|
Mapman,
Logic would dictate that the rendidion of "air" would depend on resolution and "transparency" and in fact, I think it does in the way these terms are generally used here.
This is not what I mean however, so I'll try again:
Strangely enough, the definitions you looked up describe exactly what I mean. It is a dynamic process which starts from a source and then spreads, flourishes... in case of music ...in space. This phenomenon strikes you at once, when listening to a live event right at the first bar of music in that split second before hall induced reverbs set in, as the sound emanating from the instruments rises and spreads. It is something airy as well as liquid, easy to pinpoint, hard to describe. Audiophiles, especially unfamiliar with big orchestral classical live music, probably have hardly heard this, because, as I said, our rigs cannot do this. Digital not at all, even if you mix in tons of hall, because that masks that effect, SS rarely and tubes sometimes. Most cone driven speakers - I am not familiar with more recent designs - mask this as well, stators and ribbons, also plasmas are better suited for this. As far as software is concerned, Blumlein miked , Decca trees, or the Mohr, Layton recording techniques did bring something of this across. I had Quads and Jadis gear at this time. It was, though euphonic, closer to the real thing than most of the rigs I have occasion to listen to now. But then of course my ears have grown old and I have resigned to the fact, that with things being as they are, you will hardly get those very special magical enthrallments at home. There are plenty of others though, to draw us deeply into the enjoyment of our rigs.
Clio,
Are you suggesting, that we use mushroom-paste based filters in our gear? Where would you say can those be implemented? În the ICs or the speaker cables? At the source or the receiving end? Please enlighten and I'll get in touch with retail at Los Tres Rios and will talk to Jack Bybee to go into a joint venture. |
Hi Chris,
I use Atmas and VTLs at the moment and get holographic imaging only if it is on the software. In my experience both SS as well as tube amps can screw around with phase, which sometimes, not always, can give you the illusion of holography. |
To my mind Newbee has given the best description of what is meant by "holographic imaging". What Mapman seems to refer to seems to me to have more to do with good soundstaging and placement of instruments therein. Bloom is something which is easy to hear in a live concert and devilishly difficult to reproduce at home even with the very best rigs. It has to do with the aura which appears around a played tone before it disappears into the next. It has to do with transparency but is not the same thing. It has nothing to do with reverberations of sound bouncing off the walls of a hall. It has nothing to do with a good reproduction of transients. That is again something different, which a transparent system can dissolve to good effect. To my ears it is the lack of bloom which distinguishes even the best systems from the real thing.
Besides, to my mind a well designed amp will give you a good 3D rendering, if all the points Mapman has mentioned are taken care of and it does not matter if it SS, digital amp or tube. To maintain that one technology clobbers the rest is not supported by what I have experienced so far. |
Pubul57,
I think that your observation holds good for most of our rigs, at least I made the same observation, when I had the chance to compare the WAVAC phono pre, which is tube with the Boulder 2008 phono pre, which is solid state. The Boulder threw an impressive sound stage with the highest rate of transparency I had ever heard, whereas the WAVAC gave individual instuments and voices a degree of air and bloom which came closer to the real thing than I had ever heard before. Wished one could have both. |
I thought that would come, but to what degree, that is the question....(: |
Ralph,
in reading you post I suspect that I probably have used the expression "bloom" wrongly. I thought bloom would be the air you hear around instruments in real life. Possibly "air" would have been the better word instead of bloom, although the sound blooms, spreads in an aura around the instrument that is played. This I find is most difficult to reproduce. The more transparency you get, where SS exells, the less air seems to be possible around the instruments. Digital, no matter how good it has become,is still disappointing as far as airiness is concerned. Harmonic distortion in tubes can mimic air to a certain degree. The first time I heard this, was with the old Jadis gear. It was pleasant but highly euphonic. Your gear has some air, but it seems to be neutral to my ear. Manley ( the son ) also seems to have had some measure of success in this field, as has the Wavac phono, which I have heard. However all these efforts are still far from real life and to my mind, this constitutes the biggest gap between the live event and our facsimilies. If I understand you right, "bloom" according to your definition would then always be the result of even order harmonic distortion in tubes. It sometimes mimics air to a certain degree, but it is basically something different. |
Newbee, Mapman,
I do see your point. Sometimes it is better to have a pleasant hand- or earful, instead of hunting for an abstract principle. In fact I do appreciate the Penelopes, but I won't forget the Sophias either.
Happy listening |
Tvad,
I certainly belong to the first group you have mentioned and although I enjoy music from whatever source and rig, I am after "the absolute sound" with an ear trained on live music from early childhood on. Hence what many here would call "good sound" for me is far from it, if I would listen critically to gear and not just to the music. After having had a chance to hear how Carver cleverly does his sound-shaping I found it artificial and euphonic, wouldn't have it. I'd probably have the same reaction with the H-Cat, because for me, these attempts destroy that what is real in spacial information in a good recording, where you can recognize the hall, with their induced artefacts. I don't like that, because I want go get as close to the real thing as possible. So if I am familiar with a hall, know how music sounds there from my favorite seat and I have recordings from the self same hall, am able to hear how the sound is reflected from the walls, can hear the side reflections and the back of the hall in the recording as the music spreads out in my room, there is indeed a sense of what one might call holography, because you can sense the body of the orchestra within the hall, can, if the score permits, even identify say the first violin, cello etc. If there is a soloist playing with the orchestra, his or her instrument can have its own holographic image, even bloom in the sense of air as I have tried to describe it.
I have, in my career as an audiophile. tried to enhance this by artificial means, but found that it destroys the "gestalt" of the original recording. There are of course many ways that lead to Rome, to the enjoyment of music in our home and luckily we are all free to find our particular ways to aural happiness. |
Newbee,
Isn't Sophia's house the house of wisdom? (; |
Learsfool,
stupid of me, I should have thought of adding horns to the list of speakers which do best in the fields which are being discussed here. Thanks for reminding us. Thanks also for pointing out once more the importance of the recording engineers and their miking and mixing techniques. I often wish, Mohr and Layton were still around....... |
Yes, it is the recording, the rig, the room, the speakers, their placement, state of the power, even the weather and last not least our ears and what is between them. Which does what is devilishly difficult to pinpoint and the more experienced you are the more unsure you become. Just like real life, ain't it? (: |
Only too true Cerrot. Luckily my stators are too heavy to be moved by housekeepers. Wished I had some, h.-keepers that is.(: |
Tbg,
You write in your post:
"I had excellent imaging and close to realism."
Could you please expound what you mean by the term "realism".
Are you reminded of what you remember to have heard on several occasions at live events with similar kinds of music or do you have a sort of fixed engram in you what live music of any kind in any given venue would sound like?
Have you ever, being familiar with a concert venue and having heard music there, compared exactly the same music, recorded at the same venue, with what you heard at home with exactly that recording?
Just curious. |
Bill,
I'm bald, which now that you've said it, might interfere with the soundstage, sometimes even mimicking holography. What would you suggest? should I buy a wig?
Worried and waiting for expert advice....... |
Tbg,
Thank you for your detailed response. Seems, that you - like me -carry an idea, a "memory" if you like, in you what "real" music sounds like and use it as a benchmark in critical listening of your rig. The chance to get direct comparisons between a specific live event in a specific venue with a take of that very event through your rig at home is indeed very small. |
Norm, with all due respect, let it stand. We have heard you. You do not concede. Fine. I have a reserved, favourite seat at our concert hall, classical unamplified music, mind you, and with my behind firmly planted in there and later just as firmly before my rig, I would contend, wether you allow it or not, it does. But let us not argue over this here, since it is off topic. Start a new thread if you like.... |
Just an end users comment here: I own Ralph's gear and to my and my fiends ears, he has solved the "the real issues facing...(the) task of making a small signal larger" to all our great musical satisfaction. I am not familiar with the A- or whatever CAT, so I cannot form an opinion if it is really that break-through which some make it out to be. Generally however, good old Bill does not use his acid squirt gun without good reason, but what do I know. I know however, and that for certain, that in a well set up rig, volume and pitch do not have anything to do with each other. My better half and I are blessed, or cursed if you like, with a "the absolute ear", she especially would notice the tiniest aberration in pitch, in fact I use her to set up my TT and I would have noticed something like that in all those long decades of listening to music at home. |
|
Tbg, I would like to join Pubul57 in sincerely wishing you as much satisfaction with your system as I draw from mine. After all, last not least also thanks to your postings, most of us have come to a reasonable and working definition what holography is, how it could be achieved and what its value and merit may be vis a vis the life event. As you may have guessed, I hold most of your arguments untenable, but generally, conflicting opinions not only help in the realization where one stands, the ensuing dialectics help to advance knowledge.
Happy listening |
Tvad is right, let us move one. This leads to nothing and to nobodies benefit. Ralph can offer explanations, which are well founded in current scientific terms how his gear will sound and why. Roger cannot, which does not necessarily mean that he is wrong, but he is certainly out of the mainstream. Although we are all familiar with certain vendors of aural snake oil, who sometimes use terminology fairly close to his, this does not by a long shot mean that he belongs to that group. Besides he is right to maintain, that the performance of good rigs goes far beyond of what can be measured. It it legitimate for Ttg to like what he likes, just as it is legitimate for Bill not to like it. He has been outspoken and caustic about his dislikes on many threads, he is not the only one to do so.
It is equally legitimate for Roger to defend his point of view and to propogate his wares as a side effect. As long as we cannot hear his stuff in our rigs, we cannot really form an opinion. What I do think however, from reading what Roger says about the sonic benefits of his devices, that a well set up rig will achieve pretty much the same holography. I have for example with good software not the least difficulty in discerning single voices, be it in a big classical chorus work or -much easier -background singers in a jazz piece.
Whatever, the proof, as always, lies in the listening and as long as somebody really neutral has not listend to this thing (that counts out Bill and Tbg (: ) and Roger cannot come up with an explanation in more currently accepted terms, I feel we could move on and put that CAT back behind the oven. |
Tbg, I would submit, that there is nothing in my post for you to infer, that I am committed to "current scientific terms". You don't know what I am committed to, because I have not said it. What I am committed to here however is simply that we stop beating a dead horse. Don't you think, that by now all has been said and opinions have been formed? As Tvad has suggested, please let us move on...... |
To get one thing clear: I am not a measurement guy.That should have been clear from my post above and as Atmasphere has pointed out, this is not a debate between measurements and ear, between "subjective" and " objective ". What I meant by "current scientific terms " I could also put less politely by saying that Ralph's arguments to me seem logical and to me make sense, whereas I must say that I find Rogers' reasoning shifty, contradictory and lacking in stringency and logic. As far as I am concerned, this does not necessarily inspire confidence. On the other hand however, even if Rogers reasoning may not be up to standard, this does not mean, that he is not up to something valid. Only his way of explaining and "selling" it would hardly convince a critical mind, not even one belonging to a good willed person. Again, as also Pubul57 so rightly suggests, the proof lies in the listening and Goldeneraguy, yes indeed, I wish we could turn to other things of interest and I'll try to make this my last statement in this matter. |
Chris,
This, to my mind, is an excellent question. But is there such a thing as too much holography? In a natural event, say a string quartet, which I listen to often live, and I drift away from the music and switch on the "audiophile ear", I can of course aurally walk right around the players. I have quite a number of recorded string quartets, where I can almost get the same result in front of my rig at home. There are a few recordings where the space between and around the players is even bigger. That may be very impressive but for the trained ear completely unnatural. So thinking along those lines, had I not been to many concerts I would be proud of how good my stereo is, but since I have, all this exaggereated three dimensionality makes me uncomfortable. |
The bottom line is that your audio system must play to your brain not your test equipment.
Roger,
That is not the point of the argument. Besides any properly set up rig with decently designed equipment, will do just what you describe or do you seriously maintain, that most of the gear we have at home is but " a poor attempt to recreate a sound event riddled with phase errors" ? Forgive me, if I laugh. |
|
" I have told him that those who demand an explanation based on currently accepted terminology are not interested in sound..."
This is the most hilarious statement so far and that by an academic no less, I am out of here laughing....... |
I hope you don't mind, after my fit of laughter has passed, that I poke my nose once more into the door, before shutting it finally tight:
In reading Rogers texts carefully, and I have been trained to do so and have used this training in all of my professional life, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt his sincerity. Roger truly believes that he is up to something valid and he very well may be. Possibly he is one of those people, who out of intuition have come across something which is valid and valuable but- as is the case with all intuitive findings - they cannot at first explain in reasonable terms. This generally causes wrinkled brows from the mainstream, who - especially if they are interested and curious - want some sort of proof and if they don't get to their satisfaction the originator will get flak. The history of scientific progress is full of such cases and if we have one of those here, well, as I have said right from the beginning, the proof lies in the listening.
Thre is another thing typical in the unfolding of our discussion here:
Originators who seem to have something new in the sense of a break-through - and it does not matter in what field of human endevour this may happen - generally have supporters,disciples, prophets if you like, who are out to find proselytes for their cause. They are usually much more fervent, glowing, emotional in defending the cause than its originator. These people will easily join battle with emotions flying high and because of this fact, rationality, the careful considering of the "disbelievers" argument is neglected. Case in point here: This has never been an argument of measurement *against* sound, rather an argument of measurement *for* sound, which has suddenly been twisted from the latter into the former, which it never was, neither in Duke's nor Atmasphere's posts. Both gentlemen, as most of us here, are very well aware of the fact, that good measurements do not guarantee good sound. So before things get more ugly and distorted, I think we should stop and ponder what we are doing here and I certainly do not take my own person out of this equation.
I suggest we stop right here. Norm's efforts do not seem to satisfy the skeptics, he might even do Roger's cause a disservice.
On the other hand, I find Nil's suggestion great, that Roger would give a loan of his gear to a carefully considered neutral person who then could report back to us.
Again let us stop here, and that certainly goes also for myself, before it gets more ugly, irrational and out of joint. Just my final 2 cents. |
Pubul57,
I like you have been working on the same assumption, especially so, since I am in the lucky position to compare the facsimile of certain music taken from a certain hall with the real event. I started our hobby at a time, when audio writers, having heard live performances say in NY or the CSO in Chicago later compared what they had heard on their Shaded Dogs, Mercuries or their 6 eyes. These days are long gone and Norm has a good point in saying that it is difficult to find a good spot in a live venue where to compare from. I think as you do, that many enjoy their equipment even if they have rarely been to a live event. That is perfectly OK. However, if you don't have some approximation to some sort of benchmark - and basically for me it is still the AS, the "gestalt" of live music out of a huge number of live events, which I carry mnestically in me - you open the door to absolute subjectivism, which is also all right, because we all hear differently with different preferences and different experiences of what we think music is and should be. This makes Audiogon both lively and amusing. In the olden days recording engineers were trained in musicology, you had to have credits in both fields to get a top job with DG, RCA, Phillips or Capitol. Quite a number of reviewers who I found I could trust, were musicians. To this day I prefer manufacturers, who play live music, do not only listen to it. One of them posts here. You guess who it is (: |
Shadorne,
Agreed, the bigger a-Capellas though will give you a very natural sound, but they are expensive. I found that the Sound Lab U-1PX makes for a good compromise. They have good dynamics and dispersion and if properly placed, image very well. |
I drive Italian cars...... |
Ralph,
The setup you describe reminds me of the "Kunstkopf" experiments, done in Germany in the 90s. The results were fascinating as far as ambience rendering of the recording venue was concerned, but you had to wear special earphones to really appreciate the results. That was the reason that this technology never hit the mainstream. The few recordings that were made are collectible items now.
According to my long listening experience I would intuitively agree with you, that the media constitutes the biggest bottleneck for realistic rendering and indeed, as you also have suggested, I've been battling with my various rooms all of my audiophile life to minimize its interference. A task comparable to that of Sisyphus indeed!
Your tale about the chirping of the robbins makes me think as well:
I've been complaining quite often here, that what keeps us most away from the "Absolute Sound" at home,is what I call bloom or aura, that magic moment, where a note played, say from a solo violin spreads into space, emanating almost from all around the instrument. That is something distinctly different, I think, from what we have discussed here. Too much of holography spoils this by masking just that effect.
Quite possibly you are right, that it is the media, not the gear.
I do not have one CD that can do it. Mostly to mimic that effect, they mix in a bit of hall around the voice or instrument, which I find annoying. I know of a large number of classical piano recordings on LP, where you hear exactly where the right pedal sets in, but that is not quite the same thing either.
If it is the medium and not the "messenger"-rig, do you know of media that do truly render this "bloom", which apart from room-interference, as you so rightly point out,is to me the biggest obstacle to the "Absolute Sound" at home?
Cheers and thanks for your most valuable inputs here!
Detlof
. |
>>when it comes down to it, I'll go for the performance nearly every time<<
Ralph, how very right you are! Most of us, who love music, would not be in this hobby, if this were not so. It is those moments of bliss, where you forget about your rig and get drawn into the music, which makes this all worth while! |
ROFLMAO: Goldeneraguy, Tbg, you are both so right: We did sometimes have to use HEALTH kits (Tbg your spelling ((: ! ) and DIY with or between girlfriends- ahem gear. |
Norm,
(:Please forgive me, I could not resist the temptation. (:
Chris,
Not necessarily, I've found. But if you mean by palpability something closer to what could be called "natural", then yes, I would agree. |
Well, that puts my mind at ease.... |
