Soundstage depth and width


Which one is more important? It is the depth to me, I don't tolerate flat sound.
inna
Rrog,

Inna's thread is titled "soundstage depth and width." My take on "soundstage width" is sound that extends outside the stance of the speakers... "Soundstage depth," then, would be the other axis, if you will, of the stereo image: that which extends both out into the room and beyond the rear.

And no, I most certainly do not get the illusion of depth on all recordings. The Jethro Tull "Aqualung Live" album that I bring up in another thread, for example, has a very spacial (deep and wide) quality to it, whereas the vast majority of my The Smiths bootlegs have relatively zero sense of depth (as you can imagine).
Launche, You give Stereophile and Sam Tellig way too much credit if you think they could possibly perform such a feat. Keep in mind reviewers are just people like you and I playing around with stereo equipment except their perspective is skewed by advertising dollars.
Ballywho, what pre and amp were you using, and how much importance did you place on them in regard to the deep soundstage?
Rrog, I've spent much time in many bistro's listening to many of the same people I have on records, and if you think you can reproduce that at home, you must be in a different universe.