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

Orpheus10, This may be of absolutely no help to you at all, but Telefunken machinery was purchased by EI ('yugos') before the 'war' and they made tubes with the sonic signature of the Tele's. I've used 12AU7A as well as 12AX7a, the latter of which I like a lot, especially the one with the long grey plate.  My experience with the AU is modest.This sonic signature appeared in their 6dj8 as well. Unfortunately they are hard to find but if you do they will likely cost quite a bit less. FWIW.

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.

Piano, they have new tubes that are identical to the NOS Telefunkens. Of course the new tubes are much cheaper. I bought two of the new tubes, and one was bad. When I told them about it, they had another tube on the way before I got off the phone. That was at Tube Depot.

The new tubes sound fantastic; how much better the NOS sound, I don't know. Could you mull that over and get back to me.

I plan to buy 10 tubes, and the difference in price is significant.

If im listening to a good jazz trio with nicely miked singer ..or Hudson on Bass remake of Don’t go chasing waterfalls ..highly recomend this track ..if i stop what im doing a plunk my A$$ in the sweet spot ...and turn it up a bit and close my eyes ..do I smile ...especially when its a piece of music i ve heard on many sytems over the yrs ....just got boneicke w5 se ‘s 
and ..while i know there drivers are not top notch ...i likem ..and they let me enjoy the music instead of thinking about the SPEAKERS !
afterall chasing the equipment is ..NOT why i turn my system on ..

Most Mullard's sold are fake .

Ironically , I was using Mullards too.  Telefunkens made a big improvement.

Piano, it's interesting that you should mention Telefunken.  Recently, I replaced some 6922's in a phono-pre with Telefunken, and they kicked it up a big notch.

I had been using NOS Mullards on the CJ, and I was satisfied, but I might be more satisfied with the Telefunken.

Thanks for the tip.

Everything is relative. Obviously, whether a record or CD is in correct overall Polarity - which is what I’m referring to - depends on the mastering engineer, who cannot change whatever damage was produced by the recording engineer in terms of Polarity, or phase as you call it, which are the issues you referred to. There is no standard for Polarity or even Absolute Polarity. The best strategy for coping with the ubiquitous OOP records and CDs might be to ensure your system is in Reverse Absolute Polarity.

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.

Orpheus10,

Telefunken NOS 12AU7’s sound great in my CJ.

Manitas music has "soul" that you can feel, and that does it for me.

That guitar of Manitas looks like it has seen some tough times; maybe that's what makes the best Flamenco?

Boy am I lucky; this is one of the rare times that I have been on a thread with guys that I feel can give good advice.

Two 12AU7's are going bad on my CJ in the bedroom, and I'm hoping someone can give me some recommendations.

Fusian, I don't think anyone here would disagree with your post.

While we appreciate top notch equipment, and strive to make everything as good as we possibly can; there is nothing more important than the music. 

Sound quality is the most important thing for me.
Violins should have a sheen but a solid core sound, like the real thing, bass should have subtle articulations, drums should have attack and resonance.
After the actual sound quality, holographic imaging and transparent air (very much tied in with sound quality) are most important.
But if the actual sounds are not both realistic and pleasing to me, holography is useless.

Thanks for the link, orpheus10 ...

For anyone interested, go to 10:05 on the Youtube video that orpheus10 provided for us. Simply amazing guitar work.

It was for good reason that John Steinbeck called Manitas de Plata "A great and savage artist."

Frank

I like flamenco, too. Especially the pink ones. 

Oregon, I saw this on "youtube" and I thought I would post it. I always buy records new, hate any kind of scratches; I will find his music on amazon; thank you.


        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2NUQm3CzuA


I love Flamenco.

Most of us realize the "relativity" of all the elements being discussed.

I got exactly the opposite impression after following some of the threads.

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.  

I heard through the grapevine the Mercury Living Presence CDs are in Reverse Polarity as well, maybe the records, too. Everything is relative. Very good records that are in Reverse Polarity still sound pretty darn good and have good holography. You don’t know what you’re missing until you hear them in Correct Polarity. Maybe someone can try reversing speaker connections to see if Mercury’s, Proprius, Opus 3 are actually in Reverse Polarity. Unless, of course, the system is in Reverse Polarity, as someone just suggested, which would make them all in correct Polarity. 😳 The In Phase track on test CDs and LPs such as XLO Test CD is in fact in correct Polarity.

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.  

Ah, right, Opus 3 is another independent Swedish label, like Proprius. Yes, I’m aware a lot of people like Jazz at a Pawnshop, including your humble scribe, nevertheless apparently it’s in Reverse Polarity. What can I tell you? 😬 As for Opus 3 - Depth of Image, it probably sounds “depthy”-  if that’s a word - even in reverse Polarity. 😛 

Amazing isn’t it that you heard this effect on your ’in polarity’ system. Or did you hear it on one with reverse polarity? Or did you hear it at all? Maybe my old system also had reverse polarity, ergo why this record sounded so fine, and on my present system, not so much. :-)

Re Proprius labels - I don’t own any so I don’t know. I understand that they did make a recording of some ’bar jazz’ a lot of folks like. Go figure. 

The label on which ’Depth of Image’ appears is Opus 3.

BTW for anyone interested there is a brief commentary on Opus 3 and this disc in Dagogo in 2012.

I heard through the grapevine that Opus 3, Depth of Image, is in Reverse Polarity. That can’t be too good for a holographic soundstage. In fact all Proprius label records are in Reverse Polarity.

I have that Opus "depth of Image" recording both on vinyl and on CD. It does portray a nice holographic image for sure. However, "normal" recordings can do the same thing on a system that allows it to be done.

This morning I had a hankering for some genuine flamenco guitar music. I broke out my three-record box set of the Connoisseur Society Recordings of Manitas de Plata (hands of silver) playing flamenco guitar with various voices. So natural sounding. It was recorded in a small chapel which is said to have perfect acoustics, in Arles, France, in 1961.

Manitas de Plata (His real name was Ricardo Ballardo) was a Spanish gypsy who picked up the guitar as a child. He never learned to read music. However, in spite of that, he became the guitar and the guitar became him. He was a true master of the flamenco guitar. None better in my opinion. Oh, there may be players who are more technically correct, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, Manitas de Plata is the way to go.

The recording has an abundance of exactly what we are talking about in this thread. The holographic imagery is amazing as is the tonal quality. If you love soulful flamenco guitar and singing I highly recommend this box set.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Manitas-De-Plata-Flamenco-Guitar-SRL-8643/352555244276?hash=item5215ee1af4:...

Someone should jump on this one. At ten bucks, its a bargain.

Frank

PS: I’ve found that most of the early tube miked stereo recordings from the late 50s through the middle 60s have plenty of depth and holographic imagery.

Yes Newbee, I am always interested in test records that will help me optimize my system; the record would be preferred.

"I've never seen record with holographic image stamped on  it ……"

Opus 3 has a disc titled 'Depth of Image', which can excel at portraying a 'holographic image', but it is so good unless you have already heard it under optimum conditions, you might just think your system is already there. This record is one of the few I've heard. Each cut on the record (and while on CD I vastly preferred it on vinyl) has a description of what you should hear if your system is optimized. If you are really interested....:-) 

I agree with your 2d paragraph - 

I've never seen a record with "holographic image stamped on it".  I've never bought a record specifically for "holographic image"  with out consideration for the music.

As much as I enjoy it when it occurs, everything is still about the music.  Although most of us want our rigs to be able to produce this when it's on a record,  we buy records for the music we like, not for holographic image.  That's like only buying records for excessive bass.

Most of us realize the "relativity" of all the elements being discussed.

@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.

It just goes to show not everyone’s on the same page about this, although some try to narrow it to one view only.

Just a couple thoughts on the holographic image discussion.  No doubt that the better the holographic image, the more likely that the home listening experience will improve. 

A few things I've noticed from attending live events are that when you sit front row center, you easily perceive width but depth and height seem to be somewhat compressed..in other words, if the singer is 20' in front of the drummer, you don't sense 20' of depth.  And if the drummer is on a 5 foot elevated platform, you probably don't sense the whole five feet.

Therefore, I want my system to produce width at least 3 feet beyond the speakers, realistic height (4-6'), some depth and a strong center image when appropriate.  My system is 2.1..with towers running full range and a 15" sealed sub coming in below 45hz....turn off the sub and the whole hologram colapses inward substantially.

And as mentioned in a prior thread...if the tone, texture and dynamics aren't right, the hologram won't carry the day!!

The only way you can get everything you want in a speaker is to do it yourself. While that was impossible for me to do alone, I discovered a crossover design engineer who could help me. He was about as eccentric as anyone I have ever encountered.

Since I’m a do it yourself technician, I was shopping at a speaker store that sold high quality wire of all compositions, and any kind of drivers that you wanted. Me and the owner had become quite well acquainted, and I told him about my new project. That’s when he told me about his new engineer that he would introduce me to if he was in. (if he’s your engineer, why don’t you know whether or not he’s in)?

This is where things really got interesting. The owner took me to the room where the engineer was working; it was a darkened room where the engineer was peering into a computer screen that had two solid colored, red and green, geometric figures with numbers on them that he was moving around on a screen. (how can you have pictures of a solid cone and sphere on a flat screen?)

After I was introduced, he said "Hi", just barely turning around, and went back to moving his figures with the numbers on them around the screen.

That’s when I realized he wasn’t the talkative kind, and I went to blabbing about what I wanted. I had read every thing I could find about "crossovers" in the library, In "Audio" magazine, in "Stereo Review", in the UK magazines, and in "Stereophile".

I went on and on while I assumed he was listening, but he didn’t give much indication that he was. I told him Theil was the closest speaker I had auditioned that I could use as an example, but I wanted to also incorporate an AMT driver. That’s when he responded (at last I knew he had listened)

"That’s not going to be easy. You say you want a 3 way with a 12 inch woofer and a 6 inch midrange with a AMT tweeter. Come back in two weeks".

The owner said, "I think he likes you", when I left. How he could tell, I don’t know; maybe it was because I had communicated that I knew something about crossovers.

After two weeks, he showed me his drawing on paper. The owner told me he would have the crossover together in two or three weeks. When I returned, there it was; 3 separate crossovers; one for the tweeter, one for the midrange, and one for the woofer; a total of 6 crossovers, one for each driver in two speakers.

This is the way it went; They gave me the parts, and it was up to me to put them together; but I knew his crossover would be magic.

After I built a cabinet, put it all together and listened; I went back and told the engineer about something I thought should be changed. He told me he would crack my knuckles if I changed anything, and he wasn’t smiling. If his convictions were that strong, I wasn’t about to change anything.

That was sometime in 1990, and since then, I have switched to the highest quality parts, plus I don’t know how many modifications to the cabinet; but I have not changed one single value of any part, and I couldn’t be happier.

As I’ve mentioned before in the Thiel
owners thread, one of the salient characteristics I find in my Thiel
speakers is a focus and density to the imaging. This is a purported feature of time/phase coherence and I can not verify it’s due to that technical feature of the Thiels. All I know is they have a particular density of imaging I don’t quite hear in most other designs. And this for me is a case where imaging has musical consequences. The added density gives a solidity and palpability to the sound that gives a sense of connection - the sense of air being moved by the sonic images rather than a see through mirage.

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).  

Everybody seems to think "holography" is some kind of trick; no, it's when you put HEA audio, and the room together as well as it can be done.

Are top of the line Theil speakers, trick speakers?  Are top of the line tube ARC Amplifiers, trick amps?

While I used those two names,  substitute any very high quality components you like, and you can probably get the same results.

Once it's done right, everything that everyone mentioned that is desirable will be present.

The record or CD delivers whatever it delivers; but it's for sure that you will get every iota of what there is on the record or CD.

In regard to "holography"; while it is relatively rare, meaning you reach out and touch each musician, I have heard it to the extent, that I heard sounds from a CD of a record that I purchased in 1970, that I have worn out many copies of; it is almost my favorite record.  (my favorite record changes every other day)  But I have been listening to this one long enough to be very well acquainted with it, and I heard something in the background that I had barely heard before; plus it was suspended in space. 

That had to be close to extreme as it can get; no tricks, just high quality components in the chain that were arranged by professionals, in a room that had been designed and treated by "professionals".

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. 

Geoff, you have some real cajones to make such an analogy.
Frank, as Geoff states, but you were very close.

Interesting. Most have already touched on my feelings on the matter. Just wanted to say good conversation. 

Frank, you misunderstand. No biggie. 😁

^^^ Ten foot saxophones don't exist in real life. :-)

Frank

What's your secret Geoffkait?  I would like for mine to be near the ceiling, but it's not.

Not to be judgmental, but the way I judge a system right off the bat is how high the soundstage is. There are many steps on the way to a great soundstage. Getting the sound to disassociate from the speakers is as important and memorable as the day your testicles dropped. But you cannot get good soundstage height without implementing some drastic measures.

Normally, I mix and match, but if I was going to buy any of this weird expensive stuff, I would buy their complete system; go whole hog or none at all; "Run with the giant dogs or stay at home"; give me your best euphemism.

     http://www.unitedhomeproducts.com/mbl_prices.htm

Speakers, speakers, speakers; everyone acts like sound just magically appears with a pair of expensive speakers. Well, we all know it doesn't quite work like that.

When I mentioned expensive speakers, I was thinking of MBL, but not the top of the line; also I believe they require the MBL amp, not just this one but all MBL speakers, to work best.



          http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2010/01/x-tremely-x-pensive-speakers/

1.5 person sweet spot? You mean like for Roseanne Barr?

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.  

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.”

yeti42  It helps to widen the sweet spot if you turn your speakers inward so the axis' crosses in front of your head when you are in the sweet spot. 

Fleschler, probably none of our systems are identical, and yours can do things mine wont do.