Holographic imaging

Tvad,
I certainly belong to the first group you have mentioned and although I enjoy music from whatever source and rig, I am after "the absolute sound" with an ear trained on live music from early childhood on. Hence what many here would call "good sound" for me is far from it, if I would listen critically to gear and not just to the music. After having had a chance to hear how Carver cleverly does his sound-shaping I found it artificial and euphonic, wouldn't have it. I'd probably have the same reaction with the H-Cat, because for me, these attempts destroy that what is real in spacial information in a good recording, where you can recognize the hall, with their induced artefacts. I don't like that, because I want go get as close to the real thing as possible. So if I am familiar with a hall, know how music sounds there from my favorite seat and I have recordings from the self same hall, am able to hear how the sound is reflected from the walls, can hear the side reflections and the back of the hall in the recording as the music spreads out in my room, there is indeed a sense of what one might call holography, because you can sense the body of the orchestra within the hall, can, if the score permits, even identify say the first violin, cello etc. If there is a soloist playing with the orchestra, his or her instrument can have its own holographic image, even bloom in the sense of air as I have tried to describe it.
I have, in my career as an audiophile. tried to enhance this by artificial means, but found that it destroys the "gestalt" of the original recording. There are of course many ways that lead to Rome, to the enjoyment of music in our home and luckily we are all free to find our particular ways to aural happiness.

I think Tvad nailed it, there are two camps.

Mapman can go on and on about the advantages of whatever we're talking about, but he'll never convince those of us in Camp 1, me included, that what he's proposing is desired in our systems. Likewise, Camp 2 isn't going to like what I propose and it'll be found "lacking."

Dave

Tvad,

I'm probably more in the first camp in terms of how I set up my system, but the inherent flawed nature of many of the recorded musical performances that are my favorites forces me to be content in the second when needed. For example, I have no control over how many of the early Beatle's recordings in particular were produced. I have to accept the limitations of the sound because the music and performances are exceptional and make up for the lackluster sound.

I am happiest though with great music and performances that also happen to be well recorded so I can in fact practically exist in the first camp.

I am a music first guy. I will not not listen to something just because it sounds "recorded". I'd rather it sound more "lifelike" if it could, but it is what it is.

"There are many ways that lead to Rome....."

And some of them pass right by Sofia's house, and you pause to think of her as you once did in the past. :-)

Lets face it, very few recordings were made in a fashion that I believe is required to set up the possibility that an audio system might produce a sonic hologram, as I would hear it.

As a pratical matter most everything we hear is the result of multi-miking, mixing down, compression, often by a low-end recording engineer in an anechoic studio or an unoccupied symphony hall (an echo chamber perhaps?). So if we are happy with our systems when it can reproduce this music well and even remotely remind us of a live event we should be content.

Mapman, You've got the right idea. You know what you hear, you know what you believe, and you're undetered by anything which might threaten your sonic/intellectual illusions. We should all be so fortunate, but we chase dreams anchored in the opinions of others.

Newbee,

I'm undetered because I've heard a lot of variations of very good live and reproduced sound over the years and know that there are many ways to skin a cat. We each make our own best informed choices.