Is soundstage DEPTH a myth?

Many years ago, I was fortunate to run across a local audio store owner who was much more of a hobbyist than a businessman.  I had many discussions and spent may happy hours of listening and more importantly, learning in his store with him and his customers. Over the years, I learned a lot about different music and systems and especially how to listen with the moving in and out of components and the varying differences that resulted and were perceived.  

You can't learn by only talking about it.  Listening to multiple systems and components (plus discussions about same) do help.  That's why the Chesky Ultimate Demonstration Disc is a good one to own.  Because each track is prefaced with a description of what should be listened for and then what should be heard.  Even then, the results are obviously system dependent.  Just because you think you heard it, you may not have heard it, like it really could be heard and experienced!

For example, many years ago, I used the Superman track on a Telarc disc as one of my auditioning pieces.  I had occasion to go to an audio store to listen to some used Apogee Stage speakers that I was considering purchasing.  The speakers were good, but what struck me was the finale of Superman and its crescendo.  It wasn’t the speakers that blew me away (they were great too) but the amplification.  The drive separation and coherence of that crescendo was what I had been seeking, but didn’t know it until I heard it.  In fact, when it finished, the salesman saw the look on my face and asked what was the matter?  That and a test drive later of an Audio Research VT100 Mk2 tube amp taught me how important great amplification was.  Before then, I didn’t want to believe, because my wallet didn’t want to believe that my Aragon  4004 MKII amp was not capable of the performance that the Audio Research was.  I found that not only was the Superman ending crescendo more powerful with the instruments more delineated and overall, more open, and less congested; but instrument like woodwinds and brass sounded more like live ones, the sound I was seeking but didn’t know it, until I heard it! 

My point in saying all of this is to suggest again that you don’t know it, until you hear it and you generally can’t hear it by sticking to a this or that component.  You must try as much as you can and as high of quality as you can.  Otherwise, learning can’t take place.

I didn't want to go to the cost angle.   But yes, to move sonically from mid-tier hifi, one must spend some bucks to enter sonically into the true high end. This isn't dollar value related alone, but is attributable to a certain dollar value.   My decades ago Aragon amp vs Audio Research amp experiences (that I mentioned above) demonstrated the difference between a sonically good, but mid-tier amp and one that was a true high end amp. 

Once one owns, or has heard what a highly resolved system brings to the table, if depth and soundstage isn’t discernable or barely is so, consider yourself lucky, because you can save some bucks.  But for me, soundstage and imaging provide the better the you-are-at-the-performance illusion and the better that illusion, the better the system is and the happier I am. 

For a similar performance, some components are less expensive that others.  Most of us have looked for giant killers.  While a similar sound achievement can be had for oftentimes less money, there are no David’s and Goliath’s There are just some overpriced and underpriced components for the results they provide.

Listen to what some people believe are systems that are doing most everything right and you will get an idea of what to listen for.  But obviously, there is no best of the best, just a mixture of the best of the best components.  Every component has its pros and cons – i.e., what it does well and not so well.  However, at the higher-end of the sonic scale, those variables are generally lessened.   With each component at that level, being more the same than different.  Add those component variables to each of our room variables, our individual components and how they synergize and then the big variable (if you've done enough homework), is knowing and recognizing what your own sonic preferences are.   Those variables are then used when choosing equipment.

After a certain cost point, the cost to benefit ratio does increase exponentially.  Each of us must judge whether we can financially make that move and have learned enough to determine that move is rewarding enough to make.

The answers from you guys are, yes soundstage depth is real. The only question left is would people experience it regularly or with just a few rare pieces of music?

Because of what I listen to, I recognize imaging, soundstage and depth most always.  But I'm sure I tend to favor recordings with those attributes.  However, most of the tracks in my 100K plus library have those attributes. 

Imaging, soundstage and depth are a result of the recording engineering and of course, the type of recording it is.  Listen to some well-recorded jazz or live jazz -- and that is most of it -- you can hear the room, the audience and there is depth and a sense of the room.  The same can be said for symphonic recordings and many studio recordings.  Soundstage and depth provide a sense of being in bar, the recording studio, or the symphonic hall.  Without the you-are-there attribute, my Alexa speakers would be sufficient verses my Klipsch, Martin Logan and SoundLab speaker rooms.

Talking about differences of amps, they jumped on me pretty hard too. Their king is anything from Purifi/Hypex. Last week I talked about how system synergy is important and I got absolutely destroyed. I'll never go back there again, it is not a place to voice a different opinion. There's a new generation of people that only rely on graph data + distortion measurements and they are VICIOUS.

Class D amplifiers have been greatly improved in the last few years and some are very competitive with class A and A/B.   As with anything audio, especially the high end, the design and its quality depends upon the designer. 

Some forums tend to focus on measurements, topography's, individual parts like the DAC chip and while the individual parts are important, their selection, combination, and the implementation of the sections of the device in total, are where the magic resides! There is a reason why many audio designers and their historical designs rightfully remain held in esteem and it ain’t because of the individual parts they choose, or point-to-point wiring, or the type and class of their product.  It is because of how they conceptualized and implemented their designs! 

Get away from any forum that favors a certain class of amplification over others, measurements vs listening, a certain DAC chip over others, solid state vs tubes, box speaker’s vs other types etc.  Everything in this hobby has their place.  Ruling out anything, especially out of hand, eliminates some marvelous equipment finds. 

For example, for audition, my son obtained a Sears Silvertone tube amp from a vintage console stereo.  The price was $300!  He bought it from a local vintage audio repairer and seller.  That $300 tube amp at 7-watts, is killer with my son's Klipsch heritage La Scala speakers.  Who would've thought -- not some forum member!! 

Don't eliminate, or gravitate to anything because some say this or that is good, or not.  As with anything in life that is truly rewarding, one must learn enough to make one’s own educated decisions. 

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.