Is Sound Stage an artifact of recording?

Listening in a venue while seated in one location is one thing.

Engineering a recording with multiple microphones in multiple locations is another.

Both respect the music.

It is pleasant spatial cue information stored in the recording. I don’t know why you would label it as an “artifact.” When I attend a symphony orchestra concert, I can clearly hear layering, instrument localization, and depth of soundstage. With proper acoustic treatment in a concert hall to control and diffuse echoes, those spatial cues should be clearly perceptible. Recording and mixing techniques—especially multi-miking—are used to recreate that experience.

Please keep in mind that no concert hall has perfect acoustics. However, some of those imperfections can be mitigated through proper multi-miking and mixing techniques. That might explain why you perceive a difference.  To recap, spatial cues are definitely not artifacts; rather, they are a critical element of recordings.

From KISS, to Rush, Peter Frampton, Joe Walsh, and innumerable classical venues and concerts...rarely does live music sound great. Concert symphony is often very disappointing except in one notable sense...its much louder than I often listen to at home. Even so, it reminds me of the over all presentation of the classic floor box speakers produced by Macintosh in the late 70's. Blurry, boomy, muddy, and enveloping. Recorded music specifically made to be reproduced on home systems is uniquely better from anything but tiny venue jazz clubs. Now that can be great depending on your position relative to the band. Most bands or groups of musicians are generally horrible at creating good sound for the audience in a group setting. Therefore, while not reproducible in 99% of live settingsI've heard recorded music is wonderful and much less fatiguing than a boomy concert hall full of coughing, sneezing, whispering humans distracting me from enjoying the vibes. Therefore, I own a very nice home system. (More comfortable chair too) LOL

@tomcarr  Good point and I actually mean both because how do you perceive a sound-stage without images of the players?

@lanx0003 An artifact as I am using it means something created by a process but not necessarily intended. A by-product. It is neither good nor bad

In the case I am talking about the music was all acoustic and the room's qualities were altered by the fact that it was filled with people seated in chairs. That is a lot of objects for sound to bounce off before reaching my ears. No doubt this contributed to the lack of localization. I just think it is interesting to re-consider our systems in light of the kind of music we listen to and also the venues we wish to reproduce. Some years back @ghdprentice  and I had a discussion where I took the position that it might work best if you built a system specific to the kind of music you listened to the most and he said no, a good system was a good system and that was all you needed.  I still maintain that depending on your musical tastes you might be able to build and acoustically excellent system for not very much money if it is tailored to certain types of music. Alternatively you can build a system and room that is breathtakingly good with all music but it will be rather expensive.

An effort to recreate a 'concert hall experience' is a great way to put it. So, whatever it takes. We don't want flat sound, that's for sure, we want it to be three dimensional.

Yes, I don't care much about too sharp imaging, it feels artificial, it's got to be balanced and somewhat diffused.

Ideally, one system for all kinds of music, in reality - no, too expensive, requires very big room and swapping in and out certain components.

My modest system tailored to reproducing vocal and acoustic guitar more or less realistically. Also for ambient and tribal ambient music. It is not bad for jazzrock but not good either. And for big orchestra performance - forget it, can't handle it.