Mapman,
To give you an idea of what this all means for the sound my system produces let me give you a recent example. I put on Eugene Ormandy's Rachmaninov Symphonies 1-3 yesterday. The whole orchestra was in my room. I mean the concerts opened up with such expansive 3D imaging and sound stage that I could not believe it. Not to mention all the other parameters (detail/definition, tonality, dynamics, transparency, etc.) Not only did all the walls in my room disappear, it was as if I was actually at the concert. There is no other way I can describe this.
The sonic effects of what I have been doing to improve my system are simply stunning. They have exceeded my original expectations by a quantum measure. |
Csontos,
You're the only one questioning my honesty. Anyone who questions my honesty will not receive a response from me. |
Marqmike,
You have caught the spirit in which this thread was started and I appreciated that.
You have confirmed something that I do with my own system. I am also experimenting with speaker cables in parallel and the results are excellent -- as you say, "the best of both cables". This is also what I am obtaining with running cables in series, as well. |
Mapman,
For my system "tweaks" are much more than fine tuning. They are as important as components and often have as great an effect as changing a component.
Chadeffect,
When you stated "... I doubt you can reach that level of 3D performance without the tweaks." I have to agree with you completely. This is my experience after being at this for 7 years in a very active way. |
Bryoncunningham,
Once again, you have nailed Geoffkait to the wall so perfectly that I could not have put this any better. Bravo. |
Geoffkait,
As a troll who trawls for business who is distinguished more than anything else by the picayune while exuding a sense of the pseudo-esoteric with which to mask it, I would not exaggerate your importance on these forums as you attempt to intrude your agenda here.
I may note that it is fortunate that other vendors who visit these forums such as Bobby Palkovic and Ted Denney never draw attention to themselves with self-pronouncements and do not attempt to surround themselves with mysterious airs. They do not need to. They are in a different league -- IMO. |
Mapman,
When you mentioned "the line between useful information and nonsense", I think it is abundantly clear that there is no line here. This is pure unadulterated nonsense -- crazy talk for the sake of hearing its own voice -- as we see so many times on Audiogon forums. In fact, this is so predictable that it becomes supremely boring watching the same scenario play out time and time again here. So, if this is the way Audiogon wants it, let this thread be taken over by nonsense and let it die in nonsense talk, like so many other Audiogon threads have. I could not care less. |
Learsfool,
I agree with you completely when you state "simply banning those type of folks that are just insulting and contribute nothing useful." It is odd that Audiogon often lets these "type of folks" dominate threads while others either back off or have their replies disallowed. |
Bryoncunningham and Douglas_schroeder,
You fellows seem rather level headed. Why don't we let everyone who wants to "step into the ring" at Barnum and Bailey enjoy themselves while the three of us and any others of like mind carry on a conversation among ourselves about holographic sound. Alternatively, the moderator might want to close the thread so the Barnum and Bailey show can look for another location to pitch their tent. Which would be just fine by me. LOL. |
Geoffkait,
Altering the sound on CDs with pens is well-known. And the fact that sound is altered by everything in the room is also well-known. But when we begin to indulge in the vague and mysterious for the sake of being vague and mysterious -- as though these factors supersede the obvious things in our audio systems -- then we begin to enter The Audio Twilight Zone. I think we have enough on our hands trying to figure out our components and cables and "tweaks" and room treatment. |
Bryoncunningham,
Well, to tell you the truth, I agree completely with your statement that "This idea is crazy."
Let's examine carefully Geoffkait's statement: "What you are hearing is a distorted, compressed, noisy facsimile of what is actually coming from the speakers."
Distorted by what?
Compressed by what?
A facsimile that comes from what source?
Geoffkait's statement is what I would call GOBBLEDYGOOK. Plain and simple. Nonsense talk. |
Geoffkait,
Why are you being so evasive?
You first quoted me as saying:
""I have not heard of a single "person in the industry" or a single "senior reviewer" who minimizes the importance or denies the existence of "holographic sound"."
Then you replied:
"I kinda doubt you've heard what all of them have said on the subject. I have not seen a single buffalo out in my yard today. Lol"
Is it so difficult to answer my question? What's the mystery? Why can't you give a straight answer to a straight question? In case you did not notice, my question was very simple -- and very straight. In fact, I believe it was not very difficult to understand. Your evasive reply was "I kinda doubt you've heard what all of them have said on the subject". This is not a good enough answer -- with or without the Lol at the end. Why can't you name names? Why can't you give us specific statements that specific people have made? Why can't you put facts in place of evasive replies? I can read English as well as the next person on this thread. I'm waiting. We're waiting. |
Geoffkait,
After your failed attempt to convince us that Kal Rubinson of Stereophile does not believe in holographic sound, may I reiterate:
Could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" minimizes the importance of holographic sound and their reasons for doing so -- and where they have actually stated this? And could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" actually denies the existence of holographic sound and where they have actually stated this? |
Chadeffect,
When you stated, "Lets face it to get a holographic sound it is about attention to detail. Each small step adding up to a larger over all effect on the presentation." -- you were exactly correct. The more details that emerge from a recording the more holographic the sound becomes. Each improvement adds incrementally to the holographic effect. And the fewer details that emerge from a recording the more flat the sound becomes. Holography is directly related to detail. There is a lot more detail in CDs than most people realize because their systems are not evolved enough to extract those details. |
Geoffkait,
Your reply was totally predictable when you stated, "it's ironic and bizarre that you would attack someone who is presenting unusual ideas when you, yourself, are presently unusual ideas." Your ideas are not unusual. They are nonsensical. All of your attempts to sound esoteric and "different" bounce like a dead cat off the forum floor.
My "ideas" about holographic sound are unusual? They are not "my ideas". They are not "ideas" at all. Holographic sound is not an "idea". It is a fact. What do you mean when you say holographic sound is "unusual"? Do you mean it is an "unusual idea" for those who have not actually heard it because they have not upgraded their systems to the point where it becomes a sonic parameter -- and they have never heard it at a friend's or at an audio showroom? If so, then holographic sound may in fact only be an "idea" for them, and, of course, an "unusual idea" because they have not experienced it before.
But holographic sound is certainly not an unusual phenomenon in high end audio. In fact, holographic sound is not unusual at all in high end audio. On the contrary. It is very usual for those producing high end components and cables. In fact, this is one of the things they strive for -- in case you did not notice.
Call up any major component maker and ask to speak to one of their top executives about holographic sound. Ask them if holographic sound is an "unusual idea" or a fact in high end audio. Then write back here with the results of your survey.
Then call up HiDiamond or Synergistic Research or Nordost or Cardas or any other high end cable company. Ask to speak to one of their top executives about holographic sound. Ask them if holographic sound is an "unusual idea" or a fact in high end audio. Then write back here the results of your survey -- and don't just talk off the top of you head.
Where you get off saying holographic sound is an "unusual idea" is very, very odd. Your statement is totally self-serving -- and totally false. Your self-indulgence in pseudo-mysterious talk -- the puzzle wrapped in an enigma -- is very boring because of one special reason. None of it rings true.
You stated, "Many people in the industry including some senior reviewers either minimize its [holographic sound's] importance or deny its existence." Well then, you had better come up with some specific names of "many people in the industry" and "senior reviewers" who back you up.
I have not heard of a single "person in the industry" or a single "senior reviewer" who minimizes the importance or denies the existence of "holographic sound". Of course, there is a world of difference between minimizing the existence of "holographic sound" and denying its existence.
Minimizing its importance means that the person in question recognizes that it exists but, for some reason "minimizes its importance". Could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" and which "senior reviewers" minimize the importance of holographic sound and their reasons for doing so -- and where they have actually stated this? And could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" and which "senior reviewers" actually deny the existence of holographic sound and where they have actually stated this?
Bryoncunningham,
I agree with you. I think Geoffkait actually believes what he says -- no matter how nonsensical or false. But, unlike you, I do not believe there is much intelligence here because if there was real intelligence here it would not be couched in all of this deliberately vague, convoluted and mysterious talk that twists in the audio wind -- without any more proof than taking an unused amp out of the room changes the sound. Well, that is indeed very deep -- meriting all the attendant and imprecision and obfuscation and gobbledy gook.
Wow -- am I impressed? Hel-looo! |
Geoffkait,
You stated, "I said that your idea of connecting cables in series was unusual, not that the idea of holographic sound was unusual. I would be the last person to deny that holographic sound is achievable or unusual as a concept."
But, in fact, this is what you said, "In addition, there does seem to be a very strong resistance to any idea that is not "normal". It's ironic that the subject of this thread, Holographic Sound, is itself controversial. Hel-looo! Most people have never really heard Holographic Sound. Many people in the industry including some senior reviewers either minimize its importance or deny its existence ..."
You have made direct reference to holographic sound being unusual -- you call it "controversial" -- and now you claim you made no such reference. In fact, to bolster this claim you refer to "most people" never having heard holographic sound and to "people in the industry" as well as "some senior executives" minimizing or denying "its existence". When you refer to "its existence" you are not referring to cables in series. You are referring to holographic sound. I suggest that you re-read what you yourself have written.
I reiterate:
You stated, "Many people in the industry including some senior reviewers either minimize its [holographic sound's] importance or deny its existence." Well then, you had better come up with some specific names of "many people in the industry" and "senior reviewers" who back you up.
I have not heard of a single "person in the industry" or a single "senior reviewer" who minimizes the importance or denies the existence of "holographic sound". Of course, there is a world of difference between minimizing the existence of "holographic sound" and denying its existence.
Minimizing its importance means that the person in question recognizes that it exists but, for some reason "minimizes its importance". Could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" and which "senior reviewers" minimize the importance of holographic sound and their reasons for doing so -- and where they have actually stated this? And could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" and which "senior reviewers" actually deny the existence of holographic sound and where they have actually stated this? |
Learsfool,
On the contrary, you are a very clear writer. I just posted a reply to your thread about hearing loss, by the way.
I think one problem with threads is that Audiogon does not take care to post replies in the order in which they are posted. I have noticed that my most recent posts appear on the thread before earlier posts. This may cause confusion.
I agree with you about musicians hearing differently than audiophiles. I know my musician friends do not place the same emphasis that I do on the quality of audio systems. It is making music that is their first priority. |
Geoffkait,
When you use the word "quantum" you can defer to Jack Bybee whose military background has produced ground-breaking products that do not need to be hawked on Audiogon forums in a cloud of mystery. I can just hear Jack Bybee trying to hawk his products here -- "I sell the Mind Lamp". Lol. |
Bryoncunningham,
You're very welcome. Thank you for your kind reply. It is greatly appreciated. I would also add you to my list of those whose posts create a clear idea of the person behind them. No apology necessary here. I do not feel that you have hijacked this thread at all. I think it is clear that a number of others have done the job very well.
I will be on the road for a few days and will have a chance to reply to recent posts within a day or so. |
Geoffkait,
You can say anything true or false here about anything or anyone -- that is your right.
You can say anything true or false about me -- that is your right.
You can say anything true or false about Jack Bybee or his products -- that is your right.
You can use this thread as a bully-pulpit as much as you like and for as long as you like -- that is your right.
You can attempt to dominate this thread as long as you like -- that is your right.
You can attempt to hijack this thread as long as you like -- that is your right.
You can talk off the top of your head until everyone -- except me -- dies of exhaustion -- that is your right.
You can talk off the top of your head until everyone dies of sheer boredom -- that is your right.
You can do as you wish on this free forum -- that is your right.
You have as many rights as you proclaim on this thread -- that is your right. |
Geoffkait,
You just revealed more that you realize. Anyone who uses Jack Bybee's products in their system will know exactly what I am talking about. In other words, you have NO idea what you are saying when you talk about his products. And if you knew Jack Bybee you would never make the kind of inane comments about him that you posted here.
Jack Bybee's products are "controversial"? And I "must be living in a cave somewhere"? Man, you're what we used to call in the 1950s "a phony". I have upwards of 20 Bybee products in my system. Let me repeat in special English for those who may be "challenged": You have NO idea what you're talking about. My BS meter just had the needle go haywire with your name written all over it.
You are the proverbial chameleon who shows a different color to match the background. Which is why, as Bryoncunningham so astutely observed recently, you have no clear identity. He has no idea who he is taking to when he talks to you -- and neither do I. You are the classic case of the opportunist who will say whatever it takes in order to keep attention focused on himself.
Now, instead of the hawking vendor, you turn into the pseudo-expert and the forum bully. Not that I give a damn -- I am too old for such nonsense -- I believe you are the only one here who will characterize me as closed-minded and self-satisfied. It is truly "bizarre" when you refer to things that I do as "unusual" and in the next breath you call me closed-minded.
How can a person who does so many interesting, experimental and "unusual" things be characterized as "closed-minded"? Only a vendor like you with an obvious agenda could be so inane -- and so crassly self-serving. I say "like you" because vendors like Bobby Palkovic and Ted Denney who contribute to these forums are in a different league entirely. They are not pseudo anything. They are helpful, straight as an arrow, and they do not attempt to divert attention to themselves or to hijack threads.
We should start a VENDORS ONLY FORUM on Audiogon for self-centered people like you to spout off and pontificate to your heart's desire without other threads having to endure your exquisitely boring but oh-so-clever commentaries that fulfill your agenda to divert attention away from the intended topic in order to dominate the thread and promote your vendor's agenda. You are using this forum as a marketing tool -- and you are doing so in a most crass way. This reveals your level of consciousness.
If anyone is "pushing" anything here it it certainly you, the bully-vendor of last resort. Yes, you have the right to "post here and express" your ideas. And, yes, I have the right to call you on your hijacking this thread with endlessly inane commentaries. I started this thread and I am as free to say this loud and clear as you are to try to dominate here and to sabotage the original intent of this thread. If the moderator wishes to terminate this thread to force you to do your inane posting elsewhere I will be only to happy to see this happen. Otherwise, you can fully expect me to keep calling you on your inane behavior.
You have a sense of grandiosity that equals your sense of inanity. Have no fear, nothing you could possibly sell or say would ever "threaten" me -- or impress me. I've been around the block more times than you have had Sunday dinners. Do not try to bully or to insult or to intimidate me here without a very firm response. Do not expect that you will be able to do ANYTHING to make me leave this thread to your devices. It ain't gonna happen. As long as this thread is here I will be here. I will not let you dominate or hijack this thread. |
By getting the discussion to swirl around his "esoteric" declarations, Geoffkait accomplishes his agenda -- to make himself the center of attention on these forums. He is a vendor with an agenda and this is good for business. This is the process whereby the thread is hijacked -- diverted by a vendor who will apparently use any tactic at is disposal to accomplish his own ends. He is not an audiophile who wants to express his ideas with other audiophiles. He is a vendor who wants to make commercial inroads by using these forums for his own ends. |
By expressing himself as he does, Geoffkait constantly draws attention to himself. He is, after all, esoteric -- according to him. Geoffkait's agenda is a self-centered one. You could never accuse Bobby Palkovic or Ted Denney of the same thing. |
Onhwy61,
That's the point. Who is more qualified to give a opinion about Bybee products that is meaningful -- that is based on actual experience? A guy who has 20 of them in his system or a vendor with an agenda who claims they are "controversial" -- and who gives no details about how many Bybee products he has in his own system? Who can be accused of setting off the BS meter? The guy who actually uses the products and has done so for many years or the vendor who talks off the top of his head with a sense of authority?
May I reiterate. If you go over the posts of respected vendors like Bobby Palkovic and Ted Denney and compare them with the posts of Geoffkait, you will easily see that the posts of Bobby Palkovic and Ted Denney are radically different in both tone and substance. We are talking about vendors who are in a whole other league -- people who talk straight about things they know about intimately -- vendors with deep understanding, vendors with substance and integrity.
It is the right of everyone here to talk about anything they like no matter how little they may actually know -- even if they are vendors. This is a free forum as Geoffkait proudly declares. So, he can say whatever he likes, he declares. But by expressing himself in this way he betrays the shallowness of his remarks in advance. You will never hear Bobby Palkovic or Ted Denney expressing themselves in such an inane manner on these forums.
If we are looking for integrity and substance we look to people who talk from experience. Opinions that are not backed by experience are a dime a dozen and should be viewed accordingly, especially when submitted by vendors who obviously appear here with a strong agenda. |
Geoffkait,
You can suggest whatever you like. That is your self-declared right here.
You stated, "I said Bybee's products were controversial, not ineffective." You can use whatever words you like. That is your self-declared right here. The word "controversial" can be used to describe just about anything under the sun. It simply means there is someone out there who may not agree. The word "controversial" is next to meaningless. It tells us nothing whatsoever about Bybee products. But that is your self-declared right here.
Chadeffect,
Geoff is getting what he deserves here -- nothing more and nothing less. If he wants to try to dominate this thread with all of his vendor-motivated nonsense he will be met with my responses until this thread is archived. He has the self-declared right to do whatever he likes here. I have the self-declared right to respond here. As long as my BS meter keeps detecting BS on this thread I will be posting here. |
Geoffkait,
I have put you on the spot and you now choose to sidestep the issue of Bybee products by redirecting the discussion about this specific issue that I brought up in my post to a discussion of frustration and anger. How clever. If you were a "humble scribe" you would not be asking ANYONE to "bow out" of any discussion. You have declared that you have the right to say anything you want. But this apparently only applies to you because others who may be angry or frustrated do not have the right to express their anger and frustration. They must "bow out". In effect, you are now the self-declared moderator of this discussion and you are making the rules about who can stay and who cannot. OF course, you get to stay. Your declaration of humility is obviously a false declaration.
My frustration may have got the better of you but it has certainly not got the better of me. It is very direct and to the point. And who are you, in all your false humility, to ask anyone to bow out of this discussion, let alone the person whom initiated this thread? If anyone should bow out it is clearly you. And you can do so graciously or not for all I care.
May I reiterate something that Bryoncunningham has said very eloquently on more than one occasion. You refuse to answer my questions directly and interpose another topic to redirect the discussion. To wit, who is more qualified to comment on Bybee products? The guy who has 20 of them in his system or the vendor who refuses to divulge how many Bybee products he has in his own system while pontificating about them with authority? How many Bybee products do you have in your system? Will you answer the question directly or will you invite me to bow out of this discussion? |
Mapman,
You have put this very well when you state, "Not change the subject, obfuscate, or go on the attack of the questioner." Of course, you must be talking about Geoffkait who is the most obvious changer of subjects and the most obvious obsfuscater and the most obvious attacker in this discussion. |
Now let's get back to the subject of Bybee products. How many who are reading this discussion have had experience with Jack Bybee's products? The reason I have put so much emphasis on them is that they have had more impact on the sound in my system than any other products. |
By the way, for those like myself who have experimented with polarity for any length of time and who are also familiar with Bybee products, reversing polarity can have a positive effect on holography. But, if you compare the effect of reversing polarity with the effect of Bybee products on holography, the effects of the latter dwarf the effects of the former by a very wide margin. So, the discussion should return to products that have the greatest impact in this area.
The discussion of products or technical "tweaks" that have a marginal effect on holography should not outweigh the discussion of products or "technical tweaks" that have a very great impact on holography. If the discussion moves to the marginal then it will be of very limited value to those who are actively looking for ways to improve the holography of their system. It will divert attention from very important products in this area. |
Is there anyone who, after closely monitoring the posts of Bobby Palkovic and Ted Denney, would venture to state that Geoffkait even comes close to them when it comes to the integrity of vendors? This is a very significant issue here and I will explain why.
It is not only incumbent on vendors who post here to make full disclosure -- for obvious reaons. It is also incumbent on them to meet certain standards if they are to be looked upon with respect here. If they do not meet those standards -- I believe that Bryoncunningham has highlighted some of these points regarding Geoffkait more eloquently than I have -- then their posts have to be looked upon advisedly.
There is no way that any vendor with an agenda that exudes self-centeredness can be taken seriously here. Nor should they be. By trying to appear interested in "the topic" they will betray their true agenda from time to time as their guard "slips". This kind of cunning use of these forums must be watched with vigilance lest discussions become hijacked by vendors looking to divert attention in their direction.
We have seen a perfect example of this today with Geoffkait trying to divert the discussion to the subject of polarity while stating that the person who initiated the thread had better "bow out" -- so that he, Geoffkait, can say whatever he likes without the need to read those bothersome threads that take him to task. Posters who object to him on the basis of various issues should be banished.
Have you ever read where Bobby Palkovic or Ted Denney or any other vendor stated that a poster should "bow out" -- let alone the initiator of a thread -- so that the field be left open for them to discuss the topics they chose for discussion without having to face posts from those who did not go along with them? What would people say if Bobby Palkovic or Ted Denney had the temerity to try such an outlandish thing? We have only to look at Bryoncunningham's excoriation of Geoffkait on various threads to see the exquisite details of Geoffkait's modus operandi. |
Geoffkait,
You stated, "What this means is that no matter how much effort is spent to produce a pure signal out of the speakers, all will be lost between the speakers and the listeners ears." Of course, anyone who as actual ears and not theoretical ears knows this it total nonsense. |
Geoffkait,
You stated, referring to Jack Bybee, "I can certainly understand why he would not wish to enter into discussions here, if you get my drift." I don't get your drift at all.
But you may get my drift with this analogy. During the 1988 U.S. vice-presidential debate, Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Lloyd Bentsen said to Republican vice-presidential candidate Senator Dan Quayle, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy". |
Bryoncunningham,
Regarding Geoffkait, you stated, "I for one do not believe that Geoff is particularly interested in making meaningful contributions to discussions. You can certainly find posts in which he appears to contribute, but they are few by comparison to posts in which he is provocative, evasive, or antagonistic. This is my own view of Geoff."
This is also my view. I have been upset in this thread because of the attempt to hijack this thread by Geoffkait. Geoffkait is like the cuckoo bird that takes over the nest of other birds to lay their eggs. I will not allow this cuckoo bird to get away with it. This thread is for one and all. I was hoping to encourage interesting and meaningful discussion here -- not to encourage the kind of nonsensical discussion that results in so many threads falling apart. |
Mapman,
You got it absolutely correct when you observed:
"Geoff, yes the bybees are expensivd but my guess is they are at least more likely to do something." |
Mapman,
You have put it so succinctly that I cannot not improve on your statement:
"My impression of Geoff is that everything he says or does is for the purpose of remaining an enigma in every way shape or form. I suppose that has appeal to some. But being an enigma in general does not build confidence or trust, two key ingredients in most any relationship."
If you check his Audiogon membership record you will see that he has 1155 feedbacks. That means he has made 385 sales by using these forums as his platform to attract attention to himself. Can there be any question whatsoever about his real agenda -- the reason why he trawls these discussion forums in the manner that he does? |
Mapman,
When you stated, "I think that there are many who have never heard "holographic sound" and may not know what they are missing ... ITs kind of the final frontier of home audio in my mind." This is what I have been alluding to in my posts. |
Geoffkait,
I stated, "I have not heard of a single "person in the industry" or a single "senior reviewer" who minimizes the importance or denies the existence of "holographic sound". Of course, there is a world of difference between minimizing the existence of "holographic sound" and denying its existence. "
In typically cryptic fashion you replied, "Clarke Johnsen and Kal Rubinson, senior reviewers/writers at large for Stereophile magazine and Positive Feedback, respectively, to name two industry insiders, have expressed the opinion that obtaining a real, 3D soundstage is either (1) not of great importance overall or (2) not obtainable at all since any 3D soundstage is "artificial" or imaginary (in the mind of the listener). These opinions were expressed over on AA. Lord knows where their statements are archived, but somewhere, no doubt."
You seem to have an excellent memory for the content of the AA posts you site without being able to give us any specific references at all regarding exactly where we can find any specific articles or posts to verify exactly what they in fact said.
In fact, if you do an AA search on Clarke Johnsen here is the only result:
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=general&m=382142
And, in fact, Kal Rubinson did a review of the Adcom GFA-7805 five-channel power amplifier for Stereophile. In that review he stated, "The soundstage was as wide and deep as I have ever experienced with this system, but the central images lacked some of the etched specificity I've come to expect from the Revels." It is hard to imagine a reviewer giving a positive review about a 5-channel system while talking about the depth and width of sound stage who, according to your allegedly excellent memory, "have expressed the opinion that obtaining a real, 3D soundstage is either (1) not of great importance overall or (2) not obtainable at all since any 3D soundstage is "artificial" or imaginary (in the mind of the listener)."
Hmmm. |
Mapman.
You stated, "Who gives a rat's arse what Kal says? He is entitled to his opinions as well but why would I care what he says or not specifically." I agree.
You also stated, "Sabai, Geof, I suggest we call a truce. Surely there is something more relevant we can discuss regarding holography?" I agree. Making personal comments, misquoting people you say you do not even agree with and other convoluted comments are digressions. They misdirect the discussion. This topic is about holography -- not about inappropriate digressions. If we stick to the subject in a clear and concise way no one can have any objections. |
I need a show of hands here. Who would agree that this post of mine that has been disallowed by the moderator is "inappropriate" or "inflammatory"? Is it any more "inappropriate" or "inflammatory" than many posts of Geoffkait that have not been disallowed?
Geeoffkait, But if you read his many reviews he [Kal Rubinson] has no such misgivings when commenting on the sound stage of the 2-channel equipment he is reviewing. Talking about the sound stage being artificial is like saying chicken noodle soup is not a chicken. I mean, whoever would claim that the sound stage of an audio system represents the actual sound stage? That is physically impossible. An audio sound stage is a facsimile, of course. This is too elementary. Adding this third element gives you an escape hatch. Tootles-style. Typical. |
Geoffkait,
Of course, the issue is not what Kal Rubinson of Stereophile thinks of 2-channel or 5-channel systems -- and your statement that you do not agree with what he says when you do not even report accurately what he does in fact say. In which case, why even bother pretending that what he says is important when you misquote him and then contradict him in the end? This is just another of your many diversions and convoluted ramblings.
And the issue is not that sound systems are not concert halls. The issue is holographic sound, how we perceive it and what brings us closer to it. |
Bryoncunningham,
You stated, "Unfortunately, even if you win this round, he will pivot to another topic. You have stumbled onto Geoffs infinite staircase." Of course, you are absolutely correct. Which is why am staying in the wings at the moment. If he comes round with a new version of his same-old it will be evident and no comments will be necessary to state the obvious.
You have made some very interesting observations in your post.
You stated, "a two channel playback system presents whatever ambient cues the recording contains primarily from two directions the direction of the two speakers. But the ambient cues in the recording space were presented from all directions." This is a very interesting point. I believe it is a bit more complex than this. We have only two ears but, with the help of the brain, we perceive 3-dimensional sound. The same with having two eyes but they enable us to see in 3 dimensions.
Stereo recordings pick up sound from all directions. Good audio systems are able to reproduce the ambient cues in stereo recordings 3-dimensionally. Presenting the sound from two directions, two speakers, is limiting to an extent, of course, especially when the equipment is not at a level that can reproduce 3-D sound in an effective way. In this sense it is not the 2 speakers that are limiting but the quality of the system itself.
You stated, "what is heard at the listening position isnt a fully accurate representation of the recording space." That's true. It cannot be because our listening rooms are not studios or concert halls. The listening venue is a facsimile of the recording venue. The extent to which it is able to recreate that venue in a 3-D way depends on the quality of the system.
You stated, "In other words, a space in which the *apparent* size, shape, and materials of the room change from recording to recording." This is precisely what astonishes me about my own system. It can sound so different from recording to recording.
You stated, "IMO, holographic sound is more about the realistic presentation of INSTRUMENTS AND PERFORMERS than it is about the realistic presentation of THE RECORDING SPACE ITSELF." I agree -- almost completely. Although my system gives an excellent feeling for the ambience of a church or other special venue where a recording has been made, it is the presentation of instruments and performers in a very life-like 3-D panorama that distinguishes its sound. It is the sense of realism of instruments and performers, as you point out, that is important here.
You stated, "But when the ambient cues of the recording space are lost, what goes with it is the illusion that "You are There."" Exactly. The more refined the system, the more it is able to pick up and reproduce ambient cues and the greater the resultant sense of "being there". |
Bryoncunningham,
The question of what creates sound stage is an interesting one. In an open-air concert the sound does not come from all directions. It comes primarily from the amplification system used by the performers. In enclosed spaces like studios and concert halls reflected sound comes into play. All recordings contain the ambient cues for the venue where the performance took place. Better quality recordings contain more of this information. The better the audio system the more ambient cues can be retrieved and reassembled to create a more pleasing sound stage.
By more pleasing I mean a holographic sound stage that produces more of that sense of "being there". I believe that "realism" is the most difficult thing for a sound system to reproduce. Which is why I have spent so much time, effort and money on cables and tweaks. The right combination can yield stunning results. |
Regarding the Steinmusic Harmonizer review, it is interesting that the "controversial Jack Bybee" is not referred to as "controversial" but in glowing terms as "the 'Dean of Audio' himself, Jack Bybee..." |
Bryoncunningham,
I have not read your earlier comments. But I will do so today. You stated, "Recording space + Listening space = Playback space", which is quite accurate, of course. I don't know how to make my room acoustically ambiguous.
I think the best we can hope for, ultimately, is to improve our systems so that we can get as close to "being there" as possible. An actual recreation of "being there" will always be elusive for the reasons that you state. It sounds like the Steinmusic Harmonizer is a step in the right direction. It has been around for nearly 3 years and has had universally good reviews. I note that, according to reviews, it works even better when used with Synergistic Research ART. The latter does things that the Steinmusic Harmonizer does not do, apparently.
Although I have not had the opportunity to audition the Steinmusic I would venture to say that it still will not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If it is introduced into a run-of-the-mill audio system I don't imagine its effects will even come close to its effects in a more "evolved" sound system. |
Bryoncunningham,
I am reading your earlier thread which is excellent. I have a few observations.
I have no idea what the word "neutral" means when referring to audio equipment because all audio equipment imparts its own characteristics to playback. IMO, all audio equipment adds "color" playback.
I listen mostly to classical music as well as some jazz, blues and popular music. I am from that generation that used to have a "collection". I still do.
I think one important thing we have overlooked is that music is essentially in the mind. There are the room, the recording and the equipment. But the ears are connected to the brain. It is the mind where all music plays. What we are actually talking about is the recreation of sound in the listening room of the mind because the actual room will never resemble the actual recording venue. Although a larger room may help reproduce in the mind the "being there" feeling, with some kinds of recordings, I believe you can have that "big sound" in the mind in a smaller room, as well, if the sense of scale is being reproduced by a well-evolved system.
In my system, with good recordings, the sound expands well beyond the walls. The reflected sound of my room will come into play but only to an extent. With my system, the reflected sound of the venue is much more predominant and important than that of the room and the mind perceives this as the "being there" effect.
I believe that room treatments like Synergistic Research ART and Steinmusic Harmonizers can totally change room limitations and their effect on how the mind perceives the sound. I have Shakti Hallographs in place with SR ART yet to be unboxed. The Steinmusic Harmonizers may follow in due course.
Bryoncunningham, regarding your earlier thread:
Cbw723 stated, "Finally, I'm not sure how much the playback system's coloration is an issue. Assuming the system is good enough to produce playback with a convincing live or nearly live sound (as judged by the system's owner/primary listener), it seems unlikely that the ambience cues are going to be distorted to a point that they become an impediment to a "you are there" experience.". I agree. But I think that coloration can become a problem with mismatched components or cables/tweaks. In this regard, the right choice of components and cables/tweaks is vitally important. This has been by experience with my system.
Learsfool paraphrased another poster, "you cannot put into your listening room something that was not in the recording in the first place." I agree. This goes along with my notion that, regarding the equipment's effect on sound reproduction, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Both of these elements will decide the quality of the sound more than room characteristics, IMO.
He also stated, "The engineer then takes these tracks, mixes them, and then adds digital reverberation to create a false ambience, one that he thinks sounds good.". Which is why I prefer classical recordings that recreate the actual venue with mikes, not with remixing like "the older recordings from the so-called "golden age," where folks like Mercury and RCA just hung a couple of mikes up out in the concert hall and therefore created much more of a "you are there" experience than anything recorded today.".
When Learsfool observed regarding a Berstein recording at the Met, "That recording has great sonics which really do create a "you are there" experience, but you need a system that has an appropriate soundstage and images well to fully experience it". This is exactly what I refer to as the silk purse. And when he states, "I am merely trying to explain why musicians place such a high priority on soundstaging and imaging. They are crucial to creating a "you are there" experience.", I could not agree more.
Bryon, when you stated, "I suppose there is no reason why, in theory, a virtual recording space couldnt be as interesting as a real one.", if you listen to Zenph recreations I think you will understand why I feel, although they are technically excellent, they do not have the feeling of "alive" and "real" that actual live studio or concert recordings have. I have all of the Zenph recordings.
I also agree with Learsfool when he stated, "Hi Bryon - we are generally in agreement here. Where I would differ with you would be on the subject of the listening room being much of a factor at all in picking up what you are calling "ambient cues" in the recording ... The equipment would have a much greater effect on it in general." And, concerning ambient cues, I agree with Learsfool about Sonus Faber speakers. I have Joseph Audio Pulars that do an excellent job in this department.
I agree with Learsfool's observation that, with concert hall sound, "the overall effect is not PRIMARILY omni-directional, only secondarily so." As well, I agree with his observation that "listening rooms do not come anywhere near capable of recreating the original recording space, if this space is a concert hall (or a good jazz club, for that matter) - so this means that the listening space will ALWAYS be fundamentally different from the recording space, as I believe you put it, in these cases, and this is why I believe you are overestimating it's importance."
Rtn1,
I agree completely with you when you stated, "I have achieve[d] the 'you are there' experience for the majority of my recordings. This is achieved by lowering the 'noise' and removing electronic artifacts. I put noise in quotes because there is also noise and distortion you cannot hear. I believe it also takes a highly resolving source (i.e. DAC). I do not think the recording is a limitation. The spatial cues are there, they are masked by most equipment." This describes what Bybee products do so well in my system. |
Hi Bryoncunningham,
Thanks for your response. I tried my best to explain how I see things here. Your analysis is detailed and faultless. I find no flaws in your reasoning. I simply place a different emphasis on the importance of the room in the equation -- for now, at least. At the moment I am too cramped. My Shakti Hallographs are squeezed too close and I don't have room to mount my SR ART. I am in a dedicated listening room about 14 x 15 feet with a 9-foot ceiling. Once we remodel I will have a dedicated listening room about 18 x 26 feet with a 12-foot ceiling. I can't wait -- but I'll have to. |
Bryoncunningham,
The acoustic treatments will be Shakti Hallographs, SR ART and I would like to add the Steinmusic Harmonizer System, as well. I have been interested in the latter for a couple of years.
Unfortunately, it is going to take time for the construction work to get done. We're looking at a time horizon of a couple of years at the moment. Since we have a large property we may end up building a new bigger house on it and sell off the old house that we are living in now. The cost of renovation is so high that building new is starting to make sense to us. |
Isochronism,
Thanks very much. The more I work on my system the more I am surprised at the positive changes. Here are some of the significant improvements that have happened in the past few months:
1. SteinMusic Harmonizers.
2. Placing Schumann Resonance devices about 6 feet off the ground.
3. QRT Symphony Pros.
4.A dedicated 32 amp line (upgraded from a 20 amp dedicated line). This was a very big positive surprise. |
How many Bybee products did you say you have in your system? I must have missed your post. Heh Heh. |
Mapman,
You stated, "Geof can taunt all he wants." The only problem is a what point the moderator steps in and makes the call "inappropriate and inflammatory". So far, the moderator is giving him a lot of slack in this regard. |
