I never said it was not fun nor entertaining.
It just makes me laugh when the audiophool localizes all instruments with the highest precision as if they were playing together in real life.
Just the work of a clever sound engineer.
It just makes me laugh when the audiophool localizes all instruments with the highest precision as if they were playing together in real life.
Just the work of a clever sound engineer.
I concur. Tubes, especially DHT have this effect. It is of course entirely artificial but still very pleasant and can elevate the enjoyment provided by many systems.
Electroncs may not make such a range of issues as the loudspeaker, but they are critical. If you do not recover the information off the software that produces that holographic image, or if the electroncs do not preserve that info (ie lose it) then the speaker has no chance.
3D/holographic imaging requires a good recording and a system that maintains the tiny detail that provide the illusion. The speakers & the room are the most likely candidates for the greatest impact thou.
My room is pretty good so i have to worry about it a lot less.
dave
Blame Carver, with his suggestion in his (crappy) Sonic Holograph (aka holocaust) preamp joined that word to imaging/soundstage for all time.
dave
Definitely not dynamic range expander.
I used to have Pioneer dynamic range expanders. Effect was completely different from sonic holography.
https://evolutionmusicstore.com/products/vintage-carver-c-9-sonic-holography-generator-made-in-usa
I used to have Pioneer dynamic range expanders. Effect was completely different from sonic holography.
https://evolutionmusicstore.com/products/vintage-carver-c-9-sonic-holography-generator-made-in-usa
Well, i did build something like that. Based on someone elses similar circuit. It was weird in long term. Even RadioShack coppied similar stereo enhancement tricks into one of their 10 band equalizers.
These days i know better. Perfect soundstage comes from baffleless speakers and global negative feedback free amplification. Yes, many will object to nf free amplification. Putting shades on mona lisa. You know who you are.
These days i know better. Perfect soundstage comes from baffleless speakers and global negative feedback free amplification. Yes, many will object to nf free amplification. Putting shades on mona lisa. You know who you are.
Also blame Joel Cohen, of ‘Sound Concepts’, who I believe came out with his Inter-Aural-Crosstalk-Cancellation product a few years before Carver came out with ‘Sonic Holography’. While both of their products produced crosstalk cancelation, they approached doing so via different strategies. A number of years after Sonic Holography, Matthew Polk’s came out with his passive, loudspeaker based equivalent, the ‘Stereo Dimensional Array’. SDA stills looks to be available from Polk Speakers, but the other two products, both active, have long ago disappeared from the market, as far as I know. IACC is a fun effect, at first, but unfortunately, quickly becomes very unnatural sounding. Sort of the audio equivalent of those fun-house mirrors which greatly distort your reflected image.
Last edited:
My experience is that even the cables have their importance for the topic both for interconnection and (less) for speakers ones. IMO
And NO they are NOT "equalizers" IMO as someone writes, also because if they really were equalizers then they maybe would be bad just in their main function, as "transferrers" of an electrical signal.
Maybe, if anything of that, they seem more as "influencers" of the sound timbre. IMO
Sometimes cables are possibly even the least expensive change.
I recently bought a pair of couple of XLR cables (source-dac, pre-power amp) DH-Labs Silversonic Air Matrix Interconnect and I was almost sure 🙄 that they would have made a big difference in the sound-image also because (if it makes a sense) of the same brand I've a USB cable and an AES/EBU cable that in my opinion play really magnificently at a much more than honest price.
But no, the sound does result inevitably and recognizably (from anyone listened to them) inlighted, inboxed and the sound-image loses a lot instead of gaining something and the whole acoustic-scene appears both as compressed towards the center and "suffocated" downward with any musical material.
Just to close this stage of a my experience, a few years ago I bought on AE a pair of couple of RCA cables that I paid about the tenth part of the aforementioned ones and which still beat in its scene reconstruction (wide, precise and airy) any challenger by far proposed to it, really so far.
I don't know the reason, I can only say that "they should" be in OFC copper, they are shielded and have the 2 solid-core central conductors.
The fact that they were shielded was useful when I've been converted into balanced cables lately, appreciating their "creation" (or perhaps it is a "let through") of a enjoyable sound-image even more. IMS (in my system)
I'll sell the blazoned cables very soon.
And NO they are NOT "equalizers" IMO as someone writes, also because if they really were equalizers then they maybe would be bad just in their main function, as "transferrers" of an electrical signal.
Maybe, if anything of that, they seem more as "influencers" of the sound timbre. IMO
Sometimes cables are possibly even the least expensive change.
I recently bought a pair of couple of XLR cables (source-dac, pre-power amp) DH-Labs Silversonic Air Matrix Interconnect and I was almost sure 🙄 that they would have made a big difference in the sound-image also because (if it makes a sense) of the same brand I've a USB cable and an AES/EBU cable that in my opinion play really magnificently at a much more than honest price.
But no, the sound does result inevitably and recognizably (from anyone listened to them) inlighted, inboxed and the sound-image loses a lot instead of gaining something and the whole acoustic-scene appears both as compressed towards the center and "suffocated" downward with any musical material.
Just to close this stage of a my experience, a few years ago I bought on AE a pair of couple of RCA cables that I paid about the tenth part of the aforementioned ones and which still beat in its scene reconstruction (wide, precise and airy) any challenger by far proposed to it, really so far.
I don't know the reason, I can only say that "they should" be in OFC copper, they are shielded and have the 2 solid-core central conductors.
The fact that they were shielded was useful when I've been converted into balanced cables lately, appreciating their "creation" (or perhaps it is a "let through") of a enjoyable sound-image even more. IMS (in my system)
I'll sell the blazoned cables very soon.
I’m interested in learning more about global negative feedback thing. Are there any modern commercially available amps that are built this way or is it a DIY/vintage thing?
It’s both a diy thing, and is sometimes seen in a few high-end commercial consumer amplifiers. Negative feedback makes it easier to achieve good performance specifications. Good specs. can also be had without global-feedback but it’s typically more difficult, especially with power amplifiers.
while each individual have their own impression through their own experiences, imho the following Components will determined your imaging presentation :
1. Speakers - minimal diffractions, controlled dispersions and linearish freq responses.
2. Room - it has to have some sort of controlled reflections on broadband responses (pref. 40hz and up)
3. Electronics - specifically for tube amp, a great tube amplification (pre/power) presents and project space between instruments, vocals and sound in the recording better than solid state.
4. Cables - some cables (hifi brands) introduced phase shift that just made the sound different rather than improve it.
Any of those component in the system will effect the imaging, the no.1 and 2 will affect more, however you can still hear (see) it even if you only change the electronics.
if you have a great room, any of changes on the components in the system will be heard easier than any other room.
1. Speakers - minimal diffractions, controlled dispersions and linearish freq responses.
2. Room - it has to have some sort of controlled reflections on broadband responses (pref. 40hz and up)
3. Electronics - specifically for tube amp, a great tube amplification (pre/power) presents and project space between instruments, vocals and sound in the recording better than solid state.
4. Cables - some cables (hifi brands) introduced phase shift that just made the sound different rather than improve it.
Any of those component in the system will effect the imaging, the no.1 and 2 will affect more, however you can still hear (see) it even if you only change the electronics.
if you have a great room, any of changes on the components in the system will be heard easier than any other room.
Its funny how often tubes do 3D better then entry level SS. I still don't understand why? Any thoughts?
Last edited:
Charles Hansen, founder of Ayre Acoustics was a vocal proponent of zero feedback designs : https://www.ayre.com/products/. Bob Cordell has a couple of chapters relevant to the topic of no-GNFB in his 'Designing Audio Power Amplifiers' book.
Hi,
Since you give me the feeling of being a guy who knows a lot about the subject (unlike me) I would like if you could kindly explain where is the difference when you say "it is the copy of the original": then a copy is not the same as the original?
Or, what does the difference between the original and its copy consists of?
I mean: in your knowledge are there many types of copy?
If so, which one?