Is soundstage DEPTH a myth?

I was listening to Helene Grimaud. The album is Duo. It’s just Grimaud on piano and del Sol on cello. The piano sounded like it was up on the stage at a concert hall. I’m sitting in the front row and del Sol is seated right in front of me just to the right on her cello. Please don’t tell me there’s no such thing as depth or width in an audio image.

Bent

@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!

Soundstage depth is real. I hear it on almost every recording. Except the lousy ones. For the record. I use Watson Labs Model 10 speakers. They are dipoles with subs.  My room is carpeted and  treated to minimize echo. I find more depth with dipoles than any other speaker.  I believe. But cannot prove. That depth is also a function of the distortion profile. Mostly even order harmonic distortion proveds more depth. I came to this conclusion adjusting the distortion profile on my 80 wpc  first watt v3 amps. This could explain why some say  tube amps give more depth... 

For a good spatial example, "Kind Of Blue" exhibits excellent soundstage depth (and width). It's very easy to pick out the instruments' three dimensional placements.

Soundstage depth is real if it’s in the recording to begin with.

AND - If many other things are aligned in your system and room acoustics

Much audio gear just does not image well, particularly speakers, in the true sense of imaging and depth. A properly time and phase aligned speaker not only sounds tonally correct but exhibits palpable imaging.

The biggest obstacle to attain "real life" palpable imaging will be your room acoustics and speaker placement.

I will tell you now, if you have no acoustic treatment going on just forget it, it just won’t happen. If you look at the very best recording studios in the world, they spend loads of money and design effort on acoustics going beyond the RFZ necessity. Once the room has a sufficient reflection free zone in the listening position (the wider the better) then you can start positioning the speakers for optimal soundstage and imaging. This of course is a bit of the chicken or the egg first situation. Acoustics going beyond the RFZ will help with later reflections supporting the ambience of recordings. This is called RT60 and is the length of time frequencies take to decay in a room. If a room is too dead (or dry), the RT60 will be too short and systems sound lifeless.

So you need the right balance in a playback room as well as the RFZ, and speaker positioning.

Many Dacs are also not great at imaging or creating a 3d soundstage, usually timing issues or jitter to blame. I am full digital with really great Dac’s at my disposal so I enjoy breathtaking soundstage and image depth.

Many audiophiles mistaken imaging with just the sense of space versus feeling like you’re actually at or in the venue. This perspective again depends on the recording itself.

I am both a dealer / custom room designer, and I’ve been designing & building AV rooms for 30 years now. 

audiobyditomasso.ca