bob carver was a 'know it all' who, for the most part, really did know it all.
20 responses Add your response
Heh, heh, we used to call it the Sonic Holocaust because of the devastation it wrought to the music. In all fairness, the effect is really quite cool, but the "sweet spot" is about 1 ft. wide. It's a great gimmick, but you'll find that listener fatigue sets in very quickly.
It will blow your friends' minds, though...
I've had several Carver preamps....I still own three of them, C-16, CT-19 tube preamp and Sunfire Theater Grand pre-pro. For the money they are very good. I rarely listened to the sonic holography. It was cool gimmick, and when guests came over I played it just to mess with their heads. Nothing wrong with Carver stuff for the money you pay for it.
I've found the results to be very software dependent. Overall, I've enjoyed the effect on many occaisions, both with and without headpones. I've traded up from the C-1 preamp some time ago searching for better resolution. Still, the Carver gear appears to remain a bargain for a starter system or second rig. Kudos to you wife.
I am considering an Anthem D1 as an upgrade from my AVM20 but the sonic holography feature (which I've never heard) on the Sunfire TG5 intrigues me. Putting aside the fact that the TG5 has HDMI connects and the D1 doesn't, do you think the sonic holography feature is so unique as to sway me toward a TG5? Or does the sound of a D1 simply win over a TG5, with or without that feature engaged?
I didn't mean to imply that I would play music through HDMI. Sorry. I simply was stating a feature that the TG5 had that the D1 didn't. My direct question: assuming a love for 2 ch music, would the D1 get the nod or would the TG5 sonic holography setting be enough to sway one to Sunfire. My CD player is a Electrocompaniet EMC 1-UP 24/96, Usher 8871 speakers, Harmonix and Cardas for all interconnects and power cords. The amp, by the way, is actually a 5x225 Sunfire Cinema Grand. My reason for listing these item is to show the analog, tube-like sound I'm looking for which I'm getting closer to. Thus, the pre-amp choice should be in the same vein and someone mentioned the sonic holo setting was very, very analog sounding. I don't know what to think. Help. Thanks.
I've had the TG1 and I currently have the TG2. For my money, they've been outstanding. I've only used the Sonic Holography very sparingly. On some recordings it sounds very good. Ultimately, all of this is going to be a matter of taste. Take a few cd's down to a Sunfire dealer in your area if you have one and check it out.
"And what in what high end systems is the sweet spot any more than one foot wide? That's about par for the course."
You have obviously never heard the Gallo Reference 3s or the Ohm Walsh speakers. The sweet spot on my system is about 6 feet wide and I'm sitting 11 ft. from the speakers.
If I had to choose between the CSHG & a Bose Wave radio, I'd probably take the Bose. It's amazing that so many people here seem to like it. One of my biggest disappointments in gear was when I went to audition the Carver Amazing Loudspeakers. They were hooked up to the Sonic Holographic carver amp and preamp. The salesman was quite impressed with this technology and spoke of how well it sounded. To my son and I it was the worst sounding system we'd ever heard. We walked out amazed that they would even show a system which sounded so bad.
Sonic Holography did work, but you had to set the speakers up just right and "sit with your head in a vice" to make it worth while. I doubt one could just hastly hook it up and flip it on and hear much improvement to the sound field. (I wonder if someone just happens to have one for sale right now? hete). It worked by cancelling out unneeded replicted sounds that collapse and flatten the sound stage. You can maybe search around and find a Bob Carver white paper or even the manual that came with the product had a nice run down on the theory. And I don't know who in the right mind would sell the pre for 20$?
omnisonix, omnisonic imager is the original 3d sound in which bob carver came up with his own version, it was around 1979, and sonic holography in 1980. Whether you know it or not, many sound processors of today used by pro gear and on tv, home theater manufacturers use a form of sonic holography in the form of BBE, BEHRINGER, PEAVEY KOSMOS, DBX, aphex and the more known SRSLABS with their WOW surround. It's basically simulated surround. Several years ago, acoustic research came out with the TDS 202 spatial enhancer. In the early 90's hughes came up with their version. Some people like their music FLAT and unprocessed, people like myself who like to expand their sound, use sound processors to enhance the dynamics and soundstage of our system. It's not everyone, just like pure audio is not for everyone. Not everyone is going to enjoy tubes or stereo only or unprocessed. Even in the 80's with the dbx expanders, not everyone was into processing or expanding their tape decks or turntables. From my over 33 yrs of experience of using sound processors and being in audio, sound processors such as equalizers, reverbs, digital delay, omnisonic imagery, dbx range expanders, and sonic holography have always brought out signals in the recording I normally don't hear listening to a regular flat unprocessed amplified sound from whatever source be it a turntable or a cd player. People think that using unprocessed amplification from a source is the natural way, maybe if it was a live performance, but even with a live performance or a recording, engineers and musicians always use sound processors in the mix and therefore it is never really UNPROCESSED, that is why people is not natural aren't really making any sense to me unless the recording is that of a single instrument musician such as a solo guitar performance which would be an exemption to the rule, where as most band or group recorded music has sound processing in the mix therefor NOT SO NATURAL!