What Does Holographic Sound Like?

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.

I realize now that I am all in with tweak, the verb, whereas with tweak the noun its way more hit or miss, mostly miss. I just really do not think getting really good home audio sound is so hard that the rigjht knowledge and addressing the fundamentals via tweaking can't solve the problem for most.