I am not sure that "this is" But the Beveridge cylindrical electrostatic column provides a way of having a very wide soundstage withot losing a center image. But it does require a room that has a bare front wall. The tall cylinders are placed at the extreme sides.The Beveridge arrangement I have used with Soundlab panels for 5.1 surround sources with a center speakers worked quite well. But if you use Ambiophoncs you don't need the center speaker and any two speakers about 20 degrees apart will produce a 180 degree stage with dialog still right in the center so the Beveridge arrangement is obsolete in my opinion.
The Ohm F if I remember correctly is just an omnidirectional radiator mostly at the higher frequencies and if the room is untreated, spreads sound around the room but its localization properites are random and not to everyones taste.
Ralph Glasgal
Home Page
The Ohm F if I remember correctly is just an omnidirectional radiator mostly at the higher frequencies and if the room is untreated, spreads sound around the room but its localization properites are random and not to everyones taste.
Ralph Glasgal
Home Page
Mr Glasgal,
but Ambiophonic system has to be computer based or at least to have dedicated digital signal processor somewhere in the chain?
OTOH when I play records I don't want to put analog signal through anything digital - Beveridge arrangement has an advantage in such context
perhaps I am old fashioned and records as such are obsolete as well but...
in fact I just admire Your works!!! they inspired me once (especially "Blumlein conspiracy") to try so many new things and it gave so much fun!
but I never went digital, I just don't like it
very best regards!
graaf
Last edited:
Mr Glasgal,
but Ambiophonic system has to be computer based or at least to have dedicated digital signal processor somewhere in the chain?
OTOH when I play records I don't want to put analog signal through anything digital - Beveridge arrangement has an advantage in such context
perhaps I am old fashioned and records as such are obsolete as well but...
in fact I just admire Your works!!! they inspired me once (especially "Blumlein conspiracy") to try so many new things and it gave so much fun!
but I never went digital, I just don't like it
very best regards!
graaf
Thank you for the kind words. I used to share your computer phobia. Indeed you can still use the original mattress on end between your legs (speakers close together) to hear Ambiophonics without going digital or using any cables. However, most hobbyists wanted an electronic means to replace this cumbersome barrier. It only took about 15 years to do it in real time to audiophile standards thanks to Moore's law at Intel.
The new miniambio box from DSP4you is analog in and analog out. It can go in a tape loop or between any two analog components. Since it does all the processing internally at 96/24 there is nothing audible to discuss rationally. The direct signal just passes through unaltered and on the way has the delayed cancellation signals added to it which are really just a form of additional but controlled room reflections.
To me the mostly digital defects, (if really audible by gifted audiophiles) pale in comparison to the readily audible/measurable defects caused by the crosstalk. Atkinson measures a perfectly flat speaker response with the microphone close to one speaker. If instead you measure the two speakers at where one ear will actually be, using a mono sweep signal you will see a doubling of the low and midbass level and a series of six dB peaks and maybe 20 or 30 dB dips starting at around 1000 Hz not to mention the gross reduction of the localization cues. You can hear this yourself if you put pink noise into the system and just walk across sideways from one side of the listening postion to the other.
I really don't understand how stereophiles put up with this now that it is so easy to cure. But I appreciate that stereo is an artform like black and white photography that can be appreciated for what it is.
Ralph Glasgal
www.ambiophnics.org
Sure, and how do you use a DSP to eliminate the effect of the room at the listening position? What you wrote implies this...
And, I may just try putting a mattress on end between my speakers - what is this supposed to buy me?
As far as walking across the plane of the listening position goes, clearly with a nominally omnidirectional source there will be less shift than from a source that has a "flat-ish" response say +/-20 degrees off axis... however the second one is likely to have somewhat less interaction with the room at higher frequencies than the former... still at a loss to understand how any DSP'ing can "know" all this coming out of a box and going to any given audiophile's system. (much less correct for it)
I apologize in advance for not yet having read what is on your site...
Oh, and sorry I must disagree about the digital issue - at least here one can report hearing audible differences in various digital sources and reproduction. Perhaps one could make a case that a given "solution" like the one you offer is a worthwhile compromise in order to eliminate or mediate another. That seems like a reasonable position to take, imo.
_-_-bear
And, I may just try putting a mattress on end between my speakers - what is this supposed to buy me?
As far as walking across the plane of the listening position goes, clearly with a nominally omnidirectional source there will be less shift than from a source that has a "flat-ish" response say +/-20 degrees off axis... however the second one is likely to have somewhat less interaction with the room at higher frequencies than the former... still at a loss to understand how any DSP'ing can "know" all this coming out of a box and going to any given audiophile's system. (much less correct for it)
I apologize in advance for not yet having read what is on your site...
Oh, and sorry I must disagree about the digital issue - at least here one can report hearing audible differences in various digital sources and reproduction. Perhaps one could make a case that a given "solution" like the one you offer is a worthwhile compromise in order to eliminate or mediate another. That seems like a reasonable position to take, imo.
_-_-bear
Ok, I read some of the stuff on the ambiophonics website and did a very preliminary low quality listen to the demo stuff... interesting.
However it reminds me of a much higher quality version of a box that was offered up in the 70s that took the opposite channel, inverted it, and folded it back in delayed and lower in level. The effect initially appears to be similar. Perhaps this more advanced version eliminates some of the cancellation effects found in the older more simplistic implementation. The reference to the Princeton system being able to reproduce the effect of a bee buzzing near the ear is quite intriguing and certainly indicated that there is some real science being applied here.
Seems like it has the potential to revolutionize the way that sound is played back in many situations.
Wondering how the RACES algorithm does with M-S recorded material?? Seems like that ought to be nearly optimal for it??
Very very interesting stuff... (but not exactly what Zilch - the OP - was aiming at)
_-_-bear
However it reminds me of a much higher quality version of a box that was offered up in the 70s that took the opposite channel, inverted it, and folded it back in delayed and lower in level. The effect initially appears to be similar. Perhaps this more advanced version eliminates some of the cancellation effects found in the older more simplistic implementation. The reference to the Princeton system being able to reproduce the effect of a bee buzzing near the ear is quite intriguing and certainly indicated that there is some real science being applied here.
Seems like it has the potential to revolutionize the way that sound is played back in many situations.
Wondering how the RACES algorithm does with M-S recorded material?? Seems like that ought to be nearly optimal for it??
Very very interesting stuff... (but not exactly what Zilch - the OP - was aiming at)
_-_-bear
The RACE algorithm works quite well with either spaced omnis or coincident mic arrangements like MS. Spaced omnis deliver only ITD (Interaural Time Differences) and coincident mics deliver only ILD (Interaural Level Differences). As humans we like to have both for the most realistic localization. The RACE program delivers whatever ILD and ITD are on the recording, be it CD or LP or DVD or MP3, etc. intact.
You can then decide whether you like the lack of ITD better than the lack of ILD. I find I like recordings that are made with both, as in the OrRTF arrangement, or a dummy head without pinna, or something like the SASS, etc.
Ralph Glasgal
www.ambiiophonics.org
You can then decide whether you like the lack of ITD better than the lack of ILD. I find I like recordings that are made with both, as in the OrRTF arrangement, or a dummy head without pinna, or something like the SASS, etc.
Ralph Glasgal
www.ambiiophonics.org
I see there is a separate and active thread on ambiosonics, so perhaps I will focus myself over there... http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/36254-try-ambiophonics-your-speakers-8.html
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.