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

orpheus10  ...

I couldn't agree with you more. The whole point of this hobby as far as I'm concerned is to get us closer to the actual event as played by the musicians. 

Frank

It's always good to know who's speaking; I'm a music lover first and foremost, I am not an equipment lover. I mention ARC because so many people are familiar with the sound of ARC; it's highly definitive.

I like CJ preamps, and ARC power amps. Although I mention those names, I wont necessarily buy that brand, but I will buy something close to that sound, the same as a musician is shooting for a certain "sound"; one that will give him the tone and timbre he's looking for.

Newbee's seek these elements, tone and timbre in speakers, but to me, they exist in everything; my rig is tuned to deliver what the musician is saying.

Everyone seems to want speakers that sound like this, that or the other thing. My speakers emit precisely whatever sound the amp feeds them. In the beginning, no one ever wants this, but after many years, you want every nuance the musician is blowing; nothing more or less.

In my beginning, as a young man, I had musician friends I ran with; consequently, I lived the same life they lived (almost any way, I had to go to work in the morning) At any rate, the music I listened to was live at the nightclubs. People who listen to recorded music have no idea how much of a musicians life is in his instrument of choice.

You may not know it, but when you put that record on, what you really want to hear, is that musician, not your equipment. My heightened awareness of this makes it necessary to fine tune all my equipment to deliver the "facts"; "The facts maam, nothing but the facts", inquired Sgt. Friday.

A musician has spent his entire life learning how to express himself on his instrument; do I want to hear Conrad Johnson or the musician; with a little fine tuning, me and CJ work it out. No, I'm not a casual enthusiast.

"Accentuate the positive, and eliminate the negative"; that will be my motto this year, life is too short to get embroiled in negative harangues.

This is a very important and complex subject; especially if you want to exploit the full potential of recorded music.

My recommendation is to go back over the posts and retain all the positive information while rejecting the negative; this will be extremely beneficial if you want to achieve "holography".

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. 🙂

rvpiano, For the sake of clarity, consider that in my ’offending post’ I was directly addressing Goeff, Orpheus10, and yourself, separately. In my comment to you I said "just as someone might revel in his.....",meaning Orpheus10 .Should I have intended this to refer to you I would not have used "his", I would have used ’you or your’. I was trying to convey a contempt, much broader based than yours I think, assuming you were contemptuous at all, but erred in piggy backing on your comment. I should not have done this. For this I do apologize. Sincerely.

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.

rvpiano, FWIW, I don’t understand why I would need to apologize to you. The comments in my 1/13/19 post certainly could be construed by someone as negative, but they were not directed toward you. At least that was not my intent. In fact I thought I was agreeing with your earlier observations about Orpheus10’s post, i.e. your substituting ’ignorance’ in place of his term ’happiness’. Should I have been more explicit? Enlighten me if you wish.

I accept your apology.

Newbee,

From this point on, I won’t.

rvpiano, I treat the term 'ignorant' as a pejorative one, and would typically use 'uninformed' in its place if I had to use any at all.

 You’ve never posted anything that caused me to think in that context when reading your posts. I saw your posts as those of someone interested in this hobby who had, as we all do, certain constraints which limit them in obtaining all that is available, yet still enjoyed discussing the matter at hand in an open and frank manner, absent pomposity and pretentiousness.

Don’t take me, or my opinions and observations, too seriously, I don’t. :-)

Newbee,

 Just curious,

Which of my posts do you consider “ignorant?”

Kosst, I agree 100%; "Holography" is a refinement of sound staging and imaging.

Sometime ago, I noted that audiophiles who were in the "end game"; meaning they might mention "van den Hul Grasshopper" as their current cartridge without being ostentatious; it would be in the context of the discussion. It was I who made a note of this fact because it gave me a strong clue in regard to the other components in their rig.

They had gone as far as they could go in regard to equipment, and they still were not satisfied; that's when they went to room treatment and got the improvements they were seeking.

The reason I don't talk too much about everything else required to get holography, is because I have made the false assumption that you know all that is required, and you realize that "room treatment" is the end game; my bad.

More solid advice from @geoffkait   Thanks.

Just a brief comment to mention that room acoustics is only one part of the problem in achieving holographic soundstage. There are a great many other areas of the system that must be attended to in order to achieve the very best holographic soundstage. Examples: vibration isolation, electrical contact housekeeping, good cabling housekeeping, speaker placement and CD or LP treatments, not to mention getting rid of extraneous junk lying around, e.g., old newspapers, books you don’t need any more. Reduce entropy! 

I think I've stated everything I know of importance in regard to holography. If anyone wants to advance the audio in their listening room on the cheap, I suggest they go to this thread; DIY acoustic panels?

A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said, "elephant is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.

Since none of us can see sound waves bouncing around our listening room, we are all blind. If we all had the same identical equipment, including interconnects, we would all hear differently as a result of our different listening rooms.

"Holography" is not a trick pony, it is the "result" of correcting room anomalies by first recognizing, and then treating them. Once this is done, you will note a marked improvement in tone and timbre of acoustic instruments.

When people go as far as they can in regard to topflight components, and are still not satisfied, that's when they discover the room is at fault; after they correct this problem, that's when they retreat to audio Nirvana.

@rvpiano, 
+1.
B

I guess people with opinions can be considered ignorant on this forum.

+2 geoffkait.

I think most folks have not actually heard a system with a potential to reproduce ’real’ holographic soundstage, just as I think there are dammed few recordings which contain the necessary information to produce one.

orpheus10,

"let me explain; audio holography is quite similar to visual holography, and the better the lens and camera the better the photograph."

As with your comments on audio holography it is hard to argue the basic premise of your statement, however I would suggest that, as in photography, the experience of the audiophile is far more relevant than the quality of the equipment. Nothing is funnier than a ’photographer’ with his Nikon and a bag full of lenses who doesn’t know more about his hobby than how to take snap shots of his kids (if that).

rvpiano, "....revel in their ignorance"

Just as some might revel in his.....:-)   Witness his own posts.

Orpheus10,

What you really meant to say is that you “revel in their ignorance” from your point of view.

There are real holographic soundstages but most are more of a “projected soundstage” - the real soundstage’s phoney sibling - that is not the same thing as a transparent, well-organized and realistic soundstage.

+1 @geoffkait 

When I first posted on this thread, I didn't even have holography, now that I got it, I'll be doing more listening and less posting.

Once you get holography, it's easy to make it "Mo-better", all you need is "Mo-money"; a lot more.

Let me explain; audio holography is quite similar to visual holography, and the better the lens and camera, the better the photograph.

I'm a casual photographer who has always used middle of the line Pentax; however, if I used Leica, my photographs would be much sharper. A Pentax costs a few hundred while a Leica costs several thousand; that explains why I have Pentax.

For my ears, the huge price differences between class A+ and Class A are worth it, if you can swing it.

Now that I have holography, "everything" is better. We are at the end of the line on this thread and apparently there are a few people who don't even know what holography is; that's quite apparent by their comments, but as long as their happy, I revel in their happiness.

There are real holographic soundstages but most are more of a “projected soundstage” - the real soundstage’s phoney sibling - that is not the same thing as a transparent, well-organized and realistic soundstage. I would rate holographic soundstage right up there with speed, warmth, dynamics and air. Ah, air. Maybe the hardest to obtain of them all.

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,

If I understand orpheus10 (correctly), I believe he has been saying that "holographic imaging" is an outcome or result of the ’fundamentals’ coming together and when this occurs, the whole is much, much greater than the parts.

Removing imaging, therefore, implies other parts are not present or not correct or not functioning as they should.

David, that is precisely what I am saying; "Holography" is dependent on the highest quality parts, the same as the sharpest photographic image is dependent on the best lens, no different.

If we were in a "high end emporium" where we had, as an example; top of the line ARC electronics, top of the line Thiel speakers, all set up in a room that had been professionally treated, to the extent that it created an image so precise, that you "saw" and heard things from a record that you bought in 1970 (one of your favorites), that you had not heard before.

I said "saw", because when a sound consistently comes from a point in space, I know it's there, and if I could see audio, I would see it.

Am I claiming to know more than everyone else; "No", but I am claiming to have witnessed more than most, for one very simple reason; I went to "high end emporiums", where the stuff you read about in "Stereophile" was being auditioned. In a flash, you would be able to hear the difference substituting one component would make in the whole scheme of things.

As an example; when there were no customers requesting components to audition, we (me and the other audiophile sales people) would assemble the very best components and just groove in the small auditioning theater. I recall we were deep into Santana's "Abraxas" and I was focusing on a sound emanating from some kind of percussive instrument that I hadn't heard before, when a customer came in requesting to audition a Rotel amp.

After the Rotel amp was inserted, whatever I was listening to receded so far in the back ground that it was hardly audible.

I would say that Rotel amps are good, high quality "affordable" Class C amps. The key word here is "affordable", which is not a word that accompanies top of the line high end; at least not affordable for the average person.

Keep in mind, that was the only component that was swapped, we still had ARC preamp, plus top of the line Thiel speakers. That one component blew the holography, it was fuzzy after that, but the music still sounded good, just not to the highest degree.

Imagine; you are reading "Stereophile" and you wonder; "What does this sound like matched with that". In a high end emporium, a salesperson could simply insert it into the mix, and your question would be answered.

I spent so many hours in high end emporiums that my wife swore I was seeing another women.

"No", I'm not smarter than many of the people here, but I have heard and experienced things many haven't.

Maybe we should ask this question differently. If you had to sacrifice something, which would you sacrifice first... For me, I’d sacrifice imaging first.

If I understand orpheus10 (correctly), I believe he has been saying that "holographic imaging" is an outcome or result of the ’fundamentals’ coming together and when this occurs, the whole is much, much greater than the parts.

Removing imaging, therefore, implies other parts are not present or not correct or not functioning as they should.

Orpheus10, can you clarify? Thanks.

As hard as it is to get perfect imaging, I don't think you will have a hard time sacrificing what you don't already have.

Maybe we should ask this question differently.

If you had to sacrifice something, which would you sacrifice first:

• Smooth FR
• Bass
• Imaging

For me, I'd sacrifice imaging first.

Although there is no getting around the fact that at this level audio is expensive, I save when and where I can.

Sometime ago, I noted that the very well heeled who had pretty much perfected their rigs to their satisfaction, were into room treatment, and they claimed that's where they got their biggest improvement. What I have discovered confirmed that.

It's kind of funny how I got my biggest "holographic improvement" by insulating a sliding glass door from the elements; I charged myself a fortune, just to make it Kosher.

@ 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. 

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.  

fleschler, I didn't know they were in abundance; that explains the relatively cheap price. Since I have several pieces of equipment that can use them I will stock up.

We have a tendency to think more expensive things sound better; I needed a 12AU7 and found one that didn't have the brand on it; just 12AU7 made in the USA. I put it in and was shocked at how good it sounded, I believe it sounded as good as a NOS Mullard, which costs much more.

If we judge by the audio alone, as opposed to the name, we can save a lot of money.

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.

Rvpiano, this tube sounds like a Mullard, and plays over it's price.


I believe NOS last longer. The decision has to be made as to how much of the price increase is due to rarity, as opposed to how good the tube sounds. You can get a lot of bang for the buck through tubes.


12AU7 RCA Cleartop (side getter),SPECIAL MATCHED PAIRS

New Old Stock Original Box and White Box. A great tube that rivals West Europe types, making it a great buy at this price. Some say the side getter contributes to the low microphonics of this tube. Wonderfully balanced airy highs, midrange warmth, and accurate bass. These pairs have been carefully hand selected for close dynamic mutual conductance on a Hickok 539A. I have sold dozens of pairs of these, and clients agree this tube is an incredible bargain among NOS tubes. Stock up now, this tube is vanishing from the market just like the Telefunken smoothplates!

$69.00 per pair

BTW I have on order 2 Telefunken Black Diamond ECC82 / 12AU7 from TubeDepot for $96. To be shipped in 2 to 4 weeks because they're out of stock.

Just put a blanket over it when you listen and remove when done. I think it will be a big improvement. Glass is terrible due to it's reflective properties.
B

gdnrbob,

The moisture is gone, thank goodness and my son fixed the leak.
 You’ll have to talk to my wife about the blanket. ;)

@rvpiano,
I hope you are following this and put a blanket over those mirrored doors
😉.
I hope you got rid of the moisture, too.
Bob

Boxer, music is a narcotic, and my listening room is now an opium den; I go into a state of euphoria when I can pinpoint instruments in space and focus on specific sounds that just hang in one spot, or like in Herby Hancock's "Rain Dance" where weird sounds are constantly popping out of space and moving all over the place,  I'm in another galaxy.


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2hK6_o5Pdw


There is no past, there is no future; just one glorious present, the summer is light years away.

" this is the end of the line for me, my quest is over."

It is cool though that you were able to narrow it down to that, but what is your plan for next summer?

Serendipity continues or "Holography part II"; take your choice of titles for this post.

After I taped the insulation to the glass door in order to conserve heat, when I settled back into the sweet spot for a long listening session, the sound-stage was balanced. (the insulation on the door served as perfect room treatment) It had never been balanced before; the right channel was louder than the left channel, and turning the left channel up was not a good solution for holography.

A balanced sound-stage is essential for this phenomenon, now that I had it, I couldn't stop listening; instruments floating in air, non existent speakers, everything there is to be had with good holography was mine; this is the end of the line for me, my quest is over.

"Serendipity", there is an interesting word. It's so unique that the definition is insufficient; therefore, I will illustrate serendipity.

There is a problem with my sound-stage; the right channel is louder than the left. At first I thought it was the equipment, after a lot of troubleshooting, I discovered that wasn't the problem.

The left side of my listening room is composed of a huge sliding glass door to the patio; that was the problem, a glass wall is bad news. That wasn't the only problem with that glass wall.

The sliding glass door is single pane glass, (no good for the winter) and I want double pane glass. For reasons I have yet to understand, contractors can't replace the door.

I was listening to music, and at the same time, I could feel the winter chill coming right through that huge single pane door; unpleasant, and bad for the heating bill, something had to be done.

I went to Home Depot, bought some foam insulation, came back and taped it all over the door. Now, I can't get to the patio, but who needs a patio in the winter.

Covering that huge door with insulation was work; time to settle back in the sweet spot and do some serious listening. Is it my imagination, or does my sound-stage sound balanced. Wow! I can't believe it; that insulation over the glass door corrected the channel imbalance.

Now that's "Serendipity".

Newbee, "All" of the tubes I mentioned were Telefunken; they were NOS and brand new tubes, that had identical numbers.

There is a thread here where knowledgeable people discussed this very same thing extensively; comparing NOS tubes, to identical brand new tubes; maybe it could be looked up. I don’t remember all of the conclusions they came to, but from what I can recall the difference was one of quality as opposed to sonics.

I bought the brand new tubes, and I was delighted, now I'm buying some more.  Since quality is a long term thing, that remains to be seen.

Orpheus10, Out of curiosity, what is the brand of the 'new' tube?

Quite a price increase on the NOS 12AU7’s since I bought them less than a year ago.

The NOS lasted longer than any tubes I ever had, so there is something to be said for quality control.

How long these new tubes last remains to be seen.  

Piano, Brent Jessee's 6922's are $300. All these Telefunken tubes have the same exact numbers, including the new ones. His 12AU7's are also $300.

Nobody is cheating anybody, it all makes sense; NOS tubes cost more, even when the new and the old were made at the same factory. As best as I can figure it out, someone bought the old factory and began making the identical tubes.

From what I can recall in regard to discussions on these tubes, quality control was better then, even though the tubes look identical.

As I stated, the new tubes are fantastic; one was bad, and they had a good one on it's way before I got off the phone. That was months ago, and now I'm happy with no complaints.

Presently, the new tubes are sold out. Someone would have to buy both and compare to make a determination. Since I don't have the spare cash, it won't be me; I'm going to buy the new ones when they get them in stock.

Piano, I went to Uncle Kevin at "Upscale" audio, whose price was $349.00


      https://www.upscaleaudio.com/products/telefunken-e88cc-6922

I need both 6922 and 12AU7; now I think I'm going to buy 12AU7. Will go to Brent Jessee and get back to you.