A deeper more holographic soundstage.

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

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.

Thanks very good suggestion indeed...

And it does exactly which you describe.... But i knew already that my audio system was good thanks to my embeddings controls... 😁

But a feed back can help because the composer is interesting by itself...

My best to you....

Thanks mahgister : ) - I also forgot to say in my comment that it may be many things that contribute to good depth in the sound, but perhaps not as many as I originally believed. So long as a better than average amplifier and speaker system is being used, preferably tubed, because the truly good ss amps usually cost so much more - that the final difference that is made, is precisely in the other ‘lesser’ components of cables, fuses, isolators, dielectrics, room control - all the things you refer to as embeddings. And that difference is so very small and yet so absolutely huge because that tiny elevation of sound quality makes the difference between ‘was that real?’ or ‘that’s recorded music’.

From everything I have heard of some amazing obscenely expensive systems, right down to just above average systems, I have found the totality of the small ‘lesser’ adjustments to make the biggest difference, so long as the basic componentry is not average. It shocked me at first, because like almost how we all started, the primary components appeared to be most important.

But here I have to step a little back from all your remarkable experiments, which I fully understand that you engage in as a work of total passion - I love all you have done, for peanuts, as you tell us all the time, and I have no doubt they work, based on the reading of your posts and nuanced comments you occasionally make, on disparate issues that resonate with my own experiences, and tell me you are indeed hearing what you say you hear - I know how good your system must sound without ever hearing it ; ) - but for me, my passion is less with the tinkering, (I know some will not even consider me an audiophile!) and with the money I have, I merely wish to arrive at the best sounding system my slightly higher budget can buy, without needing to have a dedicated sound room that I might trip over special cow bells, copper ribbons or sponge in! Please understand, it is not my criticism of what you have achieved, only a remark of the limited space and tinkering passion I have : )

When I wrote my post, it was only to state what I think I am hearing, so that if the OP and others either do, or do not hear the same things, we can then discuss very specifically what it is that is either similar or different more objectively, and I might then be able to say what I believe makes the small change that creates a new world.

And I believe also that millercarbon is correct when he says that most recordings do not play so much with depth of field and the most important thing to hear in every single recording is the separation of voice and instruments, and their location in relation primarily to width and height, and not so much depth. Classical music and jazz perhaps, does more than all other genres, in relation to depth.

I have learned so much from reading everyone’s posts and comments on audiogon: there are so many distinct characters here - like some or dislike some, everyone makes this platform interesting for me and helps me to learn, either directly or indirectly. Thanks again : )

In friendship - kevin

Please don't waste your money on hyper expensive cables or power conditioners ... etc. There are only two things that affects the soundstage depth:

• Recording (Production). Use Stereophile test CDs to test the SS depth. John Atkison have done great recording on this.
• Speaker placement - Experiment with the speakers by moving away from the wall behind them. 

Also be aware that some speakers do represent the soundstage depth more accurate than others. One example for exceptional soundstage is  Sonus Faber Stradivari 

My speakers are 60 inches into the room from the front walls and 19 inches into the room from the side walls.  My chair is located 8 feet from the speakers. It took months of trial and error plus blue painter's tape to get everything tuned. My listening chair was picked for it's height and comfort. I'm pretty lucky to have a dedicated room (22'x14) and a supportive Wife.  Every measurement is important, where and how the rack and equipment is located, floor and wall treatments.