Soundstage depth and width

Say what??

It would be my preference to not be able to identify the speakers: I would like to not be able to point at either one of them and think, "The sound is coming from right there." That being said, width would give the illusion that the sound is coming from somewhere outside the stance of the speakers, and hence the speakers would "disappear."

Depth, however, would be the neatest and most fascinating thing for me to hear, the sound going beyond the back wall and, in my case, outside the house. I experienced this to some extent with a pair of Totem Arros I had some time back. The speakers just plain vanished, and I was left with a sound stage that went well beyond the outside of the speakers' stance and also created an image with a fair amount of depth. If I could ever get a real sense of deep, uh, depth, I would probably stop in my tracks with this hobby (to some extent). That "the musician is in the room" feeling that only depth, in my opinion, can create, would be a pinnacle of achievement in this hobby.

Let me add that my use of the term "hobby" is used solely with regard to the equipment involved. I, by no means, consider listening to music a hobby, but rather - at least for me - a necessity of life and one of endless enjoyment, regardless of said equipment involved.

Ballywho, Are you referring to depth or a recessed soundstage? There is a difference. If you think your system has depth because the performers sound like they have moved beyond the wall behind your speakers you are mistaken. It is still a flat sound stage.

I guess we should define what depth in a stereo system is.

Do you get the illusion of depth on all recordings? If you do, it is most likely an effect manufactured by your system and its set up. All recordings present a different perspective on width and depth and your system should give an accurate representation of each recording.

Our best reference for recorded music is a live acoustic performance. Not listening to equipment in stereo stores until your wife thinks you are seeing another woman.

Reference level sound staging and imaging is something so elusive, so condition specific and subjective that it is something I personally have stopped trying to achieve. Much of it appears to be a recording artifact and a playback artifact that I think varies more from system to system than probably any other aspect.

It may exist but I have not yet seen a reference sound stage and imaging recording list. For X recording this is the appropriate sound stage and image. I would hazard to say they don't exist or surely in a very limited capacity. Maybe a Stereophile mapping track would be the closest thing I've heard.

Surely there should be some more concrete way of defining and achieving proper sound staging and imaging. Maybe Sam Telig going through a complete mapping process from a known reference. "This image should appear 5 feet directly behind your left loudspeaker and 5 ft from the floor, this imagine should appear 5 ft behind your left loudspeaker, 1 foot inside your left loudspeaker and 5 ft from the floor. This image should appear 20 feet behind your left loudspeaker, 3 feet inside your left loudspeaker and 7 feet off the floor etc... That process would continue along a grid and map out and entire virtual sound stage. The same measurable and repeatable method as is done with test tones and such. Until we have a known reference like that I don't think I will overly concern myself with sound staging and imaging beyond a reasonable degree.