Soundstage/Detail from Amp or Pre-Amp?

[LHawes]

Real basic question I hope I can ask clearly. Where does the detail, soundstage, focus and other such audio qualities mainly orginate from in the audio chain? Which has more effect on these phenomenon - the pre or the amp?

The reason I am asking is that even though I really like my new HK 3480 it seems as though the speakers are much more prominent than with my older Onkyo. The speakers never 'disappeared' but I was always amazed to hear the sound from places other than the speakers. It seems the HK produces sound mainly from the speakers.

The main reason for asking is I am considering an ATI AT1502 amp and using the 3480 as a pre for now. Will the pre in the HK dominate the systems ability to produce a different sound stage or will the ATI have a larger effect?

I'm sure the answer is that it is a combination, but if someone could explain the phenom a bit better I would really appreciate it.

larry

 

[mtrycrafts]

Real basic question I hope I can ask clearly. Where does the detail, soundstage, focus and other such audio qualities mainly orginate from in the audio chain? Which has more effect on these phenomenon - the pre or the amp?

Neither. Acoustics is your question. That depends on speakers, your listening room and the quality of the recordings.

The reason I am asking is that even though I really like my new HK 3480 it seems as though the speakers are much more prominent than with my older Onkyo. The speakers never 'disappeared' but I was always amazed to hear the sound from places other than the speakers. It seems the HK produces sound mainly from the speakers.

What you need to do to find out if this is the case, a poor memory or inaccurate memory is a proper side by side comparison, under bias controlled conditions though.

 

[LHawes]

Acoustics is your question. That depends on speakers, your listening room and the quality of the recordings.

I know that speakers and acoustics and all the listening room dynamics have an effect on the imaging, soundstage etc. but is it safe to say that a pre-amp has at least some effect on those details and an amp had some effect as well?

I'm only assuming this is so as reviews on amps and pres seem to always include such terms as their sound is described.

If there is no such effect from those components then I should not bother upgrading my pre/amp just get better speakers/acoustics/recordings?

 

[Nick250]

I know that speakers and acoustics and all the listening room dynamics have an effect on the imaging, soundstage etc. but is it safe to say that a pre-amp has at least some effect on those details and an amp had some effect as well?

I'm only assuming this is so as reviews on amps and pres seem to always include such terms as their sound is described.

If there is no such effect from those components then I should not bother upgrading my pre/amp just get better speakers/acoustics/recordings?

Blind tests I have read about have shown that one cannot hear a difference in preamps. The ball game is all about speaker choice and room acoustics IMO. Toeing speakers a couple of degrees one way or the other will often make an audible difference. Less toeing out will often reduce brightness, for example. That's my take on things.

Nick

 

[tomd51]

I hate to disagree with Nick and mtrycrafts, but I have found some receivers (which I'm sure would apply to pre/pro's as well) have a broader soundstage than others. Speakers will most definitely be the biggest limiting factor, but a solid receiver or pre/pro may help expand or broaden the soundstage. I've experienced this myself by changing out only mid-level receivers in the same room w/out any speaker or room acoustic changes... -TD

 

[LHawes]

With a receiver it would a combination of pre, processor, and amp if there were indeed any noticable changes, true?

Given that speakers are the most limiting factor it seems it would be hard to discern from your observations which caused the actual (or perceived...sorry you know that will come up) changes - pre pro or amp.

 

[agarwalro]

I use the law of diminishing returns to base my estimate for which variable has greatest weight in the big picture. All else being equal, speaker setup (selection, placement and calibration) and room acoustics (balance of absorption and dispersion) play the biggest role in audio quality. That said, if you have optimized speaker setup and room acoustics, recording quality and finally electronics are the next in order of their ability to affect audio quality.

 

[tomd51]

With a receiver it would a combination of pre, processor, and amp if there were indeed any noticable changes, true?

Given that speakers are the most limiting factor it seems it would be hard to discern from your observations which caused the actual (or perceived...sorry you know that will come up) changes - pre pro or amp.

From a soundstage or sound field perspective, the amp should make absolutely no difference whatsoever. The pre-amp section of a receiver is what will alter the output of the signal, the amp portion of the receiver is just amplifying that signal. Some amps may do it more cleanly at higher levels and provide a more decernible signal than others, but the soundstage itself should not change much if at all. I've found this to be the case implementing external amps to a couple of solid mid-level receivers I've used and still use this configuration in my dedicated theater room.

I do believe speakers will be the largest factor when it comes to limiting soundstage, but I do believe that a pre-amp, be it from a receiver or pre/pro itself, can also improve/degrade the soundstage/sound field, just not to the extent speakers can. I absolutely understand that some folks may think that this is only perceptive or a 'placebo-type effect', but out of four different receiver changes in the same room with no other changes and very similar testing procedures, all four exhibited different results. While not drastic, some provided a noticably more open soundfield than others.

This is what I found to be my experience and YMMV... -TD

 

[LHawes]

From a soundstage or sound field perspective, the amp should make absolutely no difference whatsoever. The pre-amp section of a receiver is what will alter the output of the signal, the amp portion of the receiver is just amplifying that signal. -TD

That's the information I was looking for. I'm thinking if I get the ATI 1502 then it might be cleaner and punchier but some other details will not be altered much from the exsting HK 3480'd preamp/

Thanks

Larry

 

[WmAx]

I do believe speakers will be the largest factor when it comes to limiting soundstage, but I do believe that a pre-amp, be it from a receiver or pre/pro itself, can also improve/degrade the soundstage/sound field,

Unless the pre-amp is using time delay/reverb/phase altering effects, this is impossible. If the unit is altering high frequency response audibly, it could increase/decrease some localizatin cues linearly with this response, as HF is the range where ears pick up most spatial/localization information.

-Chris

 

[mulester7]

.....I believe the soundstage itself is alterable in about every perspective, but what we're talking about there is speaker positioning and room conditioning, point Nick....as we move then to the pushing components, the differences we get become differences in the sound quality itself along the lines of "presence", and different grades and levels of "live presence" come into play....or, they don't......

 

[mtrycrafts]

I hate to disagree with Nick and mtrycrafts, but I have found some receivers (which I'm sure would apply to pre/pro's as well) have a broader soundstage than others. -TD

Nothing wrong with disagreements. That is a leaning tool as well

But, I'd like to know then how they affect soundstage? It is measurable as phase shifts as demonstrated by some test CDs, especially one by Diana Deutsch, Musical Illusions and Paradoxes on Philomel label.

 

[mtrycrafts]

but is it safe to say that a pre-amp has at least some effect on those details and an amp had some effect as well?

Not with well designed, modern components it is not safe to say this. And, most fall into this category.

I'm only assuming this is so as reviews on amps and pres seem to always include such terms as their sound is described.

One only has to look at the quality of the review, how the listening was performed, how bias has entered the review process as it does all the time, and what the evidence is for their claims. It is testable and they would most assuredly flunk the test.

If there is no such effect from those components then I should not bother upgrading my pre/amp just get better speakers/acoustics/recordings?

Don't bother to upgrade just for this, if the component meets your other needs. Yes, improve your room acoustics and recording quality, then see if your speakers needs improvement.

 

[mulester7]

Nothing wrong with disagreements. That is a leaning tool as well

But, I'd like to know then how they affect soundstage? It is measurable as phase shifts as demonstrated by some test CDs, especially one by Diana Deutsch, Musical Illusions and Paradoxes on Philomel label.

.....Mtry, I believe what Tom was saying is, that in his room, which has remained constant for multiple receivers with the same room conditions, some of the receivers have presented "presence" that alligned with the room conditions to produce more imaging, and imaging pretty much always seems, at least, to widen the soundstage....Buddy, you bring the surrounds against that, and it goes even seemingly wider....and you'll notice I use the word "seemingly", what does it matter if it actually got wider?....his ears said it did....Tom, with the receivers that seemed to get the widest front soundstage, did you notice more "live presence" and imaging?....did the music just seem more "live"?....great thread....it's all about the total presence of your chamber, less the sub....and the sub is a welcomed add after getting the main's regiment right.....

 

[mulester7]

.....some of you Guys are getting much cheaper different-brand surrounds and rears or center, so you can get that 1500 dollar powered sub you want....I say pie in the face....

 

[tomd51]

Perception Is Reality...

I understand WmAx's reservation on my findings, but this is what I've found to be the case based on my own experience and what I believe Mulester was trying to explain, was my own perception. No scientific testing, this was based solely on my listening experience with several sources on the same speaker set and configuration in the same room without any acoustic treatments or modifications. Here's an example of some of the experience noted previously. These are entry to entry/mid-level receivers, or at least they are from my budget's perspective :

I started out with the same 5.1 speaker configuration in my secondary HT setup, here are the details:

L/R: Cambridge Soundworks Newton M50s
C: Cambridge Soundworks Newton MC400
SS: Cambridge Soundworks Newton S300s
SW: Cambridge Soundworks BassCube 8s

These speakers remained constant throughout the receiver swapping as well as the test tone SPL when calibrating for each new receiver. The receivers used (in order) were as follows:

Harman Kardon AVR 330
Pioneer Elite VSX-53TX
Denon AVR-1082
Denon AVR-886

Unfortunately, I cannot elaborate to any great detail right now (I can later if time permits), but here's what I found:

With the HK 330, I found this to be a rather powerful receiver for its ratings and provided good low-end, but seemed slightly laid back for music and didn't quite give me the dynamics up front and in the rear as I was hoping for.

With the switch to the Pioneer 53 Elite, I found this receiver to be well put together, solid on all aspects (amps, sound field dispersion, features, configurability, etc.), however it was overkill in the room I was using it in and unfortunately had to go. I really don't think I could let this guy breathe as much as I'd have like to in the room configuration.

The Denon 1082/3802 brought me very close if not almost identical to the sound of the 3803 I had in my primary setup, but was just ever so slightly laid back, I didn't quite get the separation and soundstage I seemed to have with the Pioneer and again, was a bit of overkill for this room, so off it went.

I have since switched to the Denon 886 and I believe I am finally at the point where I am satisfied with the separation and soundstage this receiver brings. It seems to be more substantial or evident when watching DPL II material (via sat.) than when watching DVD, but even with DVD as the source, the front soundstage as well as the surround presence is more enveloping than any of the previous receivers.

I know others will find this hard to believe, but this is what I found to be the case. I don't have any scientific evidence, I've never gotten to the point where I've graphed and plotted measurements, but I am very meticulous about basing my decisions after performing all the standard calibration, settings and typical configuration due diligence for my setup. I'm glad some folks will do this, but sometimes I feel too many get caught up in the scientific aspects of the measurements and don't actually experience things for themselves. There's a healthy balance between the two, but equal weight should be given to each side.

It certainly was a pain having to try so many different receivers to get to this point, but unfortunately, room acoustics were not alterable as this is a common TV viewing area (not the dedicated HT room) and the speakers do a fairly admirable job for thier size and their placement restraints.

Hopefully some can understand how I've witnessed what I have and not just dismiss it, but I can see how it can be difficult to see from my vantage point if you weren't able to experience the differences firsthand... -TD

 

[WmAx]

I know others will find this hard to believe, but this is what I found to be the case. I don't have any scientific evidence, I've never gotten to the point where I've graphed and plotted measurements, but I am very meticulous about basing my decisions after performing all the standard calibration, settings and typical configuration due diligence for my setup. I'm glad some folks will do this, but sometimes I feel too many get caught up in the scientific aspects of the measurements and don't actually experience things for themselves. There's a healthy balance between the two, but equal weight should be given to each side.

You have specifically failed to provide a control situation in which reliable conclusions can be made. You state that you understand my reservation on your findings, however, I don't see how this is true: there is *no provision known to the field of audio science [as opposed to the speculative audiophile group] that would allow the pre-amplifier to affect sound-staging outside of the specific criteria that I previously listed.

Please note that one can find similar claims as you have made concerning soundstage effects of different cables(!), if they look around for purely subjective listening experiences such as you have reported.

The point is that even if your claims were true, the method of comparison that you used can not possibly be relied upon to determine this difference.

-Chris

* No proven provision(s). In the case of an ADC-DAC throughput pre-amp, it is [1]concievable that lateralization(not soundstaging) could be affected in subtle magnitude using specific test signals, and assuming that left vs. right channel of the device have assymetrical jitter behaviour, or other assymetrical timing issues(which would fall under my previous conditional reply).

[1]Binaural time discrimination
Nordmark, Jan O.
JAES, Vol. 60, No. 4, October, 1976

 

[mtrycrafts]

Without laboring over your findings, and perceptions, what you did was a subjective evaluation of each of those components, not whether or not they sounded different and that difference you could specifically say was due to soundstage issues.

What you need to do is level match two receivers/components under test, and, under dbt condition differentiate them to a scientific probability that your guessing was not random but significant. Do this with all four in this case.

We are all biased whether we know it or not. And, there is no on/off switch to the bias quotient in us; that is why the need for DBT protocol.

As wmax stated, unless one of the components or all of them have major design issues or assembly line failures, no reason for your observation about soundstage issues.

 

[tomd51]

I understand my evaluation was subjective, however eliminating the human element is really the only way to fully establish an objective evaluation. I also realize my findings are flawed in the manner in which the testing was performed, nevertheless when in comes right down to it, I knew the listening environment I wanted to provide myself with, I hadn't been able to do so previously and the changes noted previously helped to achieve those goals. Whether or not my opinions previously mentioned have any scientific merit is irrelevant.

My intent in responding to Larry's questions was providing him with my own real world experience. Not specific data, no measurements of any sort, just my opinion, experience, whatever anyone would like to label it. What Larry or anyone else choses to do with that information is up to them. You know what they say about opinions...

I knew my elaboration on my experience would be torn apart by some, which I'm fine with. I fully expected this as I didn't list any specific testing documentation, criteria, etc., but again, this was the findings as I perceived them. My findings can be shredded six ways to Sunday, but it doesn't negate the fact that this was my personal experience with the aforementioned changes in my setup. And to equate my findings using different receivers to "snake oil" cable reviews is a bit cheap. If every receiver (or pre/pro for that matter) at a specific price range with equivalent features sounded the exact same, why would so many different manufacturers in this space still exist?

There were no design issues, electronic or mechanical failures or anything of the sort in regards to the equipment I used, everything to my knowledge was fully functional. Can I verify this with any quantitative data? No, but unfortunately, I'm not qualified to perform QA processes on electronic equipment such as receiver, so I suppose there is the possibility there was, however I highly doubt it.

This relates to my previous statement that scientific analysis isn't the only process that should be used in the evaluation of audio equipment. Auditory experience can't be substituted for all of the scientific data in the world.

DBT's are absolutely an optimal process in which to perform auditory analysis and I truly wish I could do this anytime I've purchased any new equipment, however many of us aren't fortunate enough to have friends, family, etc. that are as passionate about this hobby as some of us are. As such, some of us (such as myself) are reduced to subjective listening test which, as noted, can be (and likely are, at times) biased. I do hope, however, I make as much effort as possible to be unbiased as I know this will be the only way for me to truly come to the best solution for my needs... -TD

 

[mulester7]

This relates to my previous statement that scientific analysis isn't the only process that should be used in the evaluation of audio equipment

.....to me, scientific evaluation has about "nothing" to do with purchases I make....it does have something to do with a component right up until I get the chance to hear the component perform, then the stats and especially the reviews, mean nothing.....

.....edit....Mtry, why do you forever keep throwing "bias" at us?....do you think we care which one sounds better?....do you think we're not being totally wide-open to one simply sounding better to us than the other?.....