Holographic depth soundstage and 3d impression 2025

[audiofooled]

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.

I'm sure that additional processing can bring it up a notch, (I myself heard some QSound stuff) but here we are discussing systems that can do without it. So 3d sound with perceived qualities such as exceptional clarity, transient response, depth and width way beyond what would normally be setup or physical boundaries.

 

[Cogito]

I'm sure that additional processing can bring it up a notch, (I myself heard some QSound stuff) but here we are discussing systems that can do without it. So 3d sound with perceived qualities such as exceptional clarity, transient response, depth and width way beyond what would normally be setup or physical boundaries.

Depth and soundstage are dependant on the recording method more so than any other factor. Everything from mic proximity/placement to electronic post-processing (QSound/SRS like processes, reverb, delays, phase, etc.) of the recordings makes a difference on ANY speaker they are played on. On the speaker side of things, directivity of the drivers, room placement/room acoustics play an important, but secondary role.

 

[audiofooled]

Depth and soundstage are dependant on the recording method more so than any other factor. Everything from mic proximity/placement to electronic post-processing (QSound/SRS like processes, reverb, delays, phase, etc.) of the recordings makes a difference on ANY speaker they are played on. On the speaker side of things, directivity of the drivers, room placement/room acoustics play an important, but secondary role.

I agree upon the production side of things, but IMO it's the reproduction side that will strongly influence the perception. Again Geoff Martin sums most of the reproduction problems in this presentation:

 

[audiofooled]

Some good points from Erin in a recent video:

 

[Lekha]

We attended a concert today and sat in the sixth row, right in the middle. I was trying to see if I could hear the guitarist on my right side, but the guitar sound didn't come from that direction; instead, it emanated from the speakers above, placing the sound somewhat in the centre. Next, I focused on the singer on the left, but her vocals also seemed to come from the centre, occasionally shifting to the right. The sound from the drummer, positioned at the centre on stage right in front of me, was equally distributed from both sides. After the concert, I spoke with the sound engineer at the back about this. He confirmed that he was managing all the sound himself, positioning the instruments as he desired. Therefore, if any speaker manufacturer claims to offer a "holographic" sound stage, they are simply misleading consumers. The sound placement is achieved by the sound engineers on-site, and if any recordings are to be sold, it is done in the studio.

 

[MattHooper]

We attended a concert today and sat in the sixth row, right in the middle. I was trying to see if I could hear the guitarist on my right side, but the guitar sound didn't come from that direction; instead, it emanated from the speakers above, placing the sound somewhat in the centre. Next, I focused on the singer on the left, but her vocals also seemed to come from the centre, occasionally shifting to the right. The sound from the drummer, positioned at the centre on stage right in front of me, was equally distributed from both sides. After the concert, I spoke with the sound engineer at the back about this. He confirmed that he was managing all the sound himself, positioning the instruments as he desired. Therefore, if any speaker manufacturer claims to offer a "holographic" sound stage, they are simply misleading consumers. The sound placement is achieved by the sound engineers on-site, and if any recordings are to be sold, it is done in the studio.

I think that depends what we are talking about.

I don’t think anybody pretends that any speaker creates its own imaging placement. That’s obviously in the recording.

But some speakers can manage to image with more precision, and more spaciousness, than some other speakers, which can create a more 3-D or holographic effect.

I’ve gotten rid of the occasional loudspeaker that has not been able to produce that impression as well as other speakers that I’m used to. And the omnidirectional speakers I owned produced the most holographic and 3-D sound I’ve heard.

 

[Lekha]

I think that depends what we are talking about.

I don’t think anybody pretends that any speaker creates its own imaging placement. That’s obviously in the recording.

One becomes accustomed to their speaker system, and you listen to music coming from it on an emotional level. Otherwise, you simply don't engage with the music.

 

[audiofooled]

For people who are interested, a couple of videos where the topic of loudspeaker directivity is further discussed, as well as time-intensity trading which works ONLY with particular loudspeaker designs:

This second video is more in depth about time-intensity trading:

@Duke may appreciate the concept

 

[Duke]

For people who are interested, a couple of videos where the topic of loudspeaker directivity is further discussed, as well as time-intensity trading which works ONLY with particular loudspeaker designs:

This second video is more in depth about time-intensity trading:

@Duke may appreciate the concept

Thanks! I've seen the first video but not the second... not yet, anyway!

 

[Suono]

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

Wow

 

[steve59]

Concerts I go to have multiple columns of PA speakers creating more like a wave of sound. Soundstage & imaging are best experienced by a properly placed pair of speakers. I would expect a surround system to mostly present a live concert sound, but also consider the format of the recording.

 

[krabapple]

Most studio recordings aren't meant to be heard as 'live concert sound' . And most surround mixes of popular music (not orchestral/jazz) do more than just add ambience to the surround channels.

 

[krabapple]

My most striking experience with 'holography' (deep apparent stage depth), which I remember to this day, occured with a nearfield setup , 2.1 config , NHT SuperOne speakers circa 1998-9, placed well out from the front wall (~1/3 into the room) in a large-ish but damped living room, and toed in and me sitting at the apex of a Cardas 'golden ratio' triangle (remember that?).

In my recollection (no doubt rose-tinted so many years later) virtually everything from pan-potted rock music to minimal or multimiked orchestral , had almost palpable front-back and left-right placement of elements. aka '3D imaging' aka 'holography'.

Because this only happened with this particular situation (among many other setups with the same speakers, in different spaces), I have to conclude it's not mainly a function of the speakers, or recording, but of fortuitous acoustic geometry -- a certain placement in a certain space.

 

[Bartez2000]

My most striking experience with 'holography' (deep apparent stage depth), which I remember to this day, occured with a nearfield setup , 2.1 config , NHT SuperOne speakers circa 1998-9, placed well out from the front wall (~1/3 into the room) in a large-ish but damped living room, and toed in and me sitting at the apex of a Cardas 'golden ratio' triangle (remember that?).

In my recollection (no doubt rose-tinted so many years later) virtually everything from pan-potted rock music to minimal or multimiked orchestral , had almost palpable front-back and left-right placement of elements. aka '3D imaging' aka 'holography'.

Because this only happened with this particular situation (among many other setups with the same speakers, in different spaces), I have to conclude it's not mainly a function of the speakers, or recording, but of fortuitous acoustic geometry -- a certain placement in a certain space.

That's exactly what I meant. If the speakers can create 3D holography, then this setting/positioning helps. But setting speakers that can't generate 3D images is pointless. It's a shame this feature isn't discussed more often. Erin Audio Corner mentions it, but only in extreme cases: KEF BLADE, KEF REFERENCE 1, D&D

 

[krabapple]

I think you missed my point. My anecdote indicates speakers were NOT the determining factor -- I'm not sure speakers factor at all, if they are standard front-firing models.

 

[Bartez2000]

I think you missed my point. My anecdote indicates speakers were NOT the determining factor -- I'm not sure speakers factor at all, if they are standard front-firing models.

You see. And with eight pairs of speakers, four amplifiers, three pairs of stands, and Dirac Live, I can confidently say that you can't hear holography from some speakers, even if you spin them around. But from others, you can easily. I'm not trying to argue with you, I've just been experimenting for years.

 

[goat76]

The thing is that depth is never created by the loudspeakers or anything in the reproduction chain; it's either in the recording of the actual distance to the sound sources, or it is created by delay, EQ adjustments (as in reducing the proximity effects), or using artificial reverb, or a combination of them all.
Optimizing the positioning of the loudspeakers and controlling the acoustics of the listening environment are crucial things to get right, as both these things will increase the direct sound ratio, which is the only source of recorded space.


As most listening environments are most likely smaller in physical size than the room where the recording took place, an approach of trying to let enough reverberation occur in the listening environment to reach the illusion of the musicians appearing to be in the listening room is, in the reality, a dead end, unless the listening environment is larger than the space of most recordings.
So in most cases, the best way to hear the (most likely) larger space of the recorded space is to minimize the ratio of the acoustic reflections of the reproduction environment, which (repeatable) can be controlled by reducing the size of the listening triangle and taking control of the listening room acoustics.

So...
With the normal type of "boxed" loudspeakers that are not made for trying to achieve an illusion of the musicians being in the listening room, and rather made for reproducing the actual recorded three-dimensional space in the best way possible, should only be able to either recreate the actual depth of the recorded space, or reduce that recorded depth due to distortion or other technical faults, but never be able to make the space larger than what the recording actually contains. If a certain loudspeaker isn't able the reproduce a large recorded space as convincingly as another loudspeaker, it should mean that that particular loudspeaker is simply worse at reproducing the recorded signal, granted that everything has been done to make sure the positioning of all the loudspeakers has been fully optimized.

Conclusion: A loudspeaker can never create a perceived larger space than the listening room by itself. The larger room (larger than the listening environment) must be in the recording itself, and that leaves us to be able to conclude that the loudspeaker (granted that all loudspeakers in the comparison are all optimized individually to perform the best possible) that can create the most convincing and the largest three-dimensional space, is indeed the one most capable of most correctly reproduce the true depth and size of the recorded space, or at least come clostest to do so. And the rest of the loudspeakers are simply, for one reason or another, not capable of reproducing the actual information that the recording contains.

 

[Holmz]

…

Conclusion: A loudspeaker can never create a perceived larger space than the listening room by itself. The larger room (larger than the listening environment) must be in the recording itself, and that leaves us to be able to conclude that the loudspeaker (granted that all loudspeakers in the comparison are all optimized individually to perform the best possible) that can create the most convincing and the largest three-dimensional space, is indeed the one most capable of most correctly reproduce the true depth and size of the recorded space, or at least come clostest to do so.
…

Then how do you explain that with some systems the sound appears to come from the other side of the wall behind the speakers?

…
And the rest of the loudspeakers are simply, for one reason or another, not capable of reproducing the actual information that the recording contains.

I think that it is the “reasons” that are of importance here.

One reason is likely to be resonances.

 

[goat76]

Then how do you explain that with some systems the sound appears to come from the other side of the wall behind the speakers?

I actually explained that if you read what I wrote more carefully.

It is when the recorded information is the dominating factor that you hear. It is when the direct sound from the loudspeakers dominates the listening room reflections that the recording can sound larger than the listening room itself. The ratio of direct sound must be higher than the listening room for this to occur; otherwise, the space you hear will mostly be limited by the size of your listening room.

I think that it is the “reasons” that are of importance here.

One reason is likely to be resonances.

Yes, and any other possible problems that reveal the two loudspeakers as being just that, two sound sources in the listening room. I also think it can be that the speaker pair is not matched frequency-wise very well, where small deviations in sensitive frequency areas run the risk of "blurring" the perceived holographic depth in the recording.

As long as the loudspeakers are well-matched frequency-wise, the resonances are reduced, and are set up properly in an acoustically well-behaved listening room where the direct sound is dominating what is heard in the listening position, everything should be optimized for hearing the true depth of the recorded acoustic space, or the most possible convincing depth of the artificial reverb if such is used for creating space in the recording.

 

[theREALdotnet]

My most striking experience with 'holography' (deep apparent stage depth), which I remember to this day, occured with a nearfield setup , 2.1 config , NHT SuperOne speakers circa 1998-9, placed well out from the front wall (~1/3 into the room) in a large-ish but damped living room, and toed in and me sitting at the apex of a Cardas 'golden ratio' triangle (remember that?).

That sounds about right.

Because this only happened with this particular situation (among many other setups with the same speakers, in different spaces), I have to conclude it's not mainly a function of the speakers, or recording, but of fortuitous acoustic geometry -- a certain placement in a certain space.

In my experience it needs both. I've had imaging fall flat with speakers that "can do it" in the wrong room, and also in a room that "can do it" with the wrong speakers.