What Does Holographic Sound Like?

Onhwy61,
There is no inside joke here. Everything is on the table. Those who don't understand -- not my problem. Their loss. I am not selling anything to anyone. I have nothing to sell. I'm not in the audio business or connected to anyone in the audio business. I'm only connected to the music.

This has indeed been a painstaking process, but a labor of love nonetheless. If I take even one element out of the system I have to put it back right away. There is no going back to the old way of doing things. Yes, getting really good sound quality takes an awful lot of work. Everything really good in my life has come with really hard work.

Douglas_schroeder,

Thank you for your kind post. It is much appreciated. You have the kind of open mind that I esteem. I think you would be stunned if you sat down and listened to my system. I was brought up as a classical pianist from the age of seven. I graduated from the Conservatory of Music. Music is a passion for me -- not a hobby. I believe you sensed this from reading my OP.

Thanks for letting me know about this joke. I had no idea. It will be very easy for me to ignore these folks. I am of another generation and am not familiar with this kind of "inside joke". I could not care less. I’m not too old to appreciate good music and to recognize what my ears tell me. My hearing is very acute. I can still hear 16,000Hz.

I agree. Those who laugh at this are missing out. Daisy-chaining is not totally unknown in high end audio, by the way, although it is unknown with cables. I found a couple of threads on other sites about daisy-chaining power conditioners + isolation transformers + power regenerators. The posters gave me some ideas that I found were spot on for my own system -- how to get the best effects when using these front-end components. I have four of these components in series in my front end. I could never go back to having only one or two of these elements in my front end. The combined result with all four in my system has been nothing short of stunning.

I also used to feel that the shortest path must be the best way -- before I started experimenting with cables in series. I think you will change your mind very quickly once you start experimenting with series cabling. With reference to the shortest path, I think you have already experienced what I am talking about, regarding your digital cable experience. I have found that detail and definition are actually enhanced -- as well as sound stage and continuity -- when you have the right synergy with series cabling. This is totally counter to what one would expect and I have no explanation for it.

But I can speculate. Electrons travel awfully fast through cables. And as they travel through a series of cables they are being organized in a unique way through each unique cable -- and through each unique "tweak". It is the combined effects of this multiple-stage organizing of electrons that produce very special results. This is where the word synergy enters the picture. From my way of thinking, having experienced this first-hand, the shortest path is irrelevant in the search for better sound through series cabling. There is virtually no difference in how long it takes for the current to pass through a short signal path versus a long signal path. And that time difference is not a deciding factor when it comes to the issue of sonic synergy. This is an issue that is cable-dependent and "tweak"-dependent -- not an issue that is "length of signal path"-dependent.

Like you, I also demand detail along with improved holography. I never sacrifice detail for the sake of improved imaging. There is no easier way to kill the sound than to take away the detail. In fact, I was looking for increased detail/definition by using cables in series and I have been pleasantly surprised with this very result.

In my opinion, you are not entirely right when you comment that it is virtually impossible to say which cable is doing what in the series. You can take out one cable at a time and reinsert each, one at a time, to find out what special properties each cable imparts to the series. This is how I discovered which position in each series is best for each cable. In the end, it is the synergy of the whole series that matters. There is no telling ahead of time how things will sound until you work with each cable and each “tweak” in each series to discover the best location for each of them.

Jack Bybee has kept me very busy finding novel ways to integrate his products into my system. Jack is the kind of innovative audio manufacturer I seek out. We all know how run-of-the-mill sounds. But if you want to reach a higher level you have to use a bit of imagination and a lot of cash to make it happen. If you don't succeed, OK -- nothing much lost. But if you do succeed you may be the happiest audio camper around – with some people scratching their heads, and some laughing about something they have no experience with.

Regarding searching for that single special cable, the closest I have come is HiDiamond. But I still use all HiDiamonds in my system (digital, interconnects, speaker cables, power cords) in series with other cables and “tweaks” for the best effect. If you could hear my system you would instantly know what I am talking about. Once you have started down the series-cabling path there is no going back because you realize that nothing is lost or sacrificed. No sonic parameter is compromised. On the contrary. Everything is enhanced -- and I am talking about not subtle -- when you come up with winning combinations. I agree with you about a big change. If I make a change to my system and I am sitting there scratching my head trying to hear if something has happened then forget it.

Your own experiment with cables in parallel is a good example of the mindset I am talking about – stepping outside the box. Regarding parallel cabling, I am actually running a small experiment at the moment with speaker cables in parallel. So far, so good. But, up till now, I have actually been running all my speaker cables in series.

As for guidelines about how to go about successful series cabling and tweaking, the process seems to favor at least one active cable in the series. If initial results are not favorable, reverse the series and connect up again. If you want to start experimenting with series cabling I would suggest using a Synergistic Research active XLR interconnect in series with another non-active XLR interconnect of your choice from a different company. Since it will be very hard to get hold of Bybee XLR Interconnect Quantum Purifiers to “tweak’ the series – only about 12 pairs were made (I have one pair) -- the MIC Enacom (from Combak Harmonix in Japan) may do well. This is an excellent item for improving the sound through the XLR interconnect path but it is an item that is very position-dependant in the series.

By the way, although I am retired I still run a small and very successful company (in the electronics business but not audio-related). My business is based on an invention whose development was greatly dependent on keeping an open mind about possibilities. Ever the experimenter, I have recently developed my own audio product – a proprietary RCA feed-back circuit that has become an indispensible part of my system. It has been tested on many high end professional systems and in every case it greatly enhanced holographic imaging. One high end shop wanted to purchase a set on the spot after taking the time to listen carefully to its attributes. But I could not part with my prototype. I am now compiling a list of interested reviewers and distributors who will be receiving this product for evaluation. Please let me know if you are interested in receiving a set for evaluation.

Regarding devices that are not in the signal path, I have found Shakti Hallographs very useful.

Your positive response to my OP is greatly appreciated.

Orpheus10,
What have you done since you left Carver behind to attain holography in your system? Would you care to share some of this here? As you so rightly observe, holography -- at a sufficiently high level -- really brings the music alive and makes it so enjoyable.

I would love to have heard the systems you are referring to. I do my auditioning in Hong Kong, Bangkok and Singapore. The Adelphi 1 Audio Mall in Singapore is the all-in-one audio emporium that I enjoy best of all.

Sabai wrote,

"But I can speculate. Electrons travel awfully fast through cables. And as they travel through a series of cables they are being organized in a unique way through each unique cable -- and through each unique "tweak". It is the combined effects of this multiple-stage organizing of electrons that produce very special results. This is where the word synergy enters the picture. From my way of thinking, having experienced this first-hand, the shortest path is irrelevant in the search for better sound through series cabling. There is virtually no difference in how long it takes for the current to pass through a short signal path versus a long signal path. And that time difference is not a deciding factor when it comes to the issue of sonic synergy. This is an issue that is cable-dependent and "tweak"-dependent -- not an issue that is "length of signal path"-dependent."

Just for the record, the velocity of electrons through audio cables, the drift velocity, is actually extremely slow, on the order of one meter per 12 hours! On the other hand, the electromagnetic wave - the musical signal travelling through audio cables - travels at a high percentage of the speed of light.

Also for the record, Shakti Hallographs are actually IN the signal path, assuming one considers reflected acoustic waves in the room that reach the ear to be part of the Signal Path. Ditto for Tube Traps, Corner Tunes, Skyline and other diffusers, Sonex and such. LessLoss Blackbody, Tice Clock and Schumann low frequency (7.8 Hz) generator are much better examples of devices that most folks would deem NOT to be in the signal path.

Regarding Doug's finding that a longer XLR cable that was not designed for digital applications outperformed a shorter RCA digital cable, that is not at all implausible or surprising.

For one thing, it can often be expected that a modestly longer cable will outperform a shorter one in a digital application, depending on a number of system-dependent variables. For the explanation, see this paper by Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio ("Audioengr" at Audiogon). While the paper discusses S/PDIF, similar considerations can be applicable to AES/EBU, although the specific numbers may be different. None of this is applicable to the much lower frequencies of analog audio signals, however.

Also, of course, a comparison between an unbalanced interface and a balanced interface introduces many variables into the mix besides the intrinsic differences between the cables. In digital applications those would include differences in signal characteristics such as risetimes and falltimes, which are directly relevant to jitter; the fact that different interface circuits are being used in the two components; and differences in susceptibility to ground loop effects and pickup of low level noise, both of which can affect jitter.

Regards,
-- Al

Onhwy61 wrote,

"Some people fall outside the curve because they are brilliant
outsiders blazing paths into the unknown. But for every person like that
there are probably a thousand who are just oddballs. I honestly don't know
where Sabai falls. I applaud him for his willingness to share, yet at the
same time some of the things he says sound like an elaborate inside joke.
Not all that different than the post by the guy selling the over the telephone
test tones."

Most folks would probably consider tiny little bowls that improve bass
frequencies, 7.8 Hz frequency generators, the Red X Coordinate Pen, LP
demagnetizers, the Quantum Clip, Tourmaline Gun, liquid cables, CD edge
bevelers, directional fuses and Rainbow Foil to be elaborate jokes or cruel
hoaxes foisted on gullible audiophiles. Side note: the telephone thing does
not involve test tones.

GK

My apologies for misdescribing the telephone thing. Although I note you are careful not to say it wasn't a joke.

Oh come on, Al. With all due respect, you of all people here should be able to tell us what we can expect to hear and what we cannot regarding the OP's position. Remember the "b.s."? Is it appropriate for all of us to become delusional? Seriously.

Onhwy61 wrote,

"My apologies for misdescribing the telephone thing. Although I note you are careful not to say it wasn't a joke."

- Ok, I'll say it. It's not a joke. It's as serious as a colonoscopy without anesthetic.

:-)

GK

Geoffkait,
To keep things simple, when referring to "in the signal path" I am talking about whatever is actually connected to the circuitry of the system.

Regarding electrons, of course I misstated this. I should have said the audio signal travels awfully fast through cables -- not the electrons. To clarify, the electrons themselves are not actually "flowing" at lightning speed when we talk about the flow of electricity. It is the energy flow via the electrons that creates the audio signal. While the actual speed of the electrons themselves is slow and their movement is characterized by more than one form of movement, the sound we hear actually travels very fast via the energy flow through the electrons. If we had to wait for the electrons themselves to arrive with that signal we would be very disappointed. Each modification of the signal path via cables and "tweaks" changes the signal flow via the electrons. I hope this clarifies how I see signal modification happening.

09-18-12: Csontos
Oh come on, Al. With all due respect, you of all people here should be able to tell us what we can expect to hear and what we cannot regarding the OP's position. Remember the "b.s."? Is it appropriate for all of us to become delusional? Seriously.

Actually, I can’t say what others should expect regarding the OP’s position, and I don’t think that anyone can. I would simply asterisk the experiences he has reported with a big “YMMV.”

As I have said in the past in many cable-related threads, cable effects are dependent to a considerable extent on interactions between their parameters and characteristics and the technical characteristics of what they are connecting. Things like input and output impedances, noise susceptibility, susceptibility to ground loop effects, power supply design (with respect to power cords), amplifier class of operation and other design variables (with respect to power cords), use of feedback in amplifiers (with respect to speaker cables), etc, etc. And even if the technical characteristics of what is being connected are known in detail, many of those effects would still be inherently unpredictable. And to the extent that there is predictability, it is easily possible to cite situations in which a sonic comparison between two cables would yield exactly opposite results depending on what is being connected.

What would be a delusion, IMO, is an expectation of a high degree of correlation between cable price and cable performance. Weakness of that correlation follows in part from that system dependency and inherent unpredictability. And if, as many here would assert (including me, to a degree that is LIMITED AND FINITE), cable effects are not fully explainable on the basis of generally recognized science, there is further reason to expect a weak correlation between price and performance. To the extent that cable effects are not explainable on the basis of generally recognized science, no one can say with any precision where the dividing line is that separates sonically beneficial optimization of a given aspect of a cable’s design, from overkill that substantially raises the cost of the cable but provides no benefit.

FWIW, the OP’s path is not one that I would personally follow. It suggests the possibility that a multitude of small inaccuracies were both originally present and subsequently introduced, which after a great deal of time and experimentation have been made to essentially cancel each other out. If I were not satisfied with the imaging/dimensionality/holography of my system, consistent with some of Onhwy61’s comments I would focus on speaker placement, listening position, and room acoustics, and probably also on upgrading components. But that’s just me. The OP has found a path to success that worked for him, for which he is to be congratulated. But as I said earlier, YMMV.

Regards,
-- Al

Sabai, I will be more than happy to tell you everything I know about holography. First, Carver was not true holography. I've owned and tried almost every gimic under the Sun, none of them worked.

Let us compare obtaining holography to cooking a good recipe; you begin with the best products you can buy. I suggest perusing an old library of "Stereophile" magazines and selecting from the components rated "Class-A". You also may need advice in regard to "synergy". Kevin at Upscale Audio is always in a talkative mood. Although I have custom speakers I'm partial to Von Schweikerts.

A dedicated listening room is also essential. There must be space between the back wall and the side wall in regard to the speakers. The only area you can make a substantial savings, is on interconnects and speaker wire. Since high quality wire is a must, you'll have to get it from a speaker store or "Vampire Wire", but you can get it in bulk and terminate your own.

Once you get it altogether, you'll still need advice from your "guru" of choice to make it click; but when it does, you're in "audiophile heaven".

Al,
Correlation is weakened by the fact that people often try more expensive cable from the wrong family or their systems have poor transparency. Cardas cables, for instance, are praised by many for the warmth, while Nordost cables bring speed and resolution. Replacing bottom of the line Cardas with top of the line Nordost in bright system can make it sound worse in spite of much higher price - a reverse correlation. At the same time person changing from less expensive to more expensive Nordost might feel big improvement. Over the years I used few Audioqest ICs in my system (Topaz, Ruby, Viper, King Cobra) finding each time more refinement with more expensive cable and when I thought King Cobra is good enough to keep I tried Acoustic Zen Absolute that cost more. I've never seen reverse or no correlation perhaps because I targeted cables known as neutral sounding for neutral sounding system. Would it be better to spend money on something else? - that's another story.

Geoffkait, electrons don't travel at all - they vibrate standing in place since we're dealing with AC signals.

Kijanki wrote,

"Geoffkait, electrons don't travel at all - they vibrate standing in place since we're dealing with AC signals."

I was obviously referring to audio cables, not A/C cables. Electron Drift Velocity is on the order of 1 mm/hr.

Cheers

Drift velocity with audio cables constantly changes direction since audio cable carry AC current making them "vibrate". At higher frequencies they practically stand still.

Al, he's stating for all intents and purposes, that he's experiencing a far higher degree of holography than you did with your Carver!! I can't believe you're willing to reconcile this to personal individual experience. Reminds me of the seventies when a bunch of brand names attempted to pass themselves off as high end by producing spuriously favorable specs. What's up? Diplomacy does have a down side. Namely public perception.

09-18-12: Csontos
Al, he's stating for all intents and purposes, that he's experiencing a far higher degree of holography than you did with your Carver!! I can't believe you're willing to reconcile this to personal individual experience. Reminds me of the seventies when a bunch of brand names attempted to pass themselves off as high end by producing spuriously favorable specs. What's up? Diplomacy does have a down side. Namely public perception.

As I see it, the conclusion stated in your first sentence can only be read into his posts with respect to off-axis listening, for which the Carver Sonic Hologram essentially doesn't work. My take on the rest of his comments is reflected in my previous post, which amounts primarily to an opinion that his findings should not be expected to have broad applicability. Not sure what else there is to say.

Regards,
-- Al

You are laughing right now, right?

Almarg,
You stated, "FWIW, the OP’s path is not one that I would personally follow. It suggests the possibility that a multitude of small inaccuracies were both originally present and subsequently introduced, which after a great deal of time and experimentation have been made to essentially cancel each other out. If I were not satisfied with the imaging/dimensionality/holography of my system, consistent with some of Onhwy61’s comments I would focus on speaker placement ..."

There were no "inaccuracies" present or introduced that "cancelled" each other out. With all due respect, frankly, I find this a very odd statement. Especially the idea of introducing inaccuracies and cancelling out. I have a problem wrapping my head around this one. It is a complete misconception. I am not talking about inaccuracies. I am talking about improving the holographic imaging and other parameters. There was nothing "inaccurate" about the sound before these improvements were made. The sound was as accurate as it could be at that time given the nature of the system that was then in place.

When you introduce a second power cord in series with a Bybee AC Purifier, for example, you do not introduce an "inaccuracy" into the system. If anything, the sound becomes more "accurate", if you care to put it that way, because some of the AC has been cleaned up. The end result of all the improvements is a much more "accurate" sound. If anything has been cancelled by this process it is only one thing -- the lack of earlier "accuracy" due to distortion caused by dirty AC.

Off-axis listening in the "new improved" system is phenomenal. You can sit or stand virtually anywhere in the room and hear the same holographic image.

Geoffkait,
You stated, "... the velocity of electrons through audio cables, the drift velocity, is actually extremely slow ...". Of course, you are completely correct. My later post where I correct my misstatement was not allowed -- or is just late in being posted here.

You also stated, "On the other hand, the electromagnetic wave - the musical signal travelling through audio cables - travels at a high percentage of the speed of light." You are completely correct. Close to the speed of light. This is what I was referring to -- the signal, not the electrons themselves, which my later post explains (not yet appearing here).

You stated "I honestly don't know where Sabai falls." Frankly, I don't care where I "fall". Whoever wants to pigeon-hole me can go right ahead.

Almarg,
Since you have no experience with this and since you have not heard my system -- which would certainly convince you -- there is only one thing you can do, and that is to speculate. This is totally understandable. There is no way for anyone to understand this process unless they start to experiment personally with series and parallel cabling. And it is understandable that this will not be a viable option for most people. It takes a lot of work and a lot of money to do this -- and the inclination to do something completely different.

Csontos,
Tell us a good joke. I got a great sense of humor. I love a good laugh.

Sabai wrote,

"geoffkait, you stated, "I honestly don't know where Sabai falls." Frankly, I don't care where I "fall". Whoever wants to pigeon-hole me can go right ahead."

I did not make that statement. You must be thinking of someone else.

Cheers, GK

Geoffkait,
Sorry if I ascribed this to you in error. No worries. This is not a "problem area" for me -- for whoever wants to go there.

Sabai wrote,

"Geoffkait,
To keep things simple, when referring to "in the signal path" I
am talking about whatever is actually connected to the circuitry of the
system."

I suspect that might makes things a little too simple. Of course it all
depends how one defines "signal
path" I think a more accurate definition, and one that is probably
acceptable even to most naysayers, is the signal path is chain of source
(CD, LP, etc.), electronics, cables and speakers as well as the acoustic
waves that arrive at the listener's ears from the speakers and from room
walls, etc.

For example, I suspect most people would agree that CD tweaks such as
cleaning fluids and the Green Pen are IN the signal path. And most people,
even naysayers, would probably not dispute the room acoustics' effects on
the sound. So, i think we should agree that room acoustics are in the
signal path.

Where I think the definition of "signal path" diverges is
when we discuss devices or tweaks that don't appear to influence the
"electronic signal path" OR the acoustic portion of the signal
path. Isn't that the definition of a controversial tweak? That is why I would
put isolation devices, dampers, diffusers, absorbers, tiny little bowls, tube
traps and Hallographs IN the signal path, even CD treatments, cryogenics,
cable wraps and parallel line purifiers.

But certain (controversial) tweaks like SteinMusic Harmonizer, crystals, the
Intelligent Chip, Acoustic Revive Schumann Frequency Generator,
deionizers and demagnetizers and LessLoss Blackbody seem to fall
somewhere in No Man's Land, difficult to say for sure whether they're in or
out. Still others are clearly not in the signal path - Rainbow Foil, Clever
Clock, Red X Pen, the telephone thing, things of that nature.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

If you stand 5m from listening live piano-viola concerto, do you feel a holography of sound? Is it similar to Carver's Sonic Holography?? Or what yall realy mean under Sonic Holography after all??

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

Douglas_schroeder,
Futility comes in all sizes and colors.

"It is the energy flow via the electrons that creates the audio signal. While the actual speed of the electrons themselves is slow and their movement is characterized by more than one form of movement, the sound we hear actually travels very fast via the energy flow through the electrons."

Actually, energy doesn't flow thru electrons, electric charge does. Rate of this electric charge is measured in Coulombs per second and called electric current. Energy travels on the outside of the cable thru magnetic field (called the Poynting field). For instance, electric charge flows from one terminal of battery thru the load to come back to another terminal while energy flows from both terminals to the load on the outside of the cable.

This might help: http://amasci.com/elect/poynt/poynt.html

I'm somewhat at a loss to understand what exactly the OP means when he refers to 'sonic holography' and wonder if perhaps he is confusing that term with 'stereo image'. IMHO the later refers to a sense of height, width and depth, all of which are relative depending on equipment set up and of course source.

IMHO 'sonic holography' represents the optimum achievement in 'stereo image' something which does not appear in most rooms under any conditions and even with the appropriate room, set up, equipment and source, it takes a lot of time and patience, as well as listening skills. It usually helps a lot if one has actually ever heard it. FWIW, I've been doing this for a while and I have only heard it once in a commercial 'high end' setting (Dealer listen rooms). Once! And not again.

When I read that the OP believes that he has created what I refer to as 'sonic holography' by optimizing his wires but not optimizing his set up, which it is obvious he has not, I believe he is engaging in a bit of hyperbole.

Taken to the next level, he also claims that now with the wires optimized he has optimized 'sonic holography' without regard to where one listens, that there no longer is a sweet spot seating requirement, off axis is fine, while using dynamic speakers, challenges my imagination, and suggests to me that he is experiencing varying levels of 'stereo imaging'.

Perhaps we need to explore what exactly is 'sonic holography' and how, or if, it can be differentiated from the traditional, if more pedestrian, 'stereo imaging' concept.

Perhaps I am the only one who differentiates the two phrases. If so just ignore this.

Douglas_schroeder wrote (in 2004)

"I'm guessing no one's seen this kind of response to this question yet.

I'm 42, pastor, and I intentionally have not purchased as high end a system as I'd like; I give very sacrificially to the Lord. I'm investing in the "etherial sound sytem" I will one day enjoy."

One assumes you finally sacrificed sufficiently to be able to enjoy that ethereal sound system you've been lusting after all those years.

Newbee,
You are elucidating an important point -- the difference between stereo imaging and sonic holography. We are actually talking about a continuum here that starts with the most elementary stereo imaging that has little depth and where location of voices and instruments is imprecise and the images not well defined.

On the other end of the continuum is the most sophisticated holographic imaging one could imagine which would be represented by an incredible sense of 3-dimensionality that moves out from the speakers on all sides with exceptional depth, width and height where placement of voices and instruments is not only precise but also appears with a sense of realism, finesse and continuity that gives one the feeling of "being there". Of course, the other sonic parameters that are important to us all must be there, as well.

I do not think it is possible to reach the apex of sonic holography. I believe we are always working toward that idea. I have been working toward it with every improvement I have made to my system -- with a couple of improvements to go. But I have attained what I consider a high level of sonic holography in my system.

I have been working on room treatment as much as possible. The addition of the Shakti Hallographs has made a big difference in my room. But things are not ideal yet. I have the Synergistic Research ART but I do not have the space to mount everything properly at the moment. When we remodel the house everything will fall into place in a larger listening room

Newbee,
Regarding off axis listening, what one normally experiences in most systems is that when one moves outside the sweet spot or the sweet zone there is a loss of realism. The image that one hears in the sweet area does not carry over into the non-sweet area. So, other listeners will not have the same sonic experience outside "the zone" as those inside "the zone" have. With my system, you can move around the room and all the elements remain in place. It is quite uncanny. You can sit or stand virtually anywhere in the room and not feel the sonic image is diminished. You never get the feeling that you are outside "the zone" unless you are very close to one of the speakers or directly outside one of the speakers.

There is a way of using the six available channels of a DVDA or SACD which generates a real 3-dimensional sound field (as apposed to an imagined one) It is called 2 2 2. There are four front spealers, Left high, Left low, Right high, Right low, Left rear and Right rear. This system was demo'd in Europe to great aclaim, but very few discs have been issued using this configuration. I have a couple, but never really made the appropriate speaker setup to evaluate it. Too bad.

For the ultimate in out of the box holography (for a price), audition an mbl omni system properly set up. That is the best I have ever heard overall, but pricey and in a large showroom with many feet distance from rear and side walls.

The OHM Walshes I use do nice job as well for much more reasonable cost, but I do not think they can deliver the soundstage depth that the full omni mbls can with their default configuration, which attenuates sound levels in wall facing directions to accommodate placement closer to walls than is desirable with true full omnis like mbl.

I have also heard some small monitors do holography very well in smaller rooms. My Triangle Titus monitors do it very well even when I used to run them off very modest vintage Tandberg or Carver amplification (even with no Carver holography engaged).

My Dynaudio monitors with right setup are no slouches currently in the holography department in my small 12X12 office room.

I've heard Magico minis running off very high end electronics and wires do it very well also (for a price).

Other quality systems can do it to varying degrees as well although room size, acoustics and associated limitations are often more of a limiting factor with many larger speaker designs.

Cleaner power definitely helps as well from my experience to-date.

Mapman,
I have auditioned various MBL systems at the MBL showroom in Singapore on different occasions. MBL is in the Adelphi 1 Audio Mall. I brought my own reference CDs the last time I was there. My system sounds better that what I heard at MBL. But my system does have an omni-directional quality similar to MBL.

Mapman,
Yes, cleaner power is definitely a prerequisite here. I heard two very expensive systems in Bangkok recently -- beautiful Tad speakers with Marantz amplification and the amazing all-Accuphase showroom. Both lacked basic AC cleaning that I consider minimal and it showed. They could have done so much better if they had paid attention to their front end, their cabling and their "tweaks". But that would not have made for a pretty showroom.

Sabai, this whole thread is a joke "book", and you wrote it. But the joke's on you. You're the only one not laughing. Any one who believes the statements you've made is as desperate as you are to legitimize all the money they've wasted on glorified wires rather than concentrating their efforts on gear instead. With the money you've spent, you could've acquired gear that would put what you've got to shame with simple lamp chord!

I do think that clean power, however that is achieved in any particular listener's case, helps. I have heard this to be the case even when I first introduced my modest Monster power strip into my system.

There are many threads here on A'gon about the effects of having clean power and how to go about assuring or achieving it. My recommendation would be to handle it once at the source via a power conditioner suitable for the task at hand. The best/most respected ones also provide specifications that clearly indicate power/current delivery and noise filtering capabilities so one can make an educated decision about which one to try. Wires/power cords and many other esoteric tweaks seldom provide much of anything in terms of specifications or other measurable attributes that can be used to make an educated decision. Even if it turns out a particular gadget seems to work, why it does what it appears to do is still a mystery and the chances of similar results being repeated elsewhere in any kind of predictable manner is probably low.

Mapman wrote,

"Wires/power cords and many other esoteric tweaks seldom provide much of anything in terms of specifications or other measurable attributes that can be used to make an educated decision."

That is SO funny. If you ever bothered to get up out of that Lazy Boy and take a look around, you might find that things have changed since the 1980s. :-) All major brands of audiophile cables and power cords, Cardas, Audioquest, Nordost, to name a few of the big boys, provide specs for their products. Power cords are required to Meet certain standards and specifications. Only a backsliding mossback would lump wires and cables in with esoteric tweaks. Besides, any yutz with ears knows that specs are meaningless. For anything. Welcome to the next century. :-)

" any yutz with ears knows that specs are meaningless"

Well, then I guess I am not a yutz with ears, neophyte or otherwise.

GEoff, with you as ones guru, I am sure most anything of actual value is pretty meaningless.

Csontos,
With all due respect, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Mapman,
Using only a power conditioner will not get you there. I have four elements in my front end and the addition of the isolation transformer and power regenerator made the biggest difference to the sound.

Mapman, you stated "Even if it turns out a particular gadget seems to work, why it does what it appears to do is still a mystery and the chances of similar results being repeated elsewhere in any kind of predictable manner is probably low." I use Bybee products throughout my system and the addition of each Bybee has given a predictably significant improvement to the sound.

What we're starting to see here is typical of many threads that begin to destruct when the "special" posters take over and do their thing. I would like to keep this thread going in the positive way it was started, if possible. Once the positive discussion is over and the thread is ready to be archived it should be allowed to arrive at the archive on its own -- not by sabotage. In the latter case interested posters back off because of all the flack in the air where they would normally be participating in a positive way.

If anyone has bones to pick with me I have no problem with that. They can start a special thread entitled "Sabai is a nut case" or "What rock did Sabai crawl out from under". These thread titles are only suggestions. You can make up your own.

The most educated decision you can make if you're reading this thread is to understand and follow Al's responses, however sometimes veiled they may be. He can be far too diplomatic at times imo. But he's been pretty clear here once you've weeded through it. The thing with conditioners is that when you use your power at the optimal time of day, it'll probably sound better without it. Biggest difference I've experienced with that issue is when I installed a dedicated line. I once accidentally plugged my amp into the wrong strip and wondered what was wrong till I noticed it. Very significant difference when I changed it back. That and decent interconnects/speaker cables with large enough awg. is what you need to realize the potential of your gear. The probable non-existent change you'll realize by spending huge money on gimmicky products is far better spent on a nicer piece of gear.

Csontos,
Regarding your competence to judge this matter on more than a "my-opinion" basis, please let us know how many Bybee products you have in your system and if you are running them in series with HiDiamond power cords, interconnects, digital cable and speaker cables and a equivalent line-up of Synergistic Research active cables.

Once you fill us in with the details of your system we will have a basis on which to judge if you have enough experience in this area to make competent judgments about the systems of others who are doing series cabling. Please give us the details of your system and your cabling.

Sabai, I acquired an Audio Pulse Model One, a digital time delay system that had three (3) sets of outputs (L and R). The user could select among a small club, a medium size auditorium or large concert hall. Each set of channels, front, side, rear, output the reverberant decay information associated with the size of venue selected. Separate amplifiers and speakers were necessary for the full system; however, inexpensive amplifiers and speakers could be and were used since the Audio Pulse Model One produced "non-coherent signals" and only up to 8 kHz for the ambient information channels. This time delay system, with all three sets of ambient channels, was capable of producing a soundstage as big as Kansas, much larger than the room, perhaps 30 feet deep in some cases. Note, the volume of the ambient channels relative to the primary speakers was much lower so as not draw attention to themselves.

It was later on that I discovered how much information is actually buried in recordings, that even very large and expensive systems fail to reproduce, and what was required to extract that buried information for 2 channel stereo. The real ambient information was there all along, we just couldn't hear it!

"With my system, you can move around the room and all the elements remain in place. It is quite uncanny. "

Sabai, what speakers are you using and what is the configuration in the room relative to the listening position or area?

Conventional speakers can be set up to somewhat emulate this aspect most commonly associated with more omnidirectional designs like mbl or OHM. I can say the same about my Dynaudio monitors setup in my 12X12 room. It generally involves a setup where tweeters are not firing directly at the listener and effective use of room acoustics to leverage reflected sound effectively similar to what omnis do more naturally.

SAbai,

I am not very familiar with the Bybee products. They seem to have a dedicated following. Are they worth the money? Could similar results be produced somehow for less?

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! :)