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

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.

Ok, we are talking about imaging.  (And soundstaging)

I don’t know what I should consider an "extreme" case of imaging and soundstaging, as the imaging/soundstage of my system changes with the source.  One minute I’m listening to a singer in a tiny dry space, intimately placed between the speakers with little ambience. The next I’m listening to a classical recording of a singer in the far distance with the sense of hearing in to a big hall. I don’t see which one should I consider "extreme" and why. The system simply reproduces the imaging/soundstaging encoded on the source, so by nature it changes "by extremes" when listening to extremely different recordings.

Anyway, I hope you got some decent answers to what you meant to ask.