Sound staging; Sepertaes Vs. Integrated

Is ther a technical reason as to why seperates can (Or do) throw a wider and or deeper soundstage? I have great imaging from my integrated but, also remember that my seperates that I used to have threw a bigger stage and was wondering why that might be and if someone could could help as to the reason(s) why that might be?
I don't know the technical reason, maybe something to do with the larger power supplies that seperate chassis' can give you.
I have noticed this effect going even further, switching from a stereo amp to monoblock amps as well. I can't explain this phenomena, but I have heard it as well.
I am no technical expert, but seems that one possible answer is obvious. Have you ever experienced "bleed-through" of one source to another? IOW, you play a CD while the preamp is set to "Phono" instead of "CD" or "Aux" and you can hear the CD player's output faintly. Now, a really good design should keep that from happening, but the point is that there is probably the possibility of similar effects occuring in situations where two channels (stereo power amp) share a chassis and at least some of the componentry thus reducing the total separation of the channels that one gets with mono blocks.

We need Al for a better explanation of might be happening.

Al, you out there?
This seems to be based upon a tacit assumption... that being that somehow separates provide better staging than do integrateds. I am unconvinced that this is true... or even testable. One would need both separates and an integrated of the exact company with the exact circuit components and then compare between them... and then see if there is a difference.

Likely what you have experienced is higher quality separates compared to lesser quality integrateds.. and there you perceive distinctivess in staging.

The premise is itself flawed.
Agree with Robsker.
Unless you’re comparing the same circuit design - the only differences being those necessary to to expand/condense between one and two or three chassis - the comparison is unfair. My current integrated amplifier throws a more convincing soundstage than many separates that I’ve heard. Quality of parts and design are the key factors, not the number of boxes they’re in.
Robsker & Phaelon, Thanks also for your opinions, I am usuing a Classe CAP 151 integrated and has been forelorning a bit of the difference from my prior Aragon 2004/18K and have considered changing to maybe a Simaudio (like maybe the I-7) unit or a Mcintosh (MA 6600)that comes to mind, but... I connect my ARC CD 3 Mk 2 balanced and need an integrated that can accomidate that as well as having enough headroom and power for my Apogee Slant 6s. Don't get me wrong the presentation IS great just maybe looking to squeeze even more again and (hopefully) stop changing in any future (even though I'd like to be full ARC).
Frogman, thank you kindly for the implicit compliment.

I essentially agree with all of the foregoing comments, including yours. As Phaelon and Robsker have indicated, generalizations about design approaches will inevitably be wrong in many cases. But to the extent that there may be a TENDENCY for separates to produce bigger soundstages than integrateds, I would expect that in a lot of cases a major factor is that the more circuitry is put on a single chassis, the more opportunity there is for unwanted interaction between various parts of that circuitry.

In principle it would seem that that tendency could be overcome with sufficient care in the design process. And I don't doubt that in many cases it is overcome. But any design involves so many competing variables, tradeoffs, and compromises that it wouldn't be surprising if the inherent and potential advantages and disadvantages of a particular design approach tend to come to the fore more often than not.

Best regards,
-- Al