What Does Holographic Sound Like?

Sabai, do not waste your time discussing anything with Geoffkait.

Sabai, Jefferybowman2k and Ebm are mocking you. Their posts added nothing constructive to the conversation. Ignore them.

If you Google the prhase, "One hit quit," refers to a potent Cannabis which would get the user high in one hit. I assume they are suggesting either that you are high or that anyone who reads your post will become high, that is become delusional. Instead of telling you why they don't like your idea of daisy chaining cabling they made fun of you. So, ignore them.

As a person who has spent many years, a lot of money and time on cabling my reaction to your post is the absolute opposite. I commend you for being creative! Instead of assuming you know how things will sound you experimented. THAT is how exciting things are discovered in system building, not sitting back and laughing at others.

You have spent a lot of time with Cabling and it shows. You also are to be commended, not mocked, for creativity when trying novel ideas in building audio systems! This idea of linking/daisy chaining cables had not occurred to me, but I will try it at some point to see what the effect is. People who sit and laugh at others miss out on the experience of the discovery. I have tried a lot of experiments with systems to see what might yield unexpectedly great results.

Now, having said that, I am in agreement that the shortest cable run is the best in that it will bring the best sound; the idea of daisy chaining power cords and interconnects goes counter to my thinking. I believe that if I were to put a couple ICs together as you suggest, and try them both ways that I will still conclude that a single one is superior. The same with power cords. I think you are hearing an effect emphasizing macrodynamics but I think your definition and detail would suffer using the method you suggest.

It had also better be a big change. I don't chase puny changes in systems, as there are way too many huge upgrades to be had, and I'm long done chasing pissy little ones. If even after several seconds it doesn't manifest itself as a big difference then I'm usually done with it; it won't ever be enough to consider as a big improvement. I will certainly not be an audiophile who sits there, 'Well, I think I hear a difference..." IMO, that is a loser's game.

I do believe you are getting some RFI filtering with added length to the interconnects and power cords. So, my guess is that it would seem "better" in some respects, but at the cost of some microdynamics/definition/detail. In principle I almost never will sacrifice definition and detail for any other improvement. I demand both the definition/detail AND the other improvement such as holographic image. :)

But with cabling it is just fun to try novel arrangements. Just last night an audiophile friend and I were comparing two digital cables, one a .5 meter RCA and the other a 2M Balanced/XLR cable acting as AES/EBU, both of the same manufacturer. One might think the shortness of the .5M cable and the fact that it is a dedicated Digital Coaxial cable would make it superior. But no, the XLR interconnect acting as a digital AES/EBU was clearly superior.

My point in the illustration is that we can think logically that we know the outcome of a particular cable decision but the truth is that often the results would surprise us if we heard the two choices in comparison. I have no doubt that you are getting quite different sound with your daisy chaining cables. It would be similar to something I do with speaker cables - using two full pair of cables on one set of binding posts.

I find it incredible the number of audiophiles who are so tight with their money or so arrogant they think they can predict a sound without hearing it that they refuse to experiment. Their loss! From your OP it sounds like you have used complete double paralel runs of speaker cabling and have found precisely what I have; it transforms the speaker's sound, gaining a tremendous amount of what you have termed "holographic." Prescisely! It is a very pleasing gain in the sense of solidity and 3-D nature of the soundstage. The Arrogant Ones would say it's stupid. Again, their loss! :)

My thoughts about your experimenting with using multiple interconnects and power cords is that I fear you are muddying up the result. Of those two cords or two interconnects you join one will be superior. It may not have all the properties you wish for, but it will come closer to your ideal. I would urge you, then, to keep looking for a single interconnect or single power cord, etc. which will have ALL the properties you wish. They do exist, though you may have to go through a dozen to find them. It can be a very exhausting process.

The other problem with daisy chain of cabling is that you cannot tell what each is contributing to the sound. It is only trial and error, but that doesn't help you move your rig with purpose toward your ideal sound. This is especially so if you are mixing and matching cables throughout the system! You are unwittingly making it far harder to gain a clear direction where you want the sound to go. I did a lot of mixing and matching of cables in my early years as an audiophile and thought it was superior. Now that I have been able to procure many different brands and hear them in comparison I advise the opposite; Stop mixing and start comparing entire looms/sets.

But, I will try your method of daisy chaining interconnects just for fun! It's a lot of joyous discovery to find out what such things do to the sound! It hurts nothing and opens your ears to new experiences. What do I expect? I expect a fundamentally different sound, a change which will emphasize macrodynamics but at the cost of mircrodynamics, similar to a networked power cord or a power conditioning device placed on the system. It will be interesting to see if that is my impression.

Finally, I would compare the daisy chain technique more to networked cables, which I have over time found to be horrid, one of the best ways to kill definition and purity of a system. I have a feeling that I will not be using your technique, but I commend you for creativity and being willing to discuss it.

Finally, to everyone; there are hundreds - no, limitless numbers of steps to advance an audio system. Holographic nature of the soundstage IS an element which will improve dramatically as those steps are climbed, be it one at a time or in leaps and bounds as far more capable equipment is used.

I'm not impressed with devices and gimmicks which are not in the signal path and seemingly have little purpose toward the signal (aside from sensible room tuning devices like sound panels and bass traps, etc.). They are largely a waste of money and time - and yes, I have done demo of many of them. I dont own them because they wasted my time for pissy results. I do not review them typically because they are a waste of time and effort relative to the direct changes one can make within the signal path. In that respect I see little wisdom in working with extraneous tweaks when one can alter the sound directly through things like cables. IMO, a Bybee filter has a lot more going for it in terms of change of a rig's sound than a LessLoss Blackbody or the Synergistic Research A.R.T. system.

Sabai, keep having fun and experimenting! You are a positive person on this board and have an obvious love for the hobby!

Seeing my post from 2004 gives me motivation to thank the Lord for his goodness to me in the past eight years!

The "etherial sound system" I referred to was an allusion to Heaven, not an audio system. My priorities will always surround my faith. As such my lifetime giving plan (Yes, I have planned it and am executing the plan) to the Lord is intact, and in fact my wife and I have been able to increase it as a percentage of our income over the past eight years. Audio has never and will never cause that to deviate.

As a result of an invitation from Constantine Soo of Dagogo.com I began reviewing in 2006 and that has allowed me to buy far nicer gear. As my wife and I save, budget and invest, as well as received an inheritance I have been able to obtain some items which were not within reach years ago.

I would like to encourage those who don't see fancy gear in their lives to be patient and work consistently toward that goal, as audio dreams do become reality!

So, I appreciate the opportunity to look back and give thanks to God! :)

Now, to return my discussion to the topic of the thread...

Regarding discussion of various technologies which produce the "holographic" soundstage, I have found no greater technology than the Omnidirectional speaker. I have used far more capable speakers, but none create the specific "holographic" experience like an Omni.

There is a dearth of omnidirectional speakers in the market, imo. I felt the King Tower, which I obtained as a cancelled product it seems from Kings Audio, is a fantastic device at the price point. If it had been set up well and showcased at shows vs. put off to the side and not run I believe many would have been sold.

Then again, the zany blue foam balls which were stuffed between modules didn't help! I removed them immediately, which improved the speakers performance markedly.

But as to the most profound way to elicit a holographic soundstage - imo it's the transducer technology. Why? Basically any piece of gear (excepting special conditions ie. low power amps etc.) will alter the "3-D-ness" of the soundstage to a degree, but never as much as a complete technology shift in terms of a speaker. Whereas different cabling, amps, etc. display less fundamental shifts in spaciousness of soundstage, differing transducers display it fundamentally. YMMV

It needs to be stated that there WILL be a tradeoff for all this "holographic" sound; the trade off will be a loss of detail/defintion. It is impossible to keep interrupting/adding to the signal path and have an absolute increase in definition and detail.

For this reason I keep my signal path as short as possible.

The "holographic" sound can be generated readily enough via products which treat the signal, i.e. cables with networks, room correction devices, etc. I find these all to ultimately fail my Law of Efficacy as they all detract from the sound quality as much as enhance it. I fear the daisy chaining of cables would do similarly.

I have not yet, but do intend on testing this with XLR cables.

Oh, brother... see what happens when I step away for a few moments! ;)

I looked back at the past few days and, Woa! What a turn of the topic! But that's not really surprising given the collective curiosity and intellectual force that is Audiogon! (I include myself in that, for better or worse) :)

I find myself in the incredible position of actually agreeing in part with Geoffkait, something I never thought would happen. Geoff is very level-headed when it comes to his analysis of the extremely low probability of life in space. I have been studying this topic for years and there is a vanishingly low, in other words, less than the Probability Bounds, chance of life forming at random in space.

Mapman, you enthused regarding the comment, "I don't see what all the excitement is about."

Here's what it is about.

1) Mars appears to have once had water flowing on it like earth
2) Water means chance that life existed on Mars once. Finding fossils in the sedimentary rocks would help confirm that.
3) If there was life on Mars once and had technology like ours, they could have visited Earth like we are visiting Mars now
4) If they visited Earth, its possible some life on earth originated on Mars
5) If the evolution of Mars is similar to Earth's, then Earth may be on its way to resembling Mars some day. What will become of us?

I think that is all fascinating at a minimum.
(end of Mapman's comments)

Sorry, but the number of physical criteria for life to have existed on Mars is so slim, so improbable that it's laughable. In short, Mapman, you are being sold a philosophical fairy tale. I strongly suggest you read the terrific work "Privileged Planet" or "Rare Earth", both of which show from a scientific set of data that life doesn't just pop up out there.

I'm sorry, but I would have an easier time handling Quantum audio products than I would aliens seeding the Earth via the ludicrous Directed Panspermia theory. And since I'm not into the Quantum products, you can bet I find no intellectual satisfaction with the "Aliens did it," argument for Evolution.

Just so we're not confused here, I'm not giving any kind of support or endorsement of Quantum Doodads or other Quasi-Tweaky devices. But I can't sit idly by while fantasizations of life Out There is tosse about while the hard evidence we have suggests otherwise. For every panetoid object which has one similarity to Earth it will have hundreds of dissimilarities. The books I mentioned previously show that even if all the potential "Earths" were found the odds are vastly against any of them having the right set of conditions for life as we know it.

Now, if it's a religious thing, to worship at the feet of science, hey, then let's call it what it is, but let's not call that science - unless science has become so unhinged from sensibility. :(