I agree that holographic imaging is very impressive but is it the defining element of an accurate representation of live music.
Or, is it a parlor trick?
|
I believe I have excellent sound staging but not “holographic.” There is a difference. Holography to me most often refers to a solo singer suspended in space in front of the speakers. I’ve not heard that effect with several singers or instruments, as in classical music. In fact, I’ve heard systems where there is a holographic effect with a solo singer but not great soundstaging with an orchestra. |
As I said previously, there’s a difference between sound staging and “holographic effect”. What you most typically get at a live concert sitting in an auditorium is sound staging, not holography. A holographic effect is produced by microphones placed in a location where few people sit.
Perhaps if you’re sitting in a small setting such as a club where you’re close to the performers you might get something approaching this effect. |
The “parlor trick” is created by stereo microphone placement. |
“You simply don’t hear it with live music....”. Harrylavo
I completely agree.
Holography is an artificial effect.
However, I don’t disagree with ANYTHING hifidream said above.
I just wouldn’t call it holographic. It’s excellent soundstaging.
To me, holography exists when a solo singer is spookily suspended in air in front of you. That doesn’t happen in real life.
I guess we’re dealing in semantics.
|
|
As I’ve made clear, I certainly believe sound staging and imaging are an important part of the stereo experience. In my opening post I was only referring to “trick holography” as artificial to real life experience. |
Prof,
If you read all my posts above, you’ll get a better idea of what I’m talking about. Typically, I’m referring to a solo singer whose voice seems suspended in space between the speakers producing an artificial holographic effect. |
Prof.
if when you’re listing to a live singer, she/he sounds disembodied or ghostly,
you must have some extraordinary ears.
|
Peter_van_keuran:
Yes, I had that Dynaco adapter years ago. It was very impressive with ambient sound filling from the rear speakers.
Prof,
Maybe you’ve never heard the type of holography I’m speaking of. It’s not typical imaging, where the soloist is in front of rest of the rest of the forces as you would hear in real life. It’s a disembodied sound, almost ghostly, hanging in front of the speakers.
Some systems can create that effect.
|
You don’t like the term holograph. Fine.
You finally got the point.
As you rightly say: “...imaging and soundstaging is an artificial creation.”
I’d say it’s impossible to be otherwise, unless you can place yourself where the microphones are.
I guess you can regard holography is an extreme case of imaging and soundstaging, in which case you can understand my initial post.
|
Prof.
Again, if you followed my posts in this thread, you would know what I’m talking about. To reiterate, you don’t sit where microphones are placed. — usually in the air or a few inches away from a performer. You, therefore, are not getting the perspective the microphones are picking up. They are “floating in the air.”
while you’re sitting on the floor at least several feet from the source of sound, whether at a concert or at home. This, of course is even more true at a symphony recording session where the mikes are placed far above the musicians.
Obviously, the perspective is different. The recording is picking up the sound waves from a different location. Also, microphones are not ears. They “hear” differently than human ears depending on where they’re placed.
What you’re getting in your listening chair is an artifact of the event not the real thing: a “holography.”
|
Falconquest,
As I stated and, indeed “meant to say,” the holographic effect is a real thing.
As you state, it “...is fully a function of the manor in which the music was recorded.” |
Orpheus 10,
What are your components? |
Orpheus 10,
Thanks for the info. |
Orpheus 10,
Very true,
Audio salons nowadays are nothing like they used to be. (I’m probably as old or older than you are.) when I recently went to look for speakers at the two that were in my area, the presentation was ridiculous. I don’t know how they sell anything.
On your other point, I’m not sure that three dimensionality is what I’m ultimately after. I don’t doubt it’s a sign of a top rate system, but I don’t think it will make me appreciate the music any more. As others have said, there are a lot of other factors which are important for musical gratification. That’s why some refer to it as a “trick.” It doesn’t necessarily help you get to the heart of the music.
Having said that, I certainly would like to have it just for fun.
|
|
orpheus 10,
Why would I have started this thread if I hadn’t experienced holography?
That doesn’t make sense.
I’m sure you have strived hard to achieve it.
You just can’t accept the fact that it isn’t the holy grail to a lot of people |
Sorry to break up this idyllic flow of paeans to holography, but as one who most definitely HAS heard holographic presentation, I can say, while it is very impressive in its own right, it is not the end-all of recorded sound. It does not, for example, guarantee a full bodied presentation of an orchestra,
Whereas in smaller forces, it may be effective, in larger forces there can definitely be fullness lacking in a system that otherwise creates holography.
|
30 years of hard labor?
Sounds like a prison sentence to me!
Anyway, I won’t be around then.
|
Orpheus10,
Now that you’ve got the Prof involved, you’re in for it!
|
Those Clifford Brown recordings are fabulous in every way!
|
Once you hear Clifford Brown, there’s no going back. Sheer genius! |
Woke up this morning to a track that was three dimensional (Gershwin 2nd Rhapsody, Tilson-Thomas, L.A. Phil.). Maybe my hearing got more acute, or my system suddenly improved. I have been experimenting with seating positions lately.
Anyway, although not essential, it’s nice to have.
BTW, My system does have a very wide “sweet spot.” |
The thing about those early recordings that no one mentions is that they were recorded WITHOUT Dolby. They also used tubes, not transistors.
I believe the implementation of Dolby was a definite factor in the deterioration of sound from the mid sixties on.
|
It just goes to show not everyone’s on the same page about this, although some try to narrow it to one view only.
|
Orpheus10,
Telefunken NOS 12AU7’s sound great in my CJ. |
Ironically , I was using Mullards too. Telefunkens made a big improvement.
|
I really can’t say how the new Telefunkens compare to the NOS, but I do know that the NOS made a major difference in my system. I paid about a hundred or so apiece for them at Brent Jesse, a really good tube purveyor. Generally less expensive than Tube Depot. |
Quite a price increase on the NOS 12AU7’s since I bought them less than a year ago.
|
Orpheus10 This is a description from the Brent Jesse catalog of what I bought:
MATCHED PAIRS 12AU7/ECC82 Telefunken smooth plate, diamond mark, VERY RARE! New Old Stock in white box or original boxes. These wonderful vintage tubes are vanishing at an alarming rate. A fantastic, long-lived tube with unequalled sound quality. These are a mix of Artisan, or Mazda labels, some are blank industrial stock, but are Telefunken made diamond mark tubes. These are hand selected and matched to within 2-3 percent transconductance. The cream of the crop, better get some now! CLIENT COMMENTS: "The CD player received two Sylvania labeled Mullard 5AR4s plus two matched pairs of 12AU7 Telefunkens.� We started listening after 30 minutes of tube warm up, and we stopped 2 CD's later after saying WOW many times or even laughing since the improvement was almost unbelieveble. Thanks! W. R."� $200.00 per pair In Stock
|
gdnrbob,
The moisture is gone, thank goodness and my son fixed the leak.
You’ll have to talk to my wife about the blanket. ;) |
Orpheus10,
What you really meant to say is that you “revel in their ignorance” from your point of view. |
I guess people with opinions can be considered ignorant on this forum. |
Newbee,
Just curious,
Which of my posts do you consider “ignorant?”
|
|
Newbee,
From this point on, I won’t. |
I don’t know how anyone reading your comments could construe any thing but that you were calling me ignorant. “...Just as someone might revel in his......”
“Ignorance” is the antecedent.
However, if you say so, I’ll have to accept that you didn’t mean it as such. |
Thank you for your explanation. I understand now.
I do value your comments in general, and especially on classical music.
I’ll be happy to get back to our usual discussions. 🙂
|
I’d rather devote all that time and effort listening for the musical message rather than the sonic message.
|
Orpheus10,
You’re absolutely right. It’s a matter of priorities.
Although you can’t possibly understand it, it is not necessary for many of us to have a holographic presentation to get the most out of the music.
When I was growing up, I got most of the extensive listening repertoire I now have through a table radio. The genius of the music flowed through and inspired me. I didn’t need to have pinpoint sonic accuracy to “get the message.”
Striving for sonic perfection is putting the cart before the horse. The music comes FIRST.
Enjoy your hobby, but don’t try to convince us that the you can’t get a supreme aesthetic experience without holography.
|
By your logic, a person sitting in the first row of a concert and ostensibly getting a more “holographic” picture of the sound, is having a better musical experience than someone sitting in the fifth row or tenth row or balcony.
I don’t think that’s the case.
|
