Is Sound Stage an artifact of recording?


Yesterday had the opportunity to hear a fine chamber music concert featuring musicians from the NY Philharmonic in a small modern chapel with a slightly domed wooden roof. We sat about 15-20 feet from the musicians. The all acoustic sound was excellent. The Schubert Trout piano quintet  and Brahms piano quartet in G were the program. Afterwards while de-briefing at dinner with an audiophile friend who went with me and our wives, he made the point that despite the excellent acoustics and premier seating he could not close his eyes and see a "sound stage" during the concert. I had noticed the same thing. The locations of the instruments were diffuse. You could not pinpoint the location of the violin as you might expect you could on a good recording of the same work! We agreed that this was not the first time we had noticed this about live music. So I put the question to learned assembly here on Audiogon. Is sound stage something that is invented or perhaps just an artifact of the recording process to help us get the illusion of real musicians playing in front of us. Responses from those of you who have made recordings will be particularly appreciated.

bruce19

Interesting that Paul McGowen's post today is on this subject.  Here's his para-phrased opinion of it:

"SoundStage: It's already in the recording!

…A stereo recording carries spatial information as tiny amplitude and timing differences between the left and right channels. That's it. Our brains are extraordinary at decoding those differences into a coherent three-dimensional picture — but only if the playback chain preserves them faithfully. Move a transient by a few microseconds, smear it ever so slightly,  and the picture starts to collapse inward. Center images thicken. Instruments drift forward. The speakers stop disappearing and start politely reminding you they're sitting in the room…Most of us have had the moment where we swap one piece in the chain and suddenly hear the room behind the singer for the first time. That information didn't appear from nowhere. It was always on the disc, in the file, on the master tape. Many of us have spent thousands chasing what the playback chain was maddingly deleting all along…The chain matters from file all the way to ears, every link of it. Strengthen any one link and the whole picture gets a little more believable…Soundstage isn't something a piece of gear gives you. It's something a piece of gear stops taking from you…it’s the absence of every little smear and timing slip that quietly flattens a recording."

 

Perhaps he was inspired by our thread. As a manufacturer of audio equipment, I would not expect him to point out one of the things that I have garnered from this discussion, namely Imaging is nice and can be helpful in adding to the illusion, but not really essential for a peak audio experience.

Soundstage issues are something that I have struggled with and chased my whole audiophile life.  Equipment certainly is important.  But now that I have pretty darn good equipment, I believe that “soundstage” is a recording artifact.  Some music that I listen to has amazing soundstage, with the instruments located in place and seemingly dispersed on a “stage.”  Then, there are other recordings where the instruments are off to either side and not particularly well integrated with the center.  It is frustrating.  I want everything that I listen to to have that 3D soundstage, but alas, it seems like it has to be in the recording, and not my equipment.  Sure, better equipment has the ability to improve the soundstage, but if its not on the recording well, it is not going to magically be there on my equipment either.

@moto_man  you pretty well sum up the situation I think. Only Add that soundstage, while  enjoyable, should not really be thought  to be necessary to enjoy music since many  live performances really don’t feature any soundstage. In fact, I think I am going to experiment with mono listening for a while and see how I like it.