Which components produce a convincing 3-D image?


Hi. Like many of us I've been through entirely too many pieces of quality gear and I've managed to get close to what I think I should be hearing. However, I've read some comments on Audiogon by folks who claim they feel like they can "reach out and touch" the performer, their systems being so convincing. Keeping in mind that one's listening room can can make or break a system's ability to produce a convincing image I would like to know which components, whether they be amps, preamps, speakers, CDPs, cables, whatever, have contributed the most to your system's ability to provide that illusion of being there with the performers.

I'm currently running two sytems:

For two-channel A/V: PMC FB-1 speakers, Sim Audio Moon I-5 integrated, Sony DVP-S9000es, Silver Audio Bullet 4.0s, Analysis Plus Oval 12 shotgun bi-wired 8' speaker cables.

For two-channel stereo: Tyler Linbrook Monitors, McCormack DNA-125 amp, Marantz SA-14 SACD, Creek OBH-11 volume control, 2 pairs Homegrown Audio .5M Silver Lace interconnects, AudioQuest AQ-8 bi-wired 8' speaker cables.

Thank you.
beemerrider
When I bought my first pair of ProAc monitors I experienced a portion of the 3d phenomena. Then, when I inroduced tubed components such as the Blue Circle BC21 preamp and Kora Hermes DAC into the chain this was extended even further. Virtual Dynamics power cords increased that effect even further, in a big way. Along the way I've also been able to improve the 3d soundstaging through adding a Neuance shelf under my tranpsort, and going with an all Virtual Dynamics cable scheme, a lot of pieces have contributed to my 3d enjoyment in my terribly acoustic unfriendly room. However, last weekend I replaced my Virtual Dynamics Audition digital IC with a Kimber Illumination D60 just for kicks and lost a great measure of that holographic presentation. The Audition went right back in.
Fujindemon, thanks for your comments. Regarding the Linbrook Monitors you do have a treat awaiting you. When I first got mine they...well...ahh...sucked! They had the old "voice in a barrel" midbass emphasis that made everybody sound like they had the flu. However, 200 hours or more of throwing my most dynamic and wide range music at them, at higher than normal volume levels, got those SEAS magnesium drivers singing like Kiri Tekanawa. The bass emphasis disappeared entirely and I was left with the finest sounding dynamic speakers I've yet owned. I found they can be placed within 8" of the front wall provided they are well clear of side walls by 3' or more. If side walls are close they need to be into the room a minimum of 20" to avoid overblown bass. I have their stands filled up with clay-based kitty litter, so each side weighs well over 100 pounds. Be sure to Blu-Tak the speakers to the stands.

I sometimes wonder if tube amplification would add to the sense of 3-D but yet without actually adding something that isn't on the recording (i. e. - tube amps have higher orders of harmonic distortion, which is not usually unpleasant and can be euphoric). Also, as wonderful as the Linbrook Monitors are I am haunted by comments from Maggie owners who, as a percentage, seem more often to rave about the palpability of the imaging they get. My only experience with planars is a pair of Quad '57s that I owned probably the longest.

Regards, Lee
I'm with Bomarc - speakers, room and source material have had the greatest impact for me. After that, tube electronics have consistently given me the greatest sense of dimensionality and palpability to instruments, vocalist and soundstaging.
I feel that excellent imaging is a combination of things, but is primarily dependent on maintaining phase coherence throughout the chain. Without good phase coherence, the result is a discombobulation that cannot give you a good image. The speakers are one of the main problems with maintaining good phase information. Unless great care is taken in the design the drivers, crossovers, and layout, there are more ways to lose imaging there(in the speakers) than just about anywhere else.

Generally, the best imaging layout is point-source, followed by line-source, and lastly, array. The more complex the system, the more likely that things will get messed-up.

I have opted for the single-driver concept in my system because of point-source imaging capability, and no crossovers. I traded-off some other characteristics to get these benefits, but the imaging and soundstage capability is tremendous.

Outside the speakers, the baffle diffraction and 1st reflection zone activity will detract from imaging quality. Reduce these as much as you can. Speaker placement will also play a role. In most cases, out into the room is better than near the walls.

Listening position is also critical. On-axis listening will yield better imaging. If you don't listen on-axis, you are reducing the imaging qualities of your system.

I know you asked about components. If you want to see the components of a system that images extremely well, then click on my "system" link next to my name below. This way I don't have to take up space here to describe it. Mine is not the only way to get great imaging, but it is one way. And I am an imaging freak.
beemerrider,
yeah, but those maggie owners need a nice large room so that the planars can be brought out into the room for maximum benefit, at least this is what i seem to remember from my thread trolling. thats something we linbrook owners are not subjected to as much.
can't wait for the full break in period to pass, boyo that will be fun
another 2 cents