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

Yes, and my large O getter and D getter Amperex 6DJ8s from the 50s were labeled Hewlitt Packard.  I bought them for $80/pair nearly NOS (measured new).  They are great tubes for the EAR Acute CD player.  Others prefer NOS old Siemens or pinch waist Amperex/Philips.  The latter tubes are a lot more expensive.  

@ orpheus10, yes there is a tendency to ubiquitously promote the idea that more expensive is necessarily better in all areas of life, not just audiophilia.

In my experience it's true but only to a point. I mean if someone can build a decent pair of speakers for $100 then what should we expect for $200, or $400, or $800 or even $1600 etc? I'd even argue that once you get past the optimum point of value you sometimes find the audio quality starting to rapidly decline as the manufacturer struggles to make their product sound unique - but usually in a worse way. I'm not sure if any loudspeaker sounds much better after about $4k, and that's buying new.

So I couldn't agree more that we should judge by the audio first and foremost, and only then decide if we wish to pay for extras such as fancy styling, product support, advertising, dealer markups etc.

Emotional satisfaction has obviously links with money, but once again, only to a point. 

Although there is no getting around the fact that at this level audio is expensive, I save when and where I can.

Sometime ago, I noted that the very well heeled who had pretty much perfected their rigs to their satisfaction, were into room treatment, and they claimed that's where they got their biggest improvement. What I have discovered confirmed that.

It's kind of funny how I got my biggest "holographic improvement" by insulating a sliding glass door from the elements; I charged myself a fortune, just to make it Kosher.

Maybe we should ask this question differently.

If you had to sacrifice something, which would you sacrifice first:

• Smooth FR
• Bass
• Imaging

For me, I'd sacrifice imaging first.

As hard as it is to get perfect imaging, I don't think you will have a hard time sacrificing what you don't already have.

Maybe we should ask this question differently. If you had to sacrifice something, which would you sacrifice first... For me, I’d sacrifice imaging first.

If I understand orpheus10 (correctly), I believe he has been saying that "holographic imaging" is an outcome or result of the ’fundamentals’ coming together and when this occurs, the whole is much, much greater than the parts.

Removing imaging, therefore, implies other parts are not present or not correct or not functioning as they should.

Orpheus10, can you clarify? Thanks.

If I understand orpheus10 (correctly), I believe he has been saying that "holographic imaging" is an outcome or result of the ’fundamentals’ coming together and when this occurs, the whole is much, much greater than the parts.

Removing imaging, therefore, implies other parts are not present or not correct or not functioning as they should.

David, that is precisely what I am saying; "Holography" is dependent on the highest quality parts, the same as the sharpest photographic image is dependent on the best lens, no different.

If we were in a "high end emporium" where we had, as an example; top of the line ARC electronics, top of the line Thiel speakers, all set up in a room that had been professionally treated, to the extent that it created an image so precise, that you "saw" and heard things from a record that you bought in 1970 (one of your favorites), that you had not heard before.

I said "saw", because when a sound consistently comes from a point in space, I know it's there, and if I could see audio, I would see it.

Am I claiming to know more than everyone else; "No", but I am claiming to have witnessed more than most, for one very simple reason; I went to "high end emporiums", where the stuff you read about in "Stereophile" was being auditioned. In a flash, you would be able to hear the difference substituting one component would make in the whole scheme of things.

As an example; when there were no customers requesting components to audition, we (me and the other audiophile sales people) would assemble the very best components and just groove in the small auditioning theater. I recall we were deep into Santana's "Abraxas" and I was focusing on a sound emanating from some kind of percussive instrument that I hadn't heard before, when a customer came in requesting to audition a Rotel amp.

After the Rotel amp was inserted, whatever I was listening to receded so far in the back ground that it was hardly audible.

I would say that Rotel amps are good, high quality "affordable" Class C amps. The key word here is "affordable", which is not a word that accompanies top of the line high end; at least not affordable for the average person.

Keep in mind, that was the only component that was swapped, we still had ARC preamp, plus top of the line Thiel speakers. That one component blew the holography, it was fuzzy after that, but the music still sounded good, just not to the highest degree.

Imagine; you are reading "Stereophile" and you wonder; "What does this sound like matched with that". In a high end emporium, a salesperson could simply insert it into the mix, and your question would be answered.

I spent so many hours in high end emporiums that my wife swore I was seeing another women.

"No", I'm not smarter than many of the people here, but I have heard and experienced things many haven't.

I would give up imaging first of the three.  Or make it fourth after dynamics, or fifth after harmonic/tonality, or sixth after rhythm/pacing.  Imaging is good to have but not essential.  I have good imaging because I have more expensive than $4K speakers which someone mentioned doesn't sound much better than $4K speakers.  

The good news is that good used components allow one to build a great system on the cheap.  Used components at $4K can get you 90% of a new $20K+ system not based on analog (sorry, analog just costs more).  Instead of a new Rotel amp, why not a used plder Luxman amp? or some other great older amp that used to border on Class A.  My speakers and tonearm are still in production (slightly modified) after 26 years and 30+ years at more than double the original prices.  One can buy them used for 1/3 of the original price or 1/6 of the new price,

There are real holographic soundstages but most are more of a “projected soundstage” - the real soundstage’s phoney sibling - that is not the same thing as a transparent, well-organized and realistic soundstage. I would rate holographic soundstage right up there with speed, warmth, dynamics and air. Ah, air. Maybe the hardest to obtain of them all.

When I first posted on this thread, I didn't even have holography, now that I got it, I'll be doing more listening and less posting.

Once you get holography, it's easy to make it "Mo-better", all you need is "Mo-money"; a lot more.

Let me explain; audio holography is quite similar to visual holography, and the better the lens and camera, the better the photograph.

I'm a casual photographer who has always used middle of the line Pentax; however, if I used Leica, my photographs would be much sharper. A Pentax costs a few hundred while a Leica costs several thousand; that explains why I have Pentax.

For my ears, the huge price differences between class A+ and Class A are worth it, if you can swing it.

Now that I have holography, "everything" is better. We are at the end of the line on this thread and apparently there are a few people who don't even know what holography is; that's quite apparent by their comments, but as long as their happy, I revel in their happiness.

There are real holographic soundstages but most are more of a “projected soundstage” - the real soundstage’s phoney sibling - that is not the same thing as a transparent, well-organized and realistic soundstage.

+1 @geoffkait 

Orpheus10,

What you really meant to say is that you “revel in their ignorance” from your point of view.

+2 geoffkait.

I think most folks have not actually heard a system with a potential to reproduce ’real’ holographic soundstage, just as I think there are dammed few recordings which contain the necessary information to produce one.

orpheus10,

"let me explain; audio holography is quite similar to visual holography, and the better the lens and camera the better the photograph."

As with your comments on audio holography it is hard to argue the basic premise of your statement, however I would suggest that, as in photography, the experience of the audiophile is far more relevant than the quality of the equipment. Nothing is funnier than a ’photographer’ with his Nikon and a bag full of lenses who doesn’t know more about his hobby than how to take snap shots of his kids (if that).

rvpiano, "....revel in their ignorance"

Just as some might revel in his.....:-)   Witness his own posts.

I guess people with opinions can be considered ignorant on this forum.

@rvpiano, 
+1.
B

A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said, "elephant is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.

Since none of us can see sound waves bouncing around our listening room, we are all blind. If we all had the same identical equipment, including interconnects, we would all hear differently as a result of our different listening rooms.

"Holography" is not a trick pony, it is the "result" of correcting room anomalies by first recognizing, and then treating them. Once this is done, you will note a marked improvement in tone and timbre of acoustic instruments.

When people go as far as they can in regard to topflight components, and are still not satisfied, that's when they discover the room is at fault; after they correct this problem, that's when they retreat to audio Nirvana.

I think I've stated everything I know of importance in regard to holography. If anyone wants to advance the audio in their listening room on the cheap, I suggest they go to this thread; DIY acoustic panels?

Just a brief comment to mention that room acoustics is only one part of the problem in achieving holographic soundstage. There are a great many other areas of the system that must be attended to in order to achieve the very best holographic soundstage. Examples: vibration isolation, electrical contact housekeeping, good cabling housekeeping, speaker placement and CD or LP treatments, not to mention getting rid of extraneous junk lying around, e.g., old newspapers, books you don’t need any more. Reduce entropy! 

More solid advice from @geoffkait   Thanks.

Kosst, I agree 100%; "Holography" is a refinement of sound staging and imaging.

Sometime ago, I noted that audiophiles who were in the "end game"; meaning they might mention "van den Hul Grasshopper" as their current cartridge without being ostentatious; it would be in the context of the discussion. It was I who made a note of this fact because it gave me a strong clue in regard to the other components in their rig.

They had gone as far as they could go in regard to equipment, and they still were not satisfied; that's when they went to room treatment and got the improvements they were seeking.

The reason I don't talk too much about everything else required to get holography, is because I have made the false assumption that you know all that is required, and you realize that "room treatment" is the end game; my bad.

Newbee,

 Just curious,

Which of my posts do you consider “ignorant?”

rvpiano, I treat the term 'ignorant' as a pejorative one, and would typically use 'uninformed' in its place if I had to use any at all.

 You’ve never posted anything that caused me to think in that context when reading your posts. I saw your posts as those of someone interested in this hobby who had, as we all do, certain constraints which limit them in obtaining all that is available, yet still enjoyed discussing the matter at hand in an open and frank manner, absent pomposity and pretentiousness.

Don’t take me, or my opinions and observations, too seriously, I don’t. :-)

Newbee,

From this point on, I won’t.

I accept your apology.

rvpiano, FWIW, I don’t understand why I would need to apologize to you. The comments in my 1/13/19 post certainly could be construed by someone as negative, but they were not directed toward you. At least that was not my intent. In fact I thought I was agreeing with your earlier observations about Orpheus10’s post, i.e. your substituting ’ignorance’ in place of his term ’happiness’. Should I have been more explicit? Enlighten me if you wish.

I don’t know how anyone reading your comments could construe any thing but that you were calling me ignorant.  “...Just as someone might revel in his......”
“Ignorance” is the antecedent.
However, if you say so, I’ll have to accept that you didn’t mean it as such.

rvpiano, For the sake of clarity, consider that in my ’offending post’ I was directly addressing Goeff, Orpheus10, and yourself, separately. In my comment to you I said "just as someone might revel in his.....",meaning Orpheus10 .Should I have intended this to refer to you I would not have used "his", I would have used ’you or your’. I was trying to convey a contempt, much broader based than yours I think, assuming you were contemptuous at all, but erred in piggy backing on your comment. I should not have done this. For this I do apologize. Sincerely.

Thank you for your explanation. I understand now.
I do value your comments in general, and especially on classical music.

I’ll be happy to get back to our usual discussions. 🙂

"Accentuate the positive, and eliminate the negative"; that will be my motto this year, life is too short to get embroiled in negative harangues.

This is a very important and complex subject; especially if you want to exploit the full potential of recorded music.

My recommendation is to go back over the posts and retain all the positive information while rejecting the negative; this will be extremely beneficial if you want to achieve "holography".

It's always good to know who's speaking; I'm a music lover first and foremost, I am not an equipment lover. I mention ARC because so many people are familiar with the sound of ARC; it's highly definitive.

I like CJ preamps, and ARC power amps. Although I mention those names, I wont necessarily buy that brand, but I will buy something close to that sound, the same as a musician is shooting for a certain "sound"; one that will give him the tone and timbre he's looking for.

Newbee's seek these elements, tone and timbre in speakers, but to me, they exist in everything; my rig is tuned to deliver what the musician is saying.

Everyone seems to want speakers that sound like this, that or the other thing. My speakers emit precisely whatever sound the amp feeds them. In the beginning, no one ever wants this, but after many years, you want every nuance the musician is blowing; nothing more or less.

In my beginning, as a young man, I had musician friends I ran with; consequently, I lived the same life they lived (almost any way, I had to go to work in the morning) At any rate, the music I listened to was live at the nightclubs. People who listen to recorded music have no idea how much of a musicians life is in his instrument of choice.

You may not know it, but when you put that record on, what you really want to hear, is that musician, not your equipment. My heightened awareness of this makes it necessary to fine tune all my equipment to deliver the "facts"; "The facts maam, nothing but the facts", inquired Sgt. Friday.

A musician has spent his entire life learning how to express himself on his instrument; do I want to hear Conrad Johnson or the musician; with a little fine tuning, me and CJ work it out. No, I'm not a casual enthusiast.

orpheus10  ...

I couldn't agree with you more. The whole point of this hobby as far as I'm concerned is to get us closer to the actual event as played by the musicians. 

Frank

Well, I am again, late to a thread that has intense meaning to me. I am actually not overstating this, since the idea of getting musicians in my room was a long process, and not one that was continuous, even when complete. I mean to say that recordings, as someone stated earlier in this thread, don't always have the information/miking that needs to be for decent sound reproduction... at least in the way of soundstaging. It's not that I don't enjoy many recordings in spite of their flaws, but am overcome at times when a recording (especially piano) gets it right. 
 Having said this, there are a couple of 'experiments' that have a place in my system from time to time. Off and on, I will use a completely rebuilt Carver C-9 (yes, I can see you in the back, rolling you're eyes). No, it isn't for every recording, I couldn't agree more. Probably the logic comes into line with my ocaissional need to use a good tone control. Way out of audiophilia, and probably some of you are hissing right now ;) I will say this though. Many times, a wonderful soundstage can be had, given the right speaker placement, and room treatment. but that seems to have been more popular back in my bachelor days. 

I don't think that there is any question that most of us have some kind of physical limitations as to where we can place loudspeakers within our chosen room.  Given that starting point, the challenge then becomes to find the combination of loudspeakers, electronics, wires, etc. that give us the hologram, tone, dynamics, etc. that really satisfy what we are looking for. 

With different experiences, different rooms and different ideas of what sound "right", there is probably not a one size fits all solution...but there might be a reasonable starting point...and least that is what this interesting thread is postulating...  https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/3038828-how-choose-loudspeaker-what-science-shows.html

One final thought...I've pretty much had good sounding systems my whole life...my kids grew up with them.  My older son plays acoustic, electric and bass guitar and even when I've offered to give him systems, he declines.  Why, he tells me that he has never heard home audio that remotely conveys the sound that he hears...produces...strives for as a musician....so he'd rather just play through his equipment as it is much more satsifying than listening to a recording.

This is from another thread that's intrinsically related to this thread;


     
I did a little research and found a site that tells you how to build acoustic panels:

http://acousticsfreq.com/how-to-build-your-own-acoustic-panels/

Apparently, fiberglass board insulation at least two inches thick is needed. The sample construction uses 2″ Roxul RHT 80 at $0.78 per square foot.

As far as decorative fabric, anything that is acoustically transparent, where the sound can reach the fiberglass. The page suggests putting the fabric up to your mouth and blowing through it to see if air freely flows through it — so I guess the lighter the better.
auxinput1,538 posts.
11-07-2017


While there are some who have no idea how important this thread is, I hope those who realize the importance of this thread will utilize the information to improve their rooms, and the pleasure of listening to music after that improvement.

Things are never what they seem. Let’s take SONEX for example, the common grey nicely articulated acoustic foam panels oft found covering the walls of recording studios and frequently used by audiophiles. Newsflash! The problem with SONEX is that even though it appears to be “acoustically transparent” it hurts the sound. A panel cannot be “acoustically transparent” and still be able to absorb or otherwise change the acoustic waves striking it. In the case of SONEX even a panel or two diminishes sound quality, making the sound “phasey” and unnatural sounding.

After spending many thousands of dollars on equipment over the years, I found it hard to believe that room treatment would improve the audio in my listening room significantly.

When people who had the most expensive rigs began to seriously tout "room treatment", I began to take notice; not because they had the most expensive rigs, but because they were the most serious "audiophiles". I know some people take the title "audiophile" as snobbish; I take it as descriptive.

If you haven't learned by now that logic is useless in HEA, just keep hanging around. "How can tacking some stuff on the wall give improvement over spending thousands on equipment?" That's not "logical".

Here's a link that lets you know how complex this subject really is;


    http://pages.jh.edu/~virtlab/ray/acoustic.htm


Although I started out as being skeptical in regard to the degree of improvement that could be achieved through room treatment, now that I'm enjoying that improvement, I'm a leading proponent of room treatment.


Back to the specifics of holography; I would define it as a highly refined sound-stage. While we can get a good sound-stage with "mid-fi" we will not get "holography"; that requires HEA, but even here, the first stage of development is the "sound-stage".

If you have holography, "all" of your records will sound better.

By the way, to clarify, I’m not suggesting that room treatment is not very important. But in order to actually get the best results, care must be taken to optimize whatever room treatments one decides to employ. Whether it’s acoustic panels, or tiny bowls or Helmholtz resonators or those Shakti Hallographs, or Mpingo discs, or whatever, it’s best to apply these things slowly over time, with the help of test CDs like the XLO Test CD to make sure speaker placement is changed to account for better room acoustics as one goes forward.

It’s also very helpful to use a test tone and SPL meter to establish where in the room standing waves, reflection points, echos, etc. exist. Guessing by trial and error, especially when the number of devices in room grows high, can have rather bad results sound wise. You will be lulled into a false sense of security. And your fate will be sealed. 😝

I’d rather devote all that time and effort listening for the musical message rather than the sonic message.

It's impossible for the "musician's message" to be revealed until all is made neutral and clarified; that encompasses all the improvements required to clearly reveal the musicians message; however, to do this requires "work".

rvpiano, I interpret your post as stating; "I would rather listen to what I got than work to make it better."

Geoffkait, if you read my posts, you will discover that it was "Serendipity" that ultimately got me where am; although I did have other forms of insulation bound in speaker cloth.

Since it was partially "luck" that got me where I am, I'm not an authority on how to get here (holography), but I can tell you how sweet it is once you have arrived.

Your post sounds very helpful to someone who is trying to achieve the benefits of holography.

Since "holography" is the last stage of development in the audio progression, there is a possibility that it's not relevant in your stage of progression.

Orpheus10,

You’re absolutely right. It’s a matter of priorities.
 Although you can’t  possibly understand it, it is not necessary for many of us to have a holographic presentation to get the most out of the music.
 When I was growing up, I got most of the extensive listening repertoire I now have through a table radio.  The genius of the music flowed through and inspired me.  I didn’t need to have pinpoint sonic accuracy to “get the message.”
 Striving for sonic perfection is putting the cart before the horse. The music comes FIRST.
Enjoy your hobby, but don’t try to convince us that the you can’t get a supreme aesthetic experience without holography.

By your logic, a person sitting in the first row of a concert and ostensibly getting a more “holographic” picture of the sound, is having a better musical experience than someone sitting in the fifth row or tenth row or balcony.

I don’t think that’s the case.

Orpheus10,
Your sliding door experience got me thinking about the glass I have over a large piece of art in my listening room. It is also hung on a side wall (much like your sliding door). First I tried a heavy handmade blanket over it. My impression was "who turned up the bass". I belive what was actually happening is it was sucking the highs & some of the midrange out of the room. Didn't like it much. So now I have it covered with light cloth. This is an improvement. Increased bass without the objectionable suck of midrange/highs. This also increased focus of the soundstage. Thank You!    

Boxer12, Often reflective side walls can be conquered by simple, but radical toe of the speakers, with out the need of using ugly treatments on the walls to deaden high frequency reflections. Often, not always. Give it a try if you already haven't. It worked for me. FWIW there are other benefits to this type of speaker set up as well.  

Boxer, leave your speakers alone, they are a very critical adjustment that I'm sure you have fiddled with enough times to have them precisely as they should be. Nothing is worse than messing up what you already have right.

Increased focus of the soundstage means you are close to having what we're after. Stop and evaluate.

I'm sure everyone has fiddled endlessly with speaker placement and toe in until they've gotten a satisfactory left, right and center channel image. This will not change when you are attempting to get "holography".

We are into "The propagation of sound" when we get into this dimension we call holography.
Geoffkait told of some of the professional devices that can be helpful; however, that goes into a whole other realm of study, and expense; I used as much common sense as I could muster along with flat out "luck", and succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.

Once holography is realized, it's like entering another dimension in sound and music; tone and timbre sound closer to the actual instruments, the music on old records sounds like new music.

I didn't change one component or move one speaker; it was all about room improvements in regard to the propagation of sound.

A couple things. The Trial and Error method of speaker placement - move a little, listen a little - or a random or convenient placement can only result in finding local maximums - at best. There is no reason to fiddle endlessly, nor any benefit. Second, the optimum speaker placement changes as the room is treated over a period of time and should be re-evaluated whenever room acoustics changes. Lastly, most people believe that the best holographic soundstage is achieved by placing the speakers relatively far apart and toeing them in toward the listener. Actually that’s not true at all. Generally, most speakers should be placed relatively close to each other, let’s say for argument sake, five feet. With no toe in. My 2 centavos.

I had to think way back when I was a kid and got my first record player. What a piece of crap. I listened to Vivaldi, and some Mozart to start with. At the time, the record player, with built in speaker, was housed in a cabinet with a door on it. I soon learned that the position of the door affected the sound, and thus began my life as an experimenter in acoustics, along with electronics all around me. But my point here is that the musical message was somehow available even through that miserable setup. As time went on, and decades later, I bumped into a holographic image with the system that I had at that time, and never let go of the that ideal for my listening. My present listening room is not ideal however, and I must judiciously adopt placement, treatment while all the time being aware of the WAF.