Can a system sound too Holographic?
Hi friends :)
So I got a question for those interested. For me, having a 2 channel system with a Holographic soundstage is very desirable.
I bring this up because I had lent some Centerstage 2 footers ( isolation devices) to a friend to try out. To make a long story short, he likes what they are doing under his Lumin T3, however he mentioned that it might be "Too Holographic". I don't know about you guys and gals, but that wouldn't really be a problem for me. Your thoughts or experiences please. Anyone experience a soundstage that was too Holographic?
I sometimes hear systems with no center image--everything seems to be coming from one speaker or the other--the opposite of "speakers disappear". People seem to like this sound but maybe that is what your friend means by "too holographic". To me holographic means the vocals are front center left. Guitar front center right. bass back left. Drums back right. backup vocals right....etc Jerry |
I would like to hear other opinions here about the meaning of "holographic", but I don’t agree with yours. I always understood it to mean three dimensional images of voices and instruments. I have only heard it in person twice. Once was a pair of Watt Puppy 5’s, and there did seem to be ghosts of the singer and the instruments in three-dimensional space, but overall, I didn’t like the sound as it was too thin. As far as something being "too holographic", I can’t imagine what that person was hearing when he said it, but he was probably describing some other sonic anomaly and using the wrong word. |
Audio is a journey that often has a different route and destination for different people. A lot of systems add significant coloration that might be perceived as "pleasant" by some. Not my cup of tea, but I can certainly understand how someone might enjoy it, and might not want to know the audio truth that could interfere with their enjoyment of the music. My wife for example! 😉 |
One of the most incredible system I have ever heard was a Wilson Bamm or Wham or something like that / Rowland. The system was set up perfectly. Images were precise and sounded spherical suspended in the sound stage… one 12’ forward 3’ above the floor at 10 o’clock, another 5’ above the floor and 6’ at 2 o’clock… like that. It was the most incredible experience I ever had. I came away just blown away, saying… “That is the most incredible thing I have ever heard… I do not want that… but that is incredible.
So, yes.
Some folks want to be engulfed in sound… enfolded, or have a wall wash over them. Holographic imaging does not do that to them. So, yes again. You’ll see some dynamic speakers system six feet high with tons of midrange and woofers. Typically those are designed for more of a wall of sound and less for holographic sound. |
@roxy54 I think we agree on what holographic means. I was trying to describe what you described....but my speculation on what "too holographic" means may be totally wrong. |
Understood. I also agree with @ghdprentice that while that type of holography is interesting, it's not something that's important to me. I care more about timbre and dynamics. Other things are secondary.. |
Holographic is a balance ratio between "sound source " volume dimensions and localization and listener envelopment factor... ASW/LV There is no such thing as a too much amount of holography.. ( But a soundfield can be wrongly and badly distorted in the room yes by lack of holograpical control ) Why ? Because in acoustic experience , some ratio must be optimized , when the acoustic conditions are set right in a small room, this ratio become optimal it cannot AT THE END be too much or not enough ... The sound sources can be experienced almost as point or tiny surfaces and the soundfield can be outside the listener body completely... This is not holography... We can have imaging differentiation AND fIxed soundstage dimensions without holography... ( With holography, the soundstage vary in dimensions with the recording choices in each album in a good acoustic or with a good headphone but as most room most headphone are not good ) This is why most reviewers in non dedicated room recognize only two aspects of the soundfield in their review , the imaging and almost fixed soundstaging and miss the holography.. Any ideal soundfield exhibit three aspects not two... I did not pick up this in a book by the way, i created it in my room reading acoustic articles to set my experiments and created my devices...... Those who dont bother about holography never experience it fully ... Sorry... But yes timbre set right is mandatory and the first thing to create... But once timbre experience is there as relatively natural, to experience immersiveness we need an optimal ratio between sound sources dimensions and localizations for holographical experience.. The objective perfect way to experience it, without be bother by acoustic problems very difficult to solve right is NOW simple : we must buy a Dr. Choueri virtual acoustic room program or dac with his BACCH filters... This is way more perfect than my homemade experiments and it is a plug and play device ... it takes me 2 years full time to do it and only to some extent ... Now i lost my room.. Happily my headphone give me an astounding soundfield but it is another story...( i cannot afford the Dr Choueri filters system for now and anyway i am happy as it is ) By the way saying that holography may distract the listener from the music is like saying that a great acoustic hall for an orchestra distract us from listening the orchestra... That does not make sense... |
ghdprentice, Your distinguishing the difference between 'wall of sound' and holography, is interesting and rarely made. Makes me think about how classical orchestral music presents itself live that clearly distinguishes itself from recorded. With that type of music I think I would prefer the wall of sound, but not so much with small forces, solos, vocals etc in which I prefer specificity. Perhaps your observation underlays why many seem to reject 'holography' i.e. specificity of images, in large orchestral/classical(?) music. Works for me! :-) |
Very interesting distinction i never even thought about... Thanks for putting it ghdprentice... "Wall of sound" is for me the definition of hell... Holography is heaven... 🤓 The main difference is the decibels level and in one case silence and relaxing sound at normal ; in the other case body rape loudness and agression with premature tinnitus and deafness... For sure i put it in an extreme way but.... Rock concert are not designed acoustically as small music concert hall ... Did i understand well ? The concept of "wall of sound" was created by Phil Spector... It sold a lot of tickets and impairment hearing aids 30 years later......😁😊
But true holography may engulf the listener in sound too with sound sources near him or behind the speakers or around the listener... It is recording dependant... But not with intense dynamic and over the board bass pressure rushing to the listener from the speakers in front of him... But true holography in a small room is very difficult to create...With headphone it is very difficult too because no crosstalk and there is not acoustical control of the shell in most headphones..
|
Have you ever heard a properly set up mbl system?
Having been there and heard that I can assure you the answer to the OP question is a resounding no. Few systems out there otherwise can even come close in regards to the 3D holographic soundstage that a good mbl setup in a proper room can deliver. We are talking a totally different league from most anything else. Even with mbl it can only happen if the room allows it. |
Too holographic takes too much attention from my flowing into the music. It takes too much of my intellect attention to be able to flow freely into the music. I listen to music to relax and to sort of float into it, not to analyze it. I used to analyze the crap out of it while upgrading my system, but I no longer enjoy that part of it now that the system no longer needs to be analyzed to please me. This is a good thing. |
I dont understand why for someone holographical is analytical at all... It is not my experience... On the opposite your are like there with the music, and any need for concentration stop, it is so relaxing, because there is no need for any effort to hear any instrument localized and in his own volume of space; i dont undertand equating it with analytical... Anyway holography is not the results of the design of the amplifier and speakers alone but essentially of their right acoustical integration in a room... And no recording is the same,... Jazz trio does not sound and is not recoreded as religious chorus of 16 century in a big church... Here in chorus music nothing is more relaxing and less analytical than human voices perfectly distributed in all my room... Holography is highly recording dependant for the way the music is recreated in the room.., No holography means all recording sound way more the same in a FIXED oncde for all soundstage... In holography the soundstage dimensions and form from my music albums differ and vary a lot... |
The only, truly holographic imaging I ever experienced was at Acoustic Image, back when Eliot Midwood has his storefront down on Ventura Blvd. I was so taken by it that I stood up and tried to move around the images. They stayed stable but lessened in intensity as I neared them and tried to go around them but the ones further away stayed put. It was the most surreal experience I've had and like @mapman mentioned, the MBLs come pretty darn close. Listening to them takes me back to that day at Acoustic Image. It must have been the synergy of the gear, room and speaker placement but it was a joy to behold. So, no, one cannot have too much of a holographic event as it just completes the magic needed to thoroughly enjoy the music. All the best, |
For sure the design of the speakers help a lot too... I just made a search of MBL speakers, i did not know them and the design is amazing... I dont doubt in a good room that holography will be stupendous... Wow! The complete MBL systems cost 500,000 bucks... i was proud of my holographical room, way less better but costing nothing..,. i must not look at these MBL systems because i already had a glimpse of holography and nothing beat this immersiveness.. The only cheap way to gain this soundfield is the virtual room systems of Dr. Choueri BACCH filters system for something near 10,000 ...
|
@mahgister see speaker number 10 mentioned here. https://ohmspeaker.com/news/top-10-greatest-speakers/ |
Ok it is a vintage speakers mapman is it not ? Way less costly than newer design a cheap 140,000 bucks ... certainly interesting in S. Q. ...Thanks i regret the lost of my room... 😁 i Cannot afford them but this article made me curious... The Ohm seems very interesting and no too costly... It will be for younger folk in a bigger house than me ... Hopefully some headphone can help to cure sadness cominf from the lost of room/speakers ...
The article is interesting:
« 10. MBL Radialstrahler 101E Mk.IIBack story:When MBL’s uniquely designed speakers first appeared in the early 1980’s, Marty Gersten concluded that although they did use travelling-wave transducers like the Walsh design, it was not a patent infringement since it was done in a different configuration with multiple drivers.The MBL Radialstrahlers have received many excellent reviews from all around the world – with good reasons: they look amazing and sound very good. Recent update:A few years ago, I took a trip to England to meet with a potential Ohm distributor and demonstrate the custom product I was suggesting that they sell.I was hoping to get them to build the cabinets themselves and to buy the Walsh drivers, subwoofers and crossovers from Ohm. I expected they could retail them for around $3000 per pair. I arrived in London and went to a local hotel.We had timed the trip to coincide with the opening of the Heathrow Audio Show.Our agreed-upon plan was to go through the show and listen to the best systems on display.We would be auditioning all our competition in just a couple of days.I had brought a bunch of CDs for my presentation; but only took the Alpine Demo CD to the show to use as a “standard” source for all the systems we auditioned. I have heard this CD on literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of speakers and know several of the cuts note for note. At the show many, many high-end speakers were demonstrated, either in their own rooms or in high-end electronics manufacturers’ rooms.Many of these speakers had received rave reviews in the audio press.In a consumer show, you want to sound your best and no expense was spared to make great demonstrations.The prices varied from under $2,000 to over $30,000 per pair for the speakers alone. And into six figures for complete systems! I know what this CD sounds like on my speakers. As I went from room to room I became more and more depressed.Many of the speakers sounded very good to my companions; but none sounded like mine to me.It is a hard sell trying to convince someone that this many well reviewed speakers are all wrong and my sound it correct.I had fought this uphill battle in Japan a few years earlier; so I was getting discouraged while my potential customers were happily discussing the pros and cons of the speakers we auditioned. Then we came to the MBL room. They had their Radialstrahler 101 E MK II on display powered by their own electronics.They put on my CD and let the 101s play. I internally breathed a great sigh of relief.Here was the only pair of speakers that sounded like mine.The MBL representative happily spend nearly an hour demonstrating all his CDs to us enthusiastic listeners as other show goers came and went sharing our enthusiasm.We all agreed, these were the best sounding speakers in the show by far. And at $140,000 for the system, we understood they could be in a totally different class with a different sound. After a short stop at their number two choice (to confirm their earlier impressions), they were excited to hear my speakers. We unpacked the Ohms in their acoustic lab (a converted garage). There we tested them with a 300-Watt amplifier to confirm the speakers had survived the flight from NY.Then we took them into the main living room section of the home.I was a bit concerned about this space as the left wall was almost totally open to the dining room/open kitchen area. They hooked up the speakers and I auditioned the same CD as we had been hearing all day.The speakers sounded correct to me in the room and the others were amazed.The Ohms sounded closer to the MBLs than any other speaker we had auditioned.Then we cranked the system up to “see what they could do” and I noticed the sound was getting a bit “hard”, maybe distorting in the high end.Still, my hosts were exceedingly pleased with the speakers’ performance.The host explained they were using a 35-Watt CD/receiver that his wife normally used for background music.They had wanted to hear them in a real-life setup, not in a “cost-no-object” system like the systems we had been listening to at the show. Although we never came to a distribution agreement, I felt the experience was well worth the cost in time and money. Although both the fully omnidirectional MBL and the original fully omnidirectional Ohm As and Ohm Fs require “far-from-walls” placement, they all keep their sonic balance from anywhere in the listening room and create a spectacular soundscape in their sweet-spot. And like the original Walshs, that spectacular soundscape moves with you as you leave the center sweet-spot and almost totally collapses when you are in front of one speaker.The controlled directivity of the later generations, called Walsh 2 and beyond, addresses this problem better than any other speaker in the world. The MBLs subwoofer is a bandpass design that impacts the transition to the main ‘footballs’.In Ohm’s new 20/20K Series, we addressed this problem by making the subwoofer use a standard acoustic suspension design to match the acoustic suspension Walsh satellite sitting on top of the subwoofer. So, there you have it.My “Top Ten” from the time I was in college to the present – each successive “Greatest” adding something to at least my world of sound, audio and music. Let me just add here, with a note of pride, “Dollar-for-Dollar,” I fully believe that the current Ohm Walsh speakers deliver the finest, most accurate and most enjoyable sound available, from the widest sweet-sweep in the world! Good Listening! John » |
@aniwolfe I would either like to try those footers or I’ll have whatever your friend is having. Jokes aside, is it possible that in the process of installing these footers he changed a setting and reversed a phase? Or may be connected his speakers out of phase? |
I have never heard of those footers and have to wonder if the post is a plug. I fail to see how footers under a streamer can create such a change to the extent of holography with no other changes to the system. But let's for the sake of argument accept the premise that it did. As much as I disdain the idea that there is an "absolute sound", I have never heard holography at a live show including live shows of acoustic jazz trios. With certain recordings I have experienced holographic imaging with my old standmounts. I think for example of Joe Henry's "Scar" and the first track "Richard Pryor Addresses a Tearful Nation". Properly set up, a decent system will create the sensation of holographic imaging with a recording that has that information successfully recorded and embedded into it. For those of you who equated the OP's question to "can you have too much money" and such, you are reacting with your brain, imho, and not from your heart and out of experience. In the real world it is not natural and would soon prove distracting. If it is the artist's and producer's intent, it can be enjoyable. If it is not, it becomes an unnatural parlor trick and distraction. I doubt very much that there is a system on Earth, without digital processing, that is holographic with all recordings. Without processing, it has to be embedded in the recording or it can not happen. |
+1 @larsman |
Imaging differentiation of the sound sources is not the holographic volume distribution of each sound source and the soundstaging three dimensions vary and are not fixed, the holographic perception is recording dependant and is related to the abilities of the speakers in a acoustically controlled room to give the best recording specific translation..The speakers design must be good to begin with... but it is not enough... At least with normal AVERAGE speakers under 5,000 bucks... With very costly speakers i never experimented ...The MBL seens able to give holography with minimal acoustic control...With my average but good speakers Mission Cyrus, holographical expeerience was possible only after a complete control of my room... Impossible in a living room... Probably the MBL speakers made it possible in a living room optimally organized with no heavy acoustic devices and treatment by the virtue of his specific omnidirectional design... bUt it cost at least 100,000 bucks... 😁😊 It would be for sure more clear and more detailed than my Mission Cyrus vintage paid 50 bucks..,. For sure PERFECT holography exist with virtual room acoustic with Dr. Choueri BACCH filters... Read about it to understand WHY this is so...here too it is not a trick which will distract you from music at all... Many people think that way because they had never experience holography really... Holography is not A PARLOUR trick, but an acoustically controlled phenomenan by a set of acoustic ratio for each different room... Digital processing can do it but because i never bought a good digital processing system i dont know...The DIGITAL PROCESSING of dr. Choeri BACCH filters will not degraded timbre experience and will gove holographical translation of each recording as it is set ...it is not a trick, choueri is a classical music lover and a physicist acoustician... He dont sell tricks.. My experience was with acoustic control of the room with Helmholtz resonators grid and "sound lensing from the speakers" with foldable screen and the right balance in reflective waves and direct one and the right balance of absortion/diffusion reflection ratio... i also use distributed tuned resonators to improve mechanically by some mechanical crossfeed between speakers helping the localization around the room... But if the recording process is bad no speakers/room can improve it only making it more interesting and less disgusting soundwise... But even with the best recording in the world if the relation between speakers and room is not optimal, there will be very poor holography... Holography is not a trick it is an acoustic phenomena studied in acoustic laboratory .. Studied with electronical and/or mechanical parameters too.... |
that was my first thought as well… |
IMO, No such thing as too holographic if all components are leveled matched. The only time I find something my system is too holographic is when I upgrade to a next level component which then reveals the weakness of the other components in the chain. Then it's "too holographic". Once I level match the chain, the balance is returned and the new found transparency only reveals more in the music and not the limitations (cable, dac, amp, etc.). |
@roxy54 Sorry to confuse. I'm speaking about the means and not the end. IMO, Holographic is obtained when the stereo phase is nice, clean and separated with zero noise. The only way to get those qualities is if your components, cables and power supply and conditioning are at a high enough level. When you achieve those qualities, your music becomes holographic. Higher levels of holographic stereo phase images can be obtained with improvements in the chain. IMO, when you improve one component but not the other and your system is resolving enough you can start to hear limitations in other parts of your chain. Improve the limitation and the balance is returned, and the holographic qualities become more so. Too holographic isn't a problem if the signal is clean and balanced. It's why people spend money. Too holographic with high frequency noise is a problem. Or to holographic and receding bass. Or too holographic and forward souding (too mid centric) |
I once heard a pair of Fried Model H - two satellites and an enormous stereo subwoofer, a rectangular box containing two 18 foot (I think) channels ported out the right and the left. (As much as I love my REL subs, I suspect a Hegeman type subwoofer such as the Fried might be better.) Incidentally, the Fried Model H is a rare model nowadays; I’ve been looking for a long time. The sound was everywhere. It was like being under water and the water was sound - like no other system I’ve heard. It was wonderfully warm, rich, as full as can be, lush, very beautiful, mesmerizing - inoffensive, listenable for long periods - but I do not recall a coherent soundstage. It’s the kind of system I’d want as a second system - kind of what I suspect the Design Acoustics D-12’s sound like - another difficult to find pair of speakers. So, was it too holographic? Yes, by far. I’ve heard the recordings I heard on that system; they have a coherent soundstage that the Frieds obliterated. My current system would render everything right where it should be. But, as I said, I’ve wanted a pair since I began this endeavor five years ago. Nature recordings would sound particularly fine on that system. |
@mapman ...*L* Only vaguely jealous of you having heard some MBLs' IRL... I'd love to.....but, would be insanely tempted to sell what's left of my immediate family into leather slavery to the aliens and what's left of my organs to a mystery market.... "Use or eat with whatever, I don't give a ....." When I first heard of the MBLs.....I thought "Game may not be over, but they can only make them smaller....less $s' would be nice, too..." ;) Nice to read that John (and others...*S*...feel that the Ohms' (and Walsh in general) can still punch at Goliaths' knees... ;) All that's needed is to pop a little higher. One might get kicked....but you've gotten some attention. *G* Holographic....and here I thought that was the Idea in the first place. Something to stare at... Once upon a place... I owned a C9....with the Kenwood L07 system (tuner/pre/07M mono amps, the cables for them, an AudioControl C-101 eq with the mic for room eq, ESS AMT-1Cs', Sony CD, Revox A77, Technics SL-10... ...about as SOTA as I could afford to go at that time, in that place... (Of Course, there was Better...There's Always Better...But, It worked.) And, so did the C9....when the recording and that 'Polk in the box ' agreed to 'mesh'. When they did....Didn't need no herbal or chem compensation, no... When no, easy 'nuff to bypass... Of late, I've been able to edge back to 'more of that' with surround Walsh...and surround Heils; yes, dipoles & omnis. Haven't gotten around to the SMGa Maggies', but... It's nice to have goals...*L* I let that C9 slip away..... Time to revisit....'Back to the Future Through the Past!' (Oh, the last comment on the HF VCorner....is not me...but note the date....) Surrealistically yours, J |
You don’t need to spend $140k to achieve a holographic experience. And you don’t need a Dr. Choueri BACCH filters system. I am a big fan of a holographic experience. A previous version of my system created a wide, high sound stage with clear, localized instruments but it all occurred in front of me. My current system now has clear, localized instruments that can occur beside me and sometimes behind me while the vocals occur in the center about 6 feet in front of me. This might be awful for some people. To me, it’s heaven. The effect depends on the producer’s vision, of course. If you want to check how immersive the sound is on your system, play Coda by Ryoji Ikeda. It’s a kind of boring song but it starts by playing two bells. The 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc bells plays directly to my right. If I turn my head 90 degrees, I’d be staring at the apparent source of the sound. Coherence, clarity, timbre, and so many other things are responsible for making a compelling experience. But too much holography? For some, sure. |
I’ve always thought there was a natural tension between sound stage and the bloom of the individual instruments. If they are narrowly or tightly placed in the soundstage but not allowed to expand within their positions - too holographic only because there’s not enough bloom. Ideally you would have as much as both as possible, without detriment to the other category. |
The answer depends upon your point of comparison. If your objective is accurate reproduction of recorded music, regardless of whether that is a close miked studio recording or a single miked live venue recording, the the answer is no. If your point of comparison is the ”absolute sound” of sitting in a live performance, and your goal is every recording must sound absolute, then the answer is yes. The former is the realistic point of comparison. The goal should be building the most resolving system within your budget and personal taste. Whether that image is forward or further back, the space between images, a sharp or defuse leading edge, the air around images is equipment dependent and a personal decision. For me, I want the closest resolution and imaging to that the mike and recording equipment picked I probably fall into the minority in this forum because I prefer a more forward image of high resolution and distinct leading edge, but also with air and decay. Like good bourbon, to each our personal taste. PS. I prefer Four Roses upper end single barrel version. Upfront. Not sweet and relaxed.
|
good point @roxy54 i remember several years back, i bought a preamp from a nice older gentleman locally, he insisted i come in to hear his system, of which he was very proud i sat there, big focals driven by $15000 mcintosh hybrids, in a beautiful home in classic styling... then he played music, it was all phasey, sound coming from the sides, hole in the middle -- so looked at his cabling, sure enough one speaker had black on red and vice versa... i asked him to sit down, i swapped the connection... asked him how he liked the sound, his face turned red, he said, ’’whaddidja do? holy moly’ ... he was more than a little embarrassed, but happy and thankful ... lol |
There is Zero chance what your friend describes is the result of a ‘Footer’ change! There just isn’t that much of an affect that comes from isolation unless it was SO bad before that his system surely wasn’t ‘holographic’ to begin with!! Tweaks are tweaks and they do not results in a sea-change unless a severe issue already exists. |
In the visual world a holograph is typically something that has 3 dimensionality in appearance, but is also somewhat ethereal, lacking solidness. You can partially see through it. It’s obviously has no substance. My idea of something sounding too holographic would be sound that lacks fullness, solidness. What comes to mind for me is some piezo compression drivers I tried years ago. They sounded magical in a way that was hard to describe. Ethereal and holographic were words that came to my mind. These were on large horns and went all the way down to 800 Hz. When I ran a sweep and measured I saw that they had an average flat response from 800 Hz to 20 kHz but there were lots of narrow but very deep notches in the response if you turned off the smoothing. Those sounded too holographic to me. With some standard compression drivers the response without smoothing had no notches, and sounded very solid. Most people don’t use drivers with deep notches in their response. But we do end up with notched response at our ears due to crosstalk between left and right channels, and early reflections. More notches that aren’t so deep are going to produce a fuller sound than a few very deep notches. I think I can always hear the lack of solidness with a 2 channel phantom center. The best way to deal with it is to break up the strongest early reflections into multiple smaller reflections, and delay them if possible. Breaking up the center of the wall between the speakers with a center treatment of some kind that causes diffraction will bounce some sound straight back from the middle of the room to the listener, helping to lessen the effect and make a more solid center image. If you listen to a 2 channel system in an anechoic environment, sounds that are panned to one speaker or the other will have much more solidity than sounds panned to the center. When done effectively, inter-aural crosstalk reduction can very noticeably solidify the center image, giving it near equal solidity to left and right panned images. A properly set up multi-channel system playing appropriately mixed content should sound much less holographic (my definition) and more solid and clear across the entire sound stage. The inter-aural crosstalk is the worst offender because it happens nearly instantly across the head, about .5ms. Later reflections that come from other directions are much easier for our brain to tease apart. |
I was tempted to say as much earlier but skipped it. Too many here think "holographic" is a proper soundstage with nothing amiss. That's not what holographic is. Imagine a room filing recreation right up to your position with solid, stable images placed around the soundstage that if you were to close your eyes, it would seem as if they were actually in the room, not virtually. All the best,
|
