I have perceived varying levels of soundstage depth in recordings themselves and in the way the music is presented via my equipment.
Much improved speakers revealed this.
My response was something like, “wow, the distance between those cymbals and the lead vocal seems physically pronounced.”
I find soundstage depth to be an interesting aural perception.
Mono recordings from the ‘30s and ‘40s are recordings where I do not “see” a tall, wide, expansive, immaculately separated combination of elements, but a narrow, short, yet wonderfully deep “tunnel” where I can “see” into a deep background.
Just my personal experience.
I find many modern recordings are very “shallow.” Right up front and dry, almost like a pencil sketch on paper instead of a deep, 3-D experience.
Something antithetical to such a presentation might be, say, Rudy Van Gelder recordings from the ‘50s or ‘60s, or September of My Years by Frank Sinatra. A far more palpable sense of physical space between the various individual sonic elements and a far more dynamic and expansive overall presentation in terms of depth, width, and height,
Is soundstage DEPTH a myth?
Ok, help me out fellas. Is it a myth or what?
I’m a good listener, I listen deep into the music, and I feel like I have good ears. But I can’t confirm that I can hear soundstage depth. I can hear 1 instrument is louder, but this doesn’t help me to tell if something is more forward or more behind. Even in real life and 2 people are talking, I can’t honestly say I know which one is in front.
The one behind will sound less loud, but is that all there is to soundstage depth? I think the answer I’m looking for has to do with something I read recently. Something about depth exist only in the center in most system, the good systems has depth all around the soundstage.