Holographic Soundstage ?


I would like to share my observation and hopefully get some input from people who have the same interest.

My system consist of Wharfedale Opus 3 , Krell KRC-3 preamp, Krell KSA 150 amp, Chord Qutest DAC and a computer with JCAT USB EX running Roon/with LPSU from HDPlex.
I mainly like holographic soundstage and would be able to achieve a very good 3D soundstaging with my current Krell setup.
I decided to try out tube amp a couple days ago because I read through the internet and everybody told me that tube amp always have better holographic soundstage and 3D imaging comparing to SS amp.
So I order a Raven Blackhawk MK3 from Raven audio with 45 days home trial just to try it out. I was expecting a very holographic soundstage that will blow my Krell out of the water.
Well, I was so WRONG. The Krell combo actually has a deeper and wider soundstage comparing to the Raven.
The Raven also has some very weak bass comparing to the Krell which is more punchy and tonally rich textured bass.
I cannot understand why it happens. I am always under the impression that tube amp will always provide more holographic soundstage. Obviously, In my set up the Krell is superior when it come to 3 dimensionality.

I will keeping trying out the Raven Blackhawk in the next couple of weeks and if things are not improved. I am ready to return the Raven and perhaps trying out the other tube amps (or solid state amps) that can beat the Krell combo.

If any one has some idea of such a product, please let me know. I am looking for an upgrade right now.

128x128viethluu
@sgreg1 that is not how it works.

Also It’s not unusual for tube amps with higher output impedance ( than SS in general and Krell) to have relatively less articulate bass and inferior dynamics as it interacts with the speaker load at various frequencies. Distortion is likely much higher in that case than with a comparable SS amp of lower output impedance overall. This is why impedance matching matters.
Post removed 
Because you don’t have it. You may think you do, but you do not. No matter what you do with acoustics, you cannot do what is required to accomplish this. Time to learn more about this before typing. You will save a lot of typing.
I know that you are more knowledgeable than me and most in audio by a more than a small margin...

I hope that in spite of our different perspectives you smell the difference between me and some others....

BUT instead of explaining why i am supposed to be deluded you dismiss my experience...It is not enough....Sorry....We do not discuss "directed wiring" here... But the relation of acoustic with improvement of perception and the use of mechanical distributed Helmholtz resonators versus electronical means...I dont pretend that my solution is perfect it is not... But efficient at no cost it is....




I just listened the same files someone here proposed like a test and i lived the same perceptive experience or something near it because i am not frustrated about what he described and what i experience...

my remarks are only linked to a question: what acoustic control can do on par or better than Carver c9 ? it is a question but i had the impression that i lack nothing about all acoustical factors which other described.... I even prefer my grid to the synergetic research processor i listened to on many video on youtube....Anyway my ratio S.Q. /price is very high compared to them .... 😁

Explain to me why not? instead of dismissing without justification....

By the way my grid of Helmholtz resonators are not distributed randomly and i used the tweeter wavefront of one speaker and the bass driver of the other speaker to help my ears recreate the sense of space.... And contrary to a crosstalk control device i can work with "timbre perception" .... In my acoustic experience all factors like imaging, soundstage, LEV, are all linked in a kind of acoustical trade-off which i control with fine tuning mechanically the volume/neck ratio, the length.... It is not perfect but spectacular and sound natural to me....




Post removed 
You may even be inclined at that point to pull out your headphones.
I perhaps overestimated your knowledge a bit here...

Your last sentence is all i must know...

I dont doubt the superior possibilities of electronic tech in headphone....But it was not my point....

My point was a comparison between my Helmholtz grid against a processor in room acoustic control....

It is impossible for me to go back to any of my headphone now.... They are not on par with my room control...

It is easy to verify connecting any one of them:

3 dynamics, 2 Stax, one hybrid, 1 magneplanar..

They are all different, but not on par with my 2 positions of listening in my room...They have all of them their own good and bad points but they all lack natural timbre experience and livelier sound compared to my room.... ALL.... And any  characterics they had more than my room before my acoustic control i had it now with my acoustic control in my room in a more natural way....


The fact that you say the opposite to me, and ask me to go back to headphones, reveal that you dont own a good room, or perhaps you own the best headphone there is and the costlier....

I will stay "ignorant" it seems... With my ears open tough....

I suggest learning about what the cross-talk issue is w.r.t. 2 channel audio and locating sounds and then you will understand why room acoustics cannot solve this.
If the recording engineer recorded the sounds of a cd or a files in some way with ANY three dimensional effects and directions, i listen  already to them in my room.... then  i dont look about locating sound better than i did alreadsy with my room controls.... Why doubting my results?

I think it is you who have no idea how i used my distribution of resonators in relation with my EARS and EACH speaker in an asymmetric way in my room ....




I know you know more than me in audio...

But knowing more is not knowing BETTER in all cases...

Meditate this....

I will read about what you just suggest anyway....

Thanks for your answer....