2. misc-audio
  3. 1347580739

What Does Holographic Sound Like?

And how do you get there? This is an interesting question. I have finally arrived at a very satisfying level of holography in my system. But it has taken a lot of time, effort and money to get there. I wish there had been a faster, easier and less expensive way to get there. But I never found one.

Can you get to a high level of holography in your system with one pair of interconnects and one pair of speaker wires? I don't believe so. I run cables in series. I never found one pair of interconnects and speaker wires that would achieve what has taken a heck of a lot of wires and "tweaks" to achieve. Let alone all the power cords that I run in series. Although I have found one special cable that has enabled the system to reach a very high level of holography -- HiDiamond -- I still need to run cables in series for the sound to be at its holographic best.

There are many levels of holography. Each level is built incrementally with the addition of one more wire and one more "tweak". I have a lot of wires and "tweaks" in my system. Each cable and each "tweak" has added another level to the holography. Just when I thought things could not get any better -- which has happened many times -- the addition of one more cable or "tweak" enabled the system to reach a higher level yet.

Will one "loom" do the job. I never found that special "loom". To achieve the best effects I have combined cables from Synergistic Research, Bybee, ASI Liveline, Cardas, Supra and HiDiamond -- with "tweaks" too numerous to mention but featuring Bybee products and a variety of other products, many of which have the word "quantum" in their description.

The effort to arrive at this point with my system has been two-fold. Firstly, finding the right cables and "tweaks" for the system. Secondly, finding where to place them in the system for the best effects -- a process of trial and error. A lot of cables and "tweaks" had to be sold off in the process. I put "tweaks" in quotation marks because the best "tweaks" in my system have had as profound effect as the components on the sound. The same for the best of the cables, as well. For me, cables and "tweaks" are components.

Have I finally "arrived"? I have just about arrived at the best level that I can expect within my budget -- there are a couple of items on the way. In any case, I assume there are many levels beyond what my system has arrived at. But since I'll never get there I am sitting back and enjoying the music in the blissful recognition that I don't know what I am missing.

I should mention that there are many elements that are as important as holography for the sound to be satisfying, IMO. They include detail, transparency, coherence, tonality, and dynamics, among others. My system has all of these elements in good measure.

Have you had success with holographic sound in your system? If so, how did you get there?
sabai

Showing 6 responses by almarg

almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
I had the original version of Carver's Sonic Hologram, in his C-4000 preamp (ca. 1979), and later the revised version, in the C-9 Sonic Hologram Generator. The revised version had a slightly less critical sweet spot, and somewhat better sound quality. Both had audible side-effects, though, that could be immediately perceived on high quality recordings, in a good quality system, by switching the hologram function on and off. Mainly a general reduction in clarity, across the spectrum, and on the first version some problems in the bass region. On mediocre recordings those issues tended to be less bothersome than on high quality recordings.

When I eventually moved from solid state to tube-based power amplification I found that the increased dimensionality that tube power amps commonly provide (I have no idea why) resulted in imaging that approached what the Sonic Hologram accomplished, at least on most recordings, while avoiding its side-effects and providing better sound quality. During the 1990s I therefore removed the C-9 from my system, the C-4000 having been sold many years earlier.

Regards,
-- Al
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
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
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
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
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
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
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
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
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
Well, this thread seems to have established at least one thing with a high degree of conclusiveness. Those having backgrounds in defense electronics constitute a diverse group. :-)

Best regards,
-- Al
More to discover