What Does Holographic Sound Like?
Geoffkait, My response seems to have struck a nerve with you, which is understandable. It is very accurate but it is not personal at all. As I pointed out in my previous post, my remarks are an observation of fact and nothing more. The problem is not that you could not care less what I think of you -- the problem is that you could not care less what anyone thinks of you when you post here -- in stark contrast to vendors like Robert Neill of Worldwide Wholesales (HiDiamond cables), Bobby Palkovic of Merlin Music and Ted Denney of Synergistic Research. As I have pointed out earlier, it is lamentable that any vendor who wishes to garner respect and credibility on Audiogon should choose to express themselves in these forums in the way that you have done. |
Sabai, your continued cheap personal attacks are duly noted. If you have nothing further to say regarding Holographic Sound, and apparently you don't, I suggest you start a new thread. You can call it, Why I object to Geoffkait or Why I think Geoffkait is not a Gentleman or whatever you want. Frankly, I couldn't care less what you think, about me personally or audio. |
Geoffkait, Saying that you are not in the league of gentlemen vendors like Robert Neill, Bobby Palkovic and Ted Denney is not a taunt. It is obvious. It is stated as a fact that we observe as you continue to post here. In French this is called "une constatation" -- an observation of fact. On the contrary, it looks like you must be hung up on some posters with your obvious need to post "inappropriate and inflammatory" posts on an ongoing basis. These kinds of posts are often flagged by the moderator and dropped. In your case, they are giving you slack -- for whatever reason. From reading this thread, there do not appear to be many posters who relish your puerile attitude. And this is also not a taunt. It is a fact that can be observed by the way many posters feel about your participation here. Your latest post is one of many that exhibit this attitude on your part. This is a lamentable situation that your posts are attracting such a negative response from other posters. It is not lamentable for me because I am only one of many people who post, buy and sell on Audiogon. It is lamentable for you as a vendor to be cultivating this sort of reputation -- and apparently with relish. This is a very odd way to run a business. IMO. I don't believe Robert Neill, Bobby Palkovic or Ted Denney would have much of a business left if they conducted themselves in like manner here. |
Sabai wrote, "Taunting is what Geoffkait does best here, as we all observe by the way he personalizes his responses." Only when someone personalizes his post. What's good for the goose... If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Which is why I have pointed out that he is not in the same league as Robert Neill of Worldwide Wholesales (HiDiamonnd Cables), Bobby Palkovic of Merlin Music and Ted Denney of Synergistic Research who are gentlemen on these forums. "Geoffkait cannot even answer the simple question, "And how many Bybee products did you say you have in your system?" I already answered your silly question. Why are you so hung up on Bybee? "Note to self. Since the moderator continues to allow Geoffkait's inappropriate posts the best thing is just to ignore him." Apparently you are unable to ignore me, judging from your last 30 posts on this thread and others. Apparently you are also hung up on me. Maybe you can complain to Mommy. |
Mapman, I may understand in a general way what they are saying but I am not a quantum physicist. The highly technical explanations do not prevent me from trying out their products and enjoying the benefits of products that I do not understand. This also goes for Synergistic Research and many other companies. If you can figure out what some of them are saying you may win an award. But not understanding everything does not deter me at all. Mapman, You stated, "I'd rather spend my time and money trying something for a reason other than because someone else said to or that it is good." I am the exact opposite. I try things because others say they are good. The only thing that matters to me are results, not explanations. There is no more powerful reason for me to try a product than strong testimonials. Csmgolf, I have never experienced any negative effects with Bybee products in my system. Onhwy61, Taunting is what Geoffkait does best here, as we all observe by the way he personalizes his responses. Which is why I have pointed out that he is not in the same league as Robert Neill of Worldwide Wholesales (HiDiamonnd Cables), Bobby Palkovic of Merlin Music and Ted Denney of Synergistic Research who are gentlemen on these forums. Geoffkait cannot even answer the simple question, "And how many Bybee products did you say you have in your system?" Note to self. Since the moderator continues to allow Geoffkait's inappropriate posts the best thing is just to ignore him. |
I have heard one system that I would say produced truly holographic sound. It belongs to a friend and it does not have one esoteric tweak in it. When heard, the effect is mesmerizing. All he has is excellent components and cables that are well matched going to a pair of time and phase coherent monitors. His philosophy matches Mapman and it works. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I have tried multiple tweaks over the years in my system including Bybees at multiple different times. I have tried the rca bullets, xlr tails, speaker tails and power cable tails. I never had more than one in my system at a time. They definitely produced an effect, but to me they detracted from the musicality in my system. I tried them over and over hoping to hear the epiphany others kept reporting. To me they made the background blacker, but they also truncated the natural decay of instruments. Believe me, I wanted them to work. Fortunately, I was able to sell them without losing money on them. Granted, these were all earlier versions, but I could see no point in spending more on a newer version of something that didn't work for me in the first place. I am not here to argue about the merit of the Bybees. If they work for you, that is all that matters. It sounds as if you have put a great deal of effort into getting your system the way you want it and have used some unusual methods to get there. I applaud you for experimenting and finding what works for you. I certainly would not try to convince someone to not try the Bybees for themselves, but IME they are not the be all and end all. If you search the archives, there are others that feel the same, though more people like them than not. YMMV |
Mapman wrote, "I'd rather spend my time and money trying something for a reason other than because someone else said to or that it is good. I advise my kids to be their own person and do what is right, not what someone else does or tells you to do. GOtta walk the walk and not just talk the talk, especially when it comes to raising kids." Good luck in your quest to protect gullible audiophiles (and apparently children) from those bad bad tweak manufacturers, the evil doers, the ones who are trying to control their minds. Have you seen any suspicious looking people lurking outside your kids' school, presumably to sell them esoteric tweaks? "Here kiddies, wanna buy some quantum chips?" Just Say No. Ha ha ha! |
TO all the high end audio vendors out there that sell expensive (or modestly priced even) stuff and leave it up to the listener's ears to decide if the product works or not, as opposed to explaining how it works to those interested like most normal products that normal people would buy: Meh! I'd rather spend my time and money trying something for a reason other than because someone else said to or that it is good. I advise my kids to be their own person and do what is right, not what someone else does or tells you to do. GOtta walk the walk and not just talk the talk, especially when it comes to raising kids. Hows that for a good explanation of why certain esoteric tweaks do not interest me? IF they interest you have at it. You should not care what I say or do if you do not agree. |
I wish Bybee would explain how their gadgets work more than is the case. If what I think they might do is in fact what they do, I would at least be interested to hear. Otherwise, meh. I do not like to guess how something works. I'd rather know. That makes it a lot easier to decide where to invest ones time and money. |
Sabai wrote, "Geoffkait, You stated, "What this means is that no matter how much effort is spent to produce a pure signal out of the speakers, all will be lost between the speakers and the listeners ears." Of course, anyone who as actual ears and not theoretical ears knows this it total nonsense." Although I'm a theoretical physicist by education I have actually measured the acoustic anomalies in the room. So, I'm speaking from experience, not theory. No matter how many Bybees you have in your system you will only get so far, because of the room anomalies. But I can certainly understand your attitude, that you would rather rest on your laurels and brag about your Bybees. Heh heh. Nice stalking with you. |
Regarding Holographic Sound and Soundstage and all that jazz, I'm afraid things are worse than we thought. Much worse. To get an idea how much the room influences the sound, dictates the sound, how much distortion is produced by comb filter effects, map out the room with a test tone and handy SPL meter some time. You'll find the sound pressure varies dramatically all around the room, with a great many peaks 6dB or higher than the average pressure in the room. These peaks will be observed on room walls, the floor, buildup in room corners and in the 3D Space of the room. The peaks can be produced by slap echo, first reflections, standing waves, secondary reflections and others. All of these peaks, many of which are *louder* than the speakers, interfere with the pure signal of the speakers, obviously. What this means is that no matter how much effort is spent to produce a pure signal out of the speakers, all will be lost between the speakers and the listeners ears. |
10-08-12: LearsfoolI didn't mean to imply that. With the word "reactive," I was simply referring to listening rooms with significant reflection, diffraction, and diffusion. So basically, a room that isn't "dead." The vast majority of these recordings are not done in a studio, but in a concert hall or church or jazz club, all of which are MUCH more "live" than any recording studio. One of the biggest reasons that a home listening room can never match the original recording space is precisely because there is almost no way to make the room as "live" as the recording space was.I don't believe that typical listening rooms are more reactive than typical recording spaces outside the studio. I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I believe that. I agree with you that typical listening rooms are in fact significantly LESS reactive than typical recording spaces outside the studio. IMO, the lack of "reactivity" is one of the major problems with typical listening rooms, as I mentioned in my last post. So I think this is a point about which we are in agreement. And FWIW, I don't believe that a listening room MUST BE more reactive than the recording space in order to be effective at creating "holographic" sound or the illusion that "you are there." In fact, I believe that "holographic" sound can be achieved even in a dead room, as I mentioned in my last post. On the other hand, the illusion that "you are there" is more difficult to achieve in a dead room, IMO. Whether the listening room SHOULD BE more or less reactive than the recording space isn't something I've expressed an opinion about, because I don't have one. :-) I honestly don't know. Bryon |
Hi Bryon and Sabai - I will now chime in on your discussion here. By and large, if I am understanding both of your positions here, I agree with Sabai. Bryon, when you are talking about your concept of "reactive" listening rooms, you seem to be implying that they are more "live" than the original recording space. For those of us that listen mostly to classical and jazz, this is quite simply false. The vast majority of these recordings are not done in a studio, but in a concert hall or church or jazz club, all of which are MUCH more "live" than any recording studio. One of the biggest reasons that a home listening room can never match the original recording space is precisely because there is almost no way to make the room as "live" as the recording space was. Your discussion, however, might be much more valid for mostly electronically produced music done in a studio. I think this is where the difference in the positions of Sabai and yourself are coming from. The rest of the discussion, I think we are all in basic agreement with. |
Bryoncunningham, The acoustic treatments will be Shakti Hallographs, SR ART and I would like to add the Steinmusic Harmonizer System, as well. I have been interested in the latter for a couple of years. Unfortunately, it is going to take time for the construction work to get done. We're looking at a time horizon of a couple of years at the moment. Since we have a large property we may end up building a new bigger house on it and sell off the old house that we are living in now. The cost of renovation is so high that building new is starting to make sense to us. |
Mapman wrote, "Let's assume the harmonizer has a clear positive effect..." That's probably a wise assumption, you know, judging from all the rave reviews and testimonials floating around. "... and the price was not an issue." Take your choice, inexpensive tweaks you suspect probably don't work because they don't cost enough or tweaks you suspect probably do work because they're so expensive. :-) "...I still would probably not by it." I betting you're right. "Its just me but I would not want to have to depend on such a device in order to enjoy my music. To me, it would be analogous to needing a respirator to breathe or some kind of drug in order to enjoy something. I would not want that." Oh, boy, here we go again with the drug addict analogy. I didn't see that coming! :-) "But hey, maybe it transports one into a new dimension of sound that is just in a new league of some sort. Maybe I would change my mind....." Dr. Miles J. Bennell: Listen to me! Please listen! If you don't, if you won't, if you fail to understand, then the same incredible terror that's menacing me WILL STRIKE AT YOU! - Invasion of the Body Snatchers :-) |
Hi Bryoncunningham, Thanks for your response. I tried my best to explain how I see things here. Your analysis is detailed and faultless. I find no flaws in your reasoning. I simply place a different emphasis on the importance of the room in the equation -- for now, at least. At the moment I am too cramped. My Shakti Hallographs are squeezed too close and I don't have room to mount my SR ART. I am in a dedicated listening room about 14 x 15 feet with a 9-foot ceiling. Once we remodel I will have a dedicated listening room about 18 x 26 feet with a 12-foot ceiling. I can't wait -- but I'll have to. |
Let's assume the harmonizer has a clear positive effect and the price was not an issue. I still would probably not by it. Its just me but I would not want to have to depend on such a device in order to enjoy my music. To me, it would be analogous to needing a respirator to breathe or some kind of drug in order to enjoy something. I would not want that. But hey, maybe it transports one into a new dimension of sound that is just in a new league of some sort. Maybe I would change my mind..... |
Hi Sabai - Thanks for your comments, which are thoughtful and reasonable. It sounds like we have somewhat different views on the importance of the listening room, not only for creating the illusion that "you are there," but also for creating a sound that is "holographic." In my view... In the listening room, the ambient cues of the room combine with the ambient cues of the recording. To the extent that the ambient cues of the listening room resemble the ambient cues of the recording, the listening room serves as a *simulacrum* of the recording space. I agree with both you and Learsfool that this is rare, both because typical recording spaces are so unlike the typical listening room and because the typical listening room is acoustically untreated. The problem, as I see it, is that the typical listening room is both... 1. Acoustically reactive, and 2. Acoustically distinct. RE: 1. Acoustically reactive, or "live" rooms, provide an abundance of ambient cues. When those ambient cues fail to resemble the ambient cues of the recording, as they often do, the result is that the sound at the listening position during playback is acoustically contradictory, and therefore confusing. IMO. RE: 2. Acoustically distinct rooms provide ambient cues that are highly recognizable. We all know what our own listening room sounds like. We have all been in public spaces with a distinct acoustical "signature." The more distinct the acoustical signature of the listening room, the more audible the differences between the listening room and the recording space will be. The result is that, during playback, acoustically distinct rooms are more likely to sound acoustically contradictory, and therefore confusing. Again, IMO. Two solutions to these problems are to construct a listening room that is either 3. Acoustically non-reactive, or 4. Acoustically non-distinct. RE: 3. Acoustically non-reactive, or "dead" rooms solve the problem of contradictory ambient cues by eliminating most of the ambient cues of the listening room. Hence most of the ambient cues heard during playback are the ambient cues of the recording. IMO, the flaw in this approach is that the ambient cues of the recording will be presented BIDIRECTIONALLY, or at best HEMISPHERICALLY, which tends to diminish the illusion that "you are there." Another common problem with dead rooms is that they can shrink the size of images and the size of the soundstage, both of which diminish realism. IMO. RE: 4. Acoustically non-distinct, or "ambiguous" rooms solve the problem of contradictory ambient cues by having ambient cues that are less recognizable, and therefore less audible during playback. An acoustically ambiguous room sounds less like "that room" and more like "any room." Of course, no room can be perfectly ambiguous. But, IME, good listening rooms provide a range of ambiguity that reduces contradictory ambient cues during playback and therefore creates a more convincing illusion that "you are there." To bring all this back to holographic sound. To me, holographic sound is about a. realistic images, and b. realistic soundstage (i.e. the spatial relations among images) IME, realistic images can be achieved easily enough in acoustically dead rooms, with the qualification that acoustically dead rooms sometimes shrink images of instruments and performers to unrealistic sizes. IME, a realistic soundstage is more difficult to achieve in acoustically dead rooms, for the reasons I mentioned above. Finally, I believe that efforts to increase the acoustical ambiguity of a listening room will make the soundstage more realistic on a wider range of recordings, and therefore acoustically ambiguous rooms are more likely to be holographic. Just how to create an acoustically ambiguous room is not something about which I have any real expertise. I have some ideas, mostly gleaned from the characteristics common to the rooms I've experienced as ambiguous. The ambiguous rooms were... -Reactive -Large but not huge -Few surfaces that create coherent reflections -Lots of diffusion -Medium reverberation time -Mixture of surface materials I dont know how to order that list, but the rooms Ive experienced as acoustically ambiguous had most or all of those characteristics, and probably others Im not thinking of. IMO, IME, YMMV etc. etc. Bryon |
Donjr wrote, "I will not pretend to understand what it's doing but it's doing." That's the ubiquitous line almost all reviewers use when reporting on tweaks with, uh, difficult or preposterous sounding explanations. Perhaps, Mapman would like to chime in on how it works. As I recall his BS Detector didn't go off on the SteinMusic Harmonizer. |
"Here's an interesting gadget that might actually work as best I can tell and perhaps even help holography:" Mapman, I was fortunate enough to get a chance to hear the Harmonizer with new Harbeth 30.1's at my local shop last month. The difference is not subtle and yes, it's the first time I've ever heard what I would consider to be Holographic sound in my life. Walter Swanbon of Fidelis in New Hampshire is a distributor for them and was rolling through my home town and I was invited to an audition. Everyone in the room that night was in awe over this product. I will not pretend to understand what it's doing but it's doing. |
Sabai wrote, "Regarding the Steinmusic Harmonizer review, it is interesting that the "controversial Jack Bybee" is not referred to as "controversial" but in glowing terms as "the 'Dean of Audio' himself, Jack Bybee..."" Uh, I'm pretty controversial means there are two opposing views. I'm also pretty sure that those who actually try the Bybee products are on the Pro Side, and would, of course, support him. And those who haven't tried the Bybees, who are simply reacting to the word "quantum" or its size, whatever, are on the Against Side. You know the type. :-) |
Bryoncunningham, I am reading your earlier thread which is excellent. I have a few observations. I have no idea what the word "neutral" means when referring to audio equipment because all audio equipment imparts its own characteristics to playback. IMO, all audio equipment adds "color" playback. I listen mostly to classical music as well as some jazz, blues and popular music. I am from that generation that used to have a "collection". I still do. I think one important thing we have overlooked is that music is essentially in the mind. There are the room, the recording and the equipment. But the ears are connected to the brain. It is the mind where all music plays. What we are actually talking about is the recreation of sound in the listening room of the mind because the actual room will never resemble the actual recording venue. Although a larger room may help reproduce in the mind the "being there" feeling, with some kinds of recordings, I believe you can have that "big sound" in the mind in a smaller room, as well, if the sense of scale is being reproduced by a well-evolved system. In my system, with good recordings, the sound expands well beyond the walls. The reflected sound of my room will come into play but only to an extent. With my system, the reflected sound of the venue is much more predominant and important than that of the room and the mind perceives this as the "being there" effect. I believe that room treatments like Synergistic Research ART and Steinmusic Harmonizers can totally change room limitations and their effect on how the mind perceives the sound. I have Shakti Hallographs in place with SR ART yet to be unboxed. The Steinmusic Harmonizers may follow in due course. Bryoncunningham, regarding your earlier thread: Cbw723 stated, "Finally, I'm not sure how much the playback system's coloration is an issue. Assuming the system is good enough to produce playback with a convincing live or nearly live sound (as judged by the system's owner/primary listener), it seems unlikely that the ambience cues are going to be distorted to a point that they become an impediment to a "you are there" experience.". I agree. But I think that coloration can become a problem with mismatched components or cables/tweaks. In this regard, the right choice of components and cables/tweaks is vitally important. This has been by experience with my system. Learsfool paraphrased another poster, "you cannot put into your listening room something that was not in the recording in the first place." I agree. This goes along with my notion that, regarding the equipment's effect on sound reproduction, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Both of these elements will decide the quality of the sound more than room characteristics, IMO. He also stated, "The engineer then takes these tracks, mixes them, and then adds digital reverberation to create a false ambience, one that he thinks sounds good.". Which is why I prefer classical recordings that recreate the actual venue with mikes, not with remixing like "the older recordings from the so-called "golden age," where folks like Mercury and RCA just hung a couple of mikes up out in the concert hall and therefore created much more of a "you are there" experience than anything recorded today.". When Learsfool observed regarding a Berstein recording at the Met, "That recording has great sonics which really do create a "you are there" experience, but you need a system that has an appropriate soundstage and images well to fully experience it". This is exactly what I refer to as the silk purse. And when he states, "I am merely trying to explain why musicians place such a high priority on soundstaging and imaging. They are crucial to creating a "you are there" experience.", I could not agree more. Bryon, when you stated, "I suppose there is no reason why, in theory, a virtual recording space couldnt be as interesting as a real one.", if you listen to Zenph recreations I think you will understand why I feel, although they are technically excellent, they do not have the feeling of "alive" and "real" that actual live studio or concert recordings have. I have all of the Zenph recordings. I also agree with Learsfool when he stated, "Hi Bryon - we are generally in agreement here. Where I would differ with you would be on the subject of the listening room being much of a factor at all in picking up what you are calling "ambient cues" in the recording ... The equipment would have a much greater effect on it in general." And, concerning ambient cues, I agree with Learsfool about Sonus Faber speakers. I have Joseph Audio Pulars that do an excellent job in this department. I agree with Learsfool's observation that, with concert hall sound, "the overall effect is not PRIMARILY omni-directional, only secondarily so." As well, I agree with his observation that "listening rooms do not come anywhere near capable of recreating the original recording space, if this space is a concert hall (or a good jazz club, for that matter) - so this means that the listening space will ALWAYS be fundamentally different from the recording space, as I believe you put it, in these cases, and this is why I believe you are overestimating it's importance." Rtn1, I agree completely with you when you stated, "I have achieve[d] the 'you are there' experience for the majority of my recordings. This is achieved by lowering the 'noise' and removing electronic artifacts. I put noise in quotes because there is also noise and distortion you cannot hear. I believe it also takes a highly resolving source (i.e. DAC). I do not think the recording is a limitation. The spatial cues are there, they are masked by most equipment." This describes what Bybee products do so well in my system. |
Bryoncunningham, I have not read your earlier comments. But I will do so today. You stated, "Recording space + Listening space = Playback space", which is quite accurate, of course. I don't know how to make my room acoustically ambiguous. I think the best we can hope for, ultimately, is to improve our systems so that we can get as close to "being there" as possible. An actual recreation of "being there" will always be elusive for the reasons that you state. It sounds like the Steinmusic Harmonizer is a step in the right direction. It has been around for nearly 3 years and has had universally good reviews. I note that, according to reviews, it works even better when used with Synergistic Research ART. The latter does things that the Steinmusic Harmonizer does not do, apparently. Although I have not had the opportunity to audition the Steinmusic I would venture to say that it still will not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If it is introduced into a run-of-the-mill audio system I don't imagine its effects will even come close to its effects in a more "evolved" sound system. |
10-05-12: SabaiHi Sabai - I think we are more or less in agreement. To clarify my views, here are some comments I made on the "They are here" vs. "You are there" thread... ________________________________ Ambient cues provide information about features of a physical space like: size, shape, materials, and object position. Every listening room contains an abundance of ambient cues. The specific characteristics of those ambient cues are relevant to the audiophile, for the following reason: During playback, the ambient cues of the recording space are COMBINED with the ambient cues of the listening space. The combination of the ambient cues of the recording space with the ambient cues of the listening space creates, in effect, a NEW SET OF AMBIENT CUES. I will call this new set of ambient cues the playback space. In other words: Recording space + Listening space = Playback space The playback space is what the audiophile actually hears at the listening position. It is the combination of the ambient cues of the recording space and the ambient cues of the listening space. When trying to create the illusion that you are there, an audiophile tries to create a playback space whose ambient cues are as close as possible to the ambient cues of the recording space. As I see it, there are two possible ways to go about this: 1. Construct a listening space whose ambient cues resemble the ambient cues of the recording space. 2. Construct a listening space that minimizes ambient cues. ...Both approaches have liabilities, but it is the liabilities of the second approach that are relevant at the moment, for the following reason: To the extent that you minimize the ambient cues of the listening space, the sound arriving at the listener will not be OMNIDIRECTIONAL. It will be BIDIRECTIONAL, assuming you are listening in stereo. Even if the recording has OMNIDIRECTIONAL ambient cues, what you will hear at the listening position is the BIDIRECTIONAL presentation of OMNIDIRECTIONAL ambient cues... That difference is the fundamental limitation in the approach of minimizing the ambient cues of the listening room when trying to create the illusion that "you are there." ___________________________________ I went on in the same thread to propose a third approach to creating the illusion that "you are there"... 3. Construct a listening space that is acoustically ambiguous. I believe that, of the three approaches, this last one allows for the widest range of recording spaces to be realistically represented in the listening room. As I mentioned in my last post, I don't believe that the illusion that "you are there" is the same thing as "holographic sound." I think the latter is possible without the former. Having said that, I also believe that efforts to enhance the illusion that "you are there" will usually enhance the experience of "holographic sound." IMO, IME, YMMV, etc. Bryon |
"Listening to music has now become a science project with experiments. This thread has become a parody of a satire." Listening to music does not require a science project. But I would argue that getting the sound one wants out of a stereo system (via tweaking) is exactly like a science project. Of course there is good, bad (and weird?) science and they are all not equally effective. |
I would very much like to hear the harmonizer in my system. I expect it could well have a positive effect in that it seems to based on scientific principles I can understand. Sound travels through air. Physical properties of air determine how it travels. The gadget seems to be an active device that creates sonic waves of a certain design. Something different is likely to result if all goes as described. It could be significant. Even if I decide to not shell out the dough at this time (most likely given priorities) it would be a worthwhile experiment because the indicators are something might actually happen. MAybe a good use of time. Scientists select experiments that they believe have a good chance of working based on their understanding of scientific principles. That is the key to GOOD science. Knowledge to start relevant to questions to be answered. Some experiments make sense and some do not. Audio fuse experiments actually do make sense to me. That does not mean I want to do them though. |
Let's visit with the SteinMusic Harmonizer a little while. I have no commercial interest in this product. Apparently this device does for Holographic Sound what Carter's Little Liver Pills does for liver. Thanks to Mapman for the shout out for the Harmonizer. SteinMusic Harmonizer review in Positive Feedback Online: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue59/harmonizer.htm Excerpt from the Review: "Enter German physicist, engineer, and audiophile Holger Stein. He discovers that air vibrates at certain frequencies and, in the presence of those vibrations, becomes more compliant. If air is more compliant, then sound waves have an easier path to your ears. Enter the SteinMusic Harmonizers... elegant boxes sold in pairs that generate vibrations that make the air more transmissive of music in all its complexities. Holger Stein has discovered the "missing link" to producing the musical event in your home. Through his devices, you see the performance with your ears with repeatable, adjustable, scientific certainty for the first time. Welcome to the future my friends! While a few other reviewers have tried the Stein gear, none have assembled a state-of-the-art system which was truly great to begin with. Referred to me by none other than the 'Dean of Audio' himself, Jack Bybee, I felt duty bound to give it a try, though I remained skeptical until I heard the first few notes. There is now a spot on the carpet where my jaw hit the ground." |
