Why don't more recordings have soundstage outside of speakers

I sent this thread to someone who has a sound stage we dream about

and asked for his take. ’Do these guys have a clue’?

"Sadly no. However, the reference to Roger Water Amused to Death is relevant. The soundstage effects are in the recording, as they normally are. You do have to set up your speakers so you get the full effect, and the room plays a part, but overall it’s how the recording is engineered the makes it happen".

All the best,

Anthony

I send your post to a friend of mine , an acoustician, and ask him: is this posters have a clue?

He laugh and said

"EVERYBODY KNOWS that all acoustical cues necessary to recreate soundstage, detph imaging, timbre, listener envelopmemt, source width etc MUST BE CAPTURED FIRST by the sound recording engineer...It is common sense...

And they are plenty of good recordings with all acoustic qualities but if we suppose you already own a relatively good gear able to work correctly together, you will not enjoy great S.Q. in a BAD ROOM, in a room totally uncontrolled acoustically....Then the room play the greatest part because it is not difficult to look for good recording in great numbers...But what could you do with these numerous good recording in a bad room? By the way positioning the speakers is only one variable in this complex acoustic equation including many more other variables like timing reflections, reverberation time, correlating the frontwave for each ear etc and importantly correlating mechanically with Helmholtz resonators the large bandwidth of the tweeters and bass drivers to the room response by ears...

All the best,

Your acoustician friend...."

Darn Mahgister. Sometimes you do make sense. The fun is in making the best sounding system you can without spending an arm and a leg. But, like anything there are limits to price cutting and you have to have certain capabilities to be able to maximize the performance of your system. Those capabilities are not cheap but neither are they horrendously expensive like the Dayton OmniMic. Very wealthy people buy audio systems like they buy watches. They have no idea what they are getting but it looks nice. These systems are usually thrown into position wired up and used maybe once a month if that. There are of course serious audiophiles that are wealthy and they can afford very expensive equipment but this does not necessarily get them very far. They do not generally know much more than anyone here and their approach to the problems of music reproduction is not any different. 
The best systems I have heard have been no where near the most expensive, which is not to say expensive systems could not be made to sound better. 

As for imaging beyond the speakers, unless the engineer is juggling phasing and delays the instruments and voices should always be limited to the width of the main speakers. The acoustic environment of the venue or that created by the engineer using echo should seem to spread beyond the speakers hopefully placing you within that environment or it is like listening through a door. A good example of imaging beyond the speakers is Roger Waters'  Amused to Death. Fun record. Sound effects like a dog barking and a table radio come from right next to you. The dog seems to be outside! Very cool. 

Of the systems I have heard, painfully few of them were operating at near the level of their maximum capability. The people were generally happy with what they had and did not feel like spending any more money or messing around with tweaks. Judging from this I think many people could make very significant improvements in sound quality without changing most of their equipment. 

Of the systems I have heard, painfully few of them were operating at near the level of their maximum capability. The people were generally happy with what they had and did not feel like spending any more money or messing around with tweaks. Judging from this I think many people could make very significant improvements in sound quality without changing most of their equipment.

Thanks for your kind word to me first...

I will only add to your post that i never pretend that a low cost system like mine will beat costly one...I just claim that any system can gain way more upgrading power by simple basic method to controls their working embeddings dimensions: mechanical,electrical and especially acoustical....


What make sense in audio is ONLY the ratio s.q. /price after the system has been put under controls...Not the price in itself....

And my other point is a "relatively good system" dont cost a fortune and will surprize any owner of a very costly one if it is rightfully embed....Not because the low cost system will be better than the costly one, but because the difference between the 2 will be always there BUT way less than imagined....

Why did i never dream about upgrade now after 8 years of dreaming about Hi-Fi reviews?

Why did i place all my 7 headphones in a drawer definitively?

Because a minimally good S.Q. is possible and when you own it you listen music and no more sound , you are in bliss and not in frustration...

Some boast about their brand new upgrade electronic piece of gear, i vouch instead by acoustic control, mechanical control, and electrical grid noise floor control....

And i never bought some costly "tweaks" for that....i prefer to promote creativity than consumerism....


My best to you....

All the top engineers are accustomed to working with phase in a recording. I think the most interesting story I’ve run across was from Alan Parsons who explained how he got imaging on Dark Side of he Moon on a tiny little console and rudimentary gear.
Brad