Try Ambiophonics with your speakers

Se on moro!

Have anyone here tried Ambiophonics? http://www.ambiophonics.org I think this is the way to go if you want to experience the 'you are there' illusion. I strongly suggest you to try out a simple experiment: place your speakers in front of you in 10-15 degrees angle and put an absorptive baffle (e.g. a mattress) between the speakers almost touching your nose (see the pic). For the starters don't care if you don't have the reverb channels, as in real Ambiophonics.

Warning! You will be amazed! After this it is hard to go back to the usual 60 degrees stereo triangle.


- Elias
 

Attachments

  • newfig4.jpg
    newfig4.jpg
    14.6 KB · Views: 9,665
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This method works properly when you are reproducing a recording intended for this application. In other words, the microphones must have been placed to capture the source material as if though they were ears on a head.

I've made recordings like this. It is more realistic, but it is much more suited for ambient recordings, e.g., city noise, sounds of nature, and whatnot. However, traditional soundstaging of musical performance (except maybe symphonic, but even then...), in my opinion, is best reproduced in the way we've become familiar. Besides, can you imagine providing a listening environment of this nature for more than one person?

Dave
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You know,

I take it back. I'm talking about something else. I have to say, upon reading the article more closely, that I'm not convinced by the intial thesis of the so-called ambiophiles. For one thing, the article is poorly constructed, with too much opinion intermingled with technical detail. I'd like to see a well-argued paper on this. The author(s) seem too interested in debunking the stereo-phile "mythology" before presenting the science. It simply is not preposterous, as they claim, that an accurate enough soundstage can be achieved with two speakers.

As far as the technical argument goes, I remain unconvinced that any mechanical method will ever achieve pure sound source reproduction. There are simply too many transistors and tubes between me and the sound source for that to be possible. I wonder if idealism isn't driving the science, as is often the case among "philes" of many sorts.

Dave
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I just come across thie ambiophiles thing 2 years later than the previous post. I am very interested to try. On the web page, there are using crosstalk cancellation techniques to make an ambiopoles and 8 other speakers to create ambiance. Sounds really interesting. Wonder if anyone has tried that?
 
As you said, once tried it´s hard to get back to normal stereo.
For symphonic music, two microphone recordings played back through a crosstalk barrier set-up can´t be touched by regular multi-mike/standard stereo.
The you-are-there sensation achieved when you add convincent hall reverb from further sets òf speakers (as from the yamaha dsp-ax1 or JVC xp-a1010) is an eye opening experience.
Even 5.1 is inferior since there is usually too much of the orquestra mixed with the hall signature coming from the rear to make it believable.Only church and cathedral recordings clearly benefit from this As for the front center speaker, it just doesn´t add anything to spatial realism and can be spared-as I-ve done.Don´t forget it was designed for movie not music reproduction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I've been listening like this for years now. I could never go back to a 60o triangle again. I find it somewhat interesting that I've mentioned this to my audiophile friends and many have opinions, but none have ever actually tried it! It only takes about 5 mins, move your speakers together and stick a barrier down the middle. If you don't like it, fine, at least you tried.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I gave it a go, was very interested in it, but unfortunately I didn't notice anything special....am actually quite disappointed about it.

At least there is a very simple way to give it a try, especially for me as my computer skills are very limited indeed.

trouble is, the barrier method is so 'foolproof' that for the life of me I can't think of anything that I could have done wrong :sad:

When have a bit more time I'll try again I suppose, but have no high hopes this time (which may be a good thing!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It took a little time for me to get use to it. I was so used to the triangle setup. I had to switch back and forth over a period to unlearn the commonplace configuration. The main reason it sounds better to me is, my ears are more convinced there is live music in front of me now. This is especially true for width and depth. Every other system I listen to sounds like music on a flat pane with no 3d feeling. I am at point now where this is more pleasing than doing a million tweaks to to system components.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
sunshinedawg said:
I am at point now where this is more pleasing than doing a million tweaks to to system components.


I totally agree with you. I'm using a dsp, not a barrier, which makes life much simpler. I'm just shaking my head when they are talking about "fidelity", and "reproducing what is on the record" in stereo reproduction.
Also don't forget about the ambience channels, at least as important as the XTC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That was my experience as well. The phisical barrier occupies a lot of space and takes a while to get used to. And it is such an uncommon set-up that for a while you keep switching back until you realize that, yes, 60º sounds unreal and creates listening fatigue over extended periods. From then on you don´t look back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
well, that all sounds promising ie the time factor involved.

When I wrote my little post earlier, I didn't mention it but it was in my mind as I typed, my physical barrier was very much jury-rigged, even to the extent that I physically held one end of it up whilst I leant forward close to it. Not very conducive to long term evaluation. To be honest though, the terms usually used to describe the difference -amazing, significant etc etc all the usual audio descriptions, (my favorite) veil lifted- seemed to indicate a night and day difference that that would not take long to find. Perhaps that is wrong and I'm curious enough to give it another go.

So, as a sort of survey, how many of you are (still) using physical barriers??

Fcserie I hope will get back to us about the dsp he uses. Fc, did you start off using a physical barrier and then move to DSP?? and if so, was the only reason one of convenience/appearance or whatever, or was there a significant sound difference/improvement as well??
 
I believe he is using the Yamaha yss901 chip, which I can't seem to find anywhere. I was trying to figure out what equipment ever had this chip so I could obtain it that way. Is there any diff between the 901/901-E/901-F? I came up with all three in searches.

I got the xtc cancellation to work for me from the ambiophnonic website. Mr. Glasgal and Miller were very helpful in emails helping me to configure it. I think the barrier sounds much better. There is probably some way to get to a point where the pc sounds better, but the barrier is so much easier cause I don't have to fight the pc with 4 soundcards in it. I also like not having a pc on.

Also don't forget about the ambience channels, at least as important as the XTC.

I've been waiting for some units to turn up on ebay. I am a little confused about the front relection speakers. Are they a different signal than the rear/side reverberation? Is there just diff modes on these units that just allows you to configure between reverberation and reflection?
 
I use a yamaha ax1 hall effect for ambience. I´ve tried jvc-xpa1010 but it was not good enough. The ax1 is so good I just bought a second unit so I can have 8 ambience speakers as advised by Ralph Glasgal. In my experience ambience should be 15db below the main speakers.
 
Frank Berry said:
... or just wear headphones.

indeed the sound can be compared to externalised headphone sound, like being immersed in a soundfield

some like it and some don't

I like it, it is much more realistic then conventional stereo

instead of using an impractical physical barier one can try "Stereolith" or "Beveridge" positioning with nearly/equally impressive results (but "Stereolith" positioning is VERY recording/loudspeaker/room dependent)