You are there vs. They are there

One can have both a more forward sound stage and/or projection of performers into one's listening space yet also maintain depth so there is a sense of the recording venue. I have horns  SET amps and DHT preamps so this inherently more forward ss or sense of performers in room, but at the same time using strategically placed room treatments I've been able to create a center image that also extends behind plane of speakers. I also physically time aligned my mid and tweeter drivers which has greatly enhanced depth of sound stage. I've also experienced systems with less forward sound stage that have been very engaging, don't believe there's any right or wrong, all about preference. 

Close miked recordings/performers will be inherently more in room than those distantly miked, your system should reveal both. Hard panned info will also have more inherent projection into room. I've never had a system setup where all info behind plane of speaker, that would be both loss of depth and homogeneous presentation. Seems to me one would want both projection and recession of sound stage to create sound stage depth and more three dimensional imaging.

Yes on @spenav. We'd have to be at the recording venue and or mix down of recordings in order to arrive at some objectively determined presentation of sound stage. And then we have to consider the system recording was mixed down with, it may have entirely different presentation than our home system. There are NO means for us end users to objectively define what is the 'true' sound staging for any particular recording.

@spenav Exactly. Why should we hang ourselves up over this false notion we must adhere to some unknown reference. Now I can accept we have reference for things like timbre with acoustic instrument, but sound stage/presentations. Do whatever is pleasing to you.