What Does Holographic Sound Like?

Sabai - I'll be interested to hear your impressions when you move into your new room. Are you going to treat it acoustically in any way?

bc

I agree with Sabai that “holography” is difficult to achieve.

I agree with Newbee that ‘holography’ needs to be better defined.

I agree with Kijanki that shorter cables are usually better.

I agree with Al that shorter cables are not always better.

I agree with Douglas that daisy chaining cables produces a lot of confounding variables.

I agree with Al that cable performance is highly system dependent.

I agree with Mapman that good speaker placement improves “holography.”

I agree with Onhwy61 that good room acoustics improve “holography.”

I agree with Douglas that omnidirectional speakers improve “holography.”

I agree with Orpheus that the degrees of “holography” never end.

I agree with Csontos that Sabai might achieve even more "holography" if he changed his ratio of spending on tweaks vs. equipment.

I agree with Douglas that Sabai's experimental creativity should be commended.

I’m feeling agreeable today.

Bryon

09-20-12: Kijanki
"I agree with Al that shorter cables are not always better"

He mentioned exception of digital cables related to timing of the reflections, but shorter analog cables should always be better. I've never heard of anybody claiming improvement with longer analog audio cable, other than salesmen trying to find excuse to sell more common longer cable (1m vs. 0.75m or 0.5m IC) that he has in stock.

Hi Kijanki - My post was written playfully, not precisely. I agree with both you and Al that digital cables are the most demonstrable exception to the generalization that shorter cables are always better.

Having said that, there may be other exceptions, though they are either controversial, system specific, or semantic...

The controversial: Some folks claim that longer power cables can result in better SQ. The explanation typically offered attributes the improvement to reduced "reflections." That may be nonsense, I'm not technically competent enough to say.

The system specific: On a few occasions I've had cables that were so short that they created a "nest" of criss-crossing behind components. In those cases, I have sometimes opted for a longer cable to provide wider spacing between cables, which at least in theory, could result in less interference and therefore better SQ.

The semantic: The generalization that "Shorter cables are always better" might give a false impression that shorter cables are always AUDIBLY better than longer ones of otherwise equivalent design. I suspect that, for any specific design, there is a range of lengths which are sonically indistinguishable. This is particularly likely with balanced cables.

Bryon

Kijanki - We are in agreement.

bc

09-23-12: Mapman
But I have trouble endorsing a lose strategy that is based on continuous tweaking. Where does it end? does it matter? That depends as well on ones goals. Having no specific goal and always tweaking and changing is as viable as any. Again to me its mostly about enjoyment.

09-23-12: Kijanki
I absolutely agree with you that tweaks, at one point, become an obsession. I call it gardener's syndrome - a constant need of trimming and re-potting.

I would like to say that, for many of us, tweaking is simply fun.

I understand that Sabai explicitly said that he doesn't tweak to have fun. But I think he is the exception. At the very least, I can say with confidence that a significant fraction of tweakers, myself included, are tweaking for the enjoyment of it.

Personally, I do lots of tweaking. I tweak my audio system, I tweak my computer, I tweak my home, I tweak my work. I don't experience it as a chore. As to whether it is an obsession, there is certainly some truth to that. But, IMO, obsessive behavior says more about the person than the activity of tweaking. An obsessive person approaches tweaking obsessively. A hobbyist approaches tweaking as a pleasant way to occupy himself on a Sunday afternoon.

My wife quilts. She enjoys looking for fabric, finding the right thread, creating the design, constructing the pattern, carefully stitching it together... In a word, she enjoys tweaking. She enjoys it as a hobbyist. She doesn't obsess about it. I try to be like my wife.

President Bobby: "Life is a state of mind." --Being There

Bryon

09-27-12: Geoffkait
You can't hear the sound you worked so hard to get, the sound that's actually there in the room, because your sensory perception is hurt by the objects, patterns, images, and information - books, CDs, DVDs, telephone books, etc. - in the room. What you are hearing is a distorted, compressed, noisy facsimile of what is actually coming from the speakers.

This idea is crazy. I mean that in a colloquial sense, and in a medical sense.

In a colloquial sense, this strange idea is so far outside the scope of common sense and recognized scientific explanation that it is impossible to take seriously.

In a medical sense, this strange idea could easily be considered delusional perception, i.e. the misattribution of a non-hallucinatory perception to objects or events to which they are utterly unrelated.

The cause of this strange idea, and ones like it that appear on other threads, is a mystery.

Bryon

09-29-12: Geoffkait
...the reason the sound is (relatively) distorted and compressed and noisy is because of the influence of the immediate environment on your sense of hearing. Somewhat analogous to radio frequency interference affecting the performance of a sensitive receiver. But everything is relative so I can certainly understand your objection to someone saying the sound of your system is not all that you think it is. Let me give you some examples. If you remove all CDs from the room you should notice the sound improves quite a bit. That is because the CDs (media) themselves are bad for the sound. So are LPs, DVDs, cassettes. This is an example of how things in the immediate environment affect the sound you hear.

This isn't an explanation. It's merely a restatement of the same idea.

You are a puzzle, Geoff. You are obviously intelligent, and you seem to understand how you are perceived. Yet you persist in being evasive when asked direct questions. It is partly for that reason that, in the past, I concluded that you don't really believe the things you say.

But lately I've begun to doubt that conclusion. It's become increasingly clear to me that you may actually believe the things you say. But if you do, then why be evasive? Why not answer questions directly, thoroughly, and sincerely? IMO, that would silence a significant fraction of your detractors, including this one.

Bryon

09-29-12: Geoffkait
Where have I been evasive? Just show me where I have evaded a direct question.

Hmm. Where am I going to find an example of you being evasive? Let me think. Ahh yes, just 6 sentences later, where you say…

I'm pretty sure noone here is going to change their thinking based on what I say, especially you. Lol

That was your response to my question “Why not answer questions directly, thoroughly, and sincerely?” which was itself in reference to my earlier statement that you have not provided an explanation for why certain objects like books, cd’s, and flowers affect sound quality. Rather than offer an explanation, you EVADE the question with the glib remark that nothing you say can change anyone’s mind. Q.E.D. If you or anyone else is interested in other illustrations of your evasive behavior, they will find an entire catalog of examples in our argument on the Magic thread. Moving on...

You can't even ask a direct question yourself… I suspect you are just a troll...

Those who know me will recognize the patent absurdity of this remark. Those who don’t can easily glance at my posting history and see that your comment is not only false but, as is typical for you, the inversion of reality. I say "inversion of reality" because I agree that there is a Troll around here somewhere. Let’s see if we can figure out who it is…

Do you not think I realize my statements are new and provocative? Do you think I have not seen the same knee jerk reactions many times in the past.

That was written yesterday on this same thread. By you. Let’s consider what it says…

1. You deliberately post provocative statements.
2. You know they are likely to cause disruption and conflict.

That reminds me of something. Oh yeah, the DEFINITION of a Troll…

troll | trōl | (n.) a person who deliberately posts provocative statements, knowing that they are likely to cause disruption and conflict.

You are an obvious fan of irony, Geoff. I hope you enjoy the irony of accusing someone of being a troll just moments after you accidentally confess to being one. Speaking of accidental ironies…

You can't even ask a direct question yourself. Just posturing, as usual.

I can’t ask a direct question? You say that in response to… MY DIRECT QUESTION about why you won’t provide explanations for your ideas. Incidentally, this isn’t the first time I’ve asked you that particular question, and it isn’t the first time you've been upset by it, as anyone who looks at the thread I linked above can see.

As for the suggestion that I'm "posturing," that is as much a projection as your suggestion that I'm a troll. It doesn’t take much insight to see that the person who's posturing is you. I mean, just how many times are you going to write "lol”? We get it. You want us to believe you’re cavalier. Unfortunately, whenever you're challenged by me, or Al, or Learsfool, or anybody else, you get so flustered that your mask of nonchalance slips off, revealing that all the "lol's" and “cheerios” and “tootles” are merely, uhm, posturing.

And finally...

So, you think I believe the things I say, or you don't think I believe the things I say, which is it? i wish you'd make up your mind. Lol

The reason it’s difficult to make up my mind as to whether you actually believe the things you say is that you refuse to show us the real Geoff. I’ve never met Al or Learsfool in person, but reading their posts gives me a clear idea of who they are. I get the distinct impression that I could read every post you’ve ever written and still have no idea who you are. But that’s the whole point of being evasive, isn't it?

If you’d like us to make up our minds about whether you are a charlatan, a madman, or a misunderstood genius, you have to show us something besides the mask. It isn’t pleasant to look at anyway.

Tootles,
Bryon

09-30-12: Sabai
Bryoncunningham,
Once again, you have nailed Geoffkait to the wall so perfectly that I could not have put this any better. Bravo.

Thank you, Sabai. Let me take this as an opportunity to apologize to you for contributing to the hijacking of this thread, which you began.

FWIW, I would add you to the list of people whose posts create a clear idea of the person behind them. In your case: sincere, open-minded, and passionate. You and I sometimes agree, sometimes don't, but we've handled our differences without any hostility. I appreciate that.

Bryon

Hi Sabai - Thanks for your comments, which are thoughtful and reasonable. It sounds like we have somewhat different views on the importance of the listening room, not only for creating the illusion that "you are there," but also for creating a sound that is "holographic." In my view...

In the listening room, the ambient cues of the room combine with the ambient cues of the recording. To the extent that the ambient cues of the listening room resemble the ambient cues of the recording, the listening room serves as a *simulacrum* of the recording space. I agree with both you and Learsfool that this is rare, both because typical recording spaces are so unlike the typical listening room and because the typical listening room is acoustically untreated. The problem, as I see it, is that the typical listening room is both...

1. Acoustically reactive, and
2. Acoustically distinct.

RE: 1. Acoustically reactive, or "live" rooms, provide an abundance of ambient cues. When those ambient cues fail to resemble the ambient cues of the recording, as they often do, the result is that the sound at the listening position during playback is acoustically contradictory, and therefore confusing. IMO.

RE: 2. Acoustically distinct rooms provide ambient cues that are highly recognizable. We all know what our own listening room sounds like. We have all been in public spaces with a distinct acoustical "signature." The more distinct the acoustical signature of the listening room, the more audible the differences between the listening room and the recording space will be. The result is that, during playback, acoustically distinct rooms are more likely to sound acoustically contradictory, and therefore confusing. Again, IMO.

Two solutions to these problems are to construct a listening room that is either…

3. Acoustically non-reactive, or
4. Acoustically non-distinct.

RE: 3. Acoustically non-reactive, or "dead" rooms solve the problem of contradictory ambient cues by eliminating most of the ambient cues of the listening room. Hence most of the ambient cues heard during playback are the ambient cues of the recording. IMO, the flaw in this approach is that the ambient cues of the recording will be presented BIDIRECTIONALLY, or at best HEMISPHERICALLY, which tends to diminish the illusion that "you are there." Another common problem with dead rooms is that they can shrink the size of images and the size of the soundstage, both of which diminish realism. IMO.

RE: 4. Acoustically non-distinct, or "ambiguous" rooms solve the problem of contradictory ambient cues by having ambient cues that are less recognizable, and therefore less audible during playback. An acoustically ambiguous room sounds less like "that room" and more like "any room." Of course, no room can be perfectly ambiguous. But, IME, good listening rooms provide a range of ambiguity that reduces contradictory ambient cues during playback and therefore creates a more convincing illusion that "you are there."

To bring all this back to “holographic” sound. To me, “holographic” sound is about…

a. realistic images, and
b. realistic soundstage (i.e. the spatial relations among images)

IME, realistic images can be achieved easily enough in acoustically dead rooms, with the qualification that acoustically dead rooms sometimes shrink images of instruments and performers to unrealistic sizes. IME, a realistic soundstage is more difficult to achieve in acoustically dead rooms, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Finally, I believe that efforts to increase the acoustical ambiguity of a listening room will make the soundstage more realistic on a wider range of recordings, and therefore acoustically ambiguous rooms are more likely to be “holographic.”

Just how to create an acoustically ambiguous room is not something about which I have any real expertise. I have some ideas, mostly gleaned from the characteristics common to the rooms I've experienced as ambiguous. The ambiguous rooms were...

-Reactive
-Large but not huge
-Few surfaces that create coherent reflections
-Lots of diffusion
-Medium reverberation time
-Mixture of surface materials

I don’t know how to order that list, but the rooms I’ve experienced as acoustically ambiguous had most or all of those characteristics, and probably others I’m not thinking of.

IMO, IME, YMMV etc. etc.

Bryon

10-01-12: Chadeffect
I have great respect for Mapman, Bryoncunningham and others here, but I do feel Geoff is getting some unfair treatment in this particular thread.

Did I miss something or is anger towards Geoff bleeding in from other discussions?

Yes. It is impossible for me to limit my perception of Geoff to his behavior in this thread, and I suspect the same is true for others. Geoff and I have had two sustained arguments this year. The first was on the Magic thread, and the second was on the Fuse thread. Those links take you to the approximate points in the threads where the disagreements began.

Both arguments went on for days, sprawled over a range of topics, and weren't pretty. I occasionally said things I regretted, and later apologized for it. But if you read those threads from the points I linked until their ends, you will see the principal source of my feelings about Geoff. Before those disagreements, I barely knew anything about him or Machina Dynamica. And I didn't really care whether Geoff was in the business of selling what many regard as nonsense.

IMO, those threads demonstrate that Geoff routinely inserts himself into conversations with cryptic, provocative, and occasionally bizarre statements. Whether he does this to make mischief, to promote Machina Dynamica, or for some other reason is anybody's guess. 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. Others are of course free to form their own impression of who he is and why he participates in forums like these.

Bryon

Sabai -- Your disagreement with Geoff about Kal's views reminds me of my disagreement with him about Gravitational Lensing on the Magic thread. The point isn't really about the details of Kal's views or the details of Gravitational Lensing. It's about whether facts are being accurately represented or not. Unfortunately, even if you win this round, he will pivot to another topic. You have stumbled onto Geoff’s infinite staircase. Come to think of it, I think Machina Dynamica sells one of those.

As far as the views expressed in the quotes of Kal provided by Geoff, I am in agreement with at least one of them: Kal's observation that two channel playback results in a spatial presentation in the listening space that often differs from the spatial presentation in the recording space (assuming there was one). That is because, 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.

The listening space itself can augment the ambient cues of the recording, and in the best cases, the ambient cues of the listening space RESEMBLE the ambient cues of the recording space. But for any particular system, there will be recordings for which the ambient cues of the listening space do not resemble those of the recording space. When that happens, what is heard at the listening position isn’t a fully accurate representation of the recording space.

Having said that, I depart from Kal's views (assuming I understand them) insofar as I believe that it is possible to construct a listening space that is, to some extent, acoustically ambiguous. In other words, a space in which the *apparent* size, shape, and materials of the room change from recording to recording. My own listening room doesn't fit that description, but I've been in professional recording and mixing spaces that do. IMO, to the extent that a listening space is acoustically ambiguous, the ambient cues of a wider range of recording spaces are more likely to be realistically represented.

As for the issue of "holographic" sound, I for one don't believe that a fully accurate representation of the recording space is necessary for the sound in the listening space to be "holographic." That is because, 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. And a two channel system is, IMO, quite capable of realistically presenting instruments and performers, even when it isn't a strictly accurate representation of the recording space. In other words, IMO, "holographic" sound is less about ACCURACY relative to the recording and more about REALISM relative to what instruments and performers actually sound like.

The ambient cues of the recording space may never make it to the listener, either because the recording does not contain them, the playback system misrepresents them, or the listening room alters them. Nevertheless, a playback system can still create the illusion that "They are Here." But when the ambient cues of the recording space are lost, what goes with it is the illusion that "You are There."

IMO, of course.

Bryon

10-05-12: Sabai
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.

Hi Sabai - I think we are more or less in agreement. To clarify my views, here are some comments I made on the "They are here" vs. "You are there" thread...
________________________________

Ambient cues provide information about features of a physical space like: size, shape, materials, and object position. Every listening room contains an abundance of ambient cues. The specific characteristics of those ambient cues are relevant to the audiophile, for the following reason:

During playback, the ambient cues of the recording space are COMBINED with the ambient cues of the listening space.

The combination of the ambient cues of the recording space with the ambient cues of the listening space creates, in effect, a NEW SET OF AMBIENT CUES. I will call this new set of ambient cues the “playback space.” In other words:

Recording space + Listening space = Playback space

The playback space is what the audiophile actually hears at the listening position. It is the combination of the ambient cues of the recording space and the ambient cues of the listening space.

When trying to create the illusion that “you are there,” an audiophile tries to create a playback space whose ambient cues are as close as possible to the ambient cues of the recording space. As I see it, there are two possible ways to go about this:

1. Construct a listening space whose ambient cues resemble the ambient cues of the recording space.

2. Construct a listening space that minimizes ambient cues.

...Both approaches have liabilities, but it is the liabilities of the second approach that are relevant at the moment, for the following reason:

To the extent that you minimize the ambient cues of the listening space, the sound arriving at the listener will not be OMNIDIRECTIONAL. It will be BIDIRECTIONAL, assuming you are listening in stereo. Even if the recording has OMNIDIRECTIONAL ambient cues, what you will hear at the listening position is the BIDIRECTIONAL presentation of OMNIDIRECTIONAL ambient cues...

That difference is the fundamental limitation in the approach of minimizing the ambient cues of the listening room when trying to create the illusion that "you are there."
___________________________________

I went on in the same thread to propose a third approach to creating the illusion that "you are there"...

3. Construct a listening space that is acoustically ambiguous.

I believe that, of the three approaches, this last one allows for the widest range of recording spaces to be realistically represented in the listening room.

As I mentioned in my last post, I don't believe that the illusion that "you are there" is the same thing as "holographic sound." I think the latter is possible without the former. Having said that, I also believe that efforts to enhance the illusion that "you are there" will usually enhance the experience of "holographic sound."

IMO, IME, YMMV, etc.

Bryon

10-08-12: Learsfool
Bryon, when you are talking about your concept of "reactive" listening rooms, you seem to be implying that they are more "live" than the original recording space.

I didn't mean to imply that. With the word "reactive," I was simply referring to listening rooms with significant reflection, diffraction, and diffusion. So basically, a room that isn't "dead."

The vast majority of these recordings are not done in a studio, but in a concert hall or church or jazz club, all of which are MUCH more "live" than any recording studio. One of the biggest reasons that a home listening room can never match the original recording space is precisely because there is almost no way to make the room as "live" as the recording space was.

I don't believe that typical listening rooms are more reactive than typical recording spaces outside the studio. I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I believe that. I agree with you that typical listening rooms are in fact significantly LESS reactive than typical recording spaces outside the studio. IMO, the lack of "reactivity" is one of the major problems with typical listening rooms, as I mentioned in my last post. So I think this is a point about which we are in agreement.

And FWIW, I don't believe that a listening room MUST BE more reactive than the recording space in order to be effective at creating "holographic" sound or the illusion that "you are there." In fact, I believe that "holographic" sound can be achieved even in a dead room, as I mentioned in my last post. On the other hand, the illusion that "you are there" is more difficult to achieve in a dead room, IMO.

Whether the listening room SHOULD BE more or less reactive than the recording space isn't something I've expressed an opinion about, because I don't have one. :-) I honestly don't know.

Bryon