gear. May I ask what your solid state and class D gear are? Thanks.

@hilde...I would say that tube amps give an "echo-like" sound stage (perhaps because of harmonics of different levels), and good SS amps give more realistic sound stage. I use both, tube and SS class D gear, and I cannot assure which I like more. Class D for me is more real and natural and tubes are very pleasing, i like both, different things in each (as one may like different aspects in different women). 
Roughly, a less realistic reproduction may sound more pleasing, like impressionist paintings may better reflect your inner feelings than realistic ones. It is subjective. But I think that objectivity, class D SS amps give most realistic, natural and clean sound (stage).

I'll take a look at the video. I just tried out a @2k amp so this would be a bit of a leap but if it's good, it's good.

Look at the video by Myles Astor on the mk 1 he loved it however the mk 2 is much better I love mine.

@ebm Thanks so much for the recommendation. I’ll check it out! (Just looked -- a review had it at £16,250.)

The Audia Flight #4 MK2 power amp has plenty of power as well as tube like depth.It also had superior sound and built quality as well.

Thank you, @atmasphere 

I have returned the amp. I'm open to suggestions.

the amp produces a sound stage that is nicely defined and articulate from left to right, but not as much from front to back.I know my room is capable of that sound stage because my tube amp accomplishes it.

@hilde45 Tubes have long dominated the field when it comes to presenting soundstage width and depth. I've outlined reasons why amps might be weak in this department. In a nutshell, if you want the same depth in a solid state amp, you'll have to move on from the one you have.


Its entirely fair to expect a solid state amp to be able to equal tubes in this regard. But IME you'll probably have to audition the candidates side by side with your tube amps to know you're getting what you want. IMO most solid state designs are lacking in this department and its been a problem historically since solid state became practical. But there are designs out there now that appear up to the task. 

Love the talk about Sansui. I have a 7070 that was bought new in 1977. It has been running in my wife's business for the last 23 years. The only time it has been turned off is for a power outage. This receiver just keeps going. Don't want to reminisce but they made this equipment like tanks. The power supply on this could double for an arch welder. When it was my main rig it powered bose 901’s. Have to admit they sounded pretty good. I have tried the bose with other amps and receivers but nothing could push them like the sansui did.

@niodari 

On the other hand, whenever positioning of each musician is regarded, in width or depth, I guess the type and quality of a particular recording is important.

This is a valid point. But if one uses the same exact recording and the only change in the entire setup is amplifier -- and then the positioning, width, and especially depth is affected -- then the only thing which can be responsible is the one variable which changed. In this case, it was the amplifier.

I think that here are two different issues.  First is the body and the depth of each instrument,  how individual instruments sound. Here I think besides the recording quality, amplifying equipment is definitive. On the other hand, whenever positioning of each musician is regarded, in width  or  depth, I guess  the type and quality of a particular recording is important. Perhaps, recording with a single microphone would be more beneficial. But most jazz recordings are not made this way, mostly classical music I guess.

@213runnin Thanks. Previous posts in this thread addressed all those things.