Soundstaging and Imaging: The Delusion about The Illusion

Those expressing confusion about my original post should try placing my post into the context of the link I provided. Yes, it requires one to click a link and read an article. If one has the energy to type a response and click the “post” button, then one would likely have sufficient energy to read the Stereophile article. Soundstaging and imaging are both discussed and differentiated there.

I suspect the trolls won’t expend that energy, as the energy expended on posting their hit piece was likely sufficient for their purposes.

Both opposing views expressed in the article are wrong and pedestrian. No offense to anyone intended.

If I understand the specific question you ask about the individual participants appearing distinctly, that seems to be how well placed the microphones are to catch the differences in intensity and reflections within the recorded space. The disbelief factor I get from the sense of depth of layering makes me go for your illusion description. I believe delusion is when someone insists that their sense of reality is real when others disagree. I get the biggest chills from the distance front to back I perceive, not width or left-right distinction that stereo was originally consumed with proving. Stereo played in mono still gives a greater sense (illusion) of depth of field than mono recordings to me. Many listeners I know like a forward sound that seems closer to them (more intimate), where I prefer the depth illusion (but not at the cost of dynamics). Because I heard recorded music many years before attending a live symphony, I prefer to sit front row to maybe a few rows back at most. But that interesting depth of field effect from stereo reproduction is where stereo magic lies for me.   

Just to mention that soundstage has three dimensions, not just depth. It has depth, width and height. But Rome wasn’t built in a day. Nobody said it’s easy to get Boston Symphony Hall to magically appear in your room. If it was easy everybody could do it. Once you can get all three dimensions in their full measure you will feel as free and happy as a Swedish teenage girl.

celander says:

Those expressing confusion about my original post should try placing my post into the context of the link I provided. Yes, it requires one to click a link and read an article. If one has the energy to type a response and click the “post” button, then one would likely have sufficient energy to read the Stereophile article. Soundstaging and imaging are both discussed and differentiated there.

If they're confused, maybe it has something to do with the way you confused the issues in your original post? Because the word you used, "delusion", never appears in the Stereophile article. Instead, its just another rather straightforward classic John Atkinson piece on recording, playback, and loudspeaker technical evaluation:

You have to cut through this philosophical confusion by using a recording not of music, where you don't know the provenance, but of an artificial signal such as the dual-mono pink noise I created for Stereophile's Test CDs. This signal should be perceived as an infinitely narrow point of sound at all frequencies midway between the loudspeakers. If that's how it sounds, then by inspection you know absolutely that the information on all recordings will be produced without spatial distortion. If the pink-noise image isn't narrow or consistent with frequency, then, even before you listen to music, you know that the loudspeaker has problems, regardless of your preferences.

Seems to me you liked the sound of "delusion about the illusion" so much you went and used it even though it has nothing to do with the article. You made it sound like anyone hearing imaging is deluded. Or even worse, that its deluded to think that soundstaging and imaging even matters. 

Maybe next time try a little less clever and a lot more clear?