What Does Holographic Sound Like?

Sabai, I left Carver behind a long time ago, that didn't compare to the holography I'm speaking of now, and I've heard incredible levels of holography with incredible price tags. What I heard at that high end emporium was all top of the line ARC and Thiel set up by an obsessed fanatic.

I had the pleasure of enjoying many listening sessions at his home. He enjoyed them as well because I'm not a motor mouth at listening sessions; I came to listen to music, not to talk about listening to music. As I recall he had CD's stored in those huge drawers, you see in public libraries.

The sound at his home was quite different from the sound at the emporium, it was lush, and euphoric as opposed to pin point, but even more "holographic". I believe the very best holographic speakers are "dipole" to some degree. His Von Schweikerts had speakers in both the rear and front of the cabinet.

As you stated, the degrees of holography are never ending, and they make the music so much more enjoyable.

Douglas_schroeder,

Thank you for your kind post. It is much appreciated. You have the kind of open mind that I esteem. I think you would be stunned if you sat down and listened to my system. I was brought up as a classical pianist from the age of seven. I graduated from the Conservatory of Music. Music is a passion for me -- not a hobby. I believe you sensed this from reading my OP.

Thanks for letting me know about this joke. I had no idea. It will be very easy for me to ignore these folks. I am of another generation and am not familiar with this kind of "inside joke". I could not care less. I’m not too old to appreciate good music and to recognize what my ears tell me. My hearing is very acute. I can still hear 16,000Hz.

I agree. Those who laugh at this are missing out. Daisy-chaining is not totally unknown in high end audio, by the way, although it is unknown with cables. I found a couple of threads on other sites about daisy-chaining power conditioners + isolation transformers + power regenerators. The posters gave me some ideas that I found were spot on for my own system -- how to get the best effects when using these front-end components. I have four of these components in series in my front end. I could never go back to having only one or two of these elements in my front end. The combined result with all four in my system has been nothing short of stunning.

I also used to feel that the shortest path must be the best way -- before I started experimenting with cables in series. I think you will change your mind very quickly once you start experimenting with series cabling. With reference to the shortest path, I think you have already experienced what I am talking about, regarding your digital cable experience. I have found that detail and definition are actually enhanced -- as well as sound stage and continuity -- when you have the right synergy with series cabling. This is totally counter to what one would expect and I have no explanation for it.

But I can speculate. Electrons travel awfully fast through cables. And as they travel through a series of cables they are being organized in a unique way through each unique cable -- and through each unique "tweak". It is the combined effects of this multiple-stage organizing of electrons that produce very special results. This is where the word synergy enters the picture. From my way of thinking, having experienced this first-hand, the shortest path is irrelevant in the search for better sound through series cabling. There is virtually no difference in how long it takes for the current to pass through a short signal path versus a long signal path. And that time difference is not a deciding factor when it comes to the issue of sonic synergy. This is an issue that is cable-dependent and "tweak"-dependent -- not an issue that is "length of signal path"-dependent.

Like you, I also demand detail along with improved holography. I never sacrifice detail for the sake of improved imaging. There is no easier way to kill the sound than to take away the detail. In fact, I was looking for increased detail/definition by using cables in series and I have been pleasantly surprised with this very result.

In my opinion, you are not entirely right when you comment that it is virtually impossible to say which cable is doing what in the series. You can take out one cable at a time and reinsert each, one at a time, to find out what special properties each cable imparts to the series. This is how I discovered which position in each series is best for each cable. In the end, it is the synergy of the whole series that matters. There is no telling ahead of time how things will sound until you work with each cable and each “tweak” in each series to discover the best location for each of them.

Jack Bybee has kept me very busy finding novel ways to integrate his products into my system. Jack is the kind of innovative audio manufacturer I seek out. We all know how run-of-the-mill sounds. But if you want to reach a higher level you have to use a bit of imagination and a lot of cash to make it happen. If you don't succeed, OK -- nothing much lost. But if you do succeed you may be the happiest audio camper around – with some people scratching their heads, and some laughing about something they have no experience with.

Regarding searching for that single special cable, the closest I have come is HiDiamond. But I still use all HiDiamonds in my system (digital, interconnects, speaker cables, power cords) in series with other cables and “tweaks” for the best effect. If you could hear my system you would instantly know what I am talking about. Once you have started down the series-cabling path there is no going back because you realize that nothing is lost or sacrificed. No sonic parameter is compromised. On the contrary. Everything is enhanced -- and I am talking about not subtle -- when you come up with winning combinations. I agree with you about a big change. If I make a change to my system and I am sitting there scratching my head trying to hear if something has happened then forget it.

Your own experiment with cables in parallel is a good example of the mindset I am talking about – stepping outside the box. Regarding parallel cabling, I am actually running a small experiment at the moment with speaker cables in parallel. So far, so good. But, up till now, I have actually been running all my speaker cables in series.

As for guidelines about how to go about successful series cabling and tweaking, the process seems to favor at least one active cable in the series. If initial results are not favorable, reverse the series and connect up again. If you want to start experimenting with series cabling I would suggest using a Synergistic Research active XLR interconnect in series with another non-active XLR interconnect of your choice from a different company. Since it will be very hard to get hold of Bybee XLR Interconnect Quantum Purifiers to “tweak’ the series – only about 12 pairs were made (I have one pair) -- the MIC Enacom (from Combak Harmonix in Japan) may do well. This is an excellent item for improving the sound through the XLR interconnect path but it is an item that is very position-dependant in the series.

By the way, although I am retired I still run a small and very successful company (in the electronics business but not audio-related). My business is based on an invention whose development was greatly dependent on keeping an open mind about possibilities. Ever the experimenter, I have recently developed my own audio product – a proprietary RCA feed-back circuit that has become an indispensible part of my system. It has been tested on many high end professional systems and in every case it greatly enhanced holographic imaging. One high end shop wanted to purchase a set on the spot after taking the time to listen carefully to its attributes. But I could not part with my prototype. I am now compiling a list of interested reviewers and distributors who will be receiving this product for evaluation. Please let me know if you are interested in receiving a set for evaluation.

Regarding devices that are not in the signal path, I have found Shakti Hallographs very useful.

Your positive response to my OP is greatly appreciated.

Orpheus10,
What have you done since you left Carver behind to attain holography in your system? Would you care to share some of this here? As you so rightly observe, holography -- at a sufficiently high level -- really brings the music alive and makes it so enjoyable.

I would love to have heard the systems you are referring to. I do my auditioning in Hong Kong, Bangkok and Singapore. The Adelphi 1 Audio Mall in Singapore is the all-in-one audio emporium that I enjoy best of all.

Sabai wrote,

"But I can speculate. Electrons travel awfully fast through cables. And as they travel through a series of cables they are being organized in a unique way through each unique cable -- and through each unique "tweak". It is the combined effects of this multiple-stage organizing of electrons that produce very special results. This is where the word synergy enters the picture. From my way of thinking, having experienced this first-hand, the shortest path is irrelevant in the search for better sound through series cabling. There is virtually no difference in how long it takes for the current to pass through a short signal path versus a long signal path. And that time difference is not a deciding factor when it comes to the issue of sonic synergy. This is an issue that is cable-dependent and "tweak"-dependent -- not an issue that is "length of signal path"-dependent."

Just for the record, the velocity of electrons through audio cables, the drift velocity, is actually extremely slow, on the order of one meter per 12 hours! On the other hand, the electromagnetic wave - the musical signal travelling through audio cables - travels at a high percentage of the speed of light.

Also for the record, Shakti Hallographs are actually IN the signal path, assuming one considers reflected acoustic waves in the room that reach the ear to be part of the Signal Path. Ditto for Tube Traps, Corner Tunes, Skyline and other diffusers, Sonex and such. LessLoss Blackbody, Tice Clock and Schumann low frequency (7.8 Hz) generator are much better examples of devices that most folks would deem NOT to be in the signal path.

Regarding Doug's finding that a longer XLR cable that was not designed for digital applications outperformed a shorter RCA digital cable, that is not at all implausible or surprising.

For one thing, it can often be expected that a modestly longer cable will outperform a shorter one in a digital application, depending on a number of system-dependent variables. For the explanation, see this paper by Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio ("Audioengr" at Audiogon). While the paper discusses S/PDIF, similar considerations can be applicable to AES/EBU, although the specific numbers may be different. None of this is applicable to the much lower frequencies of analog audio signals, however.

Also, of course, a comparison between an unbalanced interface and a balanced interface introduces many variables into the mix besides the intrinsic differences between the cables. In digital applications those would include differences in signal characteristics such as risetimes and falltimes, which are directly relevant to jitter; the fact that different interface circuits are being used in the two components; and differences in susceptibility to ground loop effects and pickup of low level noise, both of which can affect jitter.

Regards,
-- Al