The 'soundstage' presented from a stereo system takes a holistic approach to the complete system. It of course is ultimately restricted by the quality of the recording. But the purpose of the system is to extract as much information from the source and present it to the listener.
The depth of the presentation is dependent on the resolution of the system and many things can effect this.
Fundanentally one element of the system can obscure the depth and this can lead the listener to perceive that a change of one element makes no change. If that is the conclusion of an element change sometimes the best approach is to look at another part of the system.
I am reminded of various changes that have improved soundtage presentation.
Adding the right amount of internal stuffing to a DIY speaker - making a soundstage far more focussed.
Busting a gut tuning a Merril Modified AR deck and then finding that the preamlifier was far more microphonic & needed a dedicated support, which allowed the system performance to be transformed!
Listening to a Hand built Vandenhul Decca Cartridge for the firet time,
Getting a turntable mounted on a proper shelf on a non resonant supporting wall.
As a suggestion has the OP got a proper support for the electronics? Equimpent supported on a resonant cabinet can kill a soundtage dead.
Amplifiers themselves are fairly well understood and high performing. But the associated electronic processing and preamlification can have a profound degredation of the soundstage.
I own a AVR type amplifier (Pioneer) and in my experience it sounds terrible. I suspect the amplifier section is not to blame but the performance of the unit as a whole is crap.
The depth of the presentation is dependent on the resolution of the system and many things can effect this.
Fundanentally one element of the system can obscure the depth and this can lead the listener to perceive that a change of one element makes no change. If that is the conclusion of an element change sometimes the best approach is to look at another part of the system.
I am reminded of various changes that have improved soundtage presentation.
Adding the right amount of internal stuffing to a DIY speaker - making a soundstage far more focussed.
Busting a gut tuning a Merril Modified AR deck and then finding that the preamlifier was far more microphonic & needed a dedicated support, which allowed the system performance to be transformed!
Listening to a Hand built Vandenhul Decca Cartridge for the firet time,
Getting a turntable mounted on a proper shelf on a non resonant supporting wall.
As a suggestion has the OP got a proper support for the electronics? Equimpent supported on a resonant cabinet can kill a soundtage dead.
Amplifiers themselves are fairly well understood and high performing. But the associated electronic processing and preamlification can have a profound degredation of the soundstage.
I own a AVR type amplifier (Pioneer) and in my experience it sounds terrible. I suspect the amplifier section is not to blame but the performance of the unit as a whole is crap.
To put it simply. Big speakers sound big, small speakers sound....well eh, small. It's the law of physics. trying to create a big soundstage with small speakers is like trying to turn lead into gold, it's only one electron different but impossible to achieve. Small speakers need help to sound big.
Bad amplifiers sound flat, good amplifiers sound deep.
Bad amplifiers sound flat, good amplifiers sound deep.
Ok, I knew someone would disagree. But you don't give your opinion... that's easy, ha!
Well, here you have a "copy and paste" of a definition that I found, I hope you like it and tell me that it is different from what I stated.
" What is the Difference Between Soundstage and Imaging?
Soundstage and imaging appear as if they are the same thing. However, there is a slight difference that separates one from the other. A section of audiophiles believes that imaging is more important while the other section claims sound staging is a priority.As we mentioned earlier, the soundstage is created and is not an integral part of the original audio. A soundstage is the width, depth, and height of the recorded audio. It can be played through stereo speakers or headphones.
When you listen to music with soundstage and close your eyes, the speakers should be replaced by three-dimensional spatial cues that resemble the original setup when the audio was recorded. A good sound stage offers a lot of “space” to portray the music.
Imaging is the ability of the speakers or headphones to project and portray where each sound is coming from within the soundstage. If you can “see” the singer and the orchestra perform their instruments in your mind’s eye, then the imaging is perfect. If you can feel the spaciousness of the stage around you, then the soundstage is excellent.
In short, sound staging is the stage, and imaging is the recreation of the artists and instruments in your environment. Both together deliver the best musical experience. "
https://headphonesproreview.com/soundstaging/
Since you like Jeff Bagbys' work maybe something like his Kairos w/the bass module is in order. I know Sjef suggested a sub but to integrate that with your Piccolo would need a crossover modification I'd assume, running that lower woofer (sub) up into 400hz territory. In my mind, you're lacking in the lower mid range, taking away that sense of a larger sound stage. The room is lacking that pressurization a larger driver would bring.
Cool. These are really helpful!
My Anthem 310 AVR does did fine, when in my old room that I had treatments in. Playback electronics have so little to do with it. Even my little SMSL Tripath on my desk, it is only about treatments and content. My current HT is a disaster because of doors and windows.
They are not a single factor Dave. Imaging and sound stage are two distinct characteristics.
I haven't heard Anthem but I do know from first hand experience that 'some' NAD AVRs are better than many well regarded two channel stereo amplifiers in the same price range.
But they are already separate characteristics. You can have loudspeakers that image well without producing a convincing sound stage. Ask classicalfan about that.
Thank you for the clarification. Using your definition, "soundstage" is something not included in the recording, but rather created in the playback system with the purpose to portray a larger and more expansive than just two speakers in your room. What you are trying to create is a diffuse field, which does exactly the above.
Creating a diffuse field in a small room is difficult, and connot be achieved with two conventional speakers. Omnidirectional speakers, like those by MBL, will do this, especially if placed in a highly reflective room. You will give up any defined imaging though. Since those cost like a high-end car, another option would be (as someone previously suggested) dipole speakers. Since they typically won't sound anything like your current speakers, consider adding them as diffuse-field generators. The idea position would be with the null facing you, and perahps two pairs. The should also be slightly delayed so they don't defocus your main speakers, which will further and dramatically increase your definition of "soundstage". Just put them around the space, perhaps a bit higher than your main speakers, and be ready to adjust their level relative to the main pair. The nice thing is, if you put them on their own amp with volume control, you can adjust your "soundstage" on the fly, and per recording. You can find dipole speakers in the home theater/surround market. Dipole, not Bipole, and not Tripole either. Look at M&K for starters.
The quality of these speakers does not have to equal your main pair, but should be good for what they are. They will not need to produce much energy to contribute. They can go behind the main pair on the front wall, and behind the LP. If you could delay the back pair a bit more than the front pair, you will "enlarge" your "soundstage" even more. Again, the contribution does not need to be great too artificially create a huge "soundstage", a little bit will do a lot.
Actually, your AVR should do a fine job managing this entire system. But no amp or preamp can create a diffuse field, you need actual speakers to do that.
Yes we know it all.... it is in the 5% as I wrote.
95% of what you hear in classical event is not below 40 hz and it decreases in spl very fastly above 800 hz.
Jaddie say :
.........
" Actually, your AVR should do a fine job managing this entire system. But no amp or preamp can create a diffuse field, you need actual speakers to do that."
I have to dissent. I was away from home on vacation and a friend asked me to borrow my Prima Luna Dialogue Two integrated tube amplifier.
He had to load it in the trunk with a friend, it weighs 30 Kg!
I use it with my DTQWTII weighing 50 Kg /150 Lts. each. High sensitivity, 95 dB/M. Since he still hasn't returned it to me and I can't go a single day without music, I connected my "spare" NAD 3020 amplifier, revered by audiophiles in the 70's. Both have similar power outputs, the PL does not exceed - in triode mode - to NAD by 3 Db, which would be doubling power, and it is 28 watts against 20 watts (RMS both) of NAD.
So, it's the same room, the same speakers, the same location of the speakers, my same sofa, and my hearing system hasn't deteriorated in 15 days more than it already is due to age. I clarify, I still hear 15 Khz. Tested with Audacity.
The PL offers a great soundstage, the
NAD very poor, depth is hardly perceived.
The sound in the PL is realistic, the instruments have the correct timbre. The NAD makes me feel like I built these 150 liter speakers unnecessarily.
So I hope
draw their own conclusions about what is the importance of an amp change. And sadly, I have to say - not to brag - about the investment you'll have to make in the amp for the change to be audible. No, an AVR is not the same as a dedicated audio amplifier, and all amplifiers do not sound the same beyond the minimum listening level.
.........
" Actually, your AVR should do a fine job managing this entire system. But no amp or preamp can create a diffuse field, you need actual speakers to do that."
I have to dissent. I was away from home on vacation and a friend asked me to borrow my Prima Luna Dialogue Two integrated tube amplifier.
He had to load it in the trunk with a friend, it weighs 30 Kg!
I use it with my DTQWTII weighing 50 Kg /150 Lts. each. High sensitivity, 95 dB/M. Since he still hasn't returned it to me and I can't go a single day without music, I connected my "spare" NAD 3020 amplifier, revered by audiophiles in the 70's. Both have similar power outputs, the PL does not exceed - in triode mode - to NAD by 3 Db, which would be doubling power, and it is 28 watts against 20 watts (RMS both) of NAD.
So, it's the same room, the same speakers, the same location of the speakers, my same sofa, and my hearing system hasn't deteriorated in 15 days more than it already is due to age. I clarify, I still hear 15 Khz. Tested with Audacity.
The PL offers a great soundstage, the
NAD very poor, depth is hardly perceived.
The sound in the PL is realistic, the instruments have the correct timbre. The NAD makes me feel like I built these 150 liter speakers unnecessarily.
So I hope
draw their own conclusions about what is the importance of an amp change. And sadly, I have to say - not to brag - about the investment you'll have to make in the amp for the change to be audible. No, an AVR is not the same as a dedicated audio amplifier, and all amplifiers do not sound the same beyond the minimum listening level.
Last edited:
I agree the above post, and that has been my experience as well with a Pathos TT that I repaired and didn't want to give back to the customer LOL.
Thanks for stating your opinion. It is not evidence, though, it is anecdotal opinion. And your opinion is biased by many factors. But it's always useful to hear other opinions.
It doesn't make sense to everybody. Those of us that have researched the whole "sound of amplifiers" thing for 35+ years have a somewhat different view. After extensive comparative controlled testing, we tend to form other opinions based on those results.
In the end, what matters is your own individual happiness and satisfaction. Reality may simply not be a factor.