In reverse, which component, when replaced, would change your perception of sound stage, the least?
Either way, this likely is going nowhere.
Component contributions to “sound stage”
What components in your stereo system do you think make the largest contribution to your perception of sound stage in your system? Which element or component contributes the least to this part of the stereo listening experience?
Rankings are fine. Justifications or explanations are even better.
kn
58 responses Add your response
Speakers design in relation to room ... For headphone the amplifier/pre which play the second role in creating a better virtual speakers/room soundstaging impression may appear more important. But even with headphone the acoustic design of the shell cup and his acoustic content will be the first factor. The problem is most headphone do not have acoustically well designed shell/cups nor any resonators tuning inside as my K340... ( i dislike generally headphones because of the "inside of the head soundstage" because of their lack of shell acoustic room tuning among others factors for sure ) 😊 ----Then Speakers/room as no1... ----Amplifier and preamplifier No2 ----Dac design as no3
Speakers /room are always the main factor but this fact can appear to be reversed or contradicted in favor of number 2 or 3 in each specific situation with a specific gear pieces and a specific owner situation and history and needs ... But at the end we cannot replace acoustics principles as the first rule with historical relative impressions of each different listeners in his specific constraining situation as the rule... Speakers/room relation is the main factor nevermind our anecdotal but very real for sure gear dependant impressions ...
What i said is true for our usual classical owner of stereo system situation ... But the crosstalk disruptive effect of any stereo system cannot be cured by speakers/room relation only nor any other classical gear upgrade. We must buy the BACCH filters to improve not only soundstage dimensions and impressions but localisation of sound source and listener envelopment, then immersiveness. «Dr. Edgar Choueiri, a plasma physicist and Professor of Princeton University, delved into the world of 3D audio with one mission: crack the code on cross-talk cancellation. Within his research lab over the past decade, he was able to perfect cross-talk-cancellation of two loudspeakers to produce true 3D audio that replicates any binaurally recorded or virtually constructed soundscape perfectly. » |
1. Get thee an inexpensive SPL Meter combined with a CD (not LP) with Test Tones (I use 'Amazing Bytes' (a few on discogs now). Use tools 1st, then adjust to personal preference. 2. refine Speakers Location and Toe-In for that space/listening position(s) 3. Vinyl: Cartridge Choice: Prior to sound 'preference' choice: Wide Stereo Separation and Tight Center Balance specs effect imaging tremendously. 4. Balance refinement, remote balance preferred. A small balance tweak can make a large improvement in imaging.
|
Have you noticed that sometimes when an OP asks a serious question, a difficult question, many of the responders poke fun because they can't provide a thoughtful, experienced response. In my experience regarding soundstage, speakers are the most significant contributor, but that can be altered by source, amplification, room, etc. |
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...
|
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 |
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? |
@mazian +++ |
@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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
@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! |
@livingwellinco : "The soundstage is unreal." Really, man! |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
@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. |
@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. |
@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. |
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.
|
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.
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... |
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 |
@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.
|
@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 |