Is soundstage DEPTH a myth?

     Whenever imaging or soundstage are mentioned, I like to remind people about these resources: The following provide tests, with which one may determine whether their system actually images, or reproduces a soundstage, as recorded. 

      ie: On the Chesky sampler/test CD; David explains in detail, his position on the stage and distance from the mics, as he strikes a tambourine(Depth Test).

     LEDR test tells what to expect, if your system performs well, before each segment. 

  Chesky CD contains a number of tests, in addition to the LEDR.

         (https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_ledr.php) 

 and (https://www.amazon.com/Chesky-Records-Sampler-Audiophile-Compact/dp/B000003GF3)

  The shape of your ears’ pinnae is also a variable, regarding your ability to perceive images/locate sounds.

   A Stereophile article, that explains the LEDR test: http://www.stereophile.com/features/772/ 

                             How LARGE do you like your music?

     Unless a system can cleanly reproduce all the information (well engineered/recorded in an environment with good acoustics and mic placement) in a quality cut, to the original/intended dB level; It's listener will never hear that information.

              ie, regarding, "depth": the reflection off the venue's back wall.

      Of course: familiarity with the venue in which a recording was made,  would go a long way with regards to recognizing whether what one's hearing is actually accurate.    NOT that that's a necessity, when it comes to the enjoyment of one's music, BUT- having that knowledge, one can be confident that their other recordings are also being faithfully reproduced.

       'Checkerboard Lounge Live Chicago 1981' (on vinyl) is a favorite of mine, far as being able to hear the room, especially between songs.

        Especially, in the softer cuts of Diana Krall's 'Live in Paris' vinyl (45 RPM/180 Gram), I find the Olympia Theatre's back wall reflections nicely reproduced (with accurate depth).

         Back the the size-of-your-music thing: I turn my sound up slowly (a song at a time, to acclimate the ears to higher dB levels, without having them shut down), until my image height reflects where I imagine/know the performers to have been, when recorded.     Again: a system has to be able to reach that level cleanly/without distortion, or: it's just LOUD (iow: noise).

          It's been my experience: seated in the better/more expensive, front and center seats; it's easy to hear and locate individual voices (human or instrumental), on a stage and seldom would the level be low enough for some to consider, "safe enough".     Yet: no one complains, because it's clean sound (just big).

           Most Blues are just meant to be played energetically.

           Ever seen anyone cover their ears during the Finale of Stravinsky's 'Firebird'?     

           The long pipes/pedal notes of the Crystal Cathedral's Ruffatti organ could/would pull the air from your lungs.     Playing Crystal Clear's DTD recording brings that home.

            It's also during such reproduction, that the effects improved fuses, PC or speaker cables and interconnects bring to the listening room, are most evident.

            The tests I mentioned in my first post eliminate all the variables and present the listener with established sounds, that will let them know if their system is actually reproducing what's in the recording.

             If your system doesn't put out (or you can't hear) what's in those tests: it's NOT because the effects are a, "myth"!

       The adherents of the Naysayer Church will never accept that there exist a multitude of variables, when an accurate simulacrum of performers and their performance in a particular venue, is the desire/goal.

        If their result differs from that of others, the aspects that they can't discern CERTAINLY MUST BE the product of those others' imaginations.

             Of this they are certain: it CAN'T be THEIR system or ears!

                                      Perish the thought!

@cd318-

Since 99.99% of commercial recordings were made with little or no consideration for sound quality, let alone soundstage depth, it could be considered more than a little irresponsible to advocate upgrading in pursuit of this elusive soundstage depth.

So let's not kid anyone, out of the millions of commercial recordings there's probably less than a 100 that could be said to be of audiophile standard and possessing genuine soundstage depth.

         Could you please cite you sources, for the above figures/information?

@cd318 -

     iow: YOUR assumptions/conclusions/opinions

     Once again: 

      The LEDR test I mentioned in my first post was created (scientifically generated) to eliminate all variables, as regards the source material used, when testing your system for sound stage width and depth reproduction.

       If your system doesn't reproduce (or- you can't perceive) what's in the media: it's NOT because the effects are a, "myth" (or any other of your excuses/obfuscations).

@normb (et al) -

       It's sad that so many of you naysayers refuse to acknowledge the FACTS of so simple an issue.

        NO ONE is attempting to place themselves above another, or claiming to have, "golden ears".

        In your haste to justify your untenable position, you ignore the truths that:

1) The LEDR test, and others available (ie: on the Chesky Test disc), are purposely designed to test our systems for sound stage width, depth and height.

2) Their intention/goal is the removal or all variables, regarding source material.

3) There (QUITE OBVIOUSLY) exist a multitude of variables, beyond source materials, that can/will limit the reproduction of the effects under discussion.

4) YES: those variables include the disparities that exist in aural acuity between individuals, LIKE EVERY OTHER OF THE HUMAN SENSES, which the more rational of us recognize as, "LIFE" (that just how it goes).

        To dissuade others of their pursuits (whether tonality/organics that please THEIR palate, a sharper image, the accurate reproduction of a recording venue's ambiance, whatever their individual goal) is disingenuous, at best. 

        The tenets of the Naysayer Church, based in nothing but the unscientific, unlearned and misguided faith of a few, but- repeated vociferously in so many AudiogoN threads, can be disheartening.

         My only goal, in these threads, is (and has ever been) to encourage any that desire tonality/organics pleasing to THEIR palate, a more realistic reproduction of recording venue ambiance, or: HOWEVER, "better sound" is defined for them, to experiment with their rooms and systems, by any means that piques their curiosity.

          Were your ilk's the only voices acknowledged: we'd still be listening to Conch shells and arguing, as to whether two could actually produce a stereo effect.

          Thankfully: we've moved past the mind-numbing rhetoric of so many distractors and progressed, far as we have.

                                                  Happy listening!

@normb -

Of course, those among the audioscenti here who have golden or platinum ears and hearing BEYOND that of mere mortals will argue to the contrary.

But… that’s what they do.

Sometimes it takes a lot of effort to keep convincing yourself you’re better than.

                                                  Who asked you?

                       fyi: AudiogoN is what’s referred to as an, "open forum".

     Cast aspersions (or: project your personal flaws on others) and you can expect a response.

The OP asked if there was mythology involved, I accommodated him with the POV of an EXPERT/professional in the field.

       Did you neglect to read the quote, at the end of that article, oh Great One?

                                                     ie:

Trickster Pass reminded disbelievers: "You are welcome to take my remarks as entertainment."

                                        I WILL (and: yours as well)!

                                                Happy listening!