A deeper more holographic soundstage.


I was wondering by what means you have created a deeper soundstage. I am satisfied with the width but I really feel it is a bit 2 dimensional. It doesn't go back far enough. I like more layers of sound that reach towards you from the blackness.
As I've already spent quite a bit on my system I am unable to buy much more expensive components.
Did you upgrade one component that made the difference? Placement of speakers? New footers or tweaks such as Stillpoints?
Two subs instead of one(I have one)? Different placement of subs? I am working with a very tight space so it is difficult to move things without them being in the center of the room.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
roxy1927
A lot of good responses already, and many not so good.

In my 45 years as an active audio enthusiast, the biggest single improvement I ever got in soundstage openness, depth and clarity came from having an electrician install two direct runs from our home's breaker box to audio-grade sockets in my listening room. I have spent many thousands of dollars over the years without getting so dramatic an improvement. Cost in my house was $1,200, which is higher than most because it required a complicated run.

Close second was from upgrading the power cords on my equipment. A lot of flat-earthers think this is nuts, but the improvements are NOT subtle. If you're using stock cords and don't have much to spend -- or want proof before spending more -- I strongly recommend Audience's cheapest cord, the F3 at $149.

Compared to stock cords, you will not believe the improvement -- even in relatively humble systems. I got a non-audiophile buddy to buy one for his Sprout100 integrated amp, powering a $300 pair of Elac Debut B2 6.2 speakers, and he said it gave him at least 20% more depth, clarity and dimensionality, revealing much more of what was in the recordings.

And, BTW, an F3 absolutely killed a Pangea AC-14XL, same price.

I use higher-grade Audience cords in my main system, and the Front Row -- very pricy -- is so good I can't believe it. Can hear to the walls of the recording venues, hear the air around and behind the players/singers, much more 3D and much clearer, more focused bass.

This is NOT snake oil.
All this tells me is that you never addressed the acoustics if these were the biggest changes.

A lot of flat-earthers think this is nuts,


Do you kiss your Ted Denney statue before you go to bed? That statement is directly from his moronic Facebook echo chamber. I would be embarrassed to be a member.



The electrical embeddings dimension of the audio system implicate all electrical locations in the house, it is why new audio sockets and power cord among other things will work together for the better to lower the noise floor...

I use my own device at low cost to reach the same goal... (Adding the 2 methods would certainly be better tough )


All this tells me is that you never addressed the acoustics if these were the biggest changes.


But yes acoustical embeddings control are also one very important key, perhaps the more important but not the only one tough....Acoustical controls and treatment cannot replace, and give in S.Q. by itself only, what the electrical grid controls and the mechanical controls will add together in their own dimension to the global S.Q....

Then dont forget even the mechanical vibrations and resonance controls of your audio system they will improve  imaging, timbre and stage too...

I can hear what you hear relatively speaking with very low cost solutions....If i had the money i will do also your change(audio socket+power cord) adding these to my devices... But i am very satisfied at peanuts costs then....😊
Can hear to the walls of the recording venues, hear the air around and behind the players/singers, much more 3D and much clearer, more focused bass.


My best to all....
Hi there roxy1927 - i am pretty new as an audiophile, and with all the responses youve already received, perhaps mine wont make much of a difference. But in any case, in the past year and a half that ive been using more of my ears than i ever had before listening to all kinds of systems, ive found a few tracks with which to gauge how good systems, and then really good systems, sound like, specifically in relation to depth of soundstage, and thought i would share the short list with you to see if it helps at all.

For a really basic but solid foundation, "drum and bell: walk around the mic: test" from dr chesky’s ultimate headphone demonstration disc, provides all the fundamental cues one would need to understand how depth of field can sound in different recordings - i feel its the minimum any system should be up to in relation to depth perception with sound.If you don’t hear the echo change from the track, and feel the sheer depth of that recording, then what you have as a complete system which includes your room, is not up to par. Even on average systems, height differentiation is also obvious.

For height differentiation, referring to how high or low instruments are to each other, a basic track to listen to would be "duelling banjos" by eric weissberg and steve mandell - the guitar is low and inside the right of the left speaker, and the banjo is high, and almost directly above and just edging the left side of the right speaker. The guitar is low and close, and the banjo is not only higher, but also slightly further back.

A good track for holographics, which i refer to as all three dimensions of the soundstage, "bubbles" by yosi horikawa does quite well to hear system resolution - in the best systems ive heard, the effect not only occupies the entire frame in front, it extends beyond the sides of the speakers, and every sound effect is distinct and tangible in relation to how far away, how high or low, and how much centre, left or right they are. Some of the sounds are at ceiling level. It is mesmerising.

For better systems, two tracks work well for me - the first being "slice" by five for fighting’s jon ondrasik - between 00.27 and 00.49, the rim shots from the drummer will be in front of or on the same plane as ondrasik’s voice om average systems, and on good systems, they will be well behind his voice. And the second is the track "gabriel’s oboe" from the soundtrack of the movie "the mission" by ennio morricone - at the very beginning, there is a soft roll of drums, which i believe are called timpani - in most systems, the sound is quite ambiguous and vague in location, even if the timbre is well placed; but in the really good systems i have heard, they are so viscerally and clearly located in the hall, seemingly just before the back of the stage, and to the left of centre - after 00.16, sound mixing comes into play with the other instruments, and depth of field doesnt matter much anymore.

All of these can be streamed from spotify, and as lousy a resolution format that spotify is, there is still sufficient information in those files to hear clear differences. Tidal, of course, makes it all definitive.

In friendship - kevin