What Does Holographic Sound Like?

Csontos

If everything was point to point hard wired that would be the best. If you had a choice of non ferrous shields and how they affect the audio playback chain that too would be audible. Elimination of the fuse and or breaker is audible also. I have replaced the fuse and the sound improved drastically. I have not bypassed the breaker. Tom

Hi Theaudiotweak,

When I had a more complex system I played with various ways to drain vibration away or suspend from vibration. It became quite important once you tuned into it. I found it did clean things up slightly.

I found various materials contributed to the sound in differing ways. Some making it sound hard, some sluggish and so on.

It's funny that now my set up is more simplified I don't find it as susceptible to changes of platform or added weight, cones, wood, glass etc anymore. (I haven't had a TT since the early 90s.)

I think now the equipment is so simple that there is hardly anything in it left to vibrate.

Having said that my flea power tube amp is suspended by an air bed and the tubes are damped. The caps are mainly dulunde so are pretty immune to vibration. So there is still a legacy of that approach including potted inductors in the xovers.

Lets face it to get a holographic sound it is about attention to detail. Each small step adding up to a larger over all effect on the presentation.

Chadeffect,
When you stated, "Lets face it to get a holographic sound it is about attention to detail. Each small step adding up to a larger over all effect on the presentation." -- you were exactly correct. The more details that emerge from a recording the more holographic the sound becomes. Each improvement adds incrementally to the holographic effect. And the fewer details that emerge from a recording the more flat the sound becomes. Holography is directly related to detail. There is a lot more detail in CDs than most people realize because their systems are not evolved enough to extract those details.

Geoffkait,
Your reply was totally predictable when you stated, "it's ironic and bizarre that you would attack someone who is presenting unusual ideas when you, yourself, are presently unusual ideas." Your ideas are not unusual. They are nonsensical. All of your attempts to sound esoteric and "different" bounce like a dead cat off the forum floor.

My "ideas" about holographic sound are unusual? They are not "my ideas". They are not "ideas" at all. Holographic sound is not an "idea". It is a fact. What do you mean when you say holographic sound is "unusual"? Do you mean it is an "unusual idea" for those who have not actually heard it because they have not upgraded their systems to the point where it becomes a sonic parameter -- and they have never heard it at a friend's or at an audio showroom? If so, then holographic sound may in fact only be an "idea" for them, and, of course, an "unusual idea" because they have not experienced it before.

But holographic sound is certainly not an unusual phenomenon in high end audio. In fact, holographic sound is not unusual at all in high end audio. On the contrary. It is very usual for those producing high end components and cables. In fact, this is one of the things they strive for -- in case you did not notice.

Call up any major component maker and ask to speak to one of their top executives about holographic sound. Ask them if holographic sound is an "unusual idea" or a fact in high end audio. Then write back here with the results of your survey.

Then call up HiDiamond or Synergistic Research or Nordost or Cardas or any other high end cable company. Ask to speak to one of their top executives about holographic sound. Ask them if holographic sound is an "unusual idea" or a fact in high end audio. Then write back here the results of your survey -- and don't just talk off the top of you head.

Where you get off saying holographic sound is an "unusual idea" is very, very odd. Your statement is totally self-serving -- and totally false. Your self-indulgence in pseudo-mysterious talk -- the puzzle wrapped in an enigma -- is very boring because of one special reason. None of it rings true.

You stated, "Many people in the industry including some senior reviewers either minimize its [holographic sound's] importance or deny its existence." Well then, you had better come up with some specific names of "many people in the industry" and "senior reviewers" who back you up.

I have not heard of a single "person in the industry" or a single "senior reviewer" who minimizes the importance or denies the existence of "holographic sound". Of course, there is a world of difference between minimizing the existence of "holographic sound" and denying its existence.

Minimizing its importance means that the person in question recognizes that it exists but, for some reason "minimizes its importance". Could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" and which "senior reviewers" minimize the importance of holographic sound and their reasons for doing so -- and where they have actually stated this? And could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" and which "senior reviewers" actually deny the existence of holographic sound and where they have actually stated this?

Bryoncunningham,
I agree with you. I think Geoffkait actually believes what he says -- no matter how nonsensical or false. But, unlike you, I do not believe there is much intelligence here because if there was real intelligence here it would not be couched in all of this deliberately vague, convoluted and mysterious talk that twists in the audio wind -- without any more proof than taking an unused amp out of the room changes the sound. Well, that is indeed very deep -- meriting all the attendant and imprecision and obfuscation and gobbledy gook.

Wow -- am I impressed? Hel-looo!

Hi Geoff - I am going to assume, despite the facetious reason you give, that your actual question is a serious one. I do not merely think, I know, that my profession will indeed cause hearing loss over the long term. It has been proven that the average professional musician will lose at least 20% of their hearing over the course of their careers. It must also be said, however, that generally speaking, (there are of course exceptions, I unfortunately often sit next to one), professional orchestral musicians often start with much better ears in the first place, and even if they don't, they are certainly much better trained while in school and afterwards.

Judging someone's ears by the quality of their system is silly. Most musicians do not make enough money to afford a top of the line high end audio system. My own system is certainly on the lower end price-wise for folks in this hobby. However, my instrument and it's upkeep are much cheaper than most, and I got very good deals on the equipment I have. Most string players are still paying for their very fine instruments right up until near the very end of their careers. An oboist, the example you used, is constantly buying new instruments, as they only last a few years in general, and also spends more hours making reeds than you do listening to your system. They have to buy all sorts of expensive extra equipment. So for a great many, there is simply not the time or the money to invest in a high end system.

Oh, by the way, I posted a thread a couple of months ago in these forums about the relationship between various sound levels and the lengths of time they can be withstood before there is possible hearing damage, if you care to look it up. It got a very disappointing number of responses, but that doesn't change the value of the info for anyone who is concerned about volume levels and hearing loss.