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. |
If money and time weren't an issue - and I mean a complete non-issue - I think we would all be quite content with spending countless hours and dollars tooling with this, that and the other to bring our favorite music closer and closer to whatever each of us considers "perfection"... But since that's not the case, at least for most of us (I would guess), the process can be a rather demoralizing one, where time and money that should really be spent elsewhere is spent pacing around amongst wires and objects, moving this here and that there and saving "secret money" - you know who you are (uhem, me too) - for that "last component."
But, oh well. :) |
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). |
I'm using an Audio Innovations Series 500 integrated, fitted with Genalex Gold Lion KT77's, 6922's (phase inverters), and 12AX7's (one line driver, and the other two for the phono stage).
I place a lot of importance on the '500. All the other integrateds I've owned over the years just couldn't achieve what this one does, particularly with regard to what I would call a "full-bodied" sound; and since we're talking about depth I would say that this is the only one that made good recordings sound as if they were spilling out into the room, rather than just laying flat, as if painted on the wall. |
Let me add that when I say "spilling out into the room" doesn't really qualify to me as "depth," per se. It does, however, jibe with what I call "full-bodied." In my experience, getting the sound to "appear" as if it's coming from behind the speakers is the biggest challenge, but then again I might be able to better achieve such a thing if I had a large enough and better acoustically treated (or treated at all, I should say) room. |
Face,
Precisely.
Orpheus10,
To me it's a serious piece of equipment, but to others I'm sure it's just an old integrated, riddled with "design flaws." I've never heard these flaws, but have read all about them. Damn haters. ;) |
I just received a pair of brand spanking new Tekton Lores last Wednesday...
I loved the Arros' I had back in '06 (most holographic image ever, as I've stated), the Cicada's I had shortly there after (for piano and acoustic guitar I didn't think they could be bettered), the swan Diva 2.1 SE's a couple years later (an amazing monitor that will - I'm confident - challenge many floor-standers), and the Klipsch SB1's (they amazed me with what a $200 pair of speakers could sound like...so, pardon my aside hi-five in Klipsch's general direction).
The Lores are really the most satisfying speaker I've heard yet (see the Zu's vs. Lores thread - I really don't go into much detail, but you'll get the idea, as vague as it might be for some): They create such a huge, dynamic sound that is simply undeniably, well, satisfying. I would imagine there's still plenty of time they need to get broken into real submission, but as it stands, they're spanning an extremely wide frequency range for a speaker of this size, creating some of the most impressive bass I've heard, and conveying an image that is - quite seemingly - getting ever so broader by the day.
On that note, I must also give a hi-five in the general direction of Eric @ Tekton for creating a genuinely great product at a - thank gosh - real world price. |
