The PC versions as well as TacT all use essentially the same algorithm. No HRTFs or other processing is used in any of the plugins, transcoders, or AudioMulch variations listed on the Ambiophonic website. The filter shown in the diagram is mostly not necessary so 1st order or 6 db per octave is adequate. The idea is not to cancel nonexistent crosstalk at very low frequencies or very high ones. But it is not the end of the world if you don't use them. I have now eliminated the low frequency filter because its effect is inaudible, especially compared to the bass doubling inherent in the stereo triangle for central sounds. The TacT boxes have a variable bass bypass filter so you can experiment with this for yourself.
Ralph Glasgal
Thanks, this is good. I'm tempted placing (active) cross-over at around 250Hz to cross the stereo dipole to separate bass speakers. In this way stereo dipole can be very small since no need to reproduce bass. Bass speakers maybe placed at the side of the listener to maximise envelopment (according to Griesinger).
- Elias
- Elias
If you put the crossover after the RACE canceller, there is no reason not to RACE process the entire frequency range. There is still some audible crosstalk effect down to about 100 Hz so if you are fanatic it is better to keep the bass speakers close up front. I disagree with Griesinger but 250 Hz would be high even for him.
Ralph Glasgal
Ralph Glasgal: I was really glad when I last checked the ambiophonics-org. site and saw an affordable ambio hardware has become a reality. I guess I was to be their first buyer but it seems like their store page is still in the works. Could you offer any insight on their product or the company itself? I understand thery´re in Hong Kong.
Poldus Question
Try again. The store is now open and they have been taking orders. Apparently you need pay pal maybe. Ambio4you is a Hong Kong maker of DSP products mostly for the professional recording market under the name DSP4you. The samples they have sent me worked exceptionally well and sound just like the other RACE implementations shown on the Ambiophonic.org website. At $150 plus shipping I hope you can all try it. Of course if you want you can do it for free downloading any of the Transcoders or VST plugins listed on the Ambiophonics site. But this little box is really cute.
Note it is analog input and output only. So it goes in a preamp loop or between a cd player and an amplifier. If things go well there may be other models with digital input and output. But audiophiles like analog. Right?
Ralph
Try again. The store is now open and they have been taking orders. Apparently you need pay pal maybe. Ambio4you is a Hong Kong maker of DSP products mostly for the professional recording market under the name DSP4you. The samples they have sent me worked exceptionally well and sound just like the other RACE implementations shown on the Ambiophonic.org website. At $150 plus shipping I hope you can all try it. Of course if you want you can do it for free downloading any of the Transcoders or VST plugins listed on the Ambiophonics site. But this little box is really cute.
Note it is analog input and output only. So it goes in a preamp loop or between a cd player and an amplifier. If things go well there may be other models with digital input and output. But audiophiles like analog. Right?
Ralph
Last edited:
Thanks for your prompt response. Computer-free operation is a big bonus for me. I emailed them about my problems in the checkout process and will order two for 4 channel operation.
Regards.
Regards.
Hello, All
I ordered 2 miniAMBIO units on the 20th and the process was a breeze. I will give a report once I have had a chance to use them for awhile.
My main speakers are NHT Xd's, which are a very wide dispersion design. Anybody have an opinion as to the relative merits of wide dispersion vs. narrow dispersion speakers when using Ambiophonics?
I ask because I have a fall-back plan to use CD horns/cardioids for very narrow pattern control down to about 150Hz or so. Will these better exploit the Ambiophonics principle?
Thanks in advance for any opinions/advice,
David
I ordered 2 miniAMBIO units on the 20th and the process was a breeze. I will give a report once I have had a chance to use them for awhile.
My main speakers are NHT Xd's, which are a very wide dispersion design. Anybody have an opinion as to the relative merits of wide dispersion vs. narrow dispersion speakers when using Ambiophonics?
I ask because I have a fall-back plan to use CD horns/cardioids for very narrow pattern control down to about 150Hz or so. Will these better exploit the Ambiophonics principle?
Thanks in advance for any opinions/advice,
David
With the speakers at one third the spacing of the stereo triangle, it is easier to locate them and arrange seating so that you are much more in their near field. This makes the effect of the room much less noticeable and that means that the directionality of the speakers is of much less importance. I have used just about every type of speaker in Ambiophonics and not one of them has failed to work just fine. Once you get rid of the crosstalk, the pinna errors, and the combfiltering, it becomes much harder to hear things like room reflections and cable differences. But there are then lots of other newer things to tweak.
Ralph Glasgal
Home Page
Thanks for the quick reply, Mr Glasgal.
I have been using the electro-music.com ambioDSP plugin on my office computer with generally very good results. In this set-up, near field listening is almost assured, so I didn't think dispersion would be much of an issue. It is nice to learn that dispersion is not much of an issue at conventional stereo listening distances, either.
Best wishes,
David
I have been using the electro-music.com ambioDSP plugin on my office computer with generally very good results. In this set-up, near field listening is almost assured, so I didn't think dispersion would be much of an issue. It is nice to learn that dispersion is not much of an issue at conventional stereo listening distances, either.
Best wishes,
David
Interestingly, I have come to experience the importance of dispersion since I moved to a house with a much bigger listening room which I treated with a lot of absorption and bass traps.
While my system had sounded fabulous in my old apartment it was awful now (this is before the crosstalk cancelling software so I was still using a huge physical barrier). To my knowledge the problem would have existed all the same were I listening in standard stereo.
So it happens the characteristics of the new listening space rendered my speaker configuration (diy active 4 way) useless on account of the high frequency dispersion. The problem is now solved after adding tweeters looking in slightly different directions.
It sure has been giving me a bit of a headache until I found the answer, but hey, now I know first hand that a system that sounds excellent in one place is going to sound wrong in a different place.
While my system had sounded fabulous in my old apartment it was awful now (this is before the crosstalk cancelling software so I was still using a huge physical barrier). To my knowledge the problem would have existed all the same were I listening in standard stereo.
So it happens the characteristics of the new listening space rendered my speaker configuration (diy active 4 way) useless on account of the high frequency dispersion. The problem is now solved after adding tweeters looking in slightly different directions.
It sure has been giving me a bit of a headache until I found the answer, but hey, now I know first hand that a system that sounds excellent in one place is going to sound wrong in a different place.
I was browsing some of the latest ambiophonics links and came across this interesting implementation: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/images4/PATENTSCOPE/97/8f/60/038f60.pdf
I hope your French is better than mine.
I hope your French is better than mine.
I have been posting on the ambio4you thread but thought that this, the original ambiophonic thread, deserves an update on my latest findings on my ambiophonic search.
I finally have a sound that is very much as the one I remember from my physical barrier times and which I had not been able to replicate so far. Only, this time there is no barrier and no need for a computer either, by virtue of this little Ambio4you device.
A couple years ago I would have taken the idea of this ever happening with a grain of salt.
My speakers are toed out quite a bit and facing some absorptive panels. Without this the sound was not quite there.
I finally have a sound that is very much as the one I remember from my physical barrier times and which I had not been able to replicate so far. Only, this time there is no barrier and no need for a computer either, by virtue of this little Ambio4you device.
A couple years ago I would have taken the idea of this ever happening with a grain of salt.
My speakers are toed out quite a bit and facing some absorptive panels. Without this the sound was not quite there.
Attachments
holy heck, that's a lot of treatment there!!
love it!
I cannot get to log in to the site, have registered yet have not had an answer yet.
for 150 bucks it's worth a punt in my book...tho I'd prefer digital in and out!
what about having the second set behind you (do you reckon)
love it!
I cannot get to log in to the site, have registered yet have not had an answer yet.
for 150 bucks it's worth a punt in my book...tho I'd prefer digital in and out!
what about having the second set behind you (do you reckon)
I do have a second set behind (I´m using two ambio devices) Didn´t take pictures of those though. The volume is set very low at the back when listening to multichannel sacd´s or dvd-audios and louder when watching movies.
I believe they are soon going to offer ambio circuit boards that may be stacked between miniDSP digital in/output boards. Maybe you should wait for those.
Yes, there is a lot of absorption. I´m kind of obssesed with it. The more I use the better it sounds to me. However, I´ve had problems with unsatisfactory sound until toeing the speakers out a lot. Maybe on account of the different frequency content in direct as compared to reflected sound witch the toeing out evened out.
what I 'like' about half of your absorption is that it is (still) raw f/glass....just like mine haha. I'm lazy you see, and it was just an experiment at the time.
It worked so well they are still hanging raw on the walls a few years later.
You mostly using pipe insulation?? Dunno about your neck of the woods, but that is soooo expensive here.
What are the flat 'electrostat looking' things at the first reflection points?? And it looks like a temporary arrangement, carpet looks like it is just 'sitting' on the floor for example.
I use a deqx (and a very crappy dvd as a transport) which takes digital in of course. So my desire for digital input is more based on avoiding what I suspect would be a poor analog out from the cheap dvd player, back to digital for the deqx stuff, then another analog out....rather than using it with mini dsp as such. same sort of deal tho.
It worked so well they are still hanging raw on the walls a few years later.
You mostly using pipe insulation?? Dunno about your neck of the woods, but that is soooo expensive here.
What are the flat 'electrostat looking' things at the first reflection points?? And it looks like a temporary arrangement, carpet looks like it is just 'sitting' on the floor for example.
I use a deqx (and a very crappy dvd as a transport) which takes digital in of course. So my desire for digital input is more based on avoiding what I suspect would be a poor analog out from the cheap dvd player, back to digital for the deqx stuff, then another analog out....rather than using it with mini dsp as such. same sort of deal tho.
Terry, pipe insulation is very expensive in Europe as well. I have been waiting till I got close to a satisfactory sound before aiming for nice decor and an acceptable finish on all those absorptive materials. I sure don´t want to see raw insulation before me as I enjoy music.
There is lots of standard flat fiberglass lining on the walls and ceiling only you don´t see it in the photos since they´re upholstered with beige fabric same color as the paint I used on the walls.
I have been moving the speakers and stuff around endlessly for two years now. The ESL looking panels are just absorptive panels on wheels as used in studios. They´re diy.
I understand about not converting dig/analog twice. If you´re using deqx you need an ambio processor that takes digital.
There is lots of standard flat fiberglass lining on the walls and ceiling only you don´t see it in the photos since they´re upholstered with beige fabric same color as the paint I used on the walls.
I have been moving the speakers and stuff around endlessly for two years now. The ESL looking panels are just absorptive panels on wheels as used in studios. They´re diy.
I understand about not converting dig/analog twice. If you´re using deqx you need an ambio processor that takes digital.
that would be the best solution (the digital unit) but then again, for an experiment, what's $150?? If it shows promise, and THEN a digital unit comes out, well you are covered.
I have tried the mosc setup (back in the days it was free, don't think you can get that one now??) and like you I feel a standalone unit would be much more preferable.
I did not play with it too much, I did not really find a lot of advantages..but that is tempered by the 'I did not play with it too much'!!
The main argument FOR this technology seems to be increased size of soundstage (which is what floats my boat) but I already have a huge soundstage which did not seem to get better.
But I did read a post somewhere from ralph that made me wonder if there were other possible advantages I did not consider or look at, and so for 150 I am willing to give it another shot and see.
I 'kinda' like the raw fibreglass I have hanging everywhere...guys come in and see it, raise their eyebrows a little, see my speaker cables haha, then get blown away by the sound.
I like the incredulous look that comes over the face.
The raw f/glass and very non audiophile approved cables and electronics (bog standard...apart from the deqx and audiophiles tend to raise their eyebrows over that too!) set them up thinking one way, their ears and brains tell them another thing when they hear it, confusion reigns for a while as they struggle to marry the two together.
I get my pleasure in devious ways!
I have tried the mosc setup (back in the days it was free, don't think you can get that one now??) and like you I feel a standalone unit would be much more preferable.
I did not play with it too much, I did not really find a lot of advantages..but that is tempered by the 'I did not play with it too much'!!
The main argument FOR this technology seems to be increased size of soundstage (which is what floats my boat) but I already have a huge soundstage which did not seem to get better.
But I did read a post somewhere from ralph that made me wonder if there were other possible advantages I did not consider or look at, and so for 150 I am willing to give it another shot and see.
I 'kinda' like the raw fibreglass I have hanging everywhere...guys come in and see it, raise their eyebrows a little, see my speaker cables haha, then get blown away by the sound.
I like the incredulous look that comes over the face.
The raw f/glass and very non audiophile approved cables and electronics (bog standard...apart from the deqx and audiophiles tend to raise their eyebrows over that too!) set them up thinking one way, their ears and brains tell them another thing when they hear it, confusion reigns for a while as they struggle to marry the two together.
I get my pleasure in devious ways!
I tend to believe that an ambiophonic set-up will provide more satisfaction than the stereo triangle to 90% of the listeners. After all it offers a stage as wide or wider than the latter, a center image that really comes from the center, ie. not an illusion, while most important, avoiding comb filtering. There may be a 10% who, for some reason, find the stereo triangle more to their liking.
Now, some people have tried it and are not inmediately won over. In my experience this happens because achieving a good ambio sound is not as straightforward you may think. You have to know what you are looking for. I used a huge physical barrier with specific dimensions plus room treatment and speaker equalization that were the result of a lot of experimentation over the years. It is also true that the first time I put my spekers next to each other and extended some absorbing material between them and my listening chair I realized I would not return to regular stereo.
I have been very leery of the idea of electronic crosstalk achieving the same thing, but I know find it can. Provided that you disregard some conventional wisdom which is no longer valid when you move to ambio, and don´t give up easily. Some people have said the treble sounds muffled. It does, unless you use no high pass in the processor. To me, it´s important to process the whole frequency range, and then equalize. First time you process the signal in your system you will be underwhelmed, dissapointed or maybe flat-out disgusted, it may take weeks or months to get there. This is for people who know what matters and where to look. Guys who believe their expensive cables and brand-de jour amp is where it´s at will be dissapointed and return to what they know so well.
Now, some people have tried it and are not inmediately won over. In my experience this happens because achieving a good ambio sound is not as straightforward you may think. You have to know what you are looking for. I used a huge physical barrier with specific dimensions plus room treatment and speaker equalization that were the result of a lot of experimentation over the years. It is also true that the first time I put my spekers next to each other and extended some absorbing material between them and my listening chair I realized I would not return to regular stereo.
I have been very leery of the idea of electronic crosstalk achieving the same thing, but I know find it can. Provided that you disregard some conventional wisdom which is no longer valid when you move to ambio, and don´t give up easily. Some people have said the treble sounds muffled. It does, unless you use no high pass in the processor. To me, it´s important to process the whole frequency range, and then equalize. First time you process the signal in your system you will be underwhelmed, dissapointed or maybe flat-out disgusted, it may take weeks or months to get there. This is for people who know what matters and where to look. Guys who believe their expensive cables and brand-de jour amp is where it´s at will be dissapointed and return to what they know so well.
It's been my experience that equalization/signal processing kills resolution, and thus high quality amplification and resolving cables are for the most part wasted in a system that uses any type of processing.
I too was of the persuasion that processing would never provide the same quality as analog from sacd with a physical barrier. Currently I´m hearing no degradation plus a 3X2 meter barrier is no longer dividing my room.
What did degrade the sound though was the interaction of my new listening room with my system (in its pure analog iteration) when I moved to a new home, to the point of making what had been excellent before unlistenable.
What did degrade the sound though was the interaction of my new listening room with my system (in its pure analog iteration) when I moved to a new home, to the point of making what had been excellent before unlistenable.