How important is it for you to attain a holographic image?

rvpiano

All stereo imaging of any singer is "disembodied" because...there are NO BODIES ACTUALLY THERE. It is a "disembodied" voice. That’s what I mean - ANY image of a singer’s voice between a pair of speakers is a "disembodied voice" - a trick getting us to perceive a voice where it is not in fact even occurring.


Now you seem to be talking about the palpability of the reproduced sound. As in: Is it "dense" with the sense of "body" like one would hear from a real singer?
Well...it seems to me we all want that. That’s what is so compelling about a live singer vs reproduced sound. And some systems are better at producing that sonic density, body and palpability of a singing voice than others.
(As this sense of "body" and density is very important to me, my speakers are particularly good at giving that sense of physical density).

So now it seems when you talk of a "holographic voice" you mean "disembodied" in the sense of the sound NOT having palpability, body and density.


But then...that makes the question in your OP really weird. If by "holographic" you mean some dimensional sounding sonic image (e.g. voice) that lacks realistic body....why would you be asking if that is "important for people to achieve" in the first place???

I don’t know of any audiophiles who want their sound images to lack body and realism...so why would you think anyone would have the mindset that this "disembodied" character would be "a must for them to enjoy their systems?"

I can’t make any sense of what you are trying to say here.
Are you asking "Do you feel it is important to achieve a dimensional sonic image with no body to it’s presentation?"

The obvious answer would be "no." I don’t know of any audiophiles who don’t want some body/palbality to the sonic image.

Or are you asking "Do you want a holographic/dimensional image?"
In which case, many of us will answer (and have answered) "yes" but this is par for the course in high end sound systems, and stereo speaker set ups, and it’s "imaging/soundstaging."

Prof.

Again, if you followed my posts in this thread, you would know what I’m talking about.  To reiterate, you don’t sit where microphones are placed. — usually in the air or a few inches away from a performer.  You, therefore, are not getting the perspective the microphones are picking up.  They are “floating in the air.”
while you’re sitting on the floor at least several feet from the source of sound, whether at a concert or at home. This, of course is even more true at a symphony recording session where the mikes are  placed far above the musicians.  
Obviously, the perspective is different.  The recording is picking up the sound waves from a different location.  Also, microphones are not ears.  They “hear” differently than human ears depending on where they’re placed.
What you’re getting in your listening chair is an artifact of the event not the real thing: a “holography.”

Uhm...yes...it is obvious and well known, that in many cases (though not all) the imaging and soundstaging is an artificial creation. And of course the image/soundstage of the real event would be different for listeners on either side of the musicians.

All obvious.

The curious thing is you keep using a term "holography" when we already have terms that refer to these effects in stereo playback: Soundstaging. Imaging. Any decent stereo system will reproduce the encoded soundstage/imaging artifacts of the source.

Yet you keep using the term as if to refer to SOMETHING DIFFERENT or BEYOND the soundstaging and imaging most of us hear.


Why don’t you just ask people if soundstaging/imaging is important to enjoying their systems? Why introduce a distinction...with no distinction...that only confuses things?

I was listening to some Gordon Lightfoot recently. His voice appeared floating between my speakers, with a sense of 3 dimensionality and body, very reminiscent of a real person who may have been sitting between the speakers.

That’s imaging.

What is different about that, vs the "holography" you are talking about?

geoffkait, d2girls, oregonpapa Rhythm/pace is numero uno. One can have music with one note repeated in a rhythm/cadence. It can be acoustically dead or alive. But music is based on time first, then frequency/harmonics and then dynamics.  All the other attributes of audio are extra such as imaging, soundstaging, tonal quality, etc. Sure I want all of the attributes, but without rhythm, there is no music.  The imaging/holographic attributes are not a requirement for music; however, in an audio system, if the recordings has 3D sound characteristics, the better the system, the more accurate is its reproduction of it.

You don’t like the term holograph.  Fine.
You finally got the point.
As you rightly say: “...imaging and soundstaging is an artificial creation.”
I’d say it’s impossible to be otherwise, unless you can place yourself where the microphones are.
I guess you can regard holography is an extreme case of imaging and soundstaging, in which case you can understand my initial post.