Any recievers noted for creating large, deep soundstages? (1 Viewer)

[Chu Gai]

all i'm saying is that there are people who wouldn't use a tone control or graphic equalizer and think that their very presence in some way audibly degrades the sound so they buy things without them. Me, I don't think that way. That's a valid point though that Paul brings up in the way of manufacturers specifying one power rating but actual measurements showing another. The problem here usually lies in the 5.1 or whatever power ratings. In 2 channel mode they're mandated by the FCC to provide numbers that read something like 100 watts/channel RMS, both channels driven, @8 ohms, 20-20kHz

 

[Bob Marker]

Chu Gai:
Regarding your comments about the Sansui receiver, I,ve had a similar experience. When I inserted my pioneer SX 205 receiver (which cost a fraction of the inter connects I used for my Classe separates) into my system, my Thiel speakers did their usual "disappearing act". Over the 3 weeks I left the pioneer in the system, I didn't notice any degradation in the sound compared with what was achieved with the Classe gear.
Bob

 

[Chu Gai]

its the speakers and how you set them up. not to say there's no benefits to more beefy amps and what not...I know that most of us tend to keep our gear of rather similar vintage and with the constant bombardment that we get about this thing and how wonderful it is, and that thing how even better it is, its a very secure person who can see that in many cases what's going on are efforts by manufacturers at product differentiation. I have nothing against desiring something for its theoretical benefits, but it won't sell and you won't upgrade unless it addresses some largely inconsequential aspect or suggests that the improvement will be audible. Its as if you were out there looking for a date and lo and behold you found a person who was in the Miss Hawaiian Tropic contest and was 2nd runner up. The sparks fly, she's interested in you and then your friend says in your ear...'man, her left little toe is funny' and suddenly that's what you're looking at and you politely look at your watch and say, my mother needs me back right now...bye ...Understand I'm stepping back a ways and looking broadly over the audio scene and not looking to focus on any one particular thing.

 

[Phil Mays]

ok, let's see of I have this correct. The Miss Hawaiian Tropic runner-up is now available?

 

[Chu Gai]

you'd have noticed if you stopped looking at her left toe

 

[Greg_R]

tonight, just for the hell of it, i moved the speakers way out in front at the rec. 3'.
this did seem to expand the soundstage behind the speakers.
they also seem to fill in the center very nicely (almost like there is a phantom center), but this is dependent on being in the sweet spot, which is very limited.

With just this minor change you've improved your system's sound. You are not going to get good imaging unless you place the speakers correctly or you extensively use room treatments. One thing to try would be to put some diffusion panels on the side walls (will break up the 1st reflection from the speaker). This may help widen your soundstage (past the edge of the speakers).

Yes, a better receiver will improve the sound. However, proper speaker placement / room setup will yield a much better result.

 

[Jim_C]

I guess that the only thing I'll add is this...when I upgraded my old Sony to a Yamaha I heard an immediate and extremely noticable improvement in the front soundfield. I know that it was the receiver because I didn't move my speakers an inch when I added the Yamaha.

I agree that speakers play the largest role in the soundstage but receivers definitely have an impact.

 

[Paul_Scott]

latest observations:
feeling that i was finally starting to get a better picture of the capabilities of these speakers, and being ...a little more satisfied, at the sound quality in general so far,
i unhooked them and put back the old cheap speakers that came in the HTIB package.
what i heard was a little distressing.
they imaged also . just like these new expensive ones, they filled in the center area between them and not in a shallow way. the fill had depth, and whats more, the placement of these was much looser.
the qualities that were lacking in these though, were fidelity and dynamicism.
there was a quite a bit of distortion, and 'smearing' of sounds.
of course, this is what made them inappropriate for music listening before, but i was surpised to find the degree of imaging that was here, and that there actually was a sweet spot w/ these (and a much larger one than with the new speakers).
i don't know if the speakers were always this harsh sounding in higher freq. or if they are just now giving out because they are more cheaply made.
makes me wonder if i'm spending a lot more on an upgrade than is really necc.
if it wasn't for the fact that my ears seem to much prefer fabric tweeters and all the affordable stuff avail here seems to use metal, i would probably just upgrade to a small JBL package and get it over with.
this morning i went out and picked up an Onkyo 600 to use in place of the Kenwood (which is/was about a $200 model).
i do hear a difference between the two recievers, definitely, but its not all good as far as i'm concerned.
soundstage - this area is indeed improved in some ways.
most notably, i am finally getting an active soundfield that extends beyond the speakers at the sides.
the quality that i really want is for the speaker themselves to be fully transparent. i'm still not quite there yet. quite a few sounds seem to be 'anchored' to the l & r speakers.
there isn't that bold demarcation as before (with the speakers forming the perimeter of the soundstage, and therefore easy to pick out), but its still not to the point i would like it to be.
in the fill area in the center, there seems to be a noticeable extension in height. one set of vocals clearly seemed to image close to the ceiling- very nice.
the new reciever seems to drive them brighter, louder at smaller increments of volume, and seems to be introducing some sibilance.
this may just be that i'm hearing a more faithful reproduction of the source ( like seeing how crappy some of these dvds really are once you step up to a high-end display), but there also seems to a sense of washing together of sounds in some passages.
w/ the old reciever, the soundstage was smaller, less powerful, but there was a bit more clarity and seperation in that small space.
Here now, that space has enlarged, and there will clearly be a sound that really seems to image much farther away, but in the general fill area in the center, you can't always pick out the individual sounds as clearly as before and there seems to be a little distortion at higher freqencies.
i still have to sit down and tweak around with the reciever set-up and more positioning, but this is waht i'm hearing at this point.
is there any reson to side step to a Harman Kardon as the reciever?, or should i just grab a more powerful Onkyo.
someone told me the HK was better for music, but the Onk was better for HT.
at this point, since i've never been really disappointed in HT listening, i may want to try to improve the music side as much as i can.
The qualities for listenable HT, for me, seem pretty easily met anyway.