Getting soundstage depth out of Klipsch speakers...

[dubai2000]

Max,

interesting thread, because you realize that 'soundstage' means quite a lot of different things to different people. I also listen to quite an amount of Classical music (large scale orchestra and opera) and try to obtain a similar listening experience to the one you describe. From my experience speaker placement (and quality) does indeed play a role (obvious), but also the quality of amplification, even interconnects. This vanishing of the speakers has IMO a lot to do with the 'speed' of an amp. I remember trying a home-made preamp in comparison the the AE-3. With the former the music got off the speakers beautifully (but I didn't like the overall sound - too bright sounding, though a tube design), with the AE-3 the music was much more glued to the speakers. So add to this our different listening rooms and habits and it's no surprise that so many different experiences surface - but that's the fun of this forum: compare your listening experiences with like-minded individuals - great fun (most of the time ).

Wolfram

[maxg]

James,

I have to say no to that.

I have a number of recordings where despite an individual instrument being louder than another one it appears to be further away.

When I first heard this effect I thought I was imagining it - so I did the simplest thing and called my wife in and asked her.

Despite her looking at me like I was totally insane she did agree that the trumpet was louder than the violin but appeared to be coming from behind it.

How this is done I dont know - but I now have many examples (although all classical to date).

[jdm56]

It could be louder yet still appear further away if it's sound is accompanied with noticably more reverberation, and if there was sufficient time delay involved, no?

My point is, whatever depth information is captured on a recording is only there in the form of amplitude, phase and timing differences. And those differences are not going to change, regardless of set-up. So even though one system may be comprised of horns and tubes, while another may be solid-state with electrostats, the "encoded" depth can't, IMHO, be reproduced ~better~ by one system than another.

True enough, some speakers, dipoles especially, add ~perceived~ depth, by means of their polar radiation. Horns, by nature being more directional are perceived as having less depth. But what we're really talking about here is "added depth" due to the way a particular speaker couples to it's environment.

It's all good.

[mobile homeless]

If one hasn't heard differences in soundstaging properties with changing of equipment and setup, then they either dont have an ear for this type of property, have not had that many compelling pieces of gear to rotate in, or have neglected parameters in setup.

I found the best imaging is usually achieved with very high quality monitors brought out away from the side walls and back wall (not at equal lengths, however). The Klipsch Heritage family for the corner placement unfortunately makes getting sufficient depth rather problematic. Usually, depth of soundstage comes with quality amplification mated with speakers that are brought out from the back wall. The deepest soundstage via a live recording I have achieved is with my ProAc speakers, placed almost 8ft out into the room. The soundstage depth on live recordings that contained this info extended back PAST THE REAR WALL to appear as if the back of the stage extended another 10ft or so. This was extreme and only with a LIVE recording with mic setup that revealed this. But getting 5-10ft behind the speakers is quite common with a good setup. Speakers with less baffle area also tend to do well here. OF all the high quality amp setups I have heard, good tube amps tend to do soundstaging the best but speaker setup is critical to get the full affect. Depth seems to be INCREASED with a toe-in to the listener.

The Cornwalls have VERY nice imaging properties that really come into their own with the best tube amplifiers. Let down with a mediocre preamp or other bottleneck, and the results suffers a bit. If one is able to bring the Cornwalls out into the room a bit, which is a difficult proposition for most, this combined with exact placement and a bit of toe-in, you will achieve BETTER soundstage depth. I have NEVER had a soundstage width problem with the Cornwalls linked to quality gear and front end. At its best, the CW image should extend past the speakers on the outside and continue with good fill. I have never had a problem with improper centerfill with my Cornwalls either but I have always had good gear and taken care in the setup. I personally dont like hardly ANY speaker firing straight ahead and the CW are not exception here.

I think the imaging properties of any setup really depend on the care taken as well as the quality of gear. And the amplification, preamp, sources, cable, and SETUP all play a roll (and the ROOM must not be underestimated - it can make or break it all). Better gear and attention to setup will also bring a much lower NOISE FLOOR which is really helpful in getting imaging as well. In order to achieve good separation of instruments giving their own defined entity (something that is also recording dependent), all the variables come into play. I find Klipsch to do VERY well here depending on attention paid to all the variables. In my experience, tubes do the best as a base to work from.

kh

ps- one last note, most people rarely arrange their room so that there is nothing between the speakers and the listener (even a coffee table). And eliminating the gear BETWEEN THE SPEAKERS is VERY critical in my view and seldom achieved (I cant in current setup either). This is critical to achieve the best imaging but not necessary to enjoy the music. One additional point, the Heritage Klipsch appear to be EXCELLENT with listening outside the sweet spot area. They are the best OTHER ROOM listening speakers I have ever owned.

I disagree with the above, some gear is MUCH BETTER at revealling the difference in staging and imaging. I personally have experienced this many times over the last 25 years. The ROOM is very important. But so is gear selection. Better amplification DOES play a role as well. Whole system setup is important. Some dont consider "the visuals" as important focusing on tone. I have to admit, if a sax doesnt sound like a sax, things are a bit moot.

[mark1101]

Kelly,

You seem to emphasize how well your cornwalls image. I stick to my comments. Mine image but since I have the speakers listed below and several different room setups, the corns have just been more difficult. I notice this easily because I can play a cd on one system, walk upsatirs and play it on another. Then I find myself making changes here and there sometimes.

BUT, maybe I haven't found the corns favorite snack yet over the years. You mention getting them out from the walls. The furthest I ever had them out was about 1 1/2 feet. I have seen many diagrams, one in a thread yesterday which shows speakers way out. You can walk around the whole system. I can do that in my basement if necessary.

Can you describe your room dimensions and speaker placements to get this wonderful imaging with corns?

One thing I can say is the depth, what little there is, definitely increased some with the tube equipment. No doubt there.

[jdm56]

How does a speakers placement in a room have any bearing on ~recorded"~ stage depth? (Not ~perceived~ depth)

How does a wire have any bearing on recorded stage depth?

Let me put it this way, If I put a speaker in a corner and observe an increase in bass, has the bass in the recording itself been enhanced or set free? No, I've just changed the way the speaker interacts with the room. It's the same with stage depth. It's either in the pits (or grooves) or it isn't. Any changes in apparent depth wrought by changes in speaker placement, is in reality just changing the way that speaker interacts with the room and listener, and those changes will be applied blanket-like to every recording; in other words, it's a room/speaker dependent effect. It may be quite pleasing with some music and to some people, but it's no magic, being coaxed from the recording by special equipment or set-up. imho, as always

[mobile homeless]

Who said it was magic, James? In addition, who said it DIDNT involve care in placement? And finally, have you ever tried various different amps with a system that was placed in a way to reveal depth in a recording (not MAKING more depth than exists)? I dont find as much depth in multi-mic recordings (some almost nil). But in a natural recording with the mic placement care, you will hear the depth of the stage and placement of musicians (again, LIVE recording where it exists in real space). And we are talking about trying to RECREATE the depth that is evident in the recording of a properly setup live session, a recording when you CAN hear the drummer located farther back on the stage perhaps 10 feet of so behind closer musicians, depending. IF you have not heard this replayed in a system that CAN REVEAL this, then it's too bad. It's truly one of the amazing things in stereo playback, and there is NO third speaker involved. All that exists is good gear, proper placement, and a good room. Cable and gear does affect the noise floor which does have an affect as to how this will be perceived. No, it's not MAGIC but sure sounds MAGICAL when you HEAR this done in systems/setups/rooms that reveal it.

Mark, I dont have the flexibilty to bring my Cornwalls out into the room full time. I was describing another setup. My soundstage with the CW is the least deep of any setup I have had, basically because I CANNOT bring them out. Still, I can get a seveal feet and more depending of perceived depth in recordings with the info. I have no doubt that bringing the CW out farther into the room would help matters in the depth department; I can do this, but for only short term as my MAIN room is my listening room.

On the imaging matter regarding placing of the musicians where they were recorded on stage with good distinct perception of individuals, the CW have always done well, but only with good gear will you get this. Of my current gear, I have had great luck here with my original HF-81 and my Moondogs with good tube setup (along with a host of quality amps passing through). Tube selection also affect this ability to create more distinct instrumental outlines as if in their proper space. Actually, in my view, almost everything affects these variables on down to the quality of your electricity and how much noise is riding with your lines.

This place has a habit of labeling these qualities as "audiophile rambling" or "voodoo" etc. Others seem to find this less important. OF the two, I can agree with the second. My father cared far more about the proper tone reproduction. IF the instruments sounded as he remembers, he was more than happy. I see this as priority one as well and in my view, tube amplifiers really capture the complexity/harmonics of the instruments more than SS. Solid state is an underachiever here but good examples can achieve this but not to the fleshed out degree of better tube setups.

kh

[AnalOg]

Kelly,

You have touched on all aspects of this subject correctly, IMHO, I couldn't agree more, great post.

Yes, recordings do change in soundstage perception from one to another, and also to add that I receive better Imaging and soundstage with vinyl than cd.

Tom

[jdm56]

Of course, RECORDINGS differ in their presentation of space. As Kelly said, good live recordings do the best in this regard. I agree. And as a rule, multi-mic'd studio recordings do the poorest, simply because the cues that indicate depth are missing, unless artificial ones are added.

My point is that whatever differences in image depth are heard between speakers, amps, etc. has nothing to do with the recording itself! These differences exist independently of the recording and are not attributable to the recording at all. They are attributable to way that particular speaker radiates sound into the room. In other words, speaker A which is perceived as capable of throwing a deep soundstage, is going to project that very trait on everything played through it. While speaker B, which is perceived as being very flat and two-dimensional is going to project THAT on everything played through it.

I don't believe any speakers, much less amps and wires, have any more ability to recreate the recorded acoustic than any other. They just each superimpose their own acoustic, and that of the room itself over the recorded one, to the pleasure or displeasure of the listener.

[mobile homeless]

Ummmmm.....

Strange points here, Jimmer. I sense some problems in the logic here but that might just be me.

If there is a RECORDING with almost ZERO spacial information within, in other words, a flat sounding mix, then you seem to be saying that the speaker capable of throwing the huge soundstage will make the recording appear to have much depth as it imparts this character.

If a setup or speaker is more capable of revealing DEPTH or spacial characteristics IN THE RECORDING it will come across as so to the listener. I personally dont think a system will reproduce depth that does NOT exist in the recording but that some setups do better convey what IS in the recording than others.

kh

[Randy Bey]

gee,

the problem I have with soundstage is size. The khorns, being nearly 19' apart, make a similarly sized stage. A bit off-putting if you don't like the attack of the 9 foot guitars.

But in terms of staging, size issues aside, they are incredible, especially with SET. I still remember jumping out of my skin the first time I spun up a CD on SET (sorta SET) and Albert King appeared right NEXT TO ME.

I have opera recordings where the singer is obviously offstage, but that is too easy. I have jazz recordings where the tenor sax is facing the rear wall, and a goodly distance from the mike, and you can tell clear as day.

I have MONO recordings where they don't particularly go "side to side" but there is a "front to back" soundstage that extends quite a ways forward and back.

This is all dependent though (100%) on sitting in the "sweet spot" or close to it. A foot or two left or right and one speaker dominates, essentially destroying staging information.

One thing I've never heard (and I'm not sure I can hear) is the "air" around instruments that HP from TAS claims is the artifact of truly high end gear. I don't lose any sleep over it.

[@silverfox@]

I tent to be around and read quite a lot of whats been posted, this question of sound stage and imiging has made me wonder what some of you are really listening to, from the discreption of how your system sounds there is a bad case of the blues, with defisincies that is inreal need of help.

kelly's discreption of the different parts and sub parts are real world. the validity is not lost on those who are experiancing a simillar understanding.although my experiance is limited, i have found that a dewald tube amp which was rebuilt by nosvalve presented the most imposing sountstage to me,more so than my ( acurus ss ams), and 299a. without sinegery your system will be a bunch of parts.

[Lucky Leeroy]

I agree that the CW are the most difficult to position for the best imaging. They are very sensitive to positioning.

I have mine in a small living room about 10 feet apart with the sweet spot about 10 feet away and have them toed in between 4 and 5 inches.

[D-MAN]

I have been messing with this imaging issue since I moved into my recent digs, and have found that the only problems that my corner horns have in "imaging", producing a 3-D soundstage, etc. is ROOM REFLECTIONS and subsequent modal eccentricities causing problems.

I will go out on a limb and make a general statement about it: It ain't the horn, it's the environment.

Unfortunately, the listening environment is probably the hardest and most expensive thing to fix in an audio system. Bummer!

DM

[mark1101]

It seems the Khorns would be the most difficult of all to work with since they can not be moved without building the false walls.

I suppose you could figure out how they sound best and then actually build a room for them. I read that some of us do that. Maybe that's why the LaScala came along. So you wouldn't need to build a special environment.

I still wish I had Khorns and all those imaging issues.

[wheelman]

I agree on the distance thing. The farther away you are the better. I swear sometimes when i am in another room that is further away , but you can see and hear the speaker it sounds way better. I wish i had a larger room to listen to them with, and a good seperate amp. On the dvd ledzeppelin it is unbelievable the soundstage that is going on with lead guitar and everything else. I guess alot has to do with the recording. Sometimes when i am in the shower it still sounds good like the walls are tweed amp cabinet covers sweetening the sound a bit. They are so dynamic.

----------------

On 12/12/2003 11:03:31 AM mark1101 wrote:

Max,

Some people might get a little upset with this comment, but I have used Klipsch Heritage speakers for over 20 years.

Their weakest characteristic has always been their imaging. You can get them to image, but they are like tuning a race car. You need to adjust, adjust adjust. Anything you change, adjust again. When I say adjust, I mean move them, sometimes just 6 inches to a foot.

Especially with old cornwalls.

The biggest issue with this in my opinion is that the horns project the sound to the point that most rooms are simply too small to get the best possible effect.

If someone asked me what is the optimal distance to listen to LaScalas (loaded question). I would say the best LaScalas ever sounded to me was from almost 100 yards away outdoors at a party I attended. When it got dark out (important)

The horns project and need distance to develop their full envelope. I know everyone here describes their little 12 foot room and how perfect the image is. But IMHO, a speaker like a Khorn or LaScala is very restricted in a room that size. Not saying that they can't sound good, just that they are not able to develop their full potetial.

So the best you can do is try to adjust for best image. And everyone will tell you somehting different because that's what it takes, adjusting. Everyone will have different results.

I do not get the deep sound stage you describe from any of my klipsch systems. I get an excellent side to side stage where the speakers can disappear if set up correctly.

My SONY "HT in a box" ($399.00 for reciever and speakers) gives the "deep" sound stage you describe. The speakers absolutely envelop the room. You can not tell where any of them are. Cheap but good!

You take your Klipsch outdoors, and when it gets dark, to me that's the best they will ever sound. You'll get your long and deep stage and them some.

----------------

[garymd]

Go see "Man of LaMancha" on Broadway, then listen to the Original Broadway cast on CD on a good tube/cornwall system. Everyone is in their exact position on stage, at least on my system. Within inches. It's remarkable. Yes it's width but it's still amazing to me.

[AndyKubicki]

This is critical to achieve the best imaging but not necessary to enjoy the music

To each his own; I find Kelly's statement here sums it up well. What part of music is conveyed by great imaging? It may be pleasing, or even amuzing, but I would say that if you loose imaging, you can still get the essence of the music. If you loose the dynamics, you loose an important feature that can limit the conveyance of the emotional content of the music.

I don't get very good depth in my room and I'm stuck with it for a while. Matter of fact, we are having laminate flooring put in tomorrow and I fear how that will affect the room. For some strange reason, my room does fill with sound when I play Chicago. The horns are everywhere! And I remember the same effect years ago when I played Chicago through a Crown amp and preamp. But nothing else seems to have this affect. OTOH, I really don't listen for it. There is tremendous depth, however, when I play DVD movies, whether amplified by tubes or SS. A recorded knock on a piece of wood in a movie caught me by surprize, making me look to my back left! Almost haunting! I think I actually prefer this as a movie effect.

[AndyKubicki]

James, everything you were saying made sense, untill:

Of course, RECORDINGS differ in their presentation of space. As Kelly said, good live recordings do the best in this regard. I agree. And as a rule, multi-mic'd studio recordings do the poorest, simply because the cues that indicate depth are missing, unless artificial ones are added.

My point is that whatever differences in image depth are heard between speakers, amps, etc. has nothing to do with the recording itself! These differences exist independently of the recording and are not attributable to the recording at all. They are attributable to way that particular speaker radiates sound into the room. In other words, speaker A which is perceived as capable of throwing a deep soundstage, is going to project that very trait on everything played through it. While speaker B, which is perceived as being very flat and two-dimensional is going to project THAT on everything played through it.

Those two paragraphs appear to contradict each other. The way I see it, systems in general vary in their ability to recreate levels of detail, and the depth cues are part of the detail that differing systems may or may not recreate effectivly enough for the listener to perceive depth. I have, for the first time, witnessed the difference an interconnect can make when I was at the home of a person who has a set of horns that he built powered (if you can call this power) by an SET, and a separate LF amp for the bass horn Allan Songer was there too, and I'm sure he was wishing it was all mono . I was just about in the camp that believd that audiophiles imagine things and are prone to snake oil salesmen. But when the interconnects were switched, there was a profound difference. Now granted, he had original "patch chords" (the type that come with a piece of equipment) and then put in the really good interconnects. But there was a new sound, so it is not inconceivable that even wires, or interconnects can present a better or poorer sound stage and depth. That would also imply that anything in the signal path would have an effect.

[AndyKubicki]

Notice the formatting sucks! I had to break up the previous post...