• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Holographic depth soundstage and 3d impression 2025

If they have something "extra," then those speakers are not good, for they are not doing what they are supposed to do.
Well, as I said, I feel it's fault but in certain amount a very nice fault. This is a thread of preference and how we hear and value things, not really looking for text book good performance. I can use my own mixes as a reference if I want, so I'm really talking about speakers.

Avantgarde Zeros comes to mind. Nice powerful speaker and they feel correct. But when you take a step into their horns there's certainly holography but way way overboard for me.
 
If they have something "extra," then those speakers are not good, for they are not doing what they are supposed to do.
Have you ever experienced it with speakers? I'm starting to wonder if certain perceptions don't really come across to everyone.
I mean I totally understand the point from sound engineering view but it seems that you don't quite know what I describe as I don't see why you're so dismissive?
 
But how can the speaker manufacturer know what the audio engineer would do in their studio, or what the performer would want the audio engineer to process?

Imo effectively presenting what is already on the recording is all the speakers need to do. The speaker designer doesn't need to know any specifics about what happened in the recording studio.
 
Have you ever experienced it with speakers? I'm starting to wonder if certain perceptions don't really come across to everyone.
I mean I totally understand the point from sound engineering view but it seems that you don't quite know what I describe as I don't see why you're so dismissive?
I wrote here what I experience
 
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.
In my experience the Sumiko-Master Set method gives the best results for any speaker in any room. If done to perfection, there is very little left to tweak with room eq. correction since that is part of the setup method.
 
If we keep the discussion to "normal" boxed loudspeakers that on their own don't try to create any additional depth by spreading the sound in non-traditional manners like omnidirectional or back-firing speaker designs, I don't think the holography is anything "extra" that some loudspeakers add to the equation. Instead, I'm pretty certain something is lacking with the loudspeakers that can't reproduce that holographic sound, not the other way around.
 
Over the past few decades, I have sat down to listen to many different loudspeakers at my friends place (reviewer) from modest to spectacularly expensive and large. And just about every single time I come back home and fire up my system. I’m surprised again to hear how much more impressive in terms of width size depth, and imaging my system sounds. It often feels like another level.

This is mostly I believe just down to how I like to set up my speakers to maximize those features, where my friend ends up a little further away from his speakers and doesn’t fuss as much about total immersion.
 
If any speaker measures well and if you set it up right for your critical listening position, there you go.

There a zillion test tracks that give you a reference with someone walking around in a big room speaking and clapping in different places.

That said the effect is artificially injected into a recording.

And sometimes those space references change during a song. There's panning (which I hate), there's the intentional boosting of the main artist front-center, there's the main artist changing positions in the studio.
 
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.

This has been my experience too. In addition to my post #45, here are some comparisons of my system phantom center measured at MLP, and just a vector average of very random set of measurements all around the room (basically the worst sound that I get anywhere):

MLP FR and phase (+-3dB, -1dB/octave slope):

MLP FR phase.jpg


Random FR/phase (+-3dB, -1.18dB/octave slope):

No MLP FR phase.jpg


Random excess GD:

Excess GD.jpg


Waterfall MLP:

Waterfall MLP.jpg


Waterfall random:

Waterfall No MLP.jpg


Spectrogram MLP:

Spectrogram MLP.jpg


Spectrogram random:

Spectrogram No MLP.jpg


This being just a normal living room, the importance of directivity control, setup and time domain performance is further emphasized. I agree with your observation about "anechoic" gaps and spectrally correct reflections. Basically what room does is filtered out more easily, especially if modes are not supported, as they can mask a lot. I believe that this is one of the keys that support the perception that acoustic events are "rendered" not only precisely localized, but having preserved their early spatial impressions as a sort of "halo" around them, making the illusion more realistic. But IMO the recording must at a minimum contain independent reverbs that actually sound like it.
 
Yes and now I'm more confused because I'm not talking about anything the engineer intended.
If you want to hear music live, you have to go to the venue. If you want to listen to music at home, you receive what the audio engineers have decided for you during the processing in the studio, regardless of the source material you use—be it CD, USB, vinyl, or streaming.
And just about every single time I come back home and fire up my system. I’m surprised again to hear how much more impressive in terms of width size depth, and imaging my system sounds. It often feels like another level.
Because you are accustomed to your system, and your brain recognises that. It has likely already forgotten what you heard at your friend's place.
 
Some people may not like this, but here's what Roger Sanders said that I think is relevant to the topic:

 
Engineering solutions always have pros and cons as you strive towards greatness. :)

Yes, absolutely. Many times a right combination of different solutions may yield a better result (compromise) then perfecting a single one. The more complex the problem chances are that nothing is ever solved completely. Tradeoffs. :)

I just agree with things Sanders said about properties of loudspeakers when it comes to time domain performance, transient response and what role reflections take when you actually put them in room. For me it would also be hard to believe that loudspeaker flaws may somehow accidentally lead to this kind of performance, which some members already stated.
 
Yes, absolutely. Many times a right combination of different solutions may yield a better result (compromise) then perfecting a single one. The more complex the problem chances are that nothing is ever solved completely. Tradeoffs. :)

I just agree with things Sanders said about properties of loudspeakers when it comes to time domain performance, transient response and what role reflections take when you actually put them in room. For me it would also be hard to believe that loudspeaker flaws may somehow accidentally lead to this kind of performance, which some members already stated.

I am however not so sure when he says complete and total directivity is very desirable (I am paraphrasing here). Some speakers with extreme directivity only sound good in a studio, their sweet spot directed at the sound engineer (in my opinion). That's not to say I am completely into omnidirectional stuff - like your said, compromises... :)
 
I am however not so sure when he says complete and total directivity is very desirable (I am paraphrasing here). Some speakers with extreme directivity only sound good in a studio, their sweet spot directed at the sound engineer (in my opinion). That's not to say I am completely into omnidirectional stuff - like your said, compromises...

Good off axis performance is something proven to be beneficial as one of the ways to have spectrally correct reflections and obtaining preferable direct to reverberant sound ratio. I can't comment on any particular design but I will say that I would look for characteristics which are best solution for the application and preference. Room size, treatment or a lack thereof, listening distance, setup positions available with respect to room boundaries, will have a significant role in such juggling of compromises.

For example, to me, satisfying level of performance that is closer to be a life like illusion would rather be something that large main monitors could provide, rather than smaller studio ones. I also like not to be restricted to a very narrow sweet spot. But of course your preference may differ.
 
I’ve always found speakers with a very narrow sweet spot to be frustrating, and sound less natural to me.

I mean, obviously stereo is an illusion to begin with, but when the illusion changes so much with even small movements of my position or head, it just reminds me all the more of the artificial nature of the experience.
 
Here's a nice demo from Geoff Martin about room acoustics:


I share this because it is easily heard how different D/R sound ratio sounds, also how it sounds in mono and stereo.

With loudspeakers in rooms, we also have such ratio and critical distance. Anything that loudspeaker shouldn't be contributing (such as resonances or directivity errors) would give away it's location and easily break the illusion. Poor time domain behavior may affect localization in a way that would give conflicting cues and affect imaging and clarity.

Speaker radiation pattern will also affect how it interacts with the room, D/R ratio and clarity. Also, the recording's spatial information will play a role on how clearly we perceive the recorded acoustic event. On top of all this, room modes can mask important cues and also break the illusion.

I’ve always found speakers with a very narrow sweet spot to be frustrating, and sound less natural to me.

I mean, obviously stereo is an illusion to begin with, but when the illusion changes so much with even small movements of my position or head, it just reminds me all the more of the artificial nature of the experience.

I agree. However, how narrow the sweet spot would be is not only dictated by how wide speaker radiation pattern is, but also setup and listening distance. Not having a too narrow sweet spot is easier said than done as will also be affected by the room acoustics and speaker/room interaction.
 
The Hughes AK-100 and AK-50 SRS Retriever units (I still have the AK-50) created an impressive soundstage that extended well beyond the speakers, and did so without sounding overly processed.

QSound technology used on Roger Water's Amused to Death CD (and others) was also impressively effective adding depth and width to the soundstage.
 
Back
Top Bottom