I didn't see the post or the reaction to it, but I know from hanging at Brooks Berdan's shop on Saturdays that some audiophiles will spend great sums of money to maximize their system's capabilities in that one area---"soundstaging". The obsession with being able to "see" where the instruments and voices are located in physical space (especially front-to-back) started, it seems to me, with it's introduction into the Hi-Fi vocabulary in the early issues of TAS. I don't recall J. Gordon Holt being all that concerned with it in the early days of Stereophile. I've never cared as much about that particular aspect of reproduced music as I guess I'm supposed to, undoubtedly because most of the music I was listening to in my earlier years was recorded in studios, multiple-mono channels arranged in pseudo-stereo at the time of mixing. As I started listening to "Classical" music, I was more concerned with how my Hi-Fi made the instruments and voices contained therein sound (timbre, tonality, etc.), and played the music itself (dynamics, timing, etc.), than in it's ability to recreate the physical locations of the instruments and voices. My one desire in that regard is in the height and size of the images---most speakers place instruments and voices too low (around waist high) and in a miniaturized version of their real-life selves. Voices, to me, should appear to be five to six feet from the ground (or higher, as from a stage), not three. A grand piano is huge, but sounds like a little toy being squeezed through the drivers (the tweeter especially) of many speakers. Very unsatisfying, musically speaking.