How important is it for you to attain a holographic image?


I’m wondering how many A’goners consider a holographic image a must for them to enjoy their systems?  Also, how many achieve this effect on a majority of recordings?
Is good soundstaging enough, or must a three dimensional image be attained in all cases.  Indeed, is it possible to always achieve it?

7c67ab18 c2ce 4b45 9523 fc4a71684ce0rvpiano
@ orpheus10, yes there is a tendency to ubiquitously promote the idea that more expensive is necessarily better in all areas of life, not just audiophilia.

In my experience it's true but only to a point. I mean if someone can build a decent pair of speakers for $100 then what should we expect for $200, or $400, or $800 or even $1600 etc? I'd even argue that once you get past the optimum point of value you sometimes find the audio quality starting to rapidly decline as the manufacturer struggles to make their product sound unique - but usually in a worse way. I'm not sure if any loudspeaker sounds much better after about $4k, and that's buying new.

So I couldn't agree more that we should judge by the audio first and foremost, and only then decide if we wish to pay for extras such as fancy styling, product support, advertising, dealer markups etc.

Emotional satisfaction has obviously links with money, but once again, only to a point. 

Although there is no getting around the fact that at this level audio is expensive, I save when and where I can.

Sometime ago, I noted that the very well heeled who had pretty much perfected their rigs to their satisfaction, were into room treatment, and they claimed that's where they got their biggest improvement. What I have discovered confirmed that.

It's kind of funny how I got my biggest "holographic improvement" by insulating a sliding glass door from the elements; I charged myself a fortune, just to make it Kosher.
Maybe we should ask this question differently.

If you had to sacrifice something, which would you sacrifice first:
  • Smooth FR
  • Bass
  • Imaging

For me, I'd sacrifice imaging first.

As hard as it is to get perfect imaging, I don't think you will have a hard time sacrificing what you don't already have.
Maybe we should ask this question differently. If you had to sacrifice something, which would you sacrifice first... For me, I’d sacrifice imaging first.

If I understand orpheus10 (correctly), I believe he has been saying that "holographic imaging" is an outcome or result of the ’fundamentals’ coming together and when this occurs, the whole is much, much greater than the parts.

Removing imaging, therefore, implies other parts are not present or not correct or not functioning as they should.

Orpheus10, can you clarify? Thanks.