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

geoffkait, d2girls, oregonpapa Rhythm/pace is numero uno. One can have music with one note repeated in a rhythm/cadence. It can be acoustically dead or alive. But music is based on time first, then frequency/harmonics and then dynamics.  All the other attributes of audio are extra such as imaging, soundstaging, tonal quality, etc. Sure I want all of the attributes, but without rhythm, there is no music.  The imaging/holographic attributes are not a requirement for music; however, in an audio system, if the recordings has 3D sound characteristics, the better the system, the more accurate is its reproduction of it.

I completely disagree that the holographic image is the most important factor in arriving at the high end in audio.   The most important  factors are the rhythm, tone/harmonics and dynamics in achieving an enjoyable representation of music.   I've been to hundreds of music show rooms and salons and for the last decade, I've encountered a plethora of bad sounding/non-engaging equipment which strives to present the air, ambiance and holographic precision of the recording venue above all else.  Very often, the three main factors I've mentioned are partially or wholly missing in reproducing the musical recording event (live or recording studio).  

The finest audio system I've heard ($1.5 million von Schweikert/VAC/Kronos/etc). presented a overwhelming realism based on my three most important factors.  Sure there was air and ambiance, but what struck us most of all was the realism of the 3 factors above. 

Younger audiophiles are often unacquainted with live acoustic music heard in good acoustic venues.  I listen to classical, vocal and jazz in live venues.  (I also listen to manufactured sounds as in rock and electronic sounds as in Yello).  Essentially, the high end audio system must get the first three factors correct and will achieve the air, ambiance and holographic sound as a bonus.   How often have I heard high end systems miss the big 3 and have tons of the latter 3 bonus elements playing Diana Krall and Patricia Barber recordings.  Young audiophiles need to hear all types of music to gain an understanding as to what makes music sound good and engaging.  The last decade has had so many equipment manufacturers trying to outdo each other in the realm of air and holographic imaging.  They should be concentrating in presenting the big 3 factors first.  

I've heard many audio systems which had tons of air, ambiance and 3D holographic sound.  The best were monitor size speakers and one or two way implementation.  There was one in an Einstein equiped room that had the recording sound like it had 50' in back of it, pinpoint imaging while the actual room was only about 8' deep behind the speakers.  They were spectacular for that purpose.  HOWEVER, in my large audio room, there would be missing dynamics and bass.  Exactly why I don't own stats any longer.  Large. expensive speakers with the 3D holographic imaging tended to have music which I will not listen to, simple vocals of Barber and Krall, simple jazz or rock with a bass, drums and guitar (rarely a piano in site-too demanding to reproduce correctly).  We just have to agree to disagree.

Furthermore, the acoustic treatments of the listening room are of paramount importance.  Diffusion of mids and highs are useful for the interiors (and absorption of the bass in the walls).  I use a mixture of SR HFTs and two pairs of Shakti Hallographs to obtain optimal soundstage and imaging.  In my new home, I may switch to high end diffusion panels along the rear and front walls.  It is cheaper to treat the room than just buy more equipment.  

Lukaske - Have you listened to acoustic orchestral music, some big band jazz, piano, even electronica like Yello on your Ilumnia Magisters? They have an unconventional design which is at least quasi-omnidirectional and possibly very holographic.

Have you heard classic 50’s-60’s vocal and jazz recordings? From the Youtubes, I can’t tell whether I like or dislike these speakers because the type of "music" on them sounds like what I hear at audio shows and tells me very little about the music, just sounds. I am very familiar with the EAR tube gear (my backup system is similar).

I experience holographic sound from many mono recordings.  One does not require stereo, 2 channel sound to achieve 3D sound.   My best mono recordings have great depth and open soundstage, including wall to wall sounds as the recording permits.  What they lack is specificity of instruments depending on the recording that stereo provides is inconsequential.  I'm sure you'll claim that mono has only 2D sound.  

When I listen to the Hollywood Saxaphone Quartet ( https://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Saxophone-Quartet/dp/B00CHQKNNO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=15464207...
or Doc Evans "classics of the 20" on Audiophile AP 50, https://www.amazon.com/Classics-20s-Red-Vinyl-Evans/dp/B002LO6RAA/ref=sr_1_5?s=music&ie=UTF8&...(mid-50s mono LPs, the saxes aren't piled up in the center but spread across between my speakers and the band is spread out as well with instruments placed 3D in between depending on where they were recorded.  So many of my mono LPs have depth and spread out performers, as if they were stereo, it fools even die-hard stereophiles.   Maybe I just have a mediocre audio system that falsifies mono into omni-sound.  Although I doubt that because true stereo sounds great as well and my speakers are definitely non-omni types.  Just ask Oregonpapa since his system is similar type and similar sounding.

I'm with you cd318 as I proposed the same concept for enjoying recorded music.  

geoffkait  I wasn't referring to a person other than myself.  I can sit  about1 foot to my left of center and to my right of center and have a centered sound.  I am 5'11" and 168 lbs. so I'm not Rosanne Barr shaped (luckily).  

I have a 1.5 person wide sweet spot and a wide, 5 total seat good listening area between the speakers which are set apart 9 feet center to center, angled about 5 to 7 degrees inward and 13 feet in front of the seating.  They cross far to the rear of the center seat.  I use two pair of Shakti Hallographs and 32 Synergistic Research HFTs to focus the sound and expand the soundstage.  My speakers are called Focus but they don't really do well without the help to focus the sound.  The Signature IIIs focus much better.  

Is the Opus 3 and Proprius label CDs also in reverse polarity?   I've got about a dozen of the LPs between them and their polarity sounds correct.  Please let me know if I'm wrong.  Thanks

P.S. the early stereo recordings were generally recorded with 2 or 3 mikes, especially for Mercury Living Presence recordings.  They have great holography.  

geoffkait - I’ve purchased about 18 Mercury Living Presence pop LPs from Stan Ricker in the 1990s, the engineer of them and of Mobile Fidelity LPs. He told me that many of them had parts of the recording out of phase while other parts were in phase. They were not consistent as to being in or out of phase and changed phase positions within a track and between tracks. I don’t know if this afflicted the classical Mercury LPs but I don’t think so. The pop LPs definitely have some odd soundstage sounds with parts out of phase.

I have two copies of Brasil 66’ Stillness with A&M brown labels, different stampers. One is 100% out of phase. Very nice sounding AFTER reversing phase at the speaker or amp. The other is in phase and sounds the best of all pressings, really excellent. Tom Port of Better Records told me about 20 years ago that I should listen to each and see which one is obviously better and definitely listen to them in phase.

Out of phase recordings are generally not good sounding from my experience. Partially out of phase recordings can be okay like Stan Ricker’s pop Mercurys.

The cleartop RCA 12AU7 was made in abundance.  It was used in many electric organs in the 50's and 60's, often rebranded.  Great tube for cheap price.

Yes, and my large O getter and D getter Amperex 6DJ8s from the 50s were labeled Hewlitt Packard.  I bought them for $80/pair nearly NOS (measured new).  They are great tubes for the EAR Acute CD player.  Others prefer NOS old Siemens or pinch waist Amperex/Philips.  The latter tubes are a lot more expensive.  

I would give up imaging first of the three.  Or make it fourth after dynamics, or fifth after harmonic/tonality, or sixth after rhythm/pacing.  Imaging is good to have but not essential.  I have good imaging because I have more expensive than $4K speakers which someone mentioned doesn't sound much better than $4K speakers.  

The good news is that good used components allow one to build a great system on the cheap.  Used components at $4K can get you 90% of a new $20K+ system not based on analog (sorry, analog just costs more).  Instead of a new Rotel amp, why not a used plder Luxman amp? or some other great older amp that used to border on Class A.  My speakers and tonearm are still in production (slightly modified) after 26 years and 30+ years at more than double the original prices.  One can buy them used for 1/3 of the original price or 1/6 of the new price,

I was too lazy and my 185 lb Legacy Focus speakers are too heavy to easily move to the optimal position. So, I tried three positions and left them at 4’ from side walls, 9’ center to center and 5’ from rear wall. I sit 13’ feet from the front of the speaker. The speakers are angled at about 10-12 degrees. This is not ideal. So, over a decade ago I purchased Shakti Hallographs to focus the sound and expand the soundstage. Vocalists and instrument imaging is good but not always "touchable" when the correct Hallograph setting was found. I’ve since added a mid-room pair and installed 32 SR HFTs for diffusion. It works. I have depth and width of soundstage with precise imaging at the speakers and less so in the middle. The problem with either the room or the speakers still exists as to limit the imaging to high end standards. Otherwise, I’m satisfied with the great sound.  

I’m moving to a new dedicated listening only room (no storage of records). It has no windows, is rectangular and has built in bass traps (carbon filtered absorption paneling) effective down to 30 Hz in 12" deep wall cabinet type stud framing (plus other acoustic design features). If this radically improves the imaging, I will be surprised as I always thought the Focus speakers fault is that they don’t focus/image precisely. I will have to blame the former room then.