What Does Holographic Sound Like?

Chad,

I find different IC will effect how soundstage/imaging occurs in different ways but I do not know if one is inherently better than another in any particular case. Like most tweaks, I think it depends.

I know what you are saying about the MIT cables. Even the older less expensive ones I use (Terminator series) work well in this regard. So do the DNM Reson ICs I use in my main rig currently. I could go either way depending on mood. Tonality/timbre is the biggest difference I hear between these two. MIT does bass very well and is smooth and controlled everythere else. DNM Reson adds a little definition and clarity to the midrange, which I tend to like with my OHMs in particular. I tend to be able to follow what singers are saying easier with DNM. Both are very good. I think it depends....

Kal wrote,

"The sound reflections accomplished with stereo speakers may be somewhat satisfying but they are not a reproduction of the original performance space and, notably, they are the same for every recording you play."

Clearly he doesn't believe the ambient information of the venue is embedded in the recording. He believes the reflected sound in the room is *solely* responsible for the spatial information, I.e. holographic sound. By this logic if one treats the room acoustically, to minimize reflections, there would be practically no holographic image left at all.

Mapman wrote,

"Here's an interesting gadget that might actually work as best I can tell and perhaps even help holography:

Harmonizer (by SteinMusic)

Might even have some quantum principles in its design.

Dunno.

Any insights?

Opinions are fine. Scientific principles that I might understand is better.

Not cheap though."

I find the SteinMusic Harmonizer fascinating.

Not that I care what Kal thinks, but:

Its not clear to me at all that that is what he believes. HE might mean that the listening room is the same which is true and that ambient information is there but not delivered exactly as recorded which I would also agree with.

Geoff, I care more that one being a technical person they do more diligence reading carefully and being clearer about what is their interpretation of what is read rather than asserting things that were not said.

Sabai -- Your disagreement with Geoff about Kal's views reminds me of my disagreement with him about Gravitational Lensing on the Magic thread. The point isn't really about the details of Kal's views or the details of Gravitational Lensing. It's about whether facts are being accurately represented or not. Unfortunately, even if you win this round, he will pivot to another topic. You have stumbled onto Geoff’s infinite staircase. Come to think of it, I think Machina Dynamica sells one of those.

As far as the views expressed in the quotes of Kal provided by Geoff, I am in agreement with at least one of them: Kal's observation that two channel playback results in a spatial presentation in the listening space that often differs from the spatial presentation in the recording space (assuming there was one). That is because, a two channel playback system presents whatever ambient cues the recording contains primarily from two directions – the direction of the two speakers. But the ambient cues in the recording space were presented from all directions.

The listening space itself can augment the ambient cues of the recording, and in the best cases, the ambient cues of the listening space RESEMBLE the ambient cues of the recording space. But for any particular system, there will be recordings for which the ambient cues of the listening space do not resemble those of the recording space. When that happens, what is heard at the listening position isn’t a fully accurate representation of the recording space.

Having said that, I depart from Kal's views (assuming I understand them) insofar as I believe that it is possible to construct a listening space that is, to some extent, acoustically ambiguous. In other words, a space in which the *apparent* size, shape, and materials of the room change from recording to recording. My own listening room doesn't fit that description, but I've been in professional recording and mixing spaces that do. IMO, to the extent that a listening space is acoustically ambiguous, the ambient cues of a wider range of recording spaces are more likely to be realistically represented.

As for the issue of "holographic" sound, I for one don't believe that a fully accurate representation of the recording space is necessary for the sound in the listening space to be "holographic." That is because, IMO, “holographic” sound is more about the realistic presentation of INSTRUMENTS AND PERFORMERS than it is about the realistic presentation of THE RECORDING SPACE ITSELF. And a two channel system is, IMO, quite capable of realistically presenting instruments and performers, even when it isn't a strictly accurate representation of the recording space. In other words, IMO, "holographic" sound is less about ACCURACY relative to the recording and more about REALISM relative to what instruments and performers actually sound like.

The ambient cues of the recording space may never make it to the listener, either because the recording does not contain them, the playback system misrepresents them, or the listening room alters them. Nevertheless, a playback system can still create the illusion that "They are Here." But when the ambient cues of the recording space are lost, what goes with it is the illusion that "You are There."

IMO, of course.

Bryon