I'm not sure, what is expected. Are we talking about a physical center channel plus L and R? Or is the question just, whether (or not) we hear phantom sources between L and R, if both are separated by 30° only?
Rudolf
My system is not orthodox but it's easy to try your thing :
>>> L channel untouched
>>> R channel feeded by SUM A+B (eg L+R), level -6dB for starting but adjustable at will.
A female voice that's normally mainly on the L channel can indeed be panned anywhere between full left and full center when playing with the SUM slider.
An opposite result would be very puzzling because, correct me if I'm wrong, this is still stereo with an other mapping.
>>> L channel untouched
>>> R channel feeded by SUM A+B (eg L+R), level -6dB for starting but adjustable at will.
A female voice that's normally mainly on the L channel can indeed be panned anywhere between full left and full center when playing with the SUM slider.
An opposite result would be very puzzling because, correct me if I'm wrong, this is still stereo with an other mapping.
Hi Rudolf,
the qestion is if we hear phantom sources between C (at 0°) and L (at 30°) or C and R respectively. Ralph claimed that this is not possible but I can hear such phantom sources without a problem. So I'm wondering if it's just me.
Hi Markus,
I'm just not sure, what "C" is in this case. A third speaker with what kind of signal? The location of the virtual center image? An ambio artefact? Something else?
Rudolf
Rudolf, Ralph claimed that it's impossible (?) to generate phantom images between a center speaker at 0° and a speaker at 30° to the left (or the right).
Maybe this picture helps:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I've tried it with simple level panned signals and it works just fine.
Works for me too. "Of course", I was tempted to say. But I still have to learn something. I really wasn't aware that for a significant(?) part of the population stereo isn't as easy as it seems to me. Has any research looked into that (stereo perception and the masses) in any depth?
Rudolf
Good question. I remember a friend back in the 1970s who claimed that stereo was all a hoax. He simply could here no difference between stereo and mono - and no, he wasn't deaf in one ear! Not a dummy either, very technical.
I don't think I've met anyone else with two functioning ears that had the same problem, but maybe it's more common than we think.
I don't think I've met anyone else with two functioning ears that had the same problem, but maybe it's more common than we think.
Not that I know of but once in a while someone comes along (more often than not on a audiophool board) and claims that it's impossible to perceive high frequency phantom sources or any phantom source at all.
Ralph,
I'm wondering if those two statements are somehow connected?
Do you perceive phantom sources in a standard stereo setup when the recording makes use of interchannel level differences only?
I'm wondering if those two statements are somehow connected?
Do you perceive phantom sources in a standard stereo setup when the recording makes use of interchannel level differences only?
Has anyone tried ambiophonics in a simple 2.1 system for watching movies? (I don't want to call a 2.1 system "home theater") Or, I guess my point being, can you use this kind of signal processing instead of a 5.1, 7.1, or what have you system? Would you use the HDMI output or the regular RCA ones for audio? What happens to all that encoded stuff in the DVD if I do use a simple 2.1 system? (I'm cheap and lazy and don't want to build all those dang speakers for a 7.1 system and buy a special 7.1 home theater receiver)
Well, Poldus.......
People who aren't interested in, or don't know about ambiophonics aren't looking at this thread.
That's why as I stated in my previous post, we have to get the word out, and there is no better time than now.
Audio is becoming a one man show, with people staring at their computers, tablets and phones.
Their heads are in a vice. Perfect for ambiophonics.
Where are all the reviews for the iPad app? Or the neutron music player for android app? ( which by the way is amazing....same functionality as minidsp )
I'm planning on starting a small business ( when the recession lets up ) designing and selling loudspeakers. I am going to concentrate on ambiophonics.
All I do with my time is think about ambiophonics and design solutions for the acceptance of it by the common person.
All the talk of artifacts induced by R.A.C.E are benign compared to the messy 6 foot wide blob of confusion produced by a traditional stereophonic setup.
When I use xtc, I set the parameters to produce a 90 degree stage, beyond that, I think it sounds unnatural. The cues for the pinna are to far away from far right or far left for a 180 degree stage. ( no treble out there ).
I agree. The problem is, since there is no reference, one can easily overdo the effect and get spectacular results with some recordings and an awful mess with others. Finding the right balance is essential so you don´t get disappointed in the long run.
I am thinking that using a coaxial or coincident multiway speaker configuration could add to the ambio experience. Worth a try if only my finances would allow
Thanks for the many kind words way above. There should be the first iPhone app available for free to download in about two weeks or less.
Yes, to get to 180 degrees reliably and properly psychoacoustically you do need the higher frequencies to seem to come from the 90 degree sides. Fortunately, for far side sources, the sound has a direct shot at the ear canal so that the pinna cues are the weakest at this angle. Thus using just the two front speakers one can get closer to the 90 degree mark than one would expect. It depends on your own ear/brain characteristics, how much ITD and ILD the recording has, and how much of it you deliver via your Ambio system.
But if you put another two speakers also configured as an Ambiodipole with its own XTC/RACE program running, then the high frequencies from the rear added to the high frequencies coming from the front, produce a unique pinna pattern that the brain somehow interprets as a widening of the stage. Probably, this strange pinna pattern is like the normal weak side one and this allows the brain to just localize via the ILD and ITD in the recording. Try it. The rear speakers can be anything you have lying around.
Ralph Glasgal
I am thinking that using a coaxial or coincident multiway speaker configuration could add to the ambio experience. Worth a try if only my finances would allow
Do you mean adding side speakers and running pro logic through them?
running the same signal? If so, I would think that all frequencies below the head shadow would seam to be in the head? No?
Maybe high passing the entire signal with a shallow slope where the pinna cues start to take over? Say 1k? I'll give it a go in a few days. Working a lot
Regarding the phantom sources issue, I think people have different definitions and/or using it define more and this is where the disagreement comes from.
Of course there will be a phantom image between a L and C speaker, the real question is what happens to stage width, the out of phase stuff that would appear outside the boundaries of L and C or C and R? The point is you will have phantom sources between, but sources out of phase and out of speaker boundaries will be compressed and lopsided. This is basic vectors, and I have tested this in real life.
I think the maybe we need to stop confusing phantom images with apparent source width (ASW).
3 channel will also suffer some ASW loss in off-center situations due to incorrect vector alignment. This is why OSD in my mind can be a good alternative. It combines 3 channel layout, but using two channels efficiently divided by frequency ranges and makes it video/tv screen compatible so those complaints can be null and void.
Of course there will be a phantom image between a L and C speaker, the real question is what happens to stage width, the out of phase stuff that would appear outside the boundaries of L and C or C and R? The point is you will have phantom sources between, but sources out of phase and out of speaker boundaries will be compressed and lopsided. This is basic vectors, and I have tested this in real life.
I think the maybe we need to stop confusing phantom images with apparent source width (ASW).
3 channel will also suffer some ASW loss in off-center situations due to incorrect vector alignment. This is why OSD in my mind can be a good alternative. It combines 3 channel layout, but using two channels efficiently divided by frequency ranges and makes it video/tv screen compatible so those complaints can be null and void.
Last edited:
Really? The axial shift is much bigger with these short listening distances. Secondly do those devices have speakers at the correct locations? Are there even stereo speakers? Are the speakers capable?
I think it's much more common that people would (and probably already do) use headphones when sound quality is of concern. Something like the Smyth Realiser. That device can deliver perfect speaker crosstalk cancellation.
I'm speaking of aftermarket ambiopoles for these devices. Not the internal speakers of these devices.
Also, you could have an ambiopole off in the distance while you are on your iPad or android tablet.
With a pc, a slim ambiophonic sound bar, coupled with a subwoofer would be plenty capable for the near field.
I'm all for headphones, as long as it's binaural.
