Carver sonic holography

I'll fess up. I still have a Carver Sonic Hollogram Generator (stand alone unit that goes in the tape loop). When engaged, the bottom end loses some definition, but the dramatically expanded (wider and deeper) sound stage is a guilty pleasure that's hard to resist.

If I had to choose between the CSHG & a Bose Wave radio, I'd probably take the Bose. It's amazing that so many people here seem to like it. One of my biggest disappointments in gear was when I went to audition the Carver Amazing Loudspeakers. They were hooked up to the Sonic Holographic carver amp and preamp. The salesman was quite impressed with this technology and spoke of how well it sounded. To my son and I it was the worst sounding system we'd ever heard. We walked out amazed that they would even show a system which sounded so bad.

Sonic Holography did work, but you had to set the speakers up just right and "sit with your head in a vice" to make it worth while. I doubt one could just hastly hook it up and flip it on and hear much improvement to the sound field. (I wonder if someone just happens to have one for sale right now? hete). It worked by cancelling out unneeded replicted sounds that collapse and flatten the sound stage. You can maybe search around and find a Bob Carver white paper or even the manual that came with the product had a nice run down on the theory. And I don't know who in the right mind would sell the pre for 20$?

For a more modern, computer-based version of "sonic holography" (interaural crosstalk cancellation), see ambiophonics:

http://www.ambiophonics.org/

omnisonix, omnisonic imager is the original 3d sound in which bob carver came up with his own version, it was around 1979, and sonic holography in 1980. Whether you know it or not, many sound processors of today used by pro gear and on tv, home theater manufacturers use a form of sonic holography in the form of BBE, BEHRINGER, PEAVEY KOSMOS, DBX, aphex and the more known SRSLABS with their WOW surround. It's basically simulated surround. Several years ago, acoustic research came out with the TDS 202 spatial enhancer. In the early 90's hughes came up with their version. Some people like their music FLAT and unprocessed, people like myself who like to expand their sound, use sound processors to enhance the dynamics and soundstage of our system. It's not everyone, just like pure audio is not for everyone. Not everyone is going to enjoy tubes or stereo only or unprocessed. Even in the 80's with the dbx expanders, not everyone was into processing or expanding their tape decks or turntables. From my over 33 yrs of experience of using sound processors and being in audio, sound processors such as equalizers, reverbs, digital delay, omnisonic imagery, dbx range expanders, and sonic holography have always brought out signals in the recording I normally don't hear listening to a regular flat unprocessed amplified sound from whatever source be it a turntable or a cd player. People think that using unprocessed amplification from a source is the natural way, maybe if it was a live performance, but even with a live performance or a recording, engineers and musicians always use sound processors in the mix and therefore it is never really UNPROCESSED, that is why people is not natural aren't really making any sense to me unless the recording is that of a single instrument musician such as a solo guitar performance which would be an exemption to the rule, where as most band or group recorded music has sound processing in the mix therefor NOT SO NATURAL!