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
theaudiotweak
2,772 posts
 
Geoff

Most everything you mentioned are passive radiators that re transmit energy in the physical and acoustic environment. Nothing new to grasp there. When you remove a potted plant in clay or brass from a room and you say there is a net gain in perception , is that gain because the inorganic material or the organic material was removed from that area? Tom

bryoncunningham
890 posts
 
09-29-12: Geoffkait
...the reason the sound is (relatively) distorted and compressed and noisy is because of the influence of the immediate environment on your sense of hearing. Somewhat analogous to radio frequency interference affecting the performance of a sensitive receiver. But everything is relative so I can certainly understand your objection to someone saying the sound of your system is not all that you think it is. Let me give you some examples. If you remove all CDs from the room you should notice the sound improves quite a bit. That is because the CDs (media) themselves are bad for the sound. So are LPs, DVDs, cassettes. This is an example of how things in the immediate environment affect the sound you hear.
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.

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. 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.

Bryon
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
Oh, brother... see what happens when I step away for a few moments! ;)

I looked back at the past few days and, Woa! What a turn of the topic! But that's not really surprising given the collective curiosity and intellectual force that is Audiogon! (I include myself in that, for better or worse) :)

I find myself in the incredible position of actually agreeing in part with Geoffkait, something I never thought would happen. Geoff is very level-headed when it comes to his analysis of the extremely low probability of life in space. I have been studying this topic for years and there is a vanishingly low, in other words, less than the Probability Bounds, chance of life forming at random in space.

Mapman, you enthused regarding the comment, "I don't see what all the excitement is about."

Here's what it is about.

1) Mars appears to have once had water flowing on it like earth
2) Water means chance that life existed on Mars once. Finding fossils in the sedimentary rocks would help confirm that.
3) If there was life on Mars once and had technology like ours, they could have visited Earth like we are visiting Mars now
4) If they visited Earth, its possible some life on earth originated on Mars
5) If the evolution of Mars is similar to Earth's, then Earth may be on its way to resembling Mars some day. What will become of us?

I think that is all fascinating at a minimum.
(end of Mapman's comments)

Sorry, but the number of physical criteria for life to have existed on Mars is so slim, so improbable that it's laughable. In short, Mapman, you are being sold a philosophical fairy tale. I strongly suggest you read the terrific work "Privileged Planet" or "Rare Earth", both of which show from a scientific set of data that life doesn't just pop up out there.

I'm sorry, but I would have an easier time handling Quantum audio products than I would aliens seeding the Earth via the ludicrous Directed Panspermia theory. And since I'm not into the Quantum products, you can bet I find no intellectual satisfaction with the "Aliens did it," argument for Evolution.

Just so we're not confused here, I'm not giving any kind of support or endorsement of Quantum Doodads or other Quasi-Tweaky devices. But I can't sit idly by while fantasizations of life Out There is tosse about while the hard evidence we have suggests otherwise. For every panetoid object which has one similarity to Earth it will have hundreds of dissimilarities. The books I mentioned previously show that even if all the potential "Earths" were found the odds are vastly against any of them having the right set of conditions for life as we know it.

Now, if it's a religious thing, to worship at the feet of science, hey, then let's call it what it is, but let's not call that science - unless science has become so unhinged from sensibility. :(
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Tom wrote,

"Most everything you mentioned are passive radiators that re transmit energy in the physical and acoustic environment. Nothing new to grasp there. When you remove a potted plant in clay or brass from a room and you say there is a net gain in perception , is that gain because the inorganic material or the organic material was removed from that area?"

Cables are passive radiators? Interesting. A preamp or amp is a passive radiator? A cassette or book or LP is a passive radiator? An unused speaker IS a passive radiator but that's not the characteristic that is germane to the mechanism I'm referring to. Any more than saying that a telephone in the room hurts the sound because the tiny speaker in the phone acts as a passive radiator.

I'm not really sure why the sound improves when taking plants or flowers out of the room, perhaps because we are inclined to "prefer" them in their natural state - in the ground.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
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
More to discover