Holographic depth soundstage and 3d impression 2025

[Doodski]

I don't think I want to mention the name of the model, because I'm afraid I'll be accused of advertising, although their production has already ended and they are not for sale

No worries mate. You can name drop here.

 

[Cbdb2]

I came back after a few days, someone set them up differently and the magic disappeared.

Should be the big clue. How where they set up differently? Are you sure your not the difference? So any speaker might be capable if set up properly. Thus the speaker is only part of the story and untill set up properly you wont know it.

 

[Verig]

4. Depth is not the mix's fault, if the speaker can't push the dry vocals in front of the speakers, the speaker doesn't have this feature.

As a someone who makes music and sounds I find this a bit odd statement. I can't very well mix a track expecting a speaker x to push something for me.

6. When music is a wall of sound in the speaker plane, it's awful 2d. Why do so few people talk about it here. I'd rather have resonance that I cut out than flat speakers without THD that play 2d.

This is an interesting matter of taste thing.
Sometimes 2D is much more relaxing to listen to. I usually position my speakers only for a slight depth, never all the way.

 

[Verig]

The other aspect might be called "envelopment", and is the sense of being immersed in a much larger acoustic space than the playback room.

In some ways these to aspects may compete, but ime they can also be simultaneously present.

I find envelopment much more interesting than depth. Totem speaker (with all their quirks) handle this nicely for my ear.

 

[audiofooled]

If we are talking about auditory impression that sonic images have qualities beyond just pinpoint localization or natural tonality, as in perceptually "materializing" in front of a listener, I believe this is not to be taken lightly, albeit an illusion but a convincing one.

Other than prerequisite of such information being present in the recording, IME this takes some special sound field characteristics, like a shape of the wavefront which would, with a certain degree of accuracy convey such information, and do so in many points in acoustic space (and NOT just at one limited seating position). Like an interference pattern containing chunks of information which can be observed from more than one angle.

Regarding loudspeakers and setups, It's about speaker interaction, speaker/room interaction, the right balance of direct and reverberant field (you can't have too much of anything), very tightly controlled horizontal and vertical directivity within a wide frequency range, time and phase coherence across much of the audible bandwidth, neutral FR, in room reflections, simply every audible aspect must be right and then some. By that I mean as you, not only rotate or move your head, but actually stand up and walk away, the sound perceptually hardly changes at all, or changes gradually in a very natural way with localization staying seemingly "locked". But It is when you stay put in your MLP that you have a chance of experiencing this.

There's also a tangible aspect to it, the information we may pick up with our body.

I'm not confident that this can be experienced with conventional loudspeaker designs, but rather specialized ones where the above characteristics were in mind during the design process, also manufactured within very tight tolerances. So not your average speakers.

 

[Duke]

They were studio monitors that someone accidentally set up in a music room... They were set wide apart, and not symmetrically in the room, so everything outlived "logic". That magic setup - very wide, toed in standing on other speakers which didn't play good in similar position.

Thank you for this reply, the set-up you describe makes sense to me, though obviously I cannot comment on the speakers.

Regarding loudspeakers and setups, It's about speaker interaction, speaker/room interaction, the right balance of direct and reverberant field (you can't have too much of anything), very tightly controlled horizontal and vertical directivity within a wide frequency range, time and phase coherence across much of the audible bandwidth, neutral FR, in room reflections, simply every audible aspect must be right and then some. By that I mean as you, not only rotate or move your head, but actually stand up and walk away, the sound perceptually hardly changes at all, or changes gradually in a very natural way with localization staying seemingly "locked". But It is when you stay put in your MLP that you have a chance of experiencing this...

I'm not confident that this can be experienced with conventional loudspeaker designs, but rather specialized ones where the above characteristics were in mind during the design process, also manufactured within very tight tolerances. So not your average speakers.

Ime good conventional speakers typically need an unusually large or unusually well-treated room in order to "do it all" spatially. On a smaller budget, moving speakers significantly closer to the listener can help introduce the room interaction conditions described in #4 below.

My observations regarding the pursuit of really good spatial quality in a two-channel setup:

1. The speakers should be free from resonances that call attention to themselves or otherwise collapse the illusion.

2. Cabinet edge diffraction should be minimized in some way. This can be generous round-overs, or large bevels, or thick felt, or a radiation pattern than misses the cabinet edges in the mids and highs. If there are sharp edges, all else being equal a narrow baffle is normally more benign than a medium or wide one, when it comes to imaging. Unconventional front baffle geometries which greatly time-smear any edge diffraction can also be beneficial.

3. Preservation of time coherence is beneficial. Within my limited range of experience, some crossover topologies seem to image better than others even if the differences in their measured frequency response is minor and inconclusive.

4. Room interaction matters a great deal. The first-arrival sound should be followed by a time gap wherein minimal reflections arrive, the time-gap being followed by a fairly generous amount of spectrally-correct reflections. These later-arriving reflections ideally arrive from many directions, and should be neither too strong nor too weak, decaying neither too fast nor too slow. This time gap can be a result of room treatments, room geometry, and/or speaker radiation pattern geometry, and of course set-up of the speakers within the room should enable the reflection-free time gap

Imo this package of room-interaction characteristics results in two benefits: First, by minimizing the earliest reflections, the sound image localization cues on the recording are not smeared by early reflections, which improves the "physical, tangible impression of the presence of the voice/instrument". (Simultaneously, the "small room signature" cues inherent to the playback room are somewhat disrupted.) Second, by providing lots of spectrally-correct late reflections, the ambience cues (such as the reverberation tails) within the recording are effectively presented to the ears, potentially dominating over the playback room's signature and enabling a "you are there" perspective.

@Bartez2000, the toe-in you mentioned could have introduced this long time delay before the strong onset of lateral reflections if the radiation patterns of the studio monitors thereby "missed" the same-side-wall, such that the first strong lateral reflection was the long across-the-room bounce off the opposite side wall. The asymmetry you mentioned may have also contributed, especially if it resulted in the first wall bounce missing the listening area. And imo as a general principle, decorrelation in the reflection field (though not necessarily in the very early reflections) is desirable, and the asymmetry may have contributed to that.

 

[Bartez2000]

Thank you for this reply, the set-up you describe makes sense to me, though obviously I cannot comment on the speakers.



Ime good conventional speakers typically need an unusually large or unusually well-treated room in order to "do it all" spatially. On a smaller budget, moving speakers significantly closer to the listener can help introduce the room interaction conditions described in #4 below.

My observations regarding the pursuit of really good spatial quality in a two-channel setup:

1. The speakers should be free from resonances that call attention to themselves or otherwise collapse the illusion.

2. Cabinet edge diffraction should be minimized in some way. This can be generous round-overs, or large bevels, or thick felt, or a radiation pattern than misses the cabinet edges in the mids and highs. If there are sharp edges, all else being equal a narrow baffle is normally more benign than a medium or wide one, when it comes to imaging. Unconventional front baffle geometries which greatly time-smear any edge diffraction can also be beneficial.

3. Preservation of time coherence is beneficial. Within my limited range of experience, some crossover topologies seem to image better than others even if the differences in their measured frequency response is minor and inconclusive.

4. Room interaction matters a great deal. The first-arrival sound should be followed by a time gap wherein minimal reflections arrive, the time-gap being followed by a fairly generous amount of spectrally-correct reflections. These later-arriving reflections ideally arrive from many directions, and should be neither too strong nor too weak, decaying neither too fast nor too slow. This time gap can be a result of room treatments, room geometry, and/or speaker radiation pattern geometry, and of course set-up of the speakers within the room should enable the reflection-free time gap

Imo this package of room-interaction characteristics results in two benefits: First, by minimizing the earliest reflections, the sound image localization cues on the recording are not smeared by early reflections, which improves the "physical, tangible impression of the presence of the voice/instrument". (Simultaneously, the "small room signature" cues inherent to the playback room are somewhat disrupted.) Second, by providing lots of spectrally-correct late reflections, the ambience cues (such as the reverberation tails) within the recording are effectively presented to the ears, potentially dominating over the playback room's signature and enabling a "you are there" perspective.

@Bartez2000, the toe-in you mentioned could have introduced this long time delay before the strong onset of lateral reflections if the radiation patterns of the studio monitors thereby "missed" the same-side-wall, such that the first strong lateral reflection was the long across-the-room bounce off the opposite side wall. The asymmetry you mentioned may have also contributed, especially if it resulted in the first wall bounce missing the listening area. And imo as a general principle, decorrelation in the reflection field (though not necessarily in the very early reflections) is desirable, and the asymmetry may have contributed to that.

I will answer all posts, sub-items and questions. Here I will quickly add that I also have cheap old speakers that even in a very small room cope quite well with imaging, better than e.g. Atc scm11 v2, Neumann kh120 or PMC Result6. However, this is not the kind of holography I mentioned at the beginning, it is at most its substitute, absolutely far from the physical tangibility of sound.

 

[Doodski]

I will answer all posts, sub-items and questions. Here I will quickly add that I also have cheap old speakers that even in a very small room cope quite well with imaging, better than e.g. Atc scm11 v2, Neumann kh120 or PMC Result6. However, this is not the kind of holography I mentioned at the beginning, it is at most its substitute, absolutely far from the physical tangibility of sound.

Are you listening in the dark?

 

[Bartez2000]

Are you listening in the dark?

Yes, I listened in the dark and that helps. But in that music room it was bright and I didn't have to close my eyes to "see" the singer in front of me. It's a beautiful and at the same time eerie impression. To hear a voice right in front of you as if there was a real person there, but there isn't. Since then I've been changing speakers, doing experiments but I absolutely can't achieve that level of physical realism.

 

[Bartez2000]

I have tested laser distance measurement, ear adjustment, bacch, dirac, matha audio eq, sonarworks, arc, Sumiko method and its derivatives. Some speakers image well, but I would not call it holographic sound.

 

[Doodski]

I have tested laser distance measurement, ear adjustment, bacch, dirac, matha audio eq, sonarworks, arc, Sumiko method and its derivatives. Some speakers image well, but I would not call it holographic sound.

Have you tried dipoles for this stuff?

 

[Bartez2000]

Have you tried dipoles for this stuff?

Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance yet

 

[Bartez2000]

Today I'm going to another music store where I'll experiment with different speakers. We'll see what comes of it. I'll report back on this hunt.

 

[Doodski]

Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance yet

Hmmmz... Well I'm hazarding a guess that any speaker with multiple emitting sides is going to tweak your interest. Otherwise the Polk SDA are a interesting design. I have used a couple of larger models extensively in a retail setting and they intrigued me. Setup is important but when done they output some pretty interesting stuff.

 

[MattHooper]

I find envelopment much more interesting than depth. Totem speaker (with all their quirks) handle this nicely for my ear.

Agreed. Every totem speaker I have ever heard in any room has seemed to create a very spacious “ disappearing speakers” kind of sound. I have my quibbles with certain aspects of their tonal balance, but they at least seem to have mastered that aspect.

 

[MattHooper]

3. Preservation of time coherence is beneficial. Within my limited range of experience, some crossover topologies seem to image better than others even if the differences in their measured frequency response is minor and inconclusive.

Yes. As I mentioned before, having owned a number of time/phase coherent Thiel speakers, as well as many others, there has always been a level of precision, focus and density to the sonic images on the Thiels that make listening to other speakers seem a little bit more vague and swimmy in their imaging. It’s not something usually obvious from just listening to a different speaker of itself, because many speakers seem to image quite precisely. It’s only when I hear them compared to a Thiel speaker that the other speaker’s imaging is less focussed and less corporal.
It’s like the Thiel speaker is “ lining up” all the Sonic information in the recording more precisely, and putting a finer lens on the focus.

I still don’t know whether this has anything to do with the time phase coherence, or perhaps more to coax mid tweeter arrangement.

Having said that, having listened to speakers like KEF quite a number of times, which use the coax arrangement, they didn’t seem to have the focus and density of the Thiel speakers, and the first time I noticed the particular precision of the Thiel versus others was in showroom during the 90s, hearing the Thiel 3.6, which was time phase coherent, but didn’t use a coax arrangement.

 

[Bartez2000]

Yes. As I mentioned before, having owned a number of time/phase coherent Thiel speakers, as well as many others, there has always been a level of precision, focus and density to the sonic images on the Thiels that make listening to other speakers seem a little bit more vague and swimmy in their imaging. It’s not something usually obvious from just listening to a different speaker of itself, because many speakers seem to image quite precisely. It’s only when I hear them compared to a Thiel speaker that the other speaker’s imaging is less focussed and less corporal.
It’s like the Thiel speaker is “ lining up” all the Sonic information in the recording more precisely, and putting a finer lens on the focus.

I still don’t know whether this has anything to do with the time phase coherence, or perhaps more to coax mid tweeter arrangement.

Having said that, having listened to speakers like KEF quite a number of times, which use the coax arrangement, they didn’t seem to have the focus and density of the Thiel speakers, and the first time I noticed the particular precision of the Thiel versus others was in showroom during the 90s, hearing the Thiel 3.6, which was time phase coherent, but didn’t use a coax arrangement.

Your description very accurately describes my impressions while listening to ATC scm11 v2. Set up using the sumiko method with a subwoofer and mathaudio room eq correction in a very close field. The sound is dense, massive. However, here in atc for me it is also only a substitute for holography. Singer hangs in the air, pointwise, centrally but does not deceive my brain that he is a real person present there, only a well-reproduced voice. I have to try Thiel.

 

[Gringoaudio1]

1. Holography is a feature of speakers, not amplifiers, not rooms. A speaker either has it or it doesn't.

2. The room and positioning settings can help bring out holography but don't create it.

3. A wide setting that loses the central image is not spatiality but the advantage of the side volume over the mid.

4. Depth is not the mix's fault, if the speaker can't push the dry vocals in front of the speakers, the speaker doesn't have this feature.

5. The central vocal image is always in the front. The mix can enhance the effect but only in speakers that have the ability to create holography.

6. When music is a wall of sound in the speaker plane, it's awful 2d. Why do so few people talk about it here. I'd rather have resonance that I cut out than flat speakers without THD that play 2d.

Best regards brothers

No. It’s an accidental artifact of the room and speaker interaction. It’s not by design. Love it when it happens though.

 

[tmuikku]

Hi,

you gear oriented fools It's not only about the gear, nor an accident, but very much also the auditory system and you as an active component of the whole audio chain that makes a perception. You can actually affect it and seek it, make sure it happens! At least this is what I've observed about it as an enthusiast.

Anything in the playback system can prevent such holographic sound from happening, most likely multiple things combined, but the last and most important piece that makes or breaks it is your auditory system, regardless of the gear. Perception of sound, such as what can be described a holography, is not directly the sound what enters your ear, but an end result what your own auditory system provides to you to perceive.

I got the holographic sound as I understand it on my system, but only when I'm within particular distance from the speakers. If I physically move myself, start back out staying equidistant to both speakers, the holography disappears at particular distance to speakers. The room acoustics and the speakers and all the gear stays the same*, only thing that changes is moving myself. If you don't have it in yours, move yourself closer!

In general, look for David Griesinger publications about Auditory Proximity and Limit of Localization distance to find out about auditory system state regarding this.

* gear and room are physically the same, and I have the holographic sound or not depending on where I'm located! As the listener moves further or closer to speakers a lot of things change: First specular reflection delay, amplitude and angle from speaker and angle to HRTF change, D/R sound ratio changes. I'm not sure what actually eventually makes it happen. But, anything that needs to happen to get holographic sound must have, because the perception changes.

Spoiler: More text in case you haven't already read my million posts about this same thing :D

With a good system there is hint of good sound listened anywhere in the room, but at least in my system and experience when auditory system is not paying attention the sound is just flat 2D frontally localized and gets hazy localization overall, and reduced clarity. This is most likely due to loud early reflections dominate direct sound, which makes auditory system to lose the focus to the direct sound thinking it's just noise not worthy the attention. Get close enough and boom, clarity, localization, all of the good adjectives. The thing is, we cannot control the auditory system other than indirectly, make sure the important sound source is "close enough" physically so that brain pays attention to it not thinking it's noise but some important thing worth attention. For a stereo system that relies on phantom this is even more deliberate than with any real sound source, like meeting a tiger eye to eye making nasty sounds, surely got your attention.

What this means is that in order to evaluate any system capability to make holographic sound, in any room, you must first be sure your auditory system is in state which enables holographic sound to happen in the first place. If it is not, you cannot judge any part of the playback system or the room in this regard, because it could be yourself that prevents it from happening!

I'll speculate that any reasonably good speaker work in any reasonable room positioned reasonably and the holography should happen. You just have to know how to listen your own auditory system state, whether it pays attention to direct sound (phantom center) or not, and adjust system positioning accordingly including and most importantly yourself, you are the active component in the system and able to move yourself affecting hugely to perceived sound.

Holographic sound seems to happen when auditory system pays attention to the sound, and quality of your speaker, room acoustics and positioning affects whether it can or not. Shrink your listening triangle small enough related to room acoustics and speaker directivity and make sure L and R match each other and it should happen. Listen dry mono noise for maximally "dry" and concentrated phantom center and try to find out whether it shrinks and concentrates when you get close enough. It bloats big and hazy when you are too far a way, or if the speakers aren't matching so your auditory system cannot make sense of it. Small and focused phantom center noise indicates your auditory system has attention, which manifests itself as good perceptually good localization and clarity for example. If you cannot get this, find out why, adjust your positioning.

 

[Verig]

I don't quite agree that any speaker can provide holographic feel and same goes for enveloping. For example Marten are good at both but no matter how I like Elac Debuts for the price they don't do anything worth mentioning.