2. misc-audio
  3. 1347580739

What Does Holographic Sound Like?

And how do you get there? This is an interesting question. I have finally arrived at a very satisfying level of holography in my system. But it has taken a lot of time, effort and money to get there. I wish there had been a faster, easier and less expensive way to get there. But I never found one.

Can you get to a high level of holography in your system with one pair of interconnects and one pair of speaker wires? I don't believe so. I run cables in series. I never found one pair of interconnects and speaker wires that would achieve what has taken a heck of a lot of wires and "tweaks" to achieve. Let alone all the power cords that I run in series. Although I have found one special cable that has enabled the system to reach a very high level of holography -- HiDiamond -- I still need to run cables in series for the sound to be at its holographic best.

There are many levels of holography. Each level is built incrementally with the addition of one more wire and one more "tweak". I have a lot of wires and "tweaks" in my system. Each cable and each "tweak" has added another level to the holography. Just when I thought things could not get any better -- which has happened many times -- the addition of one more cable or "tweak" enabled the system to reach a higher level yet.

Will one "loom" do the job. I never found that special "loom". To achieve the best effects I have combined cables from Synergistic Research, Bybee, ASI Liveline, Cardas, Supra and HiDiamond -- with "tweaks" too numerous to mention but featuring Bybee products and a variety of other products, many of which have the word "quantum" in their description.

The effort to arrive at this point with my system has been two-fold. Firstly, finding the right cables and "tweaks" for the system. Secondly, finding where to place them in the system for the best effects -- a process of trial and error. A lot of cables and "tweaks" had to be sold off in the process. I put "tweaks" in quotation marks because the best "tweaks" in my system have had as profound effect as the components on the sound. The same for the best of the cables, as well. For me, cables and "tweaks" are components.

Have I finally "arrived"? I have just about arrived at the best level that I can expect within my budget -- there are a couple of items on the way. In any case, I assume there are many levels beyond what my system has arrived at. But since I'll never get there I am sitting back and enjoying the music in the blissful recognition that I don't know what I am missing.

I should mention that there are many elements that are as important as holography for the sound to be satisfying, IMO. They include detail, transparency, coherence, tonality, and dynamics, among others. My system has all of these elements in good measure.

Have you had success with holographic sound in your system? If so, how did you get there?
sabai
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,397 posts
 
"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."

Bryon, that's a very good way to say it (as usual).

Its also a good reason why audiophiles who might not care otherwise should. Without it, instruments and performers sound less real.

I have at least one MErcury Perfect Presence LP that shows a diagram of where the players were located and the mikes during recording. This provides a useful reference regarding the accuracy of the players location while listening in your room. Relative positions should be and are distinguishable in at least two dimensions (width and depth), possibly even height (do not recall if the diagram indicated relative height of players as a reference).

0% of my other thousands of recordings have this information readily available as a reference. For many recordings not miked properly at a live performance, it becomes mostly irrelevant. SInce there is no practical reference, I pay no attention to that aspect. Only that what I am listening to sounds "real", and the 3-D imaging/holography helps enable that since sound is a 3 dimensional (actually 4) phenomenon. That's a big reason I think why I am fond of more omnidirectional (or even wider dispersion) speaker designs. SOund does not occur naturally in 1 dimension (width) only. ALthough more directional speakers combined with the rest might still do OK, its like fitting a square peg in a round hole.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,397 posts
 
"Only that what I am listening to sounds "real", and the 3-D imaging/holography helps enable that since sound is a 3 dimensional (actually 4) phenomenon. "

Surprizingly enough (at least to me at first) I've found that this even works for mono recordings, at least in some cases. It works best for me with either pair of my OHM Walsh omnis. Good mono recordings (remastered mono Muddy Waters for example) have a three dimensional ambiance to the point where sometimes I cannot tell for certain if it is a mono or stereo recording just by listening. Its an amazing thing! And with the OHM omnis, the 3-D image hold together coherently from most any listening position in from of the speakers. I can elect to listen from different seats in my listening room venue just like at a live performance and the only thing that changes is the perspective and sometimes, but not really in a noticeable way usually the timbre just very slighly since the OHM Walsh tweeters above 7-8 Khz or so are more directional. mbl omnis in comparison are full omni at all frequencies and very holographic as well set up well (maybe the best I have heard) but those crossover much lower and multiple times so the music is perhaps not quite as coherent or organic as the OHMs.

You gotta hear it to believe it sometimes I imagine.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Mapman wrote,

"Surprizingly enough (at least to me at first) I've found that this even works for mono recordings, at least in some cases. It works best for me with either pair of my OHM Walsh omnis. Good mono recordings (remastered mono Muddy Waters for example) have a three dimensional ambiance to the point where sometimes I cannot tell for certain if it is a mono or stereo recording just by listening. Its an amazing thing!"

Gosh, you can be quite the provocateur.

:-)
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,397 posts
 
q: Muddy Waters is:

a) a reknowned Chicago blues musician
b) a stream with high fine grained suspended sediment content
c) how H2O looks after most any discussion with Geoff

Thank you.....

:)
sabai OP
2,027 posts
 
Bryoncunningham,
You stated, "Unfortunately, even if you win this round, he will pivot to another topic. You have stumbled onto Geoff’s infinite staircase." Of course, you are absolutely correct. Which is why am staying in the wings at the moment. If he comes round with a new version of his same-old it will be evident and no comments will be necessary to state the obvious.

You have made some very interesting observations in your post.

You stated, "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." This is a very interesting point. I believe it is a bit more complex than this. We have only two ears but, with the help of the brain, we perceive 3-dimensional sound. The same with having two eyes but they enable us to see in 3 dimensions.

Stereo recordings pick up sound from all directions. Good audio systems are able to reproduce the ambient cues in stereo recordings 3-dimensionally. Presenting the sound from two directions, two speakers, is limiting to an extent, of course, especially when the equipment is not at a level that can reproduce 3-D sound in an effective way. In this sense it is not the 2 speakers that are limiting but the quality of the system itself.

You stated, "what is heard at the listening position isn’t a fully accurate representation of the recording space." That's true. It cannot be because our listening rooms are not studios or concert halls. The listening venue is a facsimile of the recording venue. The extent to which it is able to recreate that venue in a 3-D way depends on the quality of the system.

You stated, "In other words, a space in which the *apparent* size, shape, and materials of the room change from recording to recording." This is precisely what astonishes me about my own system. It can sound so different from recording to recording.

You stated, "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." I agree -- almost completely. Although my system gives an excellent feeling for the ambience of a church or other special venue where a recording has been made, it is the presentation of instruments and performers in a very life-like 3-D panorama that distinguishes its sound. It is the sense of realism of instruments and performers, as you point out, that is important here.

You stated, "But when the ambient cues of the recording space are lost, what goes with it is the illusion that "You are There."" Exactly. The more refined the system, the more it is able to pick up and reproduce ambient cues and the greater the resultant sense of "being there".
More to discover