does mixing kill the soundstage?

Speaking from experience both as an audiophile and having done professional recording engineering both in top notch studios and minimalist classical recording venues, I just had to chime in. First of all, 99% of all pop/rock music is completely artificial. Single source mono microphones are used to record the majority of instruments. In a final mix, the mono signal is panned to the left/right channels to give a sense of "placement". Personally, I think it is more accurate to call most pop recordings "placed" mono than stereo. Still, to make a good sounding mult-track rock recording takes talent and possibly the finest engineer out there is George Massenburg (he also designs his own gear under the name GML and it can be as breathtakingly expensive as high end audio gear). In terms of symphonic recordings, multi-channel micing is utilized mainly by Deutsche Grammaphone. Engineers opt not to record in this fashion because the sound leaves a lot to be desired. Recording a symphony is more about the sound of the orchestra in a hall and capturing the essence of the orchestra as a whole. 48 tracks of mono mics that are mixed together can never represent the sound of an orchestra. A recording that has been made in this fashion can be instantly identified and the phase shifting and incoherrence between the microphones is nothing short of annoying. The finest classical recordings out there often use very few microphones. Chesky does a phenominal job of doing minimalist micing (but the performers aren't the greatest). The older DECCA recordings from the "Golden Age" would be your best bet for symphonic recordings (but use a few more mics but did a great job with it). John Eargle recordings on Delos also use a few more mics but are exceptional. If you are looking for an out of this world acoustic recording, pick up "Meeting By The River" by Ry Cooder and Vishwa Mohan Bhatt. The disc is impressive both because the two of them had never met when they recorded it and because of the calibur of the recording. It is a minimalist 2 channel analog recording that cannot be topped.

BMP- I have done some interesting experiments with 2 and 4 mic setups with non-acoustic type recording. I have tried to have bands play in a large room and position them at various distances from the mics but the results varied. I have also tried to overdub instruments with the same technique using a stereo pair but again, the results varied. I think the best recording I ever made was of a violin recital. I used an AKG C24 in Blumlein flanked by a pair of Neumann KM130 omnis. The mic preamp was an old and heavily modified Ampex tube unit all of which ran to a Nagra D. Analog is the way to go but a 1/2" reel at 30 ips gets mighty pricey (about $50-75 for every 15 minutes of record time). Honestly, recording on 1/4", 15ips Ampex 499 to a Ampex ATR or Nagra IV-S is pretty sensational (I have access to several thousand master tapes on this medium that are better than anything else out there). I am also amazed at the amount of artifical signal processing that is put on to even symphony recordings. If people heard an original master vs. a post production CD release, they would be astonished at how much the sound often changes.

BMP- The track width on a 2" Studer and a 1/4" are the same. Also, the new tape formulations have made a world of difference (Quantegy 499 and GP9). The most kick-ass mastering deck is: http://www.atrservice.com/atr/onetwo.htm. It is a 1" 2 Track Ampex ATR. I have worked with Studer decks in the past but have been more favorable towards Ampex and Nagra. I am going to be buying a 2 track machine in the not too distant future and am torn between an Ampex, Nagra, and Studer. The beautiful thing about the Nagra is its size but it is frightfully expensive. For your recording, what kind of mics do you have to work with? No signal processing or recorder can do a darn bit of good if the mic and preamp aren't up to the task... also remember that EQ's and compressors can wreak havoc on recordings if not properly used...

Well, the good news about analog is that even though everyone thought it was going to die long ago, it is still the medium of choice when making high quality recordings. Just look at what everyone said about vinyl... it was supposed to be long gone and you wouldn't be able to get a turntable or cartridge but they are still alive and kicking. Furthermore, both the National Archives and the Smithsonian have said the best mechanism for audio preservation is still analog tape and that it has a much longer shelf life than digital media.

I would definitely parrot what Onhwy61 has to say about recording... Toys don't make up for talent. Unfortunately, the toys make it so easy to make a recording today that people don't always spend the time to make it sound great. Of course, if there is no talent its gonna suck any way you cut it.