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

I remember a time when both the trailblazers of high-end audio here in the UK, Linn and Naim, decreed that holographic imagery a minor issue - timing was said to be the thing back then.

I love holographic imagery but the best I heard was through some noise cancelling Bose over ear headphones. Literally causing users to turn their heads to follow the sound.

However when it comes to commercial recordings I have serious doubts about how high a priority it is for recording engineers. Books like Greg Milner’s ’Perfecting Sound Forever’ paint a rather grim picture regarding some of the shenanigans that take place during recording. It’s quite possible that less than 1% of recordings were made with any real regard for capturing a three dimensional sound. Alan Blumlein, these engineers are not.

So for me tone, texture, timbre, timing and dynamics all come before imagery. I guess those speakers which are able to disappear better must also be better at imaging.

But can they also do those other things as well? Perhaps Linn and Naim were right all along, although their priorities have no doubt changed over time too. Compromises you can live with, and compromises you can't. 

@rvpiano, yes but it’s far too complicated to narrow down to just one view. At least for us audiophiles.

I do think that in these download times it should be easier for the recording industry, if they could be bothered, to deliver multiple recordings with little extra cost.

That way we could chose to buy uncompressed over compressed or those made with a more natural microphone position if we want that live, ’you are there’ feeling, or original remaster over remix etc.

The industry however seems to be against live recording and instead obsessed with correctness of performance via overdubs and innumerable takes. Glenn Gould was an early fan of this new technology and the opportunity to record a perfect performance, at least from the performers perspective.

Since there’s a huge difference in piano sound with the microphone positioning (eg placed under the lid as opposed to a more natural distance, same for guitars/drums etc) it follows that most recordings are a concoction dreamt up by the artists and producer rather than any attempt to capture a live performance. Multi-tracking has many uses but also a lot to answer for.

Perhaps if we’re looking for holographic sound we could begin by compiling a database of recordings that were made with a microphone perspective of the listener sitting in the audience rather than a slapdash conglomeration of numerous immaculately recorded audio tracks piled on top of each other.

@ orpheus10, yes there is a tendency to ubiquitously promote the idea that more expensive is necessarily better in all areas of life, not just audiophilia.

In my experience it's true but only to a point. I mean if someone can build a decent pair of speakers for $100 then what should we expect for $200, or $400, or $800 or even $1600 etc? I'd even argue that once you get past the optimum point of value you sometimes find the audio quality starting to rapidly decline as the manufacturer struggles to make their product sound unique - but usually in a worse way. I'm not sure if any loudspeaker sounds much better after about $4k, and that's buying new.

So I couldn't agree more that we should judge by the audio first and foremost, and only then decide if we wish to pay for extras such as fancy styling, product support, advertising, dealer markups etc.

Emotional satisfaction has obviously links with money, but once again, only to a point.