What Does Holographic Sound Like?

I happened to have visited that galaxy. I believe it was called the 1970s. It was also discovered that certain other parameters outside of THD were responsible to a large extent for the perceived performance characteristics and attributes of the gear that was considered high end at that time. The cat wasn't in the bag for very long after all the major manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon. Hence the small handful of SS amps on the scene with the levels of THD that was just mentioned. So sorry to burst that little bubble, but tubes didn't and don't have a monopoly on desirable sound characteristics. Not that it was suggested they do, but just in case.

Csontos wrote,

"I happened to have visited that galaxy. I believe it was called the 1970s. It was also discovered that certain other parameters outside of THD were responsible to a large extent for the perceived performance characteristics and attributes of the gear that was considered high end at that time."

Pray tell, what might those "certain other parameters" be? Discovered by whom?

"The cat wasn't in the bag for very long after all the major manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon. Hence the small handful of SS amps on the scene with the levels of THD that was just mentioned. So sorry to burst that little bubble, but tubes didn't and don't have a monopoly on desirable sound characteristics. Not that it was suggested they do, but just in case."

Well, actually tubes did then and still have a monopoly on desirable sound, if you want my opinion.

Sabai:
The conversation seems to have taken a decidely interesting turn, and it's months since this thread started.
I am unclear why it has not been stated that a holographic presentation is an inherent property of the component itself. A Philips 1000 SACD player is not holographic: a JVC ZL-Z1010TN player is much more so. My Convergent SL-1 was holographic: My First Sound Deluxe Presence MK II was more so (and of course, each accompanying component must first reflect the designers' intent when designing their components). Any version of the Wilson Audio Tiny Tots will be enormously holographic, but then, so was the ARC SP-11 preamp and the Rowland Coherence pre amp, as well as the Rowland Model 5 amp with MIT cabling throughout. This was all circa 1988-1996 (among the setups I had at the time, although I had multiple amps, preamps, speaker systems).
It is not necessary to create - nor desirable - to create a holographic setup one piece at a time. If you wish that as an end result, simply buy components that are known for their holography (aka "imaging) characteristics. Separate from this is "focus" which is similar to having a 35mm camera with a lens that is slightly out of focus, and then you turn the barrel of the lens a micrometer to the point where you can see the flecks in the eye. Imaging (holography) and focus are not the same. You can have a diffused - but holographic - picture on the orchestra, or a "focused" but flattened image (the opposite of holographic. Think of a birthday ballon fully inflated, and one that is, after 12 hours, losing air, and a bit more deflated. Deflated = less holographic: fully inflated = holographic).
If you wanted an integrated amp that has both dimensionality and intense focus, borrow any of NAD's BEE series integrated: they have both characteristics. They will NOT have great high frequency extension and the first BEE model is a bit thick in the mid bass, but then, a midbass with a little extra "fat" on it will usually give you more holography than a midbass that is "lean" (again, think Kate Moss vs. Cindy Crawford as a visualization. Cindy is obviously more holographic). The midbass is highly responsible for a very "physical" presentation, aka "holographic. Without it, you will have less 3-D in the double bass (which lives a great deal in the mid bass) or cello or nearly any instrument.
Accompanying those frequencies, the upper bass and lower midrange also contribute to the 3-D presentation. In professional reviewers circles, this is also known as 'tone color." It will be rare that you have a tonal palette that is thin and washed out (more common among solid-state than among tubes) and yet have the 3-D effect (you CAN have it, but it will not be as vivid, since tubes are more, shall we say, "colorful"). If that is confusing, think of a red shirt: brand new, it has great richness of color (aka "tonal color"): after 50 washings, it has become a pastel color, a mere shade of itself so to speak, and therefore much less rich, or to use another term, a "thinning out" of the original rich shade.
So, back to components: thin tonal color = less 3-D: rich tonal color (particularly in the mid bass) = MORE 3-D.
I wouldn't be looking for my interconnects and speaker cables and power cords to GIVE me the 3-D presentation, as much as I would not want them to DETRACT from it, if it is on the recording (Mercury Living Presence CDs are famous for their 3-D presentation): low-level (quiet sounds: score pages being turned, player exhaling while playing an instrument or just sitting there) capabilities and great dynamic range. And highly dimensional (aka, holographic/ imaging/ 3-D).

Since you asked about "holographic," this is a component thing, NOT an accessory thing, speaking only in the sense of how to assemble a system. One buys the car with the traits one values FIRST: 0-60 in 6 seconds, turns on a dime, great suspension system, quiet on the highway with a minimum of "road noise (where you hear the sound of the tires upon the road. The tires themselves are secondary (some will disagree, of course), as is the radio, the air conditioning, etc. The point is that a Volvo and an Audi will have different inherent traits, which is the reason you prefer one over the other. You haven't listed your components, by the way. That would help you reach your goal. Please list them, so those of us who know them might suggest an alternative that is more "holographic." (Of course, all your components may already BE holographic, but if you don't list them, there is no way to know that your choices are helping you accomplish your goal.) If you have listed them elsewhere, then, please excuse my suggestion. I did not see any thread you have cooperated in other than this one.

I hope this is assistive to you.

Gbmcleod,
Thanks for this very interesting post. You are correct in that components have to be capable of projecting holographic sound for it to be manifested by the system. You cannot squeeze orange juice from an apple.

Imaging and holographic sound go hand in hand. Images projected clearly in space with air around them help create the illusion of holography. It is the extent to which these properties are present that determines the quality of the holographic sound. And it is not simply a matter of holographic or not holographic. There are many, many gradations of holographic sound.

I have found that cabling and tweaks can greatly enhance the holographic illusion that components allow. Without these special elements in my system the level of holography would be a 3 or 4 instead of a 7 or 8.

Listing components will only provide an impression of what can be done regarding holography because I run my front end in series and I also run cables in series with some unique tweaks.

Here is my front end:

isolation transformer > QB4 > Bybee Stealth > power regenerator

I have added many levels of AC purifiers to the system as well as DIY tweaks that are unique to my system.

Here are my downstream components:

PS Audio transport
Antelope Zodiac + Voltikus DAC
Atma-Sphere S-30 power amp
Joseph Audio Pulsar monitors

I will be experimenting with new DACs in the near future.

But this only tells part of the story on the downstream side because I run many levels of tweaks here, as well, which, incrementally, add to the holographic portrayal. I use Bybee GG speaker bullets in series with SR speaker cells and Schumann resonance devices parallel with QRT Symphonies and Steinmusic Harmonizers as well as a number of other tweaks both DIY and commercial.

As the wise old Einstein ant says to the little naive ant in the comic strip B.C., "Everythng is relative, my son." It appears to be one of those peculiar facts of high ant audio ;-) that closed-in, "non-holographic" components - even bog standard crap components - can be made to open up and project holographic images. We all have our tricks of the trade. My latest one is Reef Knots.

There is also another old saying -- you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You cannot imbue a component with properties that it does not inherently possess. The laws of physics apply. There is no mystery or magic or secret here.

In my opinion, using the forum for commercial purposes -- as was obviously done here -- is inappropriate. This belongs in the advertising area of Audiogon, IMO.

Ah, the old laws of physics argument. Say, isn't that the same argument naysayers use for your SteinMusic Harmonizer device? Laws are meant to be broken.

Sabai wrote,

"You cannot imbue a component with properties that it does not inherently possess."

Of course, you can. You did, didn't you?

Geoffkait,
This is not an "old law of physics" nor is it an "argument". The laws of physics are immutable physical laws -- not "old" laws of physics that no longer apply and may be broken by anyone at will. They cannot be defied or "broken" by anyone making a bold verbal declaration -- and most certainly not by anyone with an active imagination and an obvious commercial agenda. This is not an "argument". It is a fact.

With all due respect, you talk about an amazing product -- SteinMusic Harmonizers -- as though it were ipso facto to be disbelieved and as though it were only supported by "naysayers" and as though it were defying the laws of physics. Your logic is completely inverted -- and cunning. I note that you couch your remarks in the phrase "your ... device". This is not my device. This is Mr. Stein's device.

I reiterate: members who try to use the forums as a nettle under the skin, as you do, and to promote their own commercial agenda, as you do, should use the advertising option provided by Audiogon. To my ears your posts always have that self-serving ring to them with the red warning light flashing. I have never seen your products appear beside serious audio tweaks in any system of merit. Nor have I seen them lauded by anyone but you. Until such time as this changes you will always be considered a most marginal participant in the audio world -- an opportunist using the forums to try to attract the attention of those who may be susceptible.

Geoffkait,
I have no idea where you come up with all this. Don't be intentionally cryptic -- something you cultivate with relish to further your agenda on these forums. Say what you mean. Who said what component did what?

Sabai, you have completely avoided the discussion and while I can appreciate your angst and frustration with respect to the subject of holographic sound and in particular the very expensive devices like the SteinMusic Harmonizer and the Schumann Frequency Generator that you own (yes, I know - they're not YOURS, they are someone else's! LOL ) you do not OWN the subject of holographic sound nor are you the final arbiter of holographic sound or the Laws of Science you apparently wish to be.

~ tootles

Geoffkait,
I note how you have deftly glided by the content of my posts -- creating a tangent of "angst and frustration" of your own conjuring. How clever.

I reiterate: merchants like yourself who wish to trawl the forums for commercial purposes should use the advertising services available at Audiogon.

Happy Valentines Day. We do all love one another, here.
Very nice thread Sabai!!

"I reiterate: merchants like yourself who wish to trawl the forums for commercial purposes should use the advertising services available at Audiogon."

It might be illegal to obfuscate there.

Mapman wrote,

""I reiterate: merchants like yourself who wish to trawl the forums for commercial purposes should use the advertising services available at Audiogon."

It might be illegal to obfuscate there."

Ouch!

Et tu, Brute? I thought we were buds. :-). Slow day on the Barco Lounger?

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.

I have found the room to be the biggest contributor to sound, Sabai. Even an untreated 13 x 27' room, with many openings (a la Spanish architecture) allows the sound to move into other areas of a house without hitting boundaries, as I found out for myself when I set up my former boyfriend's speakers when I was out visting him years ago in the SF Bay Area, and he'd not returned from France yet. (Finally, I was alone to re-arrange the system without his low-fi interference. Long story.)
He had two rooms with no barriers between them: the dining level and a sunken living room (hence the 13x27" room, and the speakers were placed in the sunken area, with their back right up against the dining room higher area (Inever liked that placement: I thought sound waves would slam into each other immediately, and the sound was, corresponding boring. But it was his house). I looked at them, and thought hmmm, based on my experiences (and my work: writing for TAS, and then Fi Magazines), it would be better if the speakers were up on the higherlevel (the dining room, all of 24" higher. Again, dining room dimentions: 13' wide x 9'long - exactly 1/3 of the length of the whole room)(the sunken living room was 13' wide and 18' long, hence the total of 13 x 27'), so I moved them there. The change was immediately and completely positive: transients came alive (no glare) and the subtle nuances of sound revealed themselves. You could hear two fiolinists playing side by side and hear which direction their instruments were pointed). My ex had two boarders in the house, a woman and a man, who were in their room just at the top of the stairs, which is only on a level 9' higher then the dining room level where I'd placed the speakers. When I walked upstairs a few minutes later, Marianne, the woman, asked me "What did you do?" and I told her I'd just lifted the speakers from the sunken living room up on to the dining level (all of 2 steps, when you step down from the dining level to the living room area. She pronounced the sound "wonderful," and I hadn't even seriously tried to place them, width-wise. The only thing I did notice was that it it turned out that the speakers were 1/3 of the way from the dining room wall (9' and the room is 27' (rule of thirds here), but the speakers were less than 2 feet from the side wall on one side (heh, the house ended on that side: nowhere to go), while on the other side, it has the two spanish arches with no doorways with the front door and hallway immediately on the other side of the arches (again, NO DOORS). My best friend, who'd lived with me when I had WATT/Puppies, Versa Dynamic 2.d, MIT CVT Terminator, a JVC XLZ-1050 player and a Convergent preamp, Jadis Defy 7, VTL 300s and Plinius SA-250 amps - oh and the VAC 70/70 all with Transparent reference level speaker cable (circa 1995), shen I dragged her over, raving about the sound, said, "Oh, my God, Glen. I've heard your system sound GOOD, but this is a different level!!!). OF course, I neglected to note I'd just discovered Shunyata power cords, so I had a Black Mamba and a King Cobra V2 sent to San Francisco, so I could hear it while out there on someone else's system, and Jack Bybees first line conditioner and an ESP power cord powering Bybee's line contioner. The Shunyata went into the Arcam Alha 6 integrated My friends system, which I'd given him before I left California for lovely Connecticut, was a JVC 1050, an Arcam Alpha 6 integrated, MIT CVT w/Terminator, Transparent Plus speaker cable. He had a basic rack (Target, but not a sturdy rack), but with a level of sand bags, with MDF board on top with 3 GoldmundCones, another piece of MDF board and 3 MORE Goldmund cones, MAN, did we get imaging - AND focus. Oh, yes, the Speakers were the Mirage 490s, which the titanium tweeter. $600.00. HP reviewed the tweeter in the larger version, somewhere around TAS issue 84.

And the "holography/imaging" was stunning. Nancy Wilson CLEARLY outlined in space, singing "Free Again," off her Lush Life album. The bitterness in her voice was unmistable, the venemous bile made you recoil.
I point this out because I've been in several rooms, another one being Tom McFawl, the creator of the Meow, Meow cat commercials, who lives in Faifield, CT. His living room is easily 30 x45 - at the smallest (didn't have a yardstick) and he had Infinity speakers (non-descript ones), generic speaker cable in a nice, wood, walled room. Ceiling 10' or maybe 11. I bought over an Arcam FMJ -23 (with the Ring DAC) and Nordost Quattro Fils interconnects, and a Shunyata Python power cord. Other than the rug on the floor and the grand piano, there wasn't a shred of anything reflective - well, I guess those floor-to-ceiling lace curtains ofer the windows might've helped. But the room, I recall, didn't sound "live." That cold have been the bookcases along one wall.
You want life?!?! God, was it EVER alive. Every movement of the musicians, even down to their stomping on the floor, which disturbed Tom no end. "The Engineers should have edited that out," he screeched. My boyfriend and I made the point to him that it made the recording realistic in the sense of it sounding like real human beings playing their souls out.
He had NO sound-proofing of ANY kind,and the speakers weren't even on stands and were willy-nilly placed, one of e'm BEHING the piano. When the sound came out, I immedately thought, it's the size of the room. The room reflections are taking so long to reach the side walls, and ceilling, they reach the listener's ear LOOOOOONNNNG before any secondary relections.
His wiring was single end, but every bit as focused and holographic as when I heard Dave Wilson's WATT/Puppies in Novato in 1988 (Iwas the FIRST non-Wilson person to hear them.[Dave used to set up my Goldmund turntable for me]). And I kid you not, although the Wilsons had more resolution, they in NO WAY kicked Tom's Infinity speakers off the sonic stage.
People tweak everything, but how many know that if you put down a half-round 11" tube trap with the reflective side facing the speakers on the floor 6" away from the speakers and angling the traps so that they are not completely parallel to the front of the speakers (angle them slightly, so that if you measure one end, it would be 6 1/2" from the woofer (floorstandings: mine are Hale Rev 3s) and the other end around 7 1/2" away (usually the outer end of the trap is further away, as in the outside end of the speaker, closest to the side wall. I did that last night, and was disgusted I'd forgotten not to lay them perfectly parallel (ASC agrees, by the way). It brings back the lower mdrange frequency the Robert Green complained about in TAS about 6 issues ago when he said we were killing the lower midrange (sucking it out). I wrote Harley and said, use 1/2 round tube traps on the floor in front of the speakers and cure that suckout!
In any case, the size of the room surprasses most else (and the materials, too, of course: concrete? Yucky. ASC's wall damp - which I have - on a resilient channel - gives the wall the strength of a plaster wall ('course, it's not truly plaster), so flexing and bass loss are minimized.
Nonetheless, my upstairs listeing room is 13x20 with an 8' ceiling that suddenly goes up to 10' in the new addition (2003)part of the house.
For all that, the 23' x 43' basement (it's a small ranch), was THE most holographic presentation of the sound I've ever heard, and makes the ASL Hurricanes sound as they did in HP's review back in TAS' March 2003 issue. Upstairs in the smaller room, not quite the vivid, sheer, holy-good-it-sounds-live sound, although the imaging is better in the smaller room.
I cannot speak to multiple runs of wiring, but neither Dave Wilson, nor Alon Wolff use this approach, and certainly not the eminent Hary Pearson (and Ive heard his system, as well as Larry Kay,my former boss at Fi Magazine, when Larry had Grand Slamms, Transparent (top of the line) Rockport turntable, Jadis JP-80 linestage, Bel amps and, hmmm...not sure of the interconnects: either MIT or Transparent. I liked the $300,000 system, but thought it not a match for my measly $25k system - and I KNOW what to listen for. 'Smatter of fact, I asked permission to make a change and then removed the power cord from lying on top of the Transparent reference speaker cable, which I elevated with a book so it was like a bridge going over the power cord on the floor. Sallie Reynolds, upon a replay of the cut, gasped, "What did you DO?!?" And Tom Miiller looked at me (we were writing an article about the Audio Artistry Dvorak speakers at the time, me doing the commentary on his main review) and said, "Showoff!" I protested that this came from Enid Lumley herself, and was not my idea. Also, turn off your microwaves, and no, I don't CARE that you have your stereo on a dedicated 20 amp circuit. Unless your circuit box is completely separate, TURN OFF THE MICROWAVE.
So, to wrap this up, i've had a LOT of experience with designers in their own factory listening rooms, and I'm here to tell you, the room comes FIRST. if you don't fix it, you may find yourelf compensating to create an effect that need not be so complicated, except for the room's interference. (I still remember after my review of the Hurricanes on Ultraaudio.com, someone wrote to ask if I didn't find the Hurricanes "smeared," and I thought "his room's off." They are, as HP said, excellent on attack and decay. If you hear smearing, it's something else, not them. I wish more people would get about 10 9"tube traps, stack them behind the speakers and put one each to the side (first reflection point) and then you'll hear how much NATURAL imaging your system has. You can improve from there, but you can't build the rooms in a house without floor plans and knowledge of your building material. That's a recipe for disappointment.

Gbmcleod,
It is obvious you have a lot of experience with this. I find that everything matters. But once the system gets to a high level then room treatment is where to concentrate to take things to higher levels.

My room is about 15 x 14 feet. I have done a lot with it and have made great progress using:

Shakti Holographs
Synergistic Research ART
QRT Symphony Pros
SteinMusic Harmonizers
Schumann resonance devices

There is not much else I can do with the room at this point because of space restrictions and irregular shape. I will eventually have a rectangular shaped room 20 x 30 feet to work with. We'll see how things sound when I move my system to the new room.

Regarding using cables in series, I am aware that few audiophiles understand this approach and fewer yet have experience with "multiple runs of wiring". There are a few people daisy-chaining their front end as I do. They have posted about this on other sites. Daisy chaining the front end means a longer signal path which flies in the face of the "shorter-the-signal-path-the-better-the-sound" school. There is no question that daisy chaining has created an amazing improvement in SQ in my system:

isolation transformer > power conditioner > power regenerator

Three additional levels of power cords are required here -- hardly a short signal path. I use Bybee AC purifiers sandwiched between PCs, one of which I DIY with my own proprietary mod. This greatly enhances the SQ as well. Unconventional -- yes. An improvement? Very much so.

Sabai:
I'm going to, for the sake if argument, suggest that room treatment is the FIRST place to start, even before the components. (And let me tell you, I myself never started out that way: it took many years for me to realize the room counted so much, but then, I had good-sized rooms in all my apartments in San Francisco. Everything opened up into a larger space. If I knew then what I know now...wow, I coulda been in LOVE a lot earlier.)

So, lets say you have a component that is weak in, say, the lower midrange, and you have a room that ALSO sucks out the power range (100-400Hz), the logical step would be to buy a component that emphasizes the lower midrange. However, in this case, you are COMPENSATING with a component that is not neutral. Then, when you buy something that IS neutral, the problem re-materializes.
It is far better to do a room sweep before putting anything in the room. Add components, place the speakers where you think they should be, then do another room sweep. At this point, you have not purchased anything other than the components. The sweep will tell you where your problems are, but again, the bigger the room, the fewer the problems. This is not my personal knowledge: Alton Everest, in his "Master Handbook of Acoustics," states that "volumes smaller than 1500 cubic feet are so prone to sound coloration that they are impractical." I guess he would know, right?
But I do agree with you that room treatment, second only to room size (with caveats: asymmetrical walls, porous floors, etc.) are highly important. Trust me, I'm disappointed in the 13x20 room, in contrast to the 23 x 40'ish basement in the house. In the smaller room, the system sounds "great." In the basement (unfinished, or I'd be LIVING in that space: but it has no heat), the sound is completely different, bordering on an "aliveness" it never has upstairs. I reviewed the Genesis 6.1s in both rooms. Even with initial placement in the basement, the Gennies were so much clearer, it was disturbing. Room treatments can certainly help, but they cannot overcome the laws of physics. I find sidewalls more problematic than rear walls, since sound is omnidirectional at lower frequencies.
I, too, have used Shakti Hallographs, and they improve the sonics, but my basement, tons of boxes all over the place and all? Can't be beat for 3-D imaging. I will say dipolars work better in a smaller room than boxes, though.

Gbmcleod,
You make some very good points. But, in my opinion, you cannot treat a room that has no components in it. There is no sound to treat. I think the room treatments I use could be applied in most high end rooms but their implementation will vary according to the needs of each system and the idiosyncrasies of each room. At the moment I am limited by the size of my room and its irregular features. God willing, one day I will have a bigger room and will be able to experiment with room treatment in a way that is impossible at the moment.

Sabai:
I'd have to disagree with your statement. A room has nodes because of its dimensions. "Equipment" does not affect room nodes: the room itself has this, as water, in a container, has different weight, texture and movement than does milk, or wine or orange juice or any other liquid.
I understand the idea that components affect the sonics, but a suckout in the lower midrange is there regardless whether or not there is equipment in it. You can't HEAR it until you put components in it, but this is a bit like, "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" (Of course it does: it has mass and density and coming into contact with something else with mass and density produces a result: sound. Whether or not someone is there to hear the sound does not change the reality, similar to if you clap your hands together and you're deaf, is there a sound? Obviously, but you cannot hear it because you lack the ability to hear sound. The sound is still there. So are the room nodes, but they don't come into play until someone steps into the room. Some of us forget that if we walk into a room and talk, the room nodes are activated. Components not needed, just sound waves. And you CAN treat a room for speech.An acoustic engineeer designs a hall without ever having an orchestra playing in it. The orchestra comes later. The room has the same nodes and can then be MODIFIED to sound better, but the room can be treated (sonically enhanced) long before a performance is given.

Gbmcleod,
Yes -- while you can treat the room before you put the components in the room the real work will come when are faced with the problem of treating the room with the components (and wiring) in place. You will need to move things around a lot to fine tune everything to the specific needs of your system.

Hello,
I am new to this. I don't usually participate in forum discussions, although I do in fact read them a lot. I found this discussion very interesting and even though I am probably responding a little late, I find that I would like to add my ''two cents'' to the ideas being expressed.
I am going to respond to the question that was first asked which was, ''Have you had success with your holographic system, and if so, how did you get there?''
My answer to the first part of the question is unequivocally ''Yes, I have had a lot of success with respect to holography.''

So now on to the second part of the question... the ''how.''

First my system: MacMini > Spatial HD (using iTunes as data base) > Stello U3 USB/Spdif interface > Metrum Octave DAC > Crayon CFA-1/90 integrated amp > Gallo Reference 3.5 speakers

In my opinion a wide, deep, holographic presentation is the raison d'etre of stereo, so in building my system I have concentrated my efforts on this without neglecting the basic elements - transparency, timbral accuracy, tonal density, transients and decay, etc. - that are essential to producing the illusion of a ''real'' musical event. But all of those elements you could get in a high end mono system. Stereo is about sound stage and imaging.

So soundstage and hollography are why I have settled on the Gallo 3.5 (after having gone several other speakers, including the Gallo 3.1s). Anyone who has ever heard them knows that a the wide, deep, holographic soundstage with every instrument in its own space is one of the strengths of this speaker. They do that in spades. The walls in my room literally disappear and nothing ever stays within the confines of the speakers and the speakers themselves totally disappear. They produce a wall of music before me and it is impossible to detect any sound coming directly from the speakers. For all practical purposes they might as well not even exist.

The next step in my quest for a yet wider, deeper and more holographic soundstage was the acquisition of the Crayon CFA-1/90 integrated amp. This amp is truly phenomenal in every aspect, but especially in its ability to create a super wide and very holographic soundstage. In his 6MOONS review of this integrated Srajan Ebaen said it is a virtual stand-in for a SET amp. but with none of the drawbacks that triodes present.

Here is some of what he has to say about the holographic qualities of this amp:

''What one notices first however is the connective tissue action of triodes as a completely unexpected and very non-transistory quality. It makes space audible with interpenetrating auras around, and thus between, performers.
Hearing the shadows is a very tubular thing. It creates a natural hologram in which dimensional placements aren't derived from hyper focus against blackness. Instead, our perception of recorded space comes from 'presence halos' which surround the musicians as reflections and decays...
Whatever you want to call that action, the CFA-1 does it exactly like a direct-heated no-feedback single-ended triode amp. I referenced this directly against my A-09S Yamamoto to eliminate all doubts... There was no mistake. The Crayon Audio amp is a virtual stand-in for triodes in matters of depicting audible space which isn't the same as soundstaging per se.''

He goes on to say that where this amp differs from a SET amp is in matters of higher resolution, more extension of bass and treble, more crystalized imaging and separation between instruments and a much wider soundstage. But with respect to how it handles spatial relationships and holography it is ''the antithesis'' of any transistor amp he had heard up to that time.
As an owner of a Crayon CFA-1 I can attest that everything he said in that review, at least to my ear, is absolutely true. Purchasing this amp is one of the most significant things that I did in order to achieve a truly holographic presentation.

The next addition to my system was the Stello U3/Metrum Octave DAC combination. The Octave is a truly great DAC, especially for the price. Up to that time, I had been using the Burson HA 160D and while I cannot say definitively that the Octave brought any significant improvement to the holography, I can say that with respect to things like resolution, transient attacks and decay, extended highs and lows, tighter more musical bass, it just simply outclassed the Burson without giving up any of the Burson's tonal density.
At this point, I thought I had arrived... that is until the day I decided to address any possible room issues.

First let me say that I thoroughly disagree with Gbmcleod's statements about a tree falling in the forest making sound if no one is around to hear it. In fact a tree falling in the forest makes no sound at all. What it does do is move air in waves. But sound does not occur until those waves of air strike an eardrum whose subsequent vibration produces an electrical signal which is then transferred to the brain. And it is in the brain that the sensation that we call sound is produced. Without an ear attached to a brain, there is fact no sound... only moving air.
But while I disagree with him on that one point, I agree with him wholeheartedly on both the importance of the room's role in the reproduction of a musical event and that the room has it ''problems'' whether a Hifi system is present and/or playing or not.
But I also agree with Sabai. You do in fact need some kind of sound signal to discover just how to treat a room. Gbmcleod seems to agree with this when he says you can treat a room for speech. And I further propose that engineers do in fact use some type of sonic signal to trigger their measurement devices. In total silence you could not possibly determine what a room might need.
In any case, however, the room is indeed not only an important component but also an incredibly essential component. Just how essential it is I discovered when I moved to my next purchase: The Spatial HD room correction program.

This is a computer program with which Clayton Shaw of Spatial Computer makes electronic equalization corrections to the digital signal. Clayton installs the HD software on your computer and he sends you, via US mail, a mic and a mic preamp. Then, after the mic has been set up in the optimum position, Clayton using a program called TeamViewer (also provided by Spatial) takes control of the computer and sends a series of signals through your system which are picked up by the mic and sent back to him in Colorado where he does the necessary measurements and maps out the acoustic anomalies of your room. Then he makes the necessary to corrections to the computer's digital signal output, until his measurements are registering a flat response throughout the entire band width of your speakers.
This, of course, is the same thing that is done by signal correction devices such as Audyssey and others. But the difference here is that all of Spatial's corrections are done at the source, in the computer, without the addition of yet another ''box'' in the signal chain which risks creating other problems with respect to transparency and colorations.
The result created in my room by the Spatial HD corrections was revelatory. Actually, it seemed magical. I am still blown away by it. I can honestly say that I had absolutely no idea as to just how good my system could sound prior to Spatial-izing. My room, acoustically speaking, had been no slouch. When Clayton first measured it he commented on how good it already was. Yet, the results of Spatial were dramatic to say the least. Improvement was effected in all the usual parameters that make for an ''authentic'' sound - timbre, attack, decay, clarity. But where it really shone was with respect to soundstage (it widened/opened it up even more) and instrument placement and holographic 3 dimensional imaging. In those parameter the enhancement brought by Spatial HD was superb. All I have to do, in order to test my memory on this, is simply turn Spatial off and take my system back to what it originally was... something I do only on occasion to remind myself or to demonstrate to others. But I can tollerate turning it off for only a minute or so. Then I have to turn it back on.
I am convinced that many people considering spending yet more money for a ''better'' component or cables etc. might just change their minds after hearing what their present system is really capable of after digital room correction. But, in any case, if you don't have your room treated in some way - either digitally or via physical room correction devices - you may be missing as much as 50% of your system's true capabilities (depending on the room, of course.).

Now on to cables (This seems to be a subject near and dear to Sabai's heart): I had tried several different cables. For a while I had been using Analysis Plus Blue Oval interconnects and speaker wire. This was a step up, it seemed, from the rather ordinary cable that I had been using.
Then, after having read quite a bit about DNM cables, I decided to try them and I liked them. They certainly were priced right!
But when I started using the Crayon CFA-1, I could no longer use either the DNMs nor the Analysis Plus speaker cables because with the CFA-1 you can only use banana plugs. So, when I bought it I also got some rather expensive speaker cables that the manufacturer of the CFA-1 felt worked especially well with his amp. This brand is called COLOURS and I have not been able to find any information for them on the net. But, in any case, they did indeed work very well with the CFA-1, so much so that later, when he had a pair of COLOURS interconnects to sell at a reduced price I bought those as well. And in this way my system had reached a level of quality performance os which I could not even have conceived when I first started on my ''HIFI Journey."

Now as we all know cables are a very controversial subject, and the general audiophile population seems to be divided into 3 camps: 1) those who say that cables make no difference whatsoever; 2) those who believe that cables can make a difference, but the difference is, at best, subtle; 3) those who believe that cables can make a big difference (these people are, I believe, much fewer in number and usually they refer to cable that cost a lot... really a lot.)
I was in category number 2. I felt that the various cables I had tried all had had an effect, but that it was subtle.
Then I decided to try some cables about which I had read nothing but good reviews: Tellurium Q Ultra Black Speaker cables and interconnects. And from the moment I put them into my system, the question about how good cables could be was answered for me... forever!!!
For me, the addition of the Tellurium Q's was like going to a new and much better DAC. They are that good!!! Tellurium Q claims that their cables correct for phase distortion Perhaps this is so, because in my system they certainly did correct for something.
Everything became clearer. Timbres improved even more. Bass became tighter and (most importantly) more musical. Trebles became more extended, clearer and sweeter. Incredibly, the sound stage became yet wider and deeper and the instruments within the sound stage even better individuated. Here I want to say, however, that the significant improvement was created by the speaker cables. The interconnects did bring some improvement to the sound, but, in their case, it was very subtle. I could have lived just as happily with the Colours interconnects. In any case, I couldn't believe what I was hearing as a result of these cables and I was very very satisfied.
But then, out of curiosity, I decided to give Clayton Shaw's new Spatial Quantum Field cables a try. Clayton's Spatial HD room correction had invoked a significant improvement in my system and I respect his philosophy. I like the way he thinks and I like his ''ear.'' So I had him send me a pair of speaker cables and a pair of interconnects. I had every intention of sending them back if they did not outperform the TQ Ultra Blacks (and I really didn't see how they could).
Well, I did not send them back for once I again, I was more than satisfied... for several reasons.
First let me say that the Spatial cables do not represent as huge an improvement in the sound quality over the TQs as did the TQs over the Colours before them. But, to my ear, they are every bit as good as the Ultra Blacks... except in those areas in which they are even better. And the ways in which they are somewhat better are important to me: 1. The bass is a yet a smidgen tighter and slightly more musical than that produced by the TQs; 2. the sound stage is even a litte wider and more open (definitely more open); 3. and finally (and most importantly to the question of holography) all of the elements in the sound stage are better ''sorted out.'' I have no other way to put it. Perhaps there is more air around the instruments, I don't know. What I do know is that they seem to be positioned more naturally... less ''bunched together'' as it were. The presentation is more relaxed - musically natural, if you will. Even when the music becomes busier, more agitated and frenetic, every instrument retains its spatial correctness and the musical composure is somehow maintained.
And this is from cables that cost little more than a third of the price of the Tellurium Q Ultra Blacks. And further more, the interconnects do indeed have a significant effect bringing even more improvement to the whole. My girlfriend, who is not an audiophile, can easily hear the improvement that the interconnects bring. I later had Clayton send me another pair of interconnects that are terminated with WBT Nextgen plugs. For me this settled the issue as to whether plugs can make a difference. I know now without a doubt that they certainly can and do... and the difference, while not as great as going to the new cables, is not subtle. I can hear it and so can my girlfriend. It is very noticeable. So, I ordered more plugs from WBT and had the first pair of Spatial interconnects terminated with them as well.

I am extremely satisfied with the results of all my work. My system is absolutely one of the very best that I have ever heard, in all respects, but most certainly with respect to soundstage and holographic imaging.
Have I reached the end of my quest? Probably not, as a matter of fact I am thinking about upgrading my DAC to the Metrum Hex. But at this point I do not feel that anything is missing and I am not lusting after the next thing that I will do. I am in no hurry. Life is good!

Say what?

Huh? Just lolligagin.

Nice work Lolligager. Don't wait so long to chime in next time!

All the best,
Nonoise

As I said, I rarely participate. On this one, however, I would have contributed sooner, but I discovered this thread rather late. As a matter of fact I thought that it was dead seeing that the last post was a whole month prior to mine. I am glad to see that someone is still reading it.

I called this first earlier in this thread as having a better chance of being true than certain esoteric tweak related claims, based on scientific evidence, and got mocked :-)

We May Be Martians

Mapman, why would you believe a Martian?

Why do you think he doesn't believe you?

Disclaimer: I've read only part of this thread. Apologies to anyone who has suggested what I'm about to suggest.

I had something interesting happen to me last week and the result was an exceptional "holographic" experience with my fairly revealing system (Pass Labs xa30.5, Joseph Audio Pulsars, Tara Labs cables, Oppo BDP-105) ok I know the oppo isn't audiophile for a lot of you, but bear with me ...

I was tweaking quite a few things up to the point that I really liked what I had - great placement granting wide and deep soundstage. No noticeable resonances, none that I could hear anyhow. Nice comfortable listening position not too close or far away. I stepped away for quite awhile and returned later that night. The experience quickly after sitting down and listening to BB Kings Deuces Wild was revelatory: A holographic experience I've never heard. It was impossible to determine the speaker placement or the dimensions of my listening room, and the various levels of depth and width astounded me, as did the low level details giving dimensions to the recording venue. I felt like I had reached audio nirvana. However through this all I knew something was missing, but if you're there you're not complaining about much. I stayed up for hours enjoying the "holography" not wanting to sleep I was having so much fun.

Next morning I woke up and of course needed to return to the scene and hear it all over again. Couldn't do it! What happened? Well, in short what happened is that my ears had a rest and after sleeping off THE ALCOHOL I enjoyed the night before (half a bottle of wine?) I could now hear more high frequency information giving more accurate cues as to, well ... everything. Yes, I lose the ability to hear high frequencies sometimes when drinking. Probably more than a half bottle of wine. Can't remember;-)

If you're following me then you probably know where this is going. My suspicion is that with all the extra cabling and fidgeting around, a lot of high frequency information was removed from the OP's system. Without the very high end the OP was now finding what he was looking for - an inability to place the equipment in his listening room and instead it sounds like a slightly veiled version of what his system would be reproducing otherwise. Hey, if you hear what you want why question that anything is wrong?!

OK. I know I'm speculating here. But I'm guessing it's leaving quite a few of you wanting to do this experiment yourselves;-) It was a good one while it lasted.

Surprised no one responded to my last post. Is it because this has already been covered earlier in the thread? If it wasn't understood, the idea is that when (some) high frequency information is filtered out it becomes harder to distinguish or pinpoint speakers and other qualities of the listening env. This is true in general, without respect to what the listener had or did for dinner.

Too many variables. What brand of wine?

;-)