2. amps-preamps
  3. 1404789005

Seeking more 3d imaging, deeper/wider soundstage

I'm considering replacing either my amp or my pre. My system is profiled in my system link. Which do you think would improve soundstage/imaging more:
Replace the P3? I'd consider used McCormack, or a passive line stage, but my amp clips at 5v, which is what my DAC puts out when using the XLR outputs, and I'd like to try those someday...not sure a passive is a good fit for my system? Plus I require a remote. That's a deal breaker.
Replace the Rotel RB-1080? I'd consider parasound (a21 is a bit too pricey for me), used McCormack, odyssey, maybe even older krell or classe. I want XLR inputs tho.
Budget is $900-$1200 for either. Music spans the full gamut, excluding hip hop and country. Room is small, 12x12x8. I'm going to throw up some affordable foam acoustic absorption this summer (foam factory). Thnx in advance.
realremo
realremo OP
460 posts
 
Trust me when I tell you that I have hundreds of well-recorded, spatially deep and wide recordings in many different genres. I don't listen to hip hop. It's not the source. I do get a wide soundstage with detailed imaging, just want to make it better.
raymonda
855 posts
 
You need real instruments played in real space and recorded correctly for ultimate 3d playback. The rest is, at best, smoke and mirrors.
raymonda
855 posts
 
My comment was not meant as being judgmental of musical taste, but rather as a recording engineer with 33 years of experience meant to reinforce the fact that real 3d sonics, or something that can best approach that is both system and source sensitive. I can create a very interesting sonic picture via multi track but it will never approach what I can create using purest micing techniques of real instruments in real space.

Use this type of recording for set up and you'll have a very good set up for other types of recordings.....within reason, at least.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
12,039 posts
 
Even a cheap system should image and play depth. More has to do with setup (not just placement of the speakers in the room) than anything else. Many speakers won't play depth right if they are too close to the wall behind them. So you will have to play with them to get depth (if you don't, no amount of equipment swapping will get it for you).

Once you achieve that then you might consider changing components to get more nuance. I am an advocate of tubes (and your speakers are not a difficult load for any tube amp that also has the power to drive them in your room) but despite my preferences you've got some good advice on this thread that will cost you nothing but a little time experimenting.
metman
233 posts
 
All things being equal I still believe that tubes provide a deeper soundstage with greater depth. As always YMM
More to discover