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 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. 
@kevnThanks for those tracks! My system passed with flying colors, especially with the “mission” That one gets saved into my “audiophile test” playlist.Â