Oh wait. I know which one. The one that thinks the absence of this in music books means audiophiles made it up.Soundstage or imaging concepts exist for sure....They exist for me...But they were created with the progress of electronic audio and speakers design...When i listen to my system i note their existence or lack of...But the more important concept is a musical one: recreation of the timbre experience...This musical concept precede by far the many audiophiles modern concepts about sound linked to the audio market and engineering..
Nobody then can contest that the audiophile concepts exist and make sense...
The central point is if we want to judge the accuracy of our system the main central concept is the musical concept of natural playing tonal timbre....That is what i read about in the posts of frogman...
And this is my experience in my listenings experiments to embed rightfully my system... The "timbre" experience is the crux perceiving experience....
This dont negate the fact that i want good depth imaging and large soundstage at all... But creating a better timbre experience give us the rest.... Enlarging or improving imaging is good but dont give us a better natural timbre completely by itself if we dont focus our attention toward timbre... The acoustic settings conditions to give a better timbre experience will gives us all the other experience... The opposite is not always true...
The acoustical explanation for that is in the definition of timbre itself by 5 characteristics which for their existence ask for a complex acoustical balance in the room which balance will give us anyway imaging and soundstage as a secondary effect... But modifying the soundstage by itself dont give us necessarily a better timbre experience... It is for this reason that listening to timbre is fundamental to refine and fine tune our acoustical settings in the right direction....