Holographic imaging


Hi folks, is the so called holographic imaging with many tube amplifiers an artifact? With solid state one only hears "holographic imaging" if that is in the recording, but with many tube amps you can hear it all the time. So solid state fails in this department? Or are those tube amps not telling the truth?

Chris
dazzdax
Roger,

“The Doppler detectors used in H-CAT require close to 200db of gain.” Huh, huh…… that’s an amplification factor of 100000000000. On a 1 V scale you are talking about a tenth of a nano-volt to produce a 1 Volt output and typical outputs. And you obviously only require a micro fraction of a volt for correction right? This is very interesting stuff indeed.

Everyone is entitled, at least here in the U.S.A., to the opportunity to earn a buck and you certainly are no different. But please give your audience a little more credit as some of us are educated enough to see right through your convoluted explanations and deceiving use of the English and pseudo-scientific descriptive language.

This is not a condemnation on your design and its sonic benefits but rather on the charlatan like marketing and communication practices.

I'm not surprised that Norm finds the H-Cat's processing appealing, as I have used/tried the same "process" in my reference system. "Multi-Tap Delay" circuits have been around since the 70's; there's nothing new here. Sorry to burst your bubble but this sham has gone on far too long in my honest opinion!

If I'm off base here than please explain your breakthrough (without devolving the proprietary details of course) in scientific terms commonly used for communication and explanation of acoustic or psychoacoustic phenomena in terms of Physics and Electrical Engineering in audio design.

Again, I believe that Multi-Tap Delay processors" are valid in their psychoacoustic effects and enhancements but I can not respect your convoluted explanations; simply state that it's a "Proprietary Process" and offer no explanation as others have suggested; rather than keep trying to swirl and convolute pseudo-scientific gibberish in a science-fiction type of way; please give some of us some credit as some of us not only possesses advance degrees in Physics but also in electrical engineering; and understand a thing or two about Spatial Audio and Psychoacoustic processing.

Is your process patented? Is it "patent pending"? I would like to see if you have submitted your breakthrough to the patent office; if you have then please send me the number as I would like to review it. I run across many "patent pending" statements in my business only to find out that it was never submitted nor was it ever intended to be submitted. Not for legal or financial reasons but rather for lacking any new technical discovery or breaking new ground.

You know how the old saying goes.... "If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck......"

By the way, the million dollar question...... Just to play along with you in your theoretical world......How do you correct and compensate for something that you can not measure????? It would seem to me that a circuit smart enough to compensate for these so call velocity, I mean "Doppler Effect" errors would need some sort of a "sense" circuit with predefined threshold triggers..... But then again maybe I’m just being logical and scientific about this whole matter!!!!!!
It is a fact that some people hear pitch better than others, but from what you are saying, none of this has any bearing on your 'phenomena'.

Yes but it is also a fact that we ALL hear pitch or frequencies more accurately than just about anything else (in the midrange of course)

We are sensitive to amplitude with a threshold of about 10%.

We are sensitive to pitch (frequency) at a threshold of about 0.2%.

Fortunately most equipment (other than a TT or analog tape) is always way way more accurate than 0.2% in frequency.

It has occured to me, however, that doppler effects coud be a real problem for those who like to listen to music on a high speed unicycle, which probably explains why NO clowns can be audiophiles even if audiophiles can sometimes be clowns...like me ;-)
>>I would challenge any of you to defend in theory and in measurement what you judge to be a superior amp<<

Au contraire.

"We" have nothing to defend.

It's you that's been doing all the talking.
"How do you correct and compensate for something that you can not measure????? It would seem to me that a circuit smart enough to compensate for these so call velocity, I mean "Doppler Effect" errors would need some sort of a "sense" circuit with predefined threshold triggers....."

Bingo!
Rebi is right. I went from a McIntosh 7270 amp hooked to a Carver C-1 Preamp with the hologram generator built in. I also had a graphic eq, parametric eq, spatial enhancer, dbx range expander, bbe sonic max, and other signal processors. I sold everything and now have a Cary V12R amp hooked to a Cary SLP98P preamp. I bought a used Carver C-9 generator last week because it was the only thing I really missed after going to tubes. You have to set the speakers up correctly, but to me the sound is addicting after hearing it.