Soundstage depth and width

If I had to pick one or the other, I would say "depth"; however, they both are very important. I think "dipole" speakers contribute more depth than box speakers.

"Timbre" is very complex. How can someone state "unequivocally" that they have the right timbre?

Tough question . I guess I'd go with depth , if a sound stage doesn't have a three dimensional image it loses it's believability . If I can't determine a musicians position on stage it loses me .

I don't think you can give dipoles a universal indorsement for having a deep sound stage , Iv'e heard many that didn't .

I think we can all agree on a "three dimensional image"; what is most interesting, is how the various components contribute to that image. I'm curious to learn what others know in regard to this.

Not only active components but cables too.

depth and width are not part of the definition of music. timbre deifnes the sound of an instrument and distinguishes it from other instruments. the goal of creating accurate timbre is more important than a concern with an artifact of music.

absolute accuracy of timbre is unrealistic. however, it is certainly worthwhile to try to attain a reduction in errors in timbral representation.