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
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.
Even a cheap system should image and play depth. More has to do with setup (not just placement of the speakers in the room) than anything else. Many speakers won't play depth right if they are too close to the wall behind them. So you will have to play with them to get depth (if you don't, no amount of equipment swapping will get it for you).

Once you achieve that then you might consider changing components to get more nuance. I am an advocate of tubes (and your speakers are not a difficult load for any tube amp that also has the power to drive them in your room) but despite my preferences you've got some good advice on this thread that will cost you nothing but a little time experimenting.
All things being equal I still believe that tubes provide a deeper soundstage with greater depth. As always YMM
"Even a cheap system should image and play depth. More has to do with setup (not just placement of the speakers in the room) than anything else"

When I read this nonsense you don't understand audio.

I have done thousend of tests in more than 16 years of time I do this work. Differences in depth between speakers, amps, pre amps, sources, cables and even conditioners are huge.

I can create a lot of depth even when speakers are placed near the wall. Stuppid remark again. When you use an amp and speakers which can give a wide and deep stage you also can create a deep stage. Roomcorrection makes the stage also deeper, it gives you more accuracy.

Every single tool I test for what kind of image it gives. These differences in depth are big.

When you use those brands which can create more depth, you make it yourself a lot more easy.

Ofcourse when you put speakers more of the wall you get moe depth. But when an amp is poor in depth, you never get a deep stage.

And yes tubes are a great example which often can create a nice deep sound.

At the end there are different ways to create a deep stage. Don't forget that at most shows many demos are flat and are often 2 dimensional.
I almost spit out my morning coffee when I read Bo's latest above. He obviously has no idea who he is spurting off to. I could never imagine Bo attempting to school this gentleman. But wait a minute...I just did.

Another self dug hole from village's favorite...well you know what.