Is soundstage DEPTH a myth?

I had a recording studio for 10 years and I can assure you that to a recording engineer, soundstage depth is "a thing." Depending on the band and the source material, I worked very hard to create an illusion of soundstage depth using several well known techniques.

Creating the illusion that some instruments and voices are behind others involves using carefully structured reverb and delay on each track besides volume differences and EQ (not to mention how the instrument was actually recorded). The engineer can vary the timing of a delayed reverb, the length of the tail, the frequency response of the reverb, and other cues to make it sound like some instruments are further back than others. Most engineers would be very disappointed to hear someone say that there was no soundstage depth to their recordings.

If you read the recording notes of many modern classical recordings you will see that the engineer uses several microphones placed near the orchestra and various places in the hall. The mixing engineer then can manipulate these individual tracks to create the illusion that you are sitting in that hall. I've got some classical records that have caused people unfamiliar with audiophile sound to sit there gaping in awe. One friend exclaimed loudly, "How does it do that!!!?"

In contrast, some genres like hardcore want zero depth. They want the sound to be in your face, in a flat plane between the speakers. Obviously, this demands a different set of recording and mixing techniques. I can tell you from experience, it's not easy to get that sound.

I'll give you an old example to test. Santana's first album has a very good soundstage with the illusion of depth. If you hear a flat soundstage where all the instruments sound like they are in the same plane my advice is to work on your system. If you haven't been to an audio show I would suggest that you start there. You will definitely hear some systems and recordings that are downright spooky in how they create the illusion of depth.

Here is a relatively quick test to see if you can hear this phenomenon. Move your speakers out into the room and move your listening seat if needed so that you are listening in a very nearfield setup. Put the speakers about 3 or 5 feet in front of you (experiment) and sit exactly between them. You should get an effect approaching that of wearing headphones. The sound should be "holographic." Hopefully you should hear the illusion of depth on good quality recordings. Once you hear this you will "get it." Too often audiophiles constrain themselves with speaker setup that prevents achieving a deep soundstage. For an afternoon, forget WAF or any other constraint and play with your speaker and listening location. Maybe you can't leave everything in the optimal listening position but you you will know what you are shooting for and you can try to get it as close as possible.

For me the illusion of depth is one of the most thrilling aspects of this hobby. Sometimes when I'm listening to a favorite well recorded title I just smile and shake my head. I've heard this thousands of times and it still blows me away.

@hypoman 

Your comments are among the most relevant to the issue.  Many pop/rock recordings, and other studio recordings, don't have genuine depth.  Well-recorded orchestral recordings are perhaps the best for hearing depth, partly because there is more physical depth to an orchestra than to smaller groups.

I suppose you also have to have some level of quality in your electronics--there needs to be enough transparency to hear the depth clearly, and mid-fi electronics may lack that.

@8th-note You are very welcome to give us some more (non-classical or electronic) examples of (maybe your) recordings with great depht. Where the depht really adds to the experience of the recording.

It is no myth, and you don’t need to spend a ton of money.

But you do need to get things right.

The speaker spacing, both to each other as well as the back and side walls, is very important. You also want "time alignment" between the drivers.  And you want symmetry in the room. Soundstage/imaging/depth are all dependant on constructive as well as destructive interference and phasing and for these to occur properly, both speakers essentially need to be the same and "see" similar environments so they are the same in the seating area.

And..., if you want to feel "encompassed," you’ve got to bring the volume up to realistic listening levels!

I know it sounds cliche, but I’ve spent years putting together and perfecting a pair of speakers that image like no others I’ve heard. And I have JBL L200/300, JBL L112s, Altec, Big Red Supers (triamped), and Chartwell LS3/5As, and have heard Magico and Focal at demos, as well as lots of other varieties at listening parties.

If you get down to the Orange County, CA area, you are welcome to come by and hear what it is all about. Meanwhile, I leave you with this YouTube video. This is just the two inner speakers playing with no sub attached, no eq, and no room correction, either physical or electronic. The room is large (27’ x 16.5’ x 7-1/2->15’ ceiling, and open to the entrance hall and dining room.

This is an SACD played on an Oppo95 ($300 used) through a Yamaha RX-Z9 RECEIVER ($4,050 new at 10% off in 2002) in "Pure Direct" mode. The speakers use a JBL 18" 2241H, JBL 2251J, and ESS Great Heil that I’ve modified ($1,500 total investment with used drivers but new crossover components from ebay).

This shows the spectrum in the seating area without the 18" connected to alleviate the "noise" associated with floor and room bounce. I know it look a bit "bright" but that is a personal preference and I think it makes music more lively and brings out the microdetail. As shown, the crossovers are all the way up and there is even a "flat switch" that removes the upward tilt, engaged for overly bright or noisy cuts.

All caps are Audyn Q4s, all resistors are Dale 1%, all inductors are heavy-gauge air core.

So what do they sound like? Well if you believe in YouTube (many don’t) put on some really good headphones and take a listen. And while you’ll hear a nice smooth response, and lots of detail, you loose the imaging, but are welcome to come by for a demo any time. This was recorded on a Nikon D750 DSLR.

https://youtu.be/oLgQCHmXSUU

Our ears have no direct depth perception mechanism like our stereoscopic eyes do. Our brain can simply measure the convergence angle of our eyes for things up close. Once the convergence angle gets close enough to zero everything is just far away. That’s why the moon looks like it’s the same size and distance as the sun. Or maybe you can see that the sun is over 200 times the diameter of the moon just by looking. I can’t tell.

But there are definitely indirect ways for our ears to perceive depth, and the most obvious methods are reverberance and tone. There’s also another potential way of perceiving depth with sound and that is lateral shift as you move slightly. As with visual perception, things close will seem to move quickly relative to your motion, while things that are far away will seem to follow you along. A strange effect of the phantom center image when using just two speakers is that sounds that are panned hard to each speaker will tend to stay put, so as you move your head left or right you will get proportionally closer or further to the apparent sound from each speaker. On the other hand, center panned images  tend to follow your movement. If you move left, the center panned vocalist seems to follow you in that direction. This could conceivably create a sense of depth for some people, and may explain why they don’t like a center speaker for music. The center speaker will pin the vocalist to one specific location and that could make them seem closer. That’s a complaint I’ve heard and taken interest in because I am an oddball who absolutely LOVES a center speaker for 2 channel playback of music, but I try to commiserate with those who disagree with me. I really don’t care much about soundstage depth but I continue to perceive it on 2 channel recordings whether I’m just using 2 speakers or deriving a center channel.

@toddalin  

 How did you get stereo in the recording? The mic. in the picture looks mono. It’s interesting to hear the original track over headphones and then compare it to you recording, which sounds more reverberant and brighter.

The Behringer mic used to display the spectrum is mono. You cannot "analyze" mono pink noise through both speakers simultaneously because of constructive and destructive interference in the room. I've shown only the left speaker, but the right is similar.  The audio recording was made with a Nikon D750 DSLR camera.

Yes the recording is more reverbrant because it picks up the untreated, big, room acoustics. The brightness is my preference (but also the room) and could be turned down at the L-pads or flattened to a more conventional curve with the switch on the crossover.

Thanks for clarifying the use of the Nikon camera’s microphone. You had mentioned that but I didn’t make the connection to it also being the audio source. Is it the camera’s built-in mic. or a separate mic. you attached? I can hear the stereo separation.

I own that same Behringer DEQ2496 and it's calibrated microphone. It's been a useful tool over the last 15 years or so that I've owned it. Yes, you can't calibrate the tweeters at the same time unless you can somehow get the distance to each tweeter exact within about 1/8". That should get you up to about 10,000 Hz. Of course our ears are separated on our head so our ears really don't like two tweeters playing into both of them at the same time either. At least my ears don't care for it. 

When I finally bought a nice Dac and streamer for my smaller system for the 1st time I heard the imaging/Soundstage. I thought it was just a myth too as this was my 4th system and my cheapest one. Streamer to Dac to SS integrated to bookshelves. So when I heard it I began to question why my large living room sytem with expensive gear wasn’t similar if not better. Expensive tower speakers and hand built highly detailed low distortion(likeSS low) tube amp with a pretty high end turntable. So I began trouble shooting w speaker positioning, changing my interconnect xlr and rca connections. I finally nailed it when I changed my modern tubes to NOS Ken Rads. So now massive, massive soundstage far beyond the side walls of my living room and 3d imaging. So yeah two diff systems two different solutions. Or maybe neither system was ever set up properly or some aspects of equipment wasnt allowing me to get everything out of my system until I addressed them. Whatever the reason I would not stop tweeking things until you've arrived. You’ll know it immediately when it happens even if you’ve never heard it before(as in my case). Best of luck enjoy your journey.

Buil in mic..., so of course separation suffers. But the Nikon actually does a pretty good job, and lots better than many cell phone recordings I’ve heard.

I had a recording studio for 10 years and I can assure you that to a recording engineer, soundstage depth is "a thing." Depending on the band and the source material, I worked very hard to create an illusion of soundstage depth using several well known techniques.

Creating the illusion that some instruments and voices are behind others involves using carefully structured reverb and delay on each track besides volume differences and EQ (not to mention how the instrument was actually recorded). The engineer can vary the timing of a delayed reverb, the length of the tail, the frequency response of the reverb, and other cues to make it sound like some instruments are further back than others. Most engineers would be very disappointed to hear someone say that there was no soundstage depth to their recordings.

If you read the recording notes of many modern classical recordings you will see that the engineer uses several microphones placed near the orchestra and various places in the hall. The mixing engineer then can manipulate these individual tracks to create the illusion that you are sitting in that hall. I've got some classical records that have caused people unfamiliar with audiophile sound to sit there gaping in awe. One friend exclaimed loudly, "How does it do that!!!?"

In contrast, some genres like hardcore want zero depth. They want the sound to be in your face, in a flat plane between the speakers. Obviously, this demands a different set of recording and mixing techniques. I can tell you from experience, it's not easy to get that sound.

I'll give you an old example to test. Santana's first album has a very good soundstage with the illusion of depth. If you hear a flat soundstage where all the instruments sound like they are in the same plane my advice is to work on your system. If you haven't been to an audio show I would suggest that you start there. You will definitely hear some systems and recordings that are downright spooky in how they create the illusion of depth.

Here is a relatively quick test to see if you can hear this phenomenon. Move your speakers out into the room and move your listening seat if needed so that you are listening in a very nearfield setup. Put the speakers about 3 or 5 feet in front of you (experiment) and sit exactly between them. You should get an effect approaching that of wearing headphones. The sound should be "holographic." Hopefully you should hear the illusion of depth on good quality recordings. Once you hear this you will "get it." Too often audiophiles constrain themselves with speaker setup that prevents achieving a deep soundstage. For an afternoon, forget WAF or any other constraint and play with your speaker and listening location. Maybe you can't leave everything in the optimal listening position but you you will know what you are shooting for and you can try to get it as close as possible.

For me the illusion of depth is one of the most thrilling aspects of this hobby. Sometimes when I'm listening to a favorite well recorded title I just smile and shake my head. I've heard this thousands of times and it still blows me away.

8th-Note's replay answers the question nicely. 

The recording engineer creates how they would like the recording to be heard via the techniques they’ve learned and choose to use.  Our equipment and how it is setup can interpret the particulars of what the engineer intended, especially the nuances of depth, soundstage and the imaging results that we’re discussing.  Thereafter, we can selectively purchase and set-up our hardware to best present the nuances in the recording.

While specific speaker placement suggestions are generally pertinent.  The key word is generally.  Because the placement of cabinet speakers tends to generally fit the suggestions. 

However, those of us with unique speakers’ types may benefit or not, from such general suggestions.  For instance, I do have my ~8' high x 3’ wide SoundLab electrostatic speakers substantially pulled out into the room at approx. 7-feet.  But they can be placed within inches of side walls without the deleterious reflection effects that point source speakers have, because SoundLabs are line sources. Also, because their radiating pattern is dipolar, their placement parameters are different than the normal cone and dome speaker system.

Soundstage depth is not a myth, it's a science.

Santana S/T been mentioned regarding depth in recording. I do believe also Santana Caravanserai needs to be recognized. An absolute masterpiece I thought fifty years ago and still do. Back then for the music and now also for the recording. Just listen to the first tracks. Santana S/T a little too much left-right oriented IMO.

Hello all. Is the Chesky test cd on Qobuz ? I couldn’t find it. Thanks ! 

I'd like to add one more thing to my earlier comments on recording technique and that is the visual cues that can add a sense of depth of the sound stage.  Much of what we perceive aurally in a concert hall is influenced by what we see.  I've always kept my speakers fairly distant from the wall behind them and have kept that area fairly dark and distraction free.  If there is space behind the speakers, it's often times a lot easier to sense that space filled up with the source.  I see a lot of photos of some very high  end systems where the space between the speakers is filled with all the high dollar eye candy that is driving the speakers.  That, in my opinion is a big distraction.  When I'm listening to an orchestra or even a jazz quartet or for that matter a classical guitarist, I don't care to stare at stacks of hardware, no matter how impressive it looks.  Get those distractions off to the side and the three dimensional image of the performers will often times magically appear.  That's always worked for me anyway.

no of course its not a myth. neither is width and height. we live in 3 dimensions. our brain makes 3D sense o the recordings where the recordings are good enough and the equipment is set up properly. 

some people cant perceive this. no different than  some people cant tell whats a straight line or isnt. not everyone has good perception. 

This has been an interesting read. A lot of ‘Interesting’ responses. In my system, in my room, Playing ‘Money for Nothing’ I can hear that Sting is behind Mark Knopfler and just to the right. - I cannot make that out on most systems - This is from the 80’s and is a (Rock - sort of) track.

So, yes, depth is real and it depends on the recording and primarily the sound engineer’s skills.

@gotolondon2 I agree. Many great answers here. More revelatory than I initially expected. I have a BMC amp and 1 reviewer stated it sounds very flat, he thought that was just how the amp sounded. But when connected with other BMC components the way the amp were designed, soundstage started "shooting out in all directions". I’ve been saving for the BMC ultradac and will be buying it to try soon.

@hypoman I agree, the listening area around the speakers should be ideally empty. One time I had a center channel in the center and just the mere existence of it there degraded the sound. I thought something was sounding weird until I move the center out and realized that was the problem.

About soundstage, I've owned TOTL headphone and I still couldn't notice soundstage. I've clearly sense what's in front of me from front left to front right. I've also heard things up close to my side left and side right. This kinda qualifies as soundstage depth. But when it comes to the front depth, that I haven't clearly heard. 

Simple answer: No.

"About soundstage, I've owned TOTL headphone and I still couldn't notice soundstage. I've clearly sense what's in front of me from front left to front right. I've also heard things up close to my side left and side right. This kinda qualifies as soundstage depth. But when it comes to the front depth, that I haven't clearly heard."

If we agree that soundstage and imaging are at least partially the result of the engineer using constructive and destructive interference to create "peaks and nulls" across the room to create the illusion of a soundstage, wouldn't this be expected of headphones where there can be no interference between the channels let alone some predetermined distance between the speakers that the engineer was listening at?

@gosta I would be happy to list some recordings that have good depth but these only scratch the surface. At audio shows the tracks they play nearly always have great depth because that is one of the things they are trying to demonstrate. Here are a few of my favorites.

Dee Dee Bridgewater - Live in Paris
Stevie Ray Vaughn - Couldn't Stand the Weather (especially Tin Pan Alley)
Jazz at the Pawnshop
Doug MacLeod - There's a Time (or pretty much anything from Reference Recordings)
Janis Siegel - At Home
Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms
Lou Reed - Walk on the Wild Side (song)
Col. Bruce Hampton & The Aquarium Rescue Unit - Self titled live album
Hugh Masakela - Hope
London Grammar - If You Wait
Paul Simon - Graceland
Sting - Ten Summoners Tales
Malia and Boris Blank - Convergence
The Brian Setzer Orchestra - Dirty Boogie

Regarding my studio recordings, the bands were local to the Portland area and unfortunately none of them made it to the big time. Some of them were very talented though. If you want to hear a few of these tracks you are welcome to PM me with your email address and I'll share a folder with some of my favorite songs.
 

@hypoman 

Visual is a huge part of discerning depth for me, and in general making sense of what I'm hearing. If I can see that I'm in a small room my brain will try to interpret whatever I hear in a way that can fit into that small space. David Greisinger had some binaural recordings on his website that he'd taken in a concert hall. I used his method to calibrate my headphones to my ears and then listened to the recordings. They seemed unremarkable until I also stared at the picture of the orchestra as taken from that seat. The effect was amazing. By looking at the picture I could interpret and make sense of the spacial cues in the recording and the sense of space and depth became very apparent. I really felt like I was there.

@cey 

Really good perception may not be the best thing for listening to recordings.  An ability to relax and suspend one's disbelief might be more helpful. Really good perception will just make it all too obvious that you are listening to 2 speakers that are hitting your head from just 2 specific directions, creating a bunch of weird phase and interference patterns that don't often occur in nature, and mixing the acoustics of a recording space with the acoustics of your listening space. This will all shout FAKE to anyone who's perceptual acuity can't relax a little. 

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.

I've heard 1000s of recordings and hardly any of them could be considered as being up to audiophile standards.

None of the Beatles recordings were anything above average recording quality. Some of the Kinks albums, esp their often remastered masterpiece The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation Society album have bloody awful sound quality. Small, squashed, zero bandwidth, no depth.

It's kind of ironic that one the best recorded albums in my collection is the 1959/63 collaboration between Vera Lynn and Kenneth McKellar, The Wonderful World of Nursery Rhymes.

It's one of those rare ones that has real stage presence, you can easily picture the performers before you.

On any system regardless of price.

Upgrading can certainly give you more bandwidth, more precision, more separation, more detail, but it cannot give you what was never there in the first place.

Not unless you're into analysing exactly what the producers were doing with their 24 track mixing desks to a degree that no one ever intended you to. One that's liable to also induce a headache due to it being so unnatural.

We should remember that one of the very best recorded albums of recent history was also one of the most simplest. Mostly for its exquisite sonics, due more to serendipity rather than intent I suspect, the Cowboy Junkies Trinity Session album recorded on a portable machine in a church has subsequently gone down in audiophile legend.

There are also some very good reasons why the demonstration music used at shows regularly features the likes of Pink Floyd's DSOTM, Steely Dan and tinkly jazz. Engineers and producers operating in a cut throat business are usually far far too busy trying to make money than worry about what a few audiophiles might think about. Bands and artists generally don't seem to care much about anything other than commercial success either.

Selling, not sound quality is the main game in town.

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.

Encouraging folks to engage in an everlasting search for things that do not exist can only do our hobby ultimate harm.

https://www.discogs.com/release/4351624-Vera-Lynn-Kenneth-McKellar-The-Wonderful-World-Of-Nursery-Rhymes

@asctim ive only seen the opposite...over and over and over and over. the more perceptive people really enjoy what a god hifi has to offer, as they can actually hear what theyre listening to, or they are able to listen to what theyre hearing.

the rest cant tell the difference and cant pay good enough attention.

you see, having a poor sense of taste and doesnt help you enjoy food better. 

If only hundred then I’m afraid neither DSOTM or SD will make it.

No problem with depth in my set up. Not always there, but when it's there it's there, if that makes sense.

"About soundstage, I've owned TOTL headphone and I still couldn't notice soundstage. I've clearly sense what's in front of me from front left to front right. I've also heard things up close to my side left and side right. This kinda qualifies as soundstage depth. But when it comes to the front depth, that I haven't clearly heard"

@toddalin I made some obvious errors in my statement. Soundstage and imaging are definitely a thing. With that being said, I don't quite understand your question 

"wouldn't this be expected of headphones where there can be no interference between the channels let alone some predetermined distance between the speakers that the engineer was listening at?"

Are you saying depth is a result of sound bouncing off the physical room? And since there's nothing to bounce with in a headphone, there is no depth? I'm sorry for not understanding. 

@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?

       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!

"Are you saying depth is a result of sound bouncing off the physical room? And since there’s nothing to bounce with in a headphone, there is no depth? I’m sorry for not understanding."

Not so much bouncing off of stuff in the room, but the interaction of the sound waves of the two speakers playing simultaneously in the room.

Something to consider. If both speakers play the same thing, in phase, there are constructive as well as destructive interferences (peaks and nulls) set up in the room. For something to be dead center, both speakers are playing the same thing, at teh same volume, in phase, reinforcing each other and sound is therefore louder at that spot. Similarly, depending on the wavelength and distance between the speakers, you could have a path differential that creates a null when both speakers are playing the same thing

But on headphones, the center is in your head and the sound of both channels is not reinforcing a wavefront making it louder, or quietier, if you are listening to a null spot.

Many Classical records made in real hall acoustic environment with small number of microphones have a real soundstage depth. I mean big part of live records (from 1970x - 1990x) and records done from 1955 to 1965.

Hi @mihorn ,

Some legendary vintage speakers produce sound stage depth very well.

For example, Quad ESL57, Tannoy coaxial speakers from 50x-70x.

No.

@toddalin Thanks for clarifying.

@cey 

Are you not merely defining people who enjoy high quality audio as more perceptive? If not, how do you know? 

I read that Paul Klipsch hired people to do blind testing, and found that some of them were very perceptive to subtle differences while others not so much. There was no correlation between their ability to hear and their interest in music or hifi. Appreciation is a different thing than perception. 

@rodman99999

Naysayers are on both sides in this argument. They also argue that it cannot be their imagination so they don’t care what a double blind test shows - that they can’t really hear what they’re perceiving. I don’t call it their imagination in those cases, but a confluence of senses coming together to produce an audible perception. My feeling is that if it works for them and they can afford it, enjoy! The whole idea is to trick our senses into perceiving something that isn't really happening. If we're not overly acute in our perceptions the trick is more likely to succeed. 

@asctim  nope. 

Not in my system.

@alexberger

Some legendary vintage speakers produce sound stage depth very well.

Quad ESL57, Tannoy coaxial speakers from 50x-70x.

Well, yes but only with the right well recorded music.

It was the almost 3D imagery of the Quad Electrostatic when playing back some opera (LP) through some vintage Quad amps that sold them to me. That's probably still the closest I've been to that elusive 'reach out and touch' feeling in audio.

However, when I got them back home and put on Bruce Springsteen’s Greatest Hits CD, none of that imagery or depth was present. Neither was it on any of my other CDs or Minidiscs. You could call that a watershed moment in my audio journey.

The recordings matter the most.

My current speakers, the dual concentric Tannoy Berkeley’s from 1978 fall into the the same boat. The imagery is sometimes there, but only with the very best recorded albums. Albums recorded live with exquisite bandwidth, and usually minimal processing.

Joni Mitchell’s Travelogue from 2002 and Both Sides Now from 2000 certainly fall into that category, but they are rare examples. Incidentally, I would strongly recommend both of those orchestral re-recording albums to any fan of Mitchell’s.

@rodman99999

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

Well, in all of the numerous articles/interviews I’ve read with engineers and producers neither the subject of sound quality nor soundstage has ever appeared.

When you also take into consideration the fact that virtually every single recording since the early 1990s has featured often heavy use of compression (the so-called ’loudness wars’) and realise just how extremely rare uncompressed recordings are, it’s hard not to come to the sad conclusion that the industry just does not care about sound quality.

If you were to scan through the Guinness Book of Hit Singles / Albums from the 1950s to the 2000s+ I think you will have to search hard and long to find many audiophile standard recordings amongst all of those thousands of hits and top 100 entries.

@cd318 -

     iow: YOUR assumptions/conclusions/opinions

My exposure to "image" or "Soundstage" has mostly been achieved through the development of high performance cables.

I thought I had a reasonable image, but as my cables developed and became more refined, so did the overall quality of my image.

• details that were never there before, such as the micro details of the venue acoustics (tiny echoes and reverberations), which provided a more holographic and realistic presentation
• an improved isolation of instruments
• more seperation (air) between performers
• greater front to back seperation

All of this was achived by building cables that

• used the best quality wire, like OCC copper and OCC silver
  • which improved details and dynamics
• use the best dielectric available
  • which improved clarity and details
  • and lowered internally generated noise
• advanced cable geometry
  • which again lowered the noise floor of the cable
• excellent connectors

And you need to address ALL CABLES in a system, not just interconnects OR speakers cables - Mains cables play a huge role, especially on source components.

If DIY is not your thing, take a look at these cable brands, which adopt many of the design priciples mentioned above

• Audio Envy - great Bang for the Buck
• Zavfino - their TOTL cables are very good
• InAkustik - top perfrmers
• HIJIRI - perhaps the best cables on the market, but pricey
• There ar many more, but you have to know what to look for

Once I had my cables sorted, the image fell into place on live performances and also studio recordings that are impecably engineered

Until you get the cables sorted you are wasting your money chasing component upgrades and room treatments.

My system is modest...

• Bryston B135 interated amp
• Bluesound Node 2 streamer
• Simaudio Moon Phono stage
• Custom Turntable with Denon 103 (with Soundsmith Mods)
• Gershman Acoustics

But it has a more holograpohic 3D presentation that I have not even heard from the most pricey systems in high end audio stores.

BTY, I also have a $300 minisystem outfitted with great cables that also has an amazing sound - so it’s not all about a component’s price

Just something else in this hobby to ponder

Regards - Steve

My own take on this is that system quality and how well it is set up really figures into how well it does the imaging.  That doesn't mean the system has to be real pricey.  I have heard mid line British speakers do the imaging thing fantastically playing classical music, but as others have said the other big thing is how well the recording is done.

     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).

I've never heard any perception of front-back depth while listening through earphones. To be sure, I've heard plenty of left-to-right and in-phase/out-of-phase trickery with headphones, but that's about it.

I hear so much depth in my house of stereo, it's there, 100% real. The acoustic treatment and speaker positioning probably have most to do with it, but EVERYTHING does matter.

@8th-note

'Santana's first album has a very good soundstage with the illusion of depth.'

Thanks for your post.

I have a near field setup and  listened to the first track (Waiting) a few minutes ago. Especially the drums, particularly Ridebecken or Hi-Hat, changing position from back left to forward mid is clearly audible to me. Closing the eyes supported the illusion. Nice experience indeed.

Hence, my answer is 'no' to the OP's initial question.

(First time I'm listening to Santana intentionally)

Cristina Vane (alt-country with fiddle) makes very fine albums with depth and width. Doesn’t make the mistake of bringing the drums forward or using only left or right channel for instruments thereby creating a natural and “live” soundstage.

Bon Iver’s The Wolves (Act I and II) listen for the ambulance. If you can hear it far away and then get closer your system can do depth.

Toddalin, I think your right about listening room waveform interactions.

     When I get a new CD I usually first listen on my standalone OPPO 83, Pontus II, Jot 2, Aria headphone system to evaluate all the detail, ambiance, tone/timbre, space around instruments/voices, base clarity, etc, etc.

    I'm often pleasantly surprised when I play the same CD on my OPPO 105, Bifrost 2, Pioneer Elite, Vandersteen CE 2, HSU sub, home theater, set for 2 channel...which has less of all the above but often very obvious added depth and height sounds,  Those original Chesky binaural recordings being the exceptions... best on phones.  Also engineered play with phase, I think, can put sounds behind me on the phones.  Very much enjoy both presentations!

most certainly soundstage depth is real, I suppose depending on your speakers and your positioning

with my old Epi 100 speakers, close my eyes and can discern drummer in back, singer ahead, sax over there to the left somewhere in-between depth, chorus to the right and back... and effects, even in music, that emerge up front but then fade up and away and off to rear space

with my new Heresy IV the effects range from dramatic like sounds zooming from way back in the distance towards the front and then wooshing overhead, or subtle like a guitarist stepping forward to play a solo and then back again, or a singer stepping forward to the mic, and even the sway of a singer's body or head movements in space both side-to-side and front-to-back.  It's palpable, and definitely has depth.