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

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there's NO imaging. lots have studies have proven our ear/brain mechanism along with HRTF can localize objects in a 3D space!!

I'm just saying, I've heard speakers do it MORE than real.

The Guitarron was really interesting because even though it is a plucked instrument, it's sound is pretty low, as low as a double bass to my ears.

Best,
E

The best imaging I've ever heard however was from a HT system running Neo6 in music mode.

It filled in the center very nicely.

For me, there has been nothing more important; when it appeared in my listening room, I knew everything else was together.

It is impossible to get a good holographic image without top notch electronics, that let me know that I not only had high end components, but high end sound as well.

While it varies from record to record, the essence of depth and 3D is always there.

Orpheus 10,

What are your components?

Source is Marantz 8260 CD player, or, tweaked to the bone RP3, Grado Master 2 cartridge, followed by an Audible Illusions Modulus 3A that feeds Primaluna monoblocks.

I have custom 3 way speakers that utilize a Heil AMT; they're dipole; this helps the holographic sound stage.

My listening room has a vaulted ceiling, the speakers are 4 feet from the front wall and 2 feet from the side walls.

Now that it's winter, all is perfect; let me explain that; the left wall is a sliding glass door to the patio; that's not good. However, since it's winter, I have that door covered over with light insulation; consequently, no more sliding glass door, but a wall of insulation that makes the room perfect.

I consider what I have to be the ground floor of a good holographic image. I will be glad to answer any question you have.

I said before that the idea of a ’holographic’ image is not all that important to me. But if I use that term, and maybe I use it wrong, that represents an image that has a near perfect representation of a projected realistic (sound) image. In other words that means to me : drums, 4 feet behind lead guitar and maybe a little behind the speakers, bass player 6 feet to the left, rhythm guitar 4 feet to the right, lead singer 8 feet in front of me and well in front of the speakers, voice 4.75 feet off the ground, lead singers just behind and to the left of the speakers.

I do not get that with my system. And I don’t think many recordings give that sort of image.

On the other hand, if the sound image was perfectly flat, or just in a big messy ball in the middle or if the music sounded like it was being piped out of my speakers like a hose, then yes, that would be a deal breaker.

As others have mentioned, even with a low end system I can usually get the speakers in the right place to at least have the sound in the middle and out in front of the speakers and with some hint of 3 dimensionality.

Orpheus 10,

Thanks for the info.

I feel sorry for audiophiles who are younger than me, and that includes just about everybody.

When I was getting my audiophile act together, I spent so much time at high end salons, that my wife swore I was seeing another women; no way would she believe that I would spend most of the day until late in the evening listening to audio equipment, but I was totally spellbound by these incredible 3D sounds; not only could you hear the performer, but it seemed that they were invisible, and in the room.

This was top of the line equipment that I couldn't afford, and a lot of what I heard, I still can't afford, but I remember the sound, and that's what's important; that way, you know what it is that you are after.

Not until you hear top of the line equipment in perfectly treated rooms will you believe what is possible. Not even with the same identical equipment at audio shows, can they duplicate what I heard, because the don't have the time and the room. They spent great effort on the most minute details in these "high end salons", and that's how they achieved such spectacular results.

Words can not describe what the best components together sound like; you have to hear it for yourself, and the "high end salons" gave you that opportunity, you knew what the best and most expensive sounded like even if you couldn't afford it.

Here is something I accomplished that may help you a little; while I was going to those salons, I decided to rate "Stereophile's" rating system; was it valid or invalid; I pronounced it valid; when I evaluated the equipment they had rated, I came to the same conclusion. Although if a component is on that line where it barely made "A" or "B", that can be an iffy situation, and they explain it.

Without going to audio shows, this forum and audio magazine ratings are all you have to rely on.

Are you looking for opinions or are you looking for the means to attain it?  Three dimensionality in your soundstage is possibly most effected by (my descending order?)
1. room acoustics, 2. speaker placement, 3. near field listening (or otherwise), 4. and speaker design.  If these things aren't right for your room your electronic choices may be a mute point.
Read, experiment, make adjustments, listen, be patient.  I use a combination of Corner Tunes, Tube Traps, and Bybee products.  Great results...

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.

Some of the responses remind me of the fox and the grapes, if any of you remember that fable; after not being able to reach the grapes, he decided they were green. It took me years to get a holographic sound stage, but when I got it, I knew I had arrived.

Not only does it require knowledge, but top notch components as well.

"There are many who pretend to despise and belittle that which is beyond their reach."


While a holographic sound stage is not beyond anyone's reach that has responded to this thread, it does require knowledge and effort.

I'm 65, been playing with this stuff back when we use to get the digest sized 'Audio Mart' in the mail every month. The fun we had with the anticipation of looking at those ads every month. 
To continue our discussion: I would simply like to state that the more I can control my rooms 'interference' with the original signal being launched from my speaker driver, the more stuff I hear in my music when I listen. Those interesting comments we make to ourselves like 'I never heard that before'. I was never really trying to get the holographic effect in my sound stage, quite honestly I noticed it just happened when the room quit interfering...

Romeo, many important discoveries have been made by accident; I'm happy that you are enjoying holography at last, now you can enjoy each artist independently.

I think that as many have mentioned here it just depends on what you're after. I care nothing for "3D" movies and would never try to simulate that at home. I'm sure that with the right money, equipment, expertise and room that I could do it but why would I when I've seen the very best and didn't care for it?

The point is, it isn't sour grapes to decide that you don't want or need some holographic effect that, as had been mentioned, requires knowledge, money, equipment and expertise. The truth is, that sentiment does not just come from those who have never experienced it. There are audio critics who have heard the best there is to hear and still don't put it at the top of their list of criteria that are important to them. Just Google it.

And I think that is an inherent problem in the audiophile world. There is always this notion that someone has heard something that if everyone else could hear it they would love it and if they haven't heard it then they are claiming sour grapes. I like the grapes I can reach. I can acknowledge that the grapes I can't reach might be delicious but why make myself unhappy when I can't (or don't need to) reach them anyway?

n80, it's for sure you can't miss what you never had. Unfortunately, those high end salons no longer exist that presented you music in a fashion that you had never heard before, but once you heard, there was no putting that Genie back in the bottle; you had to have it.

As I stated before, at those shows with the worlds best audio, I doubt if anywhere had a good holographic image because of the numerous requirement in addition to the equipment that are required. The salons had the rooms, and audio fanatics who could put it altogether.

The bottom line is the music, and not the equipment; having the music that makes you happy is most important.

If I close my eyes and can't imagine myself in the music's original venue, it's some aspect of the recording.  That confidence is important, to me.

n80, I walked into my first high end salon in 1990, and it took me 25 years to reach the grapes; the grapes are a "holographic sound stage"; when you get that, all else is in place, it depends on everything working together.

Never quit trying to reach the grapes; we're "audiophiles", reaching for sweet audio grapes is what we do.

@orpheus10 "Never quit trying to reach the grapes; we're "audiophiles", reaching for sweet audio grapes is what we do."

That does seem to be true of quite a few audiophiles here. That is not my cup of tea.

But I am new to this and by nature or nurture I also have a deep suspicion of 'progress' that has no ultimate goal. I do not see this hobby as a pursuit unless you include pursuing good recordings. When I listen to my system it pushes all the buttons I need to have pushed. I've done some basic room testing, etc and things check out okay. The sound quality makes me smile and sometimes gives me chills. The sound stage is reasonably large and defined. So at this point rather than seeking (= time+money) for that something extra, I'll enjoy the sweet grapes I have. Some might call that settling. And maybe it is. But in this field I suspect that there are those that would say that in some fashion or another you are settling as well. Who knows.

And again, its not sour grapes. I bet that high hanging fruit is wonderful.

And to be honest if I was going to invest that time and money there are other aspects of SQ that I would probably pursue before sound stage improvements. For me tight, clear bass would be the thing that could turn into an obsession.......if I let it.

N80,

Exactly!

You guys are funny; while you're enjoying what you have, your subconscious is reaching for the grapes; "I wonder how I can get better bass", or some other refinement.

So much ambient information is contained in the lower frequencies, it should go without saying, that accurate, tuneful bass, is a necessity for a decent simulacrum of a musical event.

N80, mentally, I will never settle; it's just that my bank account has put the brakes on.

I’ve seen it said before in the forum that Audiophiles enjoy listening to the way their equipment sounds more than listening to music. . . Just look at all the discussions on synergizing equipment. I have been happy to see more threads pop up speaking to excellent recordings etc. I’ve worked 20 years now to get my system where it is but I’m not a trader like many. I research, listen, and save and buy my next piece. I know I’m close and would agree with the note above how important low level detail is. I have almost as much money in my subs as my 20.1 Magnepans. It is worth every penny when the tympani pounds and you can feel the reverberations perfectly accurate as if you were in the first few rows of the orchestra. While I can place all instruments in their locations on good recordings and the orchestra feels like it is there, big smiles from guests, it doesn’t make my hair stand up like I’ve heard on three occasions, all with different equipment. My father has heard it with me once at AXPONA, if you can believe it, and how the magic was broken moving just one seat over which still had great imaging and sound but it wasn’t magical. He’s visiting for the holidays and says that the system sounds better than anything he’s heard (very close to the AXPONA experience) and he’s correct . . . The difference in experience is almost life changing and my goal is to have it, all the time.

One moment for me was playing on humble Sansui speakers in my home under construction listening to a recording processed through the BACCH filters. After reading extensively on their research site with tests they made on various speaker brands I was happy to see that their tests aligned with the system I wanted to create and hoped that someday I could incorporate BACCH into my dream system and get that magic back at an even higher level with better equipment. We will see this spring when I get my bonus from work and I can add it. 

Again what I speak to is not creepy or ethereal but transporting you to the event at such a level that all of your senses are overwhelmed. It may not be what others here want but it’s what I want and that’s all that’s important. 

@orpheus10 said "You guys are funny; while you're enjoying what you have, your subconscious is reaching for the grapes; "I wonder how I can get better bass", or some other refinement."

No incongruity there at all. I never claimed that I don't wonder about things. I never claimed that I had the best system in the world. I never claimed my system had no flaws. I never said that I wouldn't seek any sort of improvement. What I'm saying is that some of us have the ability to be satisfied with what we have and to control impulses that will likely only account for small, incremental improvements as well as enough risk aversion to avoid spending money on 'improvements' that might end up being detrimental. 

And again, this is about sound stage. Spending money to get improvements other than sound stage means sound stage isn't my addiction of choice. That's all.

Again, I'm not knocking anyone for whom that .01% improvement is worth a week's vacation some place nice. That is their business not mine. Its all entertainment after all.

@orpheus10 said "N80, mentally, I will never settle; it's just that my bank account has put the brakes on."

In the end that's still settling. And if you're not willing to eat Ramen seven days a week and walk to work for your hobby....well, what can I say?  ;-)

The point is that we all have reasons for how far we push things. And it really isn't our position to question someone else's.....especially when they have the real prize, the best grapes of all: great music and contentment.

To me, precise holographic soundstage is the holy grail of hifi.
The totem hawk i am listening to are phenomenal in this regard... Comes to mind magnepan and ls50s that i have owned previously.

Soundstage is important. Air is more important. Dynamic range is a must. You always want what you can’t have.

Ladies and gentleman, boys and girls; a "holographic image" is what "everyone" in high end audio is striving for; it's not a separate entity, but what "automatically" occurs when you have it altogether, but not before.

it only occurs when you have top notch high end equipment. I'll give you an example of this; me and the fellows; me being the resident customer, and they being the salesmen, were grooving mightily to Santana "Abraxas", on a lineup of top of the line ARC electronics, that even included the CD player, plus, the best Thiel speakers, when a real customer came in and requested to audition a Rotel amplifier.

Before that occurred, I was focusing on the organ; it was isolated like I've never heard it before or since; this was on the cut "Incident at Neshabur";


  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-s2uFgMRjA


Can you dig it?


We were all seated in the small auditioning theater just grooving; that's when not a word is spoken, and each person is off in his own private inner sanctum; that holographic image with the individual instruments right in front of you will do it; put you out there where you want to be.

"And then the doorbell rang"; it was a customer who wanted to audition a Rotel Amp; when his request was honored, the soundstage collapsed. Nothing else had changed, but no more holographic soundstage; a chain is no stronger than it's weakest link.

That sums up a "holographic soundstage".

Hey, if you know what you’re doing for the most part and you don’t have five thumbs on each hand, if you persevere and have a little bit of luck you can have it all. But soundstage is not black and white, it’s not as if you either have it or you don’t. There are degrees of soundstage, you’ll know it when you hear it. You can even get air, maybe, if you’re real lucky. If you can achieve a wide, deep and high transparent soundstage chances are pretty good everything else will follow, detail, tone, dynamics, frequency extension. Maybe air.

@orpheus10 So you are saying that great soundstage is the end product of what everyone is after in regard to hi-fi audio? That seems odd....since not everyone here agrees with you. Maybe they should have their high end audiophile cards revoked.

But then I guess there is the possibility that some of us.....maybe even me.....have great "holographic soundstage" and just don't get all that excited about it? 

Nah.

not very

Chris, you can tell by the responses that since they've never heard it, and never had it; they really don't know what it is.

We can talk about an elephant all day long, but until you have actually seen one up close and personal, you only have a vague concept of what an elephant is.

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

Without a shadow of a doubt, the most desirable aspect of high end audio is "The Holographic sound stage", and we see here, so many people don't want it. "Talk about the fox and the grapes"; this is the best example I have ever witnessed.

Rvpiano, why would you think I was speaking to you? I didn't address you specifically.

You can not achieve anything from a record if it's not there; if you do, there is something wrong with your record player.

Realism is not oversold, but it is very hard to achieve; however, here we have more green grapes.

Erik-squires; "1. Smooth FR. One that does not call attention to itself, but feels effortless in dynamic range and endless to the edges in the bass and the treble.

2. Transparency. To me, what I mean is the aural equivalent of standing on a mountain top, and realizing you can see for miles farther than you ever could."

Do you realize that it is impossible not to have these things, and at the same time to have "holography".

Everything everybody mentioned that is more important to them than "Holography" is included in holography; that is, unless you want exaggerated bass, or exaggerated dynamic range, that's not included in holography; only what is on the CD or tape, or record is included in holography.

Maybe this link will help those who have never experienced holography, to understand it.


        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope


A "stereo image" is recorded in audio, exactly the same as this visual image; when it's done right, a visual image of the audio will be displayed; if and only "if" you have a room that will precisely reflect audio in a manner that can recreate the recorded image. If, and only if, your audio equipment can recreate every detail that is on the recorded medium, like a Zeiss lens can recreate the image of a picture that is taken.

Since the "holographic image" includes every minute detail that is on the recorded medium, nothing in high end audio is more desirable.

 

@orpheus10 " Without a shadow of a doubt, the most desirable aspect of high end audio is "The Holographic sound stage",

I’ve read a number of articles about this by high end audio critics who do not agree with that.

" Realism is not oversold, but it is very hard to achieve"

Define realism. It certainly isn’t what a sound engineer captures in a specialized studio where electronic music is recorded, usually on different tracks and often at different times and in some cases in different locations. Especially when virtually all of those tracks are altered after being recorded.

" Do you realize that it is impossible not to have these things, and at the same time to have "holography"."

I get that. But you can have all these things without what you call holography. And it appears that in that scenario there exist plenty of high end users who simply don't put holography as their primary goal or source of enjoyment.

Seems hard for you to get past that.

Do you realize that it is impossible not to have these things, and at the same time to have "holography".

I think it depends on what we are calling holography. If you mean a precise or too-precise stereo image, then no, you are not restricted to the FR like I have proposed. As I have mentioned, there are tweaks that enhance imaging at the expense of the FR.

Separately in another thread I discussed a speaker with very good imaging, and exaggerated vocal sounds.

This is a perfect example. Great imaging, wide sweet spot, and a FR that is not that natural to my ears.



Best,
E

Another recent example was the McIntosh XR50.

Great transparency, and imaging when vocals weren’t rattling the driver frame. :)

Of course, having it all is ideal, but I have so far seen frequency response and imaging to be independent features in most speakers.

I guess this is what should separate the truly great from merely useful speakers. :)


Best,
E

"Holographic sound" is the end of a very long journey; it’s not a button on a preamp that reads "Holographic sound".

It’s for certain that you can’t get it when you don’t know what it is, and even then, not every recording delivers "Holographic sound", but if your "system" can deliver holographic sound, you can bet it delivers whatever else is on that recording.

I refer to "system" because I am speaking of an organic whole thing in which the room is a very important component that requires a considerable amount of expertise that may require outside help. Although I’m a retired electronics technician, quite capable of dealing with the equipment, "the room" was outside of my field of expertise. (it’s no wonder no one wants "Holographic sound")

The components required are no less than grade "B" as ranked by Stereophile; sorry "mid fi" will just not make the grade.

I refer to "Holographic sound" as a long journey, because you have to know "intimately" what each and every component in your rig is contributing to the whole; that requires a considerable amount of audio education and study, not to mention days of "critical" listening, which means not listening to the music, but focusing on frequency response, or transparency.

After you have acquired the necessary components, and gone over everything twice, it’s still not quite there; it’s "lopsided".

Back to the drawing board; "Why does the left channel sound louder than the right channel ?"

The answer to that question can take months to discover, and after the answer is found, the solution to the problem can take even longer to solve; no wonder there are so many who don’t want "Holographic sound".

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.  

Michael, no matter how many times you take these horses to the water, you can not make them drink.

Time, time, and time again, I explained that "Holography" is the end result of all the things they have mentioned, plus taking it to another level of refinement.

I don't believe they've even heard good holography, based on their comments. They don't stand a chance of creating it because they don't really know what it is; their comments remind me of the blind man describing an elephant. Some of the comments are as ridiculous as having a boat without a bottom, but since we are discussing what you hear as opposed to what you see, they don't realize that.

They're responses are because we no longer have "high end emporiums" where they could walk in and hear high end gear set up in a proper manner, in a proper room, with "audiophile" salespeople who could answer their questions.

I first heard music so life like that the artists seemed to be visible; I wanted to go up on the stage and kiss Carmen McRae. This was in 1990; today is 12/30/2018; I have been working to duplicate what I heard since the first day I heard it; now I'm working on the finishing touches to the room, which will require professional expertise.

once you hear it the hobby changes for us, forever

I agree. This recently happened for me. There is no going back.

Michael, I'm not very far away from "My musical heaven", and once I get there, I don't think I'll have much time left to post here or anywhere else.

I think it would be helpful if those who have created this optimum imaging in their own home (called holographic) would list the recordings they have heard which can reveal this imaging. FWIW, I think there are not so many, but it would be fun, for me at least, to have some recordings so I could play them on my system and see how far I have progressed in setting up my system, which images quite well, but not yet perfectly, I think.

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.

rvpiano, I too find that smaller forces 'image' better than large orchestral ones, probably due to the relatively simpler recording procedures that can be used. What I miss in my system that I experience live is a room 'fullness' caused, I believe, by reflections, which are hard to recreate in your home without over driving your room. For me that balance is hard to acquire and I think that my experience is not unique and explains why multi-channel set ups are initially popular (at least for a while).

@orpheus10

—- “Without a shadow of a doubt, the most desirable aspect of high end audio is "The Holographic sound stage",”

Correction: FOR YOU that is the most desirable aspect.

I’m often puzzled by how many audiophiles confuse their own subjective preferences and criteria as if it is THE goal to which all do or should aspire.

I happen to really value dimensional imaging in my system, but plenty of people don’t have that as a priority. Good for them. People are different.

Also, I find it weird that a very “holographic” dimensional sonic image is being depicted as some hard to achieve result. Nah. I’ve found it pretty easy. I just choose speakers that image/soundstage/disappear well to begin with, and care with positioning and listener orientation brings it out very nicely.

Yes other components can aid the phenomenon to some degree - I’ve had many different amps, CD players/DACS preamps, different turntables, phono stages etc and yes the imaging/dimensionality has “flexed”
somewhat, sometimes.


But by far the bulk of the dimensional imaging comes from the speaker design/room acoustics/speaker positioning. No expensive cabling needed, no tweaking-to-the-max, no taking apart and messing with every component required.

"I like what sounds good to me". That seems to be a reasonable comment. Let me tell you where it leads. In the late 70's, "graphic equalizers" were the rage; my preamp had "turnover tone controls"; they doubled your ability to control bass and treble, plus I had a "dynamic range expander", that flashed a tiny red led when it was operating.

Has anyone visited a fun house with the funny mirrors? You know the one's where you're tall and skinny in one, short and fat in another, watermelon head in the next one, and on and on....

We did this with our music; not enough bass; no problem, slide them sliders, flip that turnover tone control switch; don't quit until it "sounds good to me".

What was the artist trying to say? "I didn't know that was important; what I want to hear is more important; after all, I'm paying the cost to be the boss."

Without realizing it, we were distorting the music to such an extent that it would have been unrecognizable to the artist who created it.

Back to the music and the artist; he or she spent their entire lives in an effort to learn music, and say what they wanted to say with music, the same as a writer. Would you buy a book and rewrite it? But it's OK to mess with what someone considers their work of art.

"To be, or not to be, that is the question"?

Now that I have described what I don't want, I'll get to what I do want;
 
—- “Without a shadow of a doubt, the most desirable aspect of high end audio is "The Holographic sound stage",”

I stand by that statement 100%, because if you're trying to get to the bottom of the pool you have to pass through the first three feet. If you're trying to get to the top of the building, you have to travel past the first three floors. (but not if the pool is only two feet deep, or it's only a two story building)

Since whether you know it or not; it is 100% impossible to get holography without having the other desirable elements of audio; just as it is impossible to get to the bottom of a 10 foot deep pool without going through the first three feet, or get to the top of a tall building without going past the first three floors.

Newbee,  you are absolutely correct.  I simply listen to music (all of it has depth and air, the fringe benefit of having sought "holography"), and revel in it when the recording reveals such.

When I hear this revealed to the extent of being able to visualize the artist in three dimensional space, I will make a note of it, and post it on this thread; it might take a few days.