Soundstage depth and width

I wouldn't say that "the rest is easy" but perhaps a little easier or at least no more difficult.

While I don't disagree with anyone in regard to "timbre", especially since it's taken me years to get the right timbre; I consider it just another aspect in the complete package. DB in regard to loud is not something I take into consideration, while -DB in regard to the absence of noise is important. For me, the 3D sound-stage is an audiophile's finest achievement; once this has been established, the rest is easy.

Live acoustic music is performed in three dimensional space as far as I know so it certainly is part of the music. Studio recordings vary in their spacial arrangements. And electronic music can have depth or not whether is live or studio.
Also, silence is just as important part of music as sounds. It too can be either flat or not.

depends on music you listen to....I would rather have the full dynamic spectrum, then depth or width, but of course it all comes together, so here you go! Get speakers and amplifiers, which can do 110-120 dB in your room and you will have it all.

depth and width are not part of the definition of music. timbre deifnes the sound of an instrument and distinguishes it from other instruments. the goal of creating accurate timbre is more important than a concern with an artifact of music.

absolute accuracy of timbre is unrealistic. however, it is certainly worthwhile to try to attain a reduction in errors in timbral representation.

Not only active components but cables too.

I think we can all agree on a "three dimensional image"; what is most interesting, is how the various components contribute to that image. I'm curious to learn what others know in regard to this.

Tough question . I guess I'd go with depth , if a sound stage doesn't have a three dimensional image it loses it's believability . If I can't determine a musicians position on stage it loses me .

I don't think you can give dipoles a universal indorsement for having a deep sound stage , Iv'e heard many that didn't .

If I had to pick one or the other, I would say "depth"; however, they both are very important. I think "dipole" speakers contribute more depth than box speakers.

"Timbre" is very complex. How can someone state "unequivocally" that they have the right timbre?

Timbre is more important than depth or width, but even though I consider depth and width an effect I prefer width.