What Does Holographic Sound Like?

Bryon wrote,

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

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

Where have I been evasive? Just show me where I have evaded a direct question. You can't even ask a direct question yourself. Just posturing, as usual.

"But lately I've begun to doubt that conclusion. It's become increasingly clear to me that you may actually believe the things you say."

I suspect you are just a troll, don't worry, I don't let it bother me too much. So, you think I believe the things I say, or you don't think I believe the things I say, which is it? i wish you'd make up your mind. Lol

"But if you do, then why be evasive? Why not answer questions directly, thoroughly, and sincerely? IMO, that would silence a significant fraction of your detractors, including this one."

Who are you, the moderator all of a sudden? I'm pretty sure noone here is going to change their thinking based on what I say, especially you. Lol

Sincerely, Geoff

And I thought we were all having fun here. Too bad because I sure am. I'm equally surprised at Sabai. This thread has not imo morphed into anything. We're still actually on the same topic it started with: delusion. I love Jim Carey in Man On The Moon. R.E.M.'s version too. Send in the clowns.

Geoff

Single speaker demo rooms are the only way to audition speakers without undue influence. Empty metal containers with electronic circuitry inside are also passive radiators even when not plugged in. Audio furniture tv monitors all building materials are passive radiators. As you know everything makes a difference..for better or worse is amatter of one's own perception or not. Tom

Geoffkait,
Your reply was totally predictable when you stated, "it's ironic and bizarre that you would attack someone who is presenting unusual ideas when you, yourself, are presently unusual ideas." Your ideas are not unusual. They are nonsensical. All of your attempts to sound esoteric and "different" bounce like a dead cat off the forum floor.

My "ideas" about holographic sound are unusual? They are not "my ideas". They are not "ideas" at all. Holographic sound is not an "idea". It is a fact. What do you mean when you say holographic sound is "unusual"? Do you mean it is an "unusual idea" for those who have not actually heard it because they have not upgraded their systems to the point where it becomes a sonic parameter -- and they have never heard it at a friend's or at an audio showroom? If so, then holographic sound may in fact only be an "idea" for them, and, of course, an "unusual idea" because they have not experienced it before.

But holographic sound is certainly not an unusual phenomenon in high end audio. In fact, holographic sound is not unusual at all in high end audio. On the contrary. It is very usual for those producing high end components and cables. In fact, this is one of the things they strive for -- in case you did not notice.

Call up any major component maker and ask to speak to one of their top executives about holographic sound. Ask them if holographic sound is an "unusual idea" or a fact in high end audio. Then write back here with the results of your survey.

Then call up HiDiamond or Synergistic Research or Nordost or Cardas or any other high end cable company. Ask to speak to one of their top executives about holographic sound. Ask them if holographic sound is an "unusual idea" or a fact in high end audio. Then write back here the results of your survey -- and don't just talk off the top of you head.

Where you get off saying holographic sound is an "unusual idea" is very, very odd. Your statement is totally self-serving -- and totally false. Your self-indulgence in pseudo-mysterious talk -- the puzzle wrapped in an enigma -- is very boring because of one special reason. None of it rings true.

You stated, "Many people in the industry including some senior reviewers either minimize its [holographic sound's] importance or deny its existence." Well then, you had better come up with some specific names of "many people in the industry" and "senior reviewers" who back you up.

I have not heard of a single "person in the industry" or a single "senior reviewer" who minimizes the importance or denies the existence of "holographic sound". Of course, there is a world of difference between minimizing the existence of "holographic sound" and denying its existence.

Minimizing its importance means that the person in question recognizes that it exists but, for some reason "minimizes its importance". Could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" and which "senior reviewers" minimize the importance of holographic sound and their reasons for doing so -- and where they have actually stated this? And could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" and which "senior reviewers" actually deny the existence of holographic sound and where they have actually stated this?

Bryoncunningham,
I agree with you. I think Geoffkait actually believes what he says -- no matter how nonsensical or false. But, unlike you, I do not believe there is much intelligence here because if there was real intelligence here it would not be couched in all of this deliberately vague, convoluted and mysterious talk that twists in the audio wind -- without any more proof than taking an unused amp out of the room changes the sound. Well, that is indeed very deep -- meriting all the attendant and imprecision and obfuscation and gobbledy gook.

Wow -- am I impressed? Hel-looo!

Tom, I've reconsidered my response to your query regarding the cover plate. I probably don't know what I'm talking about here but I'm thinking the 60hz line frequency may be setting up a mechanical amplifier in your panel. You may want to experiment by damping the cover plate with something. Maybe smearing some silicone rubber on the back side of the plate?

Tom wrote,

"Single speaker demo rooms are the only way to audition speakers without undue influence. Empty metal containers with electronic circuitry inside are also passive radiators even when not plugged in. Audio furniture tv monitors all building materials are passive radiators. As you know everything makes a difference..for better or worse is amatter of one's own perception or not."

Not to belabor the point any more than necessary, for the sake of argument let's confine the items to those that cannot be construed as "passive radiators" - LPs, cables, CDs in paper or plastic sleeves (as opposed to jewel boxes), books, magazines, newspapers, telephone books, plants, flowers. If removing any or all of those items from the room improves the sound then the passive radiator theory cannot be the explanation.

Geoff

Csontos.

I consider damping injurious to energy fields and is non selective in its treatment. I much rather use a different material and or change geometry to redirect the energy. Thanks for your consideration. Tom

09-28-12: Mapman
Al has deep technical knowledge in areas that are well documented and communicates clearly and consistently in a manner that I seem to understand. Also Al is not a vendor TTBOMK.

Thanks very much, Mapman. Your assumption is correct -- I have never had an affiliation with anyone or any organization in the audio industry. Nor with any consumer product, for that matter. My background is in defense electronics.

Regarding various statements that have been made by others to the effect that opinions about tweaks are invalid unless the particular tweaks have been tried: While opinions can and will legitimately differ, and widely, about where to draw the line, I would submit that there must be SOME finite limit to the degree of apparent absurdity of a tweak, beyond which it can be rejected a priori.

IMO, a lot of the tweaks that have been mentioned and/or linked to in this thread, especially in the recent parts of the thread, exceed any such limits that are conceivably within reason. And, frankly, I doubt that anything constructive can result from discussion of them, which is why I haven't posted in this thread in recent days.

Regards,
-- Al

Geoff

When the concert hall is full and there are not enough hangars in the cloak room and the audience takes their wraps to their seats with them this passive device now on their laps changes the time and energy response within the hall. These additional passive devices were added to the acoustic volume of the hall and are not part of the collective displacement of the hall patrons as intended by the acoustic designer. They are passive and displace air with various forms of reactive mass. Tom

Al wrote,

"Thanks very much, Mapman. Your assumption is correct -- I have never had an affiliation with anyone or any organization in the audio industry. Nor with any consumer product, for that matter. My background is in defense electronics."

Cool, my background is defense electronics, too. Small world, ain't it?

"Regarding various statements that have been made by others to the effect that opinions about tweaks are invalid unless the particular tweaks have been tried: While opinions can and will legitimately differ, and widely, about where to draw the line, I would submit that there must be SOME finite limit to the degree of apparent absurdity of a tweak, beyond which it can be rejected a priori."

If what you propose were true, i.e., that absurd or preposterous tweaks or ideas should be rejected based simply on "appearances" there would be no black holes or black hole theory, no faster than sound flight, no space travel, no quantum mechanics, no relativity theory. We can always find people that object to just about any issue in audio you. An come up with. Taking the Teleportation Tweak, the Red X Coordinate Pen and the Photos in the Freezer Tweak, I'd say there actually is no limit to how absurd a tweak might appear. All you kids out there, don't try this at home. Stay in school. Lol

"IMO, a lot of the tweaks that have been mentioned and/or linked to in this thread, especially in the recent parts of the thread, exceed any such limits that are conceivably within reason. And, frankly, I doubt that anything constructive can result from discussion of them, which is why I haven't posted in this thread in recent days."

And that, Al, is why they are *controversial*. What brings you back, the controversy? Lol

Tom wrote,

"When the concert hall is full and there are not enough hangars in the cloak room and the audience takes their wraps to their seats with them this passive device now on their laps changes the time and energy response within the hall. These additional passive devices were added to the acoustic volume of the hall and are not part of the collective displacement of the hall patrons as intended by the acoustic designer. They are passive and displace air with various forms of reactive mass.

but they are not passive radiators. By your new re-definition everything can be considered a Passive Device. But I'm ahead of you. The Red X Coordinate Pen, the reason I keep mentioning it, actually demonstrates that it is the *words* and other *information* contained in media that affect us. Thus, when you remove books, cassettes, newspapers, telephone books, etc. from the room and the sound improves it is not because the objects are passive radiators or even passive devices, it's because the words and data are the problem. it's why I used the word INFORMATION earlier. If you see what I mean.

You probably aren't familiar with the Japanese fellow who found that placing calming message in water result in beautiful well-formed crystals when the water is frozen but that messages that are negative such as I hate you result in ugly ill-formed crystals. I thought everyone heard about that. It's all over YouTube.

Geoff

Geoff

Let me be positive here. I wasn't trying to get ahead of you..
Tom

I am amazed that people are so offended by Geoffs information or lack of it. I guess we all take comfort in the world we construct around us. So anything that threatens that view is upsetting.

I like to think I'm a reasonable, educated and logical guy. I 1st read about the x pen and those kind of very odd tweaks from PWBELT in the 1990s.

Like most of you reading this I thought it was nuts. But it seems unlike some of you, I tried a sample to decide for myself. If it didn't work send it back. So what was to lose apart from a little time tinkering with the Hifi?

As I mentioned in an above post I had something happen (using PWBELT foils). It was there and the others in the room experienced it too.

As to what happened and why? I cannot help you there. But as a professional who works in recording studios I can say hand on heart the music comming out of the speakers was changed, and for the better. The expression was more obvious.

I wish I could say nothing happened and it was a load of nonsense, but unfortunately and to my dismay something happened.

Lets face it, how could a sticky backed foil placed on a electrical circuit do anything?

Lets say it was all in my head and the couple of friends heads there too. So maybe just going through that process caused us to be effected by the music differently? If so it still worked! We should hand it out at gigs!lol

I'm sure there are many charlatans out there, but if they are offering the chance to try their "product" and return it, why not give it a go? It's all part of the hobby.

If that were the case these following posts would be way more interesting. Because now all we have is the end. Little has been learned or experienced. I thought the point of these forums was to share experience and ideas.

Chad

For me the collection and direction of mechanical energy is the basis of my in home holographic display device. That is my sound system. Tom

Tom, but what if you didn't have a panel and just a single line with no breaker? The wire itself is insulated.

Csontos

If everything was point to point hard wired that would be the best. If you had a choice of non ferrous shields and how they affect the audio playback chain that too would be audible. Elimination of the fuse and or breaker is audible also. I have replaced the fuse and the sound improved drastically. I have not bypassed the breaker. Tom

Hi Theaudiotweak,

When I had a more complex system I played with various ways to drain vibration away or suspend from vibration. It became quite important once you tuned into it. I found it did clean things up slightly.

I found various materials contributed to the sound in differing ways. Some making it sound hard, some sluggish and so on.

It's funny that now my set up is more simplified I don't find it as susceptible to changes of platform or added weight, cones, wood, glass etc anymore. (I haven't had a TT since the early 90s.)

I think now the equipment is so simple that there is hardly anything in it left to vibrate.

Having said that my flea power tube amp is suspended by an air bed and the tubes are damped. The caps are mainly dulunde so are pretty immune to vibration. So there is still a legacy of that approach including potted inductors in the xovers.

Lets face it to get a holographic sound it is about attention to detail. Each small step adding up to a larger over all effect on the presentation.

Chadeffect,
When you stated, "Lets face it to get a holographic sound it is about attention to detail. Each small step adding up to a larger over all effect on the presentation." -- you were exactly correct. The more details that emerge from a recording the more holographic the sound becomes. Each improvement adds incrementally to the holographic effect. And the fewer details that emerge from a recording the more flat the sound becomes. Holography is directly related to detail. There is a lot more detail in CDs than most people realize because their systems are not evolved enough to extract those details.

Hi Geoff - I am going to assume, despite the facetious reason you give, that your actual question is a serious one. I do not merely think, I know, that my profession will indeed cause hearing loss over the long term. It has been proven that the average professional musician will lose at least 20% of their hearing over the course of their careers. It must also be said, however, that generally speaking, (there are of course exceptions, I unfortunately often sit next to one), professional orchestral musicians often start with much better ears in the first place, and even if they don't, they are certainly much better trained while in school and afterwards.

Judging someone's ears by the quality of their system is silly. Most musicians do not make enough money to afford a top of the line high end audio system. My own system is certainly on the lower end price-wise for folks in this hobby. However, my instrument and it's upkeep are much cheaper than most, and I got very good deals on the equipment I have. Most string players are still paying for their very fine instruments right up until near the very end of their careers. An oboist, the example you used, is constantly buying new instruments, as they only last a few years in general, and also spends more hours making reeds than you do listening to your system. They have to buy all sorts of expensive extra equipment. So for a great many, there is simply not the time or the money to invest in a high end system.

Oh, by the way, I posted a thread a couple of months ago in these forums about the relationship between various sound levels and the lengths of time they can be withstood before there is possible hearing damage, if you care to look it up. It got a very disappointing number of responses, but that doesn't change the value of the info for anyone who is concerned about volume levels and hearing loss.

Chadeffect - you seem to have misinterpreted my post. You said: "I think the best places to share ideas are places free of anyone deciding what can or cannot be said. As long as there is respect for others."

I do not disagree, in fact I agree completely. My post was about those who do not have respect for others. As for the rest of your post, I am not sure if it was directed to me, as I do not see a connection in it to anything I said in that post. If I have misunderstood you, I am sorry. I know I am not the clearest writer.

Learsfool,
On the contrary, you are a very clear writer. I just posted a reply to your thread about hearing loss, by the way.

I think one problem with threads is that Audiogon does not take care to post replies in the order in which they are posted. I have noticed that my most recent posts appear on the thread before earlier posts. This may cause confusion.

I agree with you about musicians hearing differently than audiophiles. I know my musician friends do not place the same emphasis that I do on the quality of audio systems. It is making music that is their first priority.

Hi Learsfool,
thanks for your reply. The rest of my post was just highlighting (and hopefully not boring everyone) the point that all it takes to clear the argument between ideas is give it a go. Not so much aimed at you, but just a general point.

I mentioned in a later post that if there is a money back trail period on a tweak, what is there to lose? Trying new ideas surely is part of the hobby?

Maybe the vendors of off the wall products should make it their duty to offer money back guarantees? Then the charlatans will be easily recognised.

Sabai wrote,

"My "ideas" about holographic sound are unusual? They are not "my ideas". They are not "ideas" at all. Holographic sound is not an "idea". It is a fact. What do you mean when you say holographic sound is "unusual"? "

Sabai, please read my post again as that is not what I said all. I said that your idea of connecting cables in series was unusual, not that the idea of holographic sound was unusual. I would be the last person to deny that holographic sound is achievable or unusual as a concept.

Cheers

Geoffkait,
You stated, "I said that your idea of connecting cables in series was unusual, not that the idea of holographic sound was unusual. I would be the last person to deny that holographic sound is achievable or unusual as a concept."

But, in fact, this is what you said, "In addition, there does seem to be a very strong resistance to any idea that is not "normal". It's ironic that the subject of this thread, Holographic Sound, is itself controversial. Hel-looo! Most people have never really heard Holographic Sound. Many people in the industry including some senior reviewers either minimize its importance or deny its existence ..."

You have made direct reference to holographic sound being unusual -- you call it "controversial" -- and now you claim you made no such reference. In fact, to bolster this claim you refer to "most people" never having heard holographic sound and to "people in the industry" as well as "some senior executives" minimizing or denying "its existence". When you refer to "its existence" you are not referring to cables in series. You are referring to holographic sound. I suggest that you re-read what you yourself have written.

I reiterate:

You stated, "Many people in the industry including some senior reviewers either minimize its [holographic sound's] importance or deny its existence." Well then, you had better come up with some specific names of "many people in the industry" and "senior reviewers" who back you up.

I have not heard of a single "person in the industry" or a single "senior reviewer" who minimizes the importance or denies the existence of "holographic sound". Of course, there is a world of difference between minimizing the existence of "holographic sound" and denying its existence.

Minimizing its importance means that the person in question recognizes that it exists but, for some reason "minimizes its importance". Could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" and which "senior reviewers" minimize the importance of holographic sound and their reasons for doing so -- and where they have actually stated this? And could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" and which "senior reviewers" actually deny the existence of holographic sound and where they have actually stated this?

Yesterday played "Larks Tongues In Aspic" original UK release on vinyl through my rig under light influence of canabinoids and could imaginary realize placement of musicians on the stage. Was it holographic effect? I'd doubt it because in the concert you always see musicians in front of you and this so called effect isn't needed as it pushes the sonic reality away.

Sabai wrote,

"I have not heard of a single "person in the industry" or a single "senior reviewer" who minimizes the importance or denies the existence of "holographic sound".

I kinda doubt you've heard what all of them have said on the subject. I have not seen a single buffalo out in my yard today. Lol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally...

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

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

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

Tootles,
Bryon

Learsfool wrote,

"Judging someone's ears by the quality of their system is silly. Most musicians do not make enough money to afford a top of the line high end audio system. My own system is certainly on the lower end price-wise for folks in this hobby."

Perhaps you're right, that I should not be too judgemental. As it turns out the professional musician I was referring to is an unusual case. He was a dealer for Cello Speakers and electronics, so his system comprised some of the finest and most expensive components and speakers available. I estimate his system, speakers plus electronics would retail for 200,000 dollars. In addition, he had 10,000 dollars worth of room acoustics treatments installed. I'm pretty sure you can appreciate the irony of my questioning the hearing of professional musicians. If any person cannot obtain good sound from a 200,000 dollar system it's only natural to question his hearing, especially if that person thinks his system actually sounds good.

An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. - old audiophile axiom

Cheers

Bryon,

OK, you finally convinced me that you should probably be standing out on a ledge somewhere. I really like reading your diatribes, though, especially when your hair catches fire. I don't know why all trolls can't be as entertaining as you.

Geoff

Geoffkait,
Why are you being so evasive?

You first quoted me as saying:

""I have not heard of a single "person in the industry" or a single "senior reviewer" who minimizes the importance or denies the existence of "holographic sound"."

Then you replied:

"I kinda doubt you've heard what all of them have said on the subject. I have not seen a single buffalo out in my yard today. Lol"

Is it so difficult to answer my question? What's the mystery? Why can't you give a straight answer to a straight question? In case you did not notice, my question was very simple -- and very straight. In fact, I believe it was not very difficult to understand. Your evasive reply was "I kinda doubt you've heard what all of them have said on the subject". This is not a good enough answer -- with or without the Lol at the end. Why can't you name names? Why can't you give us specific statements that specific people have made? Why can't you put facts in place of evasive replies? I can read English as well as the next person on this thread. I'm waiting. We're waiting.

Would I get holographic sound or any improvements if I placed my system on a semi or fully suspended rack?

Bryoncunningham,
Once again, you have nailed Geoffkait to the wall so perfectly that I could not have put this any better. Bravo.

Sabai, again, we have failure to communicate. What I originally posted was the following:

"As I said, we believe what we chose to believe. Sabai, if you don't object too much to my saying so, it's ironic and bizarre that you would attack someone who is presenting unusual ideas when you, yourself, are presenting unusual ideas. Cables in series, indeed. Hel-loooo! Lol"

You continue to insist I said Holographic Sound was an unusual idea, but actually I said no such thing. I said connecting cables in series was an unusual idea. Now do you see the irony? One wonders why you are so defensive about your holographic sound. Did you invent it? Lol

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

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

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

Bryon

Sabai wrote,

"Is it so difficult to answer my question? What's the mystery? Why can't you give a straight answer to a straight question? In case you did not notice, my question was very simple -- and very straight. In fact, I believe it was not very difficult to understand. Your evasive reply was "I kinda doubt you've heard what all of them have said on the subject". This is not a good enough answer -- with or without the Lol at the end. Why can't you name names? Why can't you give us specific statements that specific people have made? Why can't you put facts in place of evasive replies? I can read English as well as the next person on this thread. I'm waiting. We're waiting."

Clarke Johnsen and Kal Rubinson, senior reviewers/writers at large for Stereophile magazine and Positive Feedback, respectively, to name two industry insiders, have expressed the opinion that obtaining a real, 3D soundstage is either (1) not of great importance overall or (2) not obtainable at all since any 3D soundstage is "artificial" or imaginary (in the mind of the listener). These opinions were expressed over on AA. Lord knows where their statements are archived, but somewhere, no doubt. For the record, I do not agree with those opinions.

Cheers

Chad,

I think people would be less concerned about Geoff and his contributions if he were not a vendor potentially profiting from his actions. Vendors who are forthcoming and clearly add value like Atmasphere catch relatively little flack. In fact, most appreciate that they are willing to share their expertise in a forum like this.

BTW i have a background in designing defense systems as well (digital mapping systems specifically hence my moniker).

I work for a private corporation in a different industry these days.

Also I am not a vendor though I worked selling audio gear in various places back in my college days.

Bryoncunningham,
You're very welcome. Thank you for your kind reply. It is greatly appreciated. I would also add you to my list of those whose posts create a clear idea of the person behind them. No apology necessary here. I do not feel that you have hijacked this thread at all. I think it is clear that a number of others have done the job very well.

I will be on the road for a few days and will have a chance to reply to recent posts within a day or so.

I had no idea holographic sound was so controversial. Obviously it is recording specific, but can anyone really doubt it's existence?

I have heard single microphones give the impression of depth! (Usually tube mics) Let alone multiple mics arranged to reproduce the stereo soundstage.

I may need to bow to others knowledge, but surely the delay between the microphones is what captures this. Even if this is faked using software at the mix stage of the process this can be quite convincing.

I do find that those spacial cues are the most delicate to capture and retain through the chain. Data compression like MP3s murder this information. But once heard cannot be denied. HD audio is the saviour for digiphiles looking for this.

Finally I will say that I believe Geoff is 100% sincere when he talks about mind matter interaction. Its your mind and his attempts to affect how you think that changes its interaction with matter. He can sell almost anything and claim success accordingly. If someone thinks it sounds better, that's all that matters, whether in fact it does or not.

At least that is my take on Geoff. Do I approve of this is true? Not the way Geoff does things as best I can tell. He is not forthcoming about anything much. He just pushes tweaks. It doesn't matter what it is. WIth his approach, a telephone book may have better results than tweak b, even if tweak b in fact does something.

At least this is my best guess. I could be wrong. I do not expect anything from GEoff to really help me learn anything, even anything about himself.

So it is what it is so take it for what it is.

Sabai, for the record, like Bryon, though we may not agree on everything, I concur that you seem sincere and are honest with your thoughts and truly interested in learning, so I commend you on that.

Speaking of stereo image and soundstage, and all that jazz, here's an interesting take by John Atkinson, editor Stereophile Magazine. The following paragraphs are excerpted from his article published in 1986.

"So there we have it: a perfect stereo image implies a perfect soundstage. All is rosy in the audiophile garden.

Hmm. A suspicious word, perfect. Where's the catch?

Well, we have only been discussing the interaction between the two loudspeakers and the listener. What about the amplitude-information only, two-channel recording? Where does that come from?

When it comes to recording music, there are two mutually incompatible philosophies. One is to capture as faithfully as possible the acoustic sound produced by a bunch of musicians, in effect treating a performance as an event to be preserved in a documentary manner. The second, which is far more widespread, is to treat the recording itself as the event, the performance, using live sounds purely as ingredients to be mixed and cooked. This, of course, is how all nonclassical recordings are made. The sound of an instrument or singer is picked up with one microphone, and the resultant mono signal, either immediately or at a later mixdown session, is assigned a lateral position in the stereo image with a panpot. As this is a device which by definition produces a ratio of amplitudes between the two channels, it would seem that every recording made this way is a true amplitude-stereo recording, capable of producing a well-defined stereo image.

Do such recordings have a soundstage associated with that image, however?

Sometimes.

When producing such a recording, the producer decides how much and what type of reverberation should be associated with each of the mono sound sources, and also decides where in space that reverberation should be positioned. There is no reason at all why the ambience surrounding, say, a centrally placed lead vocalist, should have any relationship with that around the drums. Or the guitar. Or the synthesizer. And if it doesn't, then the listener doesn't hear a soundstage. Rather, he hears a collage of individual musical events, bearing no spatial relationship to one another."

GEoff is now saying something that makes sense to me. This positively affects my mind matter interaction when listening. Thanks Geoff!!!

Not that it has anything to do with all the stuff he says that does not, but at least it is on topic!

Mapman wrote,

"BTW i have a background in designing defense systems as well (digital mapping systems specifically hence my moniker)."

My first job was at Army Map Service in DC, a summer job. Of course Army Map Service eventually evolved into Defense Mapping Agency. I used to run calculations for Lorentz relativity equations on early Freiden calculators in my spare time. The office I was in was mapping the moon.

Geof,

If you used any systems or applications from Intergraph Corporation in Huntsville, AL then you might be familiar with some of the things I worked on in their formative stage back in the 80's.

I just remembered, when I was at Army Map Service one of my jobs was helping calibrate the collimators for the Swiss imaging system for viewing 3D maps. Holography rules!

Its true the same principles that apply to 3D mapping apply to holography in stereo recordings as well.

Sabai wrote,

"Bryoncunningham,
Once again, you have nailed Geoffkait to the wall so perfectly that I could not have put this any better. Bravo."

I'm getting this image of Pontius Pilate, for some strange reason.

:-)

Back to mind-matter interaction for a moment, since there's not much floating around the Internet that informs one what the term means. VENDOR ALERT - I sell the Mind Lamp. Q word alert, the Mind Lamp operates quantum mechanically. The web site below provides some insight to some of the ideas I have been trying to get across. Mind-matter interaction works both ways.

http://www.mind-lamp.com/

Geoffkait,
As a troll who trawls for business who is distinguished more than anything else by the picayune while exuding a sense of the pseudo-esoteric with which to mask it, I would not exaggerate your importance on these forums as you attempt to intrude your agenda here.

I may note that it is fortunate that other vendors who visit these forums such as Bobby Palkovic and Ted Denney never draw attention to themselves with self-pronouncements and do not attempt to surround themselves with mysterious airs. They do not need to. They are in a different league -- IMO.