No. This test was run with my old speakers setup away from walls in an ambiosonic setup close together and both convolution based and software based cross talk cancelation.
I repeated the cross talk cancelation tests with my arrays in a stereo setup with IR based, software based and my own home brew. It was fun and educating, the review in my thread from member Boden had my own brew in place. It was convincing at first but didn't stand the test of time. It gave me a head ache in (much) longer sessions.
The current solution sounds more natural in comparison with no listeners fatigue.
Well I definitely meant to type ambiophonics 
.
No way I could place that much speakers without getting into trouble. I'm always interested and will check your link...
.No way I could place that much speakers without getting into trouble. I'm always interested and will check your link...
Well I definitely meant to type ambiophonics
No way I could place that much speakers without getting into trouble. I'm always interested and will check your link...
The speakers are the tiny HT ones. I set HF and LF filter at 150 and 6000hz.
Intriguing, something I might like to play with some day. Do you have more info for us to go trough? I like this solution if I "get" what you're doing.
The unnaturalness of my setup probably was related by me trying to fix it in my mains trough IR manipulation. Having these helper speakers do that job makes more sense.
I've had a lot of fun playing around with several ideas, I can see the potential. I assume it will always be a single listener solution?
Anyone here ever heard Dr. Edgar Choueiri's work? He used to be active on the ambiophonics team before he split off doing his own research.
The unnaturalness of my setup probably was related by me trying to fix it in my mains trough IR manipulation. Having these helper speakers do that job makes more sense.
I've had a lot of fun playing around with several ideas, I can see the potential. I assume it will always be a single listener solution?
Anyone here ever heard Dr. Edgar Choueiri's work? He used to be active on the ambiophonics team before he split off doing his own research.
Your Experience- Design & Soundstage/Imaging
I am not sure if I included any link in my post but this is what I am doing currently
[
I thought I added my link on the signature but it is no longer visible to me.
I think even stereo or 5.1 is still tailored for one sweet spot. In Ambio you can have 3 or 4 sitting in the sweet spot but not sitting sideways.
When you sit at the side, the sound is similar to sitting at side of the sweet spot in stereo.
The implementation of Ambio is rather straight forward. Move your main speakers to be around 20 degrees and apply the crosstalk cancellation. This itself will give the biggest ever upgrade over the stereo system.
I have been following Choueiri's work but his BACCH at $55000 is way too expensive for me. It is too bad Choueiri XTC algorithm is not free like Ambiophonics. For musical experience Ambio is more than sufficient as it is life like. However, BACCH could make bees buzz circling your ears and you don't need to move the speakers closer and caters for multiple listeners.
I am not sure if I included any link in my post but this is what I am doing currently
[
I thought I added my link on the signature but it is no longer visible to me.
I think even stereo or 5.1 is still tailored for one sweet spot. In Ambio you can have 3 or 4 sitting in the sweet spot but not sitting sideways.
When you sit at the side, the sound is similar to sitting at side of the sweet spot in stereo.
The implementation of Ambio is rather straight forward. Move your main speakers to be around 20 degrees and apply the crosstalk cancellation. This itself will give the biggest ever upgrade over the stereo system.
I have been following Choueiri's work but his BACCH at $55000 is way too expensive for me. It is too bad Choueiri XTC algorithm is not free like Ambiophonics. For musical experience Ambio is more than sufficient as it is life like. However, BACCH could make bees buzz circling your ears and you don't need to move the speakers closer and caters for multiple listeners.
I prefer using Stereo run into surround sound with my own system. I am not sure about Ambio but never heard good reviews so i never tried it.
Keeping the ambiance on 2 channels gives a cohesion that is missing if you use discrete surround sound. Some mixers that mix for surround cheat and use a decoder and stereo to send to the channels anyway.
You can get a better "sound field" from 2 channels than discrete surround sound.
Any links to the ambio system? I seem to remember needing a special mic to record it and then a program to decode it.
Keeping the ambiance on 2 channels gives a cohesion that is missing if you use discrete surround sound. Some mixers that mix for surround cheat and use a decoder and stereo to send to the channels anyway.
You can get a better "sound field" from 2 channels than discrete surround sound.
Any links to the ambio system? I seem to remember needing a special mic to record it and then a program to decode it.
Last edited:
You are confusing Ambisonic with Ambiophonics. Ambiophonics meant to play your existing media including vinyls.
Here is the simple video explanation how to setup your speakers.
You can also visit Home Page a non profit institute meant to develope ambiophonics.
I was a hardcore audiophile with some decent equipment such as Classe, Supratek, Theta and others. But none of that can give even half of what Ambiophonics could do with what I am doing now. You get instant upgrade with your system by following this video.
https://youtu.be/8GHxVX6Cbys
Having recently had a room that was hypo-echoic, I disagree. Sure, it has some disadvantages, but for me the advantages outweighed the negatives.
For years I've heard and read how dreadful listening to music in an anechoic chamber would be, but the two I've been in were anything but unpleasant.
A lack of strong room coloration piled unto the recorded acoustics can be a real joy.
Electrostatics are typically dipoles and there is no reason they couldn't be monopolar and waveguided. There is so little apparent work toward this that I can't help but pigeon hole talk about electrostatics. I hope I didn't miss your point.
I agree in principle, so I wonder why you also suggested that removing the room only lowers efficiency. ^ I agree with Pano that near anechoic can be pleasant. It is also relaxing. Here, I would qualify that a good reverberant field (one that is itself distinct but indistinct in nature) makes up for what would otherwise be missing.
I built a dedicated room to be like almost reflecting free covering the walls with 4 inch of Roxul rockwool. Although, it sounded good and brought out minute details, it was not musically pleasing.
Almost all recordings that were made limit the room coloration. It is not possible to capture the ambiance of the venue and expected them to be played with two speakers as the sound would be muddy.
Ideally, the main channel should be free of coloration and the ambiance is added by your room. There are many research about this that the ambiance should come from the side and rear.
Strangely, we tend to adapt to whatever sound as long we hear what we want to hear.
Almost all recordings that were made limit the room coloration. It is not possible to capture the ambiance of the venue and expected them to be played with two speakers as the sound would be muddy.
Ideally, the main channel should be free of coloration and the ambiance is added by your room. There are many research about this that the ambiance should come from the side and rear.
Strangely, we tend to adapt to whatever sound as long we hear what we want to hear.
The only "trouble" I had in very dead rooms was the lack of ambience behind me. Some surround or other ambient speakers would have been fun and pleasant.
What the lack of room sound did for me was to greatly enhance depth in recording, including mono recordings. Not only did the stage stretch back farther, there was real location in that depth. Some sounds were close, some far, some in between at various points. It's amazing what depth is in some recordings. Large venues sound large, even in mono. Close miked sounds close, even in stereo.
A very low noise floor is also pleasant, tho less spectacular. Lots of little things you didn't know where there. Doesn't really change the music, just kinda interesting to hear.
Dead room acoustics will have you dreaming of ambient speakers, that's for sure. But what's happening up front is so cool, you can push those dreams aside for awhile.
What the lack of room sound did for me was to greatly enhance depth in recording, including mono recordings. Not only did the stage stretch back farther, there was real location in that depth. Some sounds were close, some far, some in between at various points. It's amazing what depth is in some recordings. Large venues sound large, even in mono. Close miked sounds close, even in stereo.
A very low noise floor is also pleasant, tho less spectacular. Lots of little things you didn't know where there. Doesn't really change the music, just kinda interesting to hear.
Dead room acoustics will have you dreaming of ambient speakers, that's for sure. But what's happening up front is so cool, you can push those dreams aside for awhile.
Yes! I rent an apartment on a busy street, so my noise abatement choices are limited. My sis & bro-in-law had a place in the country for awhile where I used to house-sit. It was so quiet out there, at night the only sounds I could hear were my own neuro/physiological background noises. They aren't crazed audiophiles, but they did have a nice rig with an expensive pair of Mirage bipoles. Heard lots of low-level detail out there.
One thing to have in mind is really what you and your family want and can accept. Is it a listening room for pleasure ”only” while at the same time also having the estetics of a common living room? Or should it be as accurate and true to the recording as possible? If the former, it is probable you get a widening of the sound stage, due to early reflections. Some don’t mind that false widening, rather enjoy it. Others may want as accurate sound as possible and therefore want to ”kill” early reflections. This can sometimes narrow the sound stage in width (that is my own experience) but at the same time also getting a deeper sound stage = nice. Getting a more spacious sound in a small room because of the time interval of silence is a bonus for certain. Placement of instruments become more correct, less ”blurred” (again, my own eperience).
There’s no fixed time range regarded as the very best, within which early reflection should be non audible and then after that, at LP receiving audible reflections. I have come across recommendations like 12 ms all the way up to 30 ms. The range 0 to 15 ms and 0 to 20 ms seems to be most common as ”proposed ideal”.
Nor is there a universal agreement about how strong the first late reflections should be. The early LEDE concept from late 1970:ies advised/required -12 dB or stronger for the room to be officially certified. Haas kickers (angled fairly large reflecting flat panels) were used for this, giving a rather specular reflection. Later developments of the LEDE concept like RPGs RFZ rooms and others started to replace those simple Haas kickers with proper 1D and 2D diffusers. Diffusers attenuates reflections in strengh alot more as they spread both in time and space, so often it becomes very hard to get really strong late reflections from a wideband diffuser effective from about 800 Hz and upwards. -You should be roughly 3 wave lengths away from it (from its designed lowest frequency) to avoid any lobing effects from it and the further away the LP is, the weaker the strength will be from reflections …
My room has a width of about 4 m and the entire back wall, about 3 m behind sofa, is covered with floor to ceiling copies of RPGs BAD panels, both flat and curved ones, as well as 2 volume diffusers (3D diffusers). The reflections I get at LP are then rather weak, about -20 to -18 dB. As an experiment I put up 2 simple Haas kickers, just to check the difference in reflection strength. Personally I preferred what I got with the Haas kickers, so they are still in place.
In post 160 there were some links on the subject, another one from EBU on parameters for listening rooms, https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3276.pdf . From what I’ve come across in various literature, the first 5 ms reflections are worth more to fix than those after 5 ms as we are less sensitive to reflection strength there, where -10 dB is seen as "OK". A reflective high backed chair or a nearby back wall can fall within those 5 ms. Reflection from side walls will have a relative longer flight time and lesser strength. Some of it is mentioned here: Audio Engineering for Sound Reinforcement: Chapter 2, PSYCHOACOUSTICS-HOW WE HEAR | Pro Audio Encyclopedia under the headline LOCALIZATION PHENOMENA, HAAS AND DAMASKE.
Last edited:
this was a very interesting and enjoyable read. I am setting up a dedicated listening room so the timing is perfect. From my limited knowledge and experience the speaker placement and what is in the room is as important as speaker type. I spent a portion of the last two weeks looking into speaker placement and measuring with REW. There were a few hard and fast rules that I now question. In my case I had a 8db null between 80 and 300. My wife bought an antique pump organ for 30 bucks a few years ago that I have been reluctant to put in the room. after moving the speaker many time all over the place I put the pump organ between the wall and the left speaker and my null went away. the other rule that I now question is the never be equal distance from rear to side wall. I just spent time listening and not measuring and ended up with the speaker 42inches from both walls the best sound after listening and measuring i ended up at 41 and 44 the soundstage is wide about 3 ft outside of the speakers. it is not very deep. after reading this post I will try to absorb the first reflections and see if that make a difference. thanks for timely information. The speakers are the small thors.
I'm curious if anyone has played around with diffusers vs absorption at various reflection points. It seems like the big problem areas for reflection points are the ceiling, floor, and front wall (behind speakers). For the side wall reflections, I hear that they are less of a problem and can be pleasurable.
Right now I'm planning to put absorption at first reflection points on the front wall and behind the listening position, and poly diffusers at the side wall first reflection points. I'm Hopeing this gives me a compromise "best of both worlds" with both a deeper and wider soundstage, and some ambiance. I'd like the soundstage to extend in width farther than the physical walls- that would be an ideal for my tastes.
Right now I'm planning to put absorption at first reflection points on the front wall and behind the listening position, and poly diffusers at the side wall first reflection points. I'm Hopeing this gives me a compromise "best of both worlds" with both a deeper and wider soundstage, and some ambiance. I'd like the soundstage to extend in width farther than the physical walls- that would be an ideal for my tastes.
If anybody is interested, in ambiophonics the software filters can be found here... for free!
If used for industry then a liecence applies.
BACCH 3D Sound
Dan
If used for industry then a liecence applies.
BACCH 3D Sound
Dan
It would depend on when the side wall reflections arrive. You may be better off with diffused reflections coming from the wall behind the listening position.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.