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
10-05-12: Sabai
The question of what creates sound stage is an interesting one. In an open-air concert the sound does not come from all directions. It comes primarily from the amplification system used by the performers. In enclosed spaces like studios and concert halls reflected sound comes into play. All recordings contain the ambient cues for the venue where the performance took place. Better quality recordings contain more of this information. The better the audio system the more ambient cues can be retrieved and reassembled to create a more pleasing sound stage.
Hi Sabai - I think we are more or less in agreement. To clarify my views, here are some comments I made on the "They are here" vs. "You are there" thread...
________________________________

Ambient cues provide information about features of a physical space like: size, shape, materials, and object position. Every listening room contains an abundance of ambient cues. The specific characteristics of those ambient cues are relevant to the audiophile, for the following reason:

During playback, the ambient cues of the recording space are COMBINED with the ambient cues of the listening space.

The combination of the ambient cues of the recording space with the ambient cues of the listening space creates, in effect, a NEW SET OF AMBIENT CUES. I will call this new set of ambient cues the “playback space.” In other words:

Recording space + Listening space = Playback space

The playback space is what the audiophile actually hears at the listening position. It is the combination of the ambient cues of the recording space and the ambient cues of the listening space.

When trying to create the illusion that “you are there,” an audiophile tries to create a playback space whose ambient cues are as close as possible to the ambient cues of the recording space. As I see it, there are two possible ways to go about this:

1. Construct a listening space whose ambient cues resemble the ambient cues of the recording space.

2. Construct a listening space that minimizes ambient cues.

...Both approaches have liabilities, but it is the liabilities of the second approach that are relevant at the moment, for the following reason:

To the extent that you minimize the ambient cues of the listening space, the sound arriving at the listener will not be OMNIDIRECTIONAL. It will be BIDIRECTIONAL, assuming you are listening in stereo. Even if the recording has OMNIDIRECTIONAL ambient cues, what you will hear at the listening position is the BIDIRECTIONAL presentation of OMNIDIRECTIONAL ambient cues...

That difference is the fundamental limitation in the approach of minimizing the ambient cues of the listening room when trying to create the illusion that "you are there."
___________________________________

I went on in the same thread to propose a third approach to creating the illusion that "you are there"...

3. Construct a listening space that is acoustically ambiguous.

I believe that, of the three approaches, this last one allows for the widest range of recording spaces to be realistically represented in the listening room.

As I mentioned in my last post, I don't believe that the illusion that "you are there" is the same thing as "holographic sound." I think the latter is possible without the former. Having said that, I also believe that efforts to enhance the illusion that "you are there" will usually enhance the experience of "holographic sound."

IMO, IME, YMMV, etc.

Bryon
Regarding the Steinmusic Harmonizer review, it is interesting that the "controversial Jack Bybee" is not referred to as "controversial" but in glowing terms as "the 'Dean of Audio' himself, Jack Bybee..."
Sabai wrote,

"Regarding the Steinmusic Harmonizer review, it is interesting that the "controversial Jack Bybee" is not referred to as "controversial" but in glowing terms as "the 'Dean of Audio' himself, Jack Bybee...""

Uh, I'm pretty controversial means there are two opposing views. I'm also pretty sure that those who actually try the Bybee products are on the Pro Side, and would, of course, support him. And those who haven't tried the Bybees, who are simply reacting to the word "quantum" or its size, whatever, are on the Against Side. You know the type. :-)
Bryoncunningham,
I have not read your earlier comments. But I will do so today. You stated, "Recording space + Listening space = Playback space", which is quite accurate, of course. I don't know how to make my room acoustically ambiguous.

I think the best we can hope for, ultimately, is to improve our systems so that we can get as close to "being there" as possible. An actual recreation of "being there" will always be elusive for the reasons that you state. It sounds like the Steinmusic Harmonizer is a step in the right direction. It has been around for nearly 3 years and has had universally good reviews. I note that, according to reviews, it works even better when used with Synergistic Research ART. The latter does things that the Steinmusic Harmonizer does not do, apparently.

Although I have not had the opportunity to audition the Steinmusic I would venture to say that it still will not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If it is introduced into a run-of-the-mill audio system I don't imagine its effects will even come close to its effects in a more "evolved" sound system.
Bryoncunningham,
I am reading your earlier thread which is excellent. I have a few observations.

I have no idea what the word "neutral" means when referring to audio equipment because all audio equipment imparts its own characteristics to playback. IMO, all audio equipment adds "color" playback.

I listen mostly to classical music as well as some jazz, blues and popular music. I am from that generation that used to have a "collection". I still do.

I think one important thing we have overlooked is that music is essentially in the mind. There are the room, the recording and the equipment. But the ears are connected to the brain. It is the mind where all music plays. What we are actually talking about is the recreation of sound in the listening room of the mind because the actual room will never resemble the actual recording venue. Although a larger room may help reproduce in the mind the "being there" feeling, with some kinds of recordings, I believe you can have that "big sound" in the mind in a smaller room, as well, if the sense of scale is being reproduced by a well-evolved system.

In my system, with good recordings, the sound expands well beyond the walls. The reflected sound of my room will come into play but only to an extent. With my system, the reflected sound of the venue is much more predominant and important than that of the room and the mind perceives this as the "being there" effect.

I believe that room treatments like Synergistic Research ART and Steinmusic Harmonizers can totally change room limitations and their effect on how the mind perceives the sound. I have Shakti Hallographs in place with SR ART yet to be unboxed. The Steinmusic Harmonizers may follow in due course.

Bryoncunningham, regarding your earlier thread:

Cbw723 stated, "Finally, I'm not sure how much the playback system's coloration is an issue. Assuming the system is good enough to produce playback with a convincing live or nearly live sound (as judged by the system's owner/primary listener), it seems unlikely that the ambience cues are going to be distorted to a point that they become an impediment to a "you are there" experience.". I agree. But I think that coloration can become a problem with mismatched components or cables/tweaks. In this regard, the right choice of components and cables/tweaks is vitally important. This has been by experience with my system.

Learsfool paraphrased another poster, "you cannot put into your listening room something that was not in the recording in the first place." I agree. This goes along with my notion that, regarding the equipment's effect on sound reproduction, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Both of these elements will decide the quality of the sound more than room characteristics, IMO.

He also stated, "The engineer then takes these tracks, mixes them, and then adds digital reverberation to create a false ambience, one that he thinks sounds good.". Which is why I prefer classical recordings that recreate the actual venue with mikes, not with remixing like "the older recordings from the so-called "golden age," where folks like Mercury and RCA just hung a couple of mikes up out in the concert hall and therefore created much more of a "you are there" experience than anything recorded today.".

When Learsfool observed regarding a Berstein recording at the Met, "That recording has great sonics which really do create a "you are there" experience, but you need a system that has an appropriate soundstage and images well to fully experience it". This is exactly what I refer to as the silk purse. And when he states, "I am merely trying to explain why musicians place such a high priority on soundstaging and imaging. They are crucial to creating a "you are there" experience.", I could not agree more.

Bryon, when you stated, "I suppose there is no reason why, in theory, a virtual recording space couldn’t be as interesting as a real one.", if you listen to Zenph recreations I think you will understand why I feel, although they are technically excellent, they do not have the feeling of "alive" and "real" that actual live studio or concert recordings have. I have all of the Zenph recordings.

I also agree with Learsfool when he stated, "Hi Bryon - we are generally in agreement here. Where I would differ with you would be on the subject of the listening room being much of a factor at all in picking up what you are calling "ambient cues" in the recording ... The equipment would have a much greater effect on it in general." And, concerning ambient cues, I agree with Learsfool about Sonus Faber speakers. I have Joseph Audio Pulars that do an excellent job in this department.

I agree with Learsfool's observation that, with concert hall sound, "the overall effect is not PRIMARILY omni-directional, only secondarily so." As well, I agree with his observation that "listening rooms do not come anywhere near capable of recreating the original recording space, if this space is a concert hall (or a good jazz club, for that matter) - so this means that the listening space will ALWAYS be fundamentally different from the recording space, as I believe you put it, in these cases, and this is why I believe you are overestimating it's importance."

Rtn1,
I agree completely with you when you stated, "I have achieve[d] the 'you are there' experience for the majority of my recordings. This is achieved by lowering the 'noise' and removing electronic artifacts. I put noise in quotes because there is also noise and distortion you cannot hear. I believe it also takes a highly resolving source (i.e. DAC). I do not think the recording is a limitation. The spatial cues are there, they are masked by most equipment." This describes what Bybee products do so well in my system.