How important is it for you to attain a holographic image?

@orpheus10

—- “Without a shadow of a doubt, the most desirable aspect of high end audio is "The Holographic sound stage",”

Correction: FOR YOU that is the most desirable aspect.

I’m often puzzled by how many audiophiles confuse their own subjective preferences and criteria as if it is THE goal to which all do or should aspire.

I happen to really value dimensional imaging in my system, but plenty of people don’t have that as a priority. Good for them. People are different.

Also, I find it weird that a very “holographic” dimensional sonic image is being depicted as some hard to achieve result. Nah. I’ve found it pretty easy. I just choose speakers that image/soundstage/disappear well to begin with, and care with positioning and listener orientation brings it out very nicely.

Yes other components can aid the phenomenon to some degree - I’ve had many different amps, CD players/DACS preamps, different turntables, phono stages etc and yes the imaging/dimensionality has “flexed”
somewhat, sometimes.


But by far the bulk of the dimensional imaging comes from the speaker design/room acoustics/speaker positioning. No expensive cabling needed, no tweaking-to-the-max, no taking apart and messing with every component required.

"I like what sounds good to me". That seems to be a reasonable comment. Let me tell you where it leads. In the late 70's, "graphic equalizers" were the rage; my preamp had "turnover tone controls"; they doubled your ability to control bass and treble, plus I had a "dynamic range expander", that flashed a tiny red led when it was operating.

Has anyone visited a fun house with the funny mirrors? You know the one's where you're tall and skinny in one, short and fat in another, watermelon head in the next one, and on and on....

We did this with our music; not enough bass; no problem, slide them sliders, flip that turnover tone control switch; don't quit until it "sounds good to me".

What was the artist trying to say? "I didn't know that was important; what I want to hear is more important; after all, I'm paying the cost to be the boss."

Without realizing it, we were distorting the music to such an extent that it would have been unrecognizable to the artist who created it.

Back to the music and the artist; he or she spent their entire lives in an effort to learn music, and say what they wanted to say with music, the same as a writer. Would you buy a book and rewrite it? But it's OK to mess with what someone considers their work of art.

"To be, or not to be, that is the question"?

Now that I have described what I don't want, I'll get to what I do want;
 
—- “Without a shadow of a doubt, the most desirable aspect of high end audio is "The Holographic sound stage",”

I stand by that statement 100%, because if you're trying to get to the bottom of the pool you have to pass through the first three feet. If you're trying to get to the top of the building, you have to travel past the first three floors. (but not if the pool is only two feet deep, or it's only a two story building)

Since whether you know it or not; it is 100% impossible to get holography without having the other desirable elements of audio; just as it is impossible to get to the bottom of a 10 foot deep pool without going through the first three feet, or get to the top of a tall building without going past the first three floors.

Newbee,  you are absolutely correct.  I simply listen to music (all of it has depth and air, the fringe benefit of having sought "holography"), and revel in it when the recording reveals such.

When I hear this revealed to the extent of being able to visualize the artist in three dimensional space, I will make a note of it, and post it on this thread; it might take a few days.

@newbee  Hence my belief that full-scale orchestral recordings are the toughest--and to some extent, impossible--test of systems and the rooms they're installed in.