What Does Holographic Sound Like?

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.

Chadeffect - you seem to have misinterpreted my post. You said: "I think the best places to share ideas are places free of anyone deciding what can or cannot be said. As long as there is respect for others."

I do not disagree, in fact I agree completely. My post was about those who do not have respect for others. As for the rest of your post, I am not sure if it was directed to me, as I do not see a connection in it to anything I said in that post. If I have misunderstood you, I am sorry. I know I am not the clearest writer.

Hi Learsfool,
thanks for your reply. The rest of my post was just highlighting (and hopefully not boring everyone) the point that all it takes to clear the argument between ideas is give it a go. Not so much aimed at you, but just a general point.

I mentioned in a later post that if there is a money back trail period on a tweak, what is there to lose? Trying new ideas surely is part of the hobby?

Maybe the vendors of off the wall products should make it their duty to offer money back guarantees? Then the charlatans will be easily recognised.

Sabai wrote,

"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"? "

Sabai, please read my post again as that is not what I said all. I said that your idea of connecting cables in series was unusual, not that the idea of holographic sound was unusual. I would be the last person to deny that holographic sound is achievable or unusual as a concept.

Cheers