Well, if anything more processing and equalization by Behringer DEQ and DCX has only improved resolution as I've never heard the amount of ambiance in my system as opposed to "pure" high-end systems.
I'm not using the ambiophonics setup but tailoring the input to loudspeakers to compensate for their acoustic signature and that of the room will only improve the musical experience.
As I said, I was not blown away but equally I also know I did not give it too much of a try so am wary of making blanket statements.
Obviously with the deqx I do use what could be called speaker equalization, but it may be helpful if you explain what YOU use for speaker equalisation and what you specifically do??
I don't understand what you quite meant here.
Well, that's just the nature of the human beast. For many the mere thought of any sort of signal manipulation will send them into conniptive fits. (sounds bad eh??)
Yet, they will happily ignore any room effect (or be completely oblivious to it) and spend a lot of money on cables etc under some sort of illusion that they impact favourably on the sound.
Just different expressions of different philosophies in audio, with the same end goal one would presume.
My speakers are active 4ways. I vary their frequency slopes and levels to achive the best in-room response. I also have three different settings for recordings that are a bit brighter or mellower,some sacd´s in particular vary a lot in this respect. Plus I now use the equalizer in the ambio4you device.
I suppose the pretty severe toe-out of my speakers is also correcting unbalances elsewhere and still baffles me. I would not have expected it to work and came upon it quite by chance actually as I happened to stand right between the speakers and found the sound much much better than at my listening spot!
There is a thread in Audio Circle reporting a demostration at Ralph Glasgal´s place. Some members took home an already processed demo CD of their favourite music. These were tried in their home systems and although quite favourable, they were not impressed. This was to be expected since they had no control on the different parameters and did not even bother to move the speakers closer.
Someone mentioned the high frequencies were rolled-off which made the overall sound a bit dull. I have had that same thing happen until I defeated the low-pass feature (frequency limited processing). I suppose you can also have good mid-treble balance with frequency-limited processing as long as you equalize accordingly.
Last edited:
surround channels
I've got a general 'where do I start' type question about adding additional ambiance/surround channels to an ambio rig. I'm finally playing around with a desktop ambio setup, and I could add 4 additional speakers - L/R side and L/R rear - fairly easily. (before you ask a rear dipole is a non-starter) The questions I have are
a) would this be worthwhile?
and if so
b) what are the options for generating the ambiance info?
I know some Yamaha units were discussed early in the thread but they seem to have limited availability to say the least. The obvious ideas for 'reverb' are in the pro market - either VST reverb plugins or things like rackmount units - in particular the Lexicon MX-400 seems interesting as it actually has a 2-in 4-out 'surround reverb' capability. Product: MX400 | Lexicon Pro
My main question is whether the additional channels really need to be physically modeled for their role - 'early front stage reflections' 'rear ambient field' etc, or whether the type of tweakable parameters available in a pro reverb can get you 'close enough'.
Any experience/ feedback would be interesting.
I've got a general 'where do I start' type question about adding additional ambiance/surround channels to an ambio rig. I'm finally playing around with a desktop ambio setup, and I could add 4 additional speakers - L/R side and L/R rear - fairly easily. (before you ask a rear dipole is a non-starter) The questions I have are
a) would this be worthwhile?
and if so
b) what are the options for generating the ambiance info?
I know some Yamaha units were discussed early in the thread but they seem to have limited availability to say the least. The obvious ideas for 'reverb' are in the pro market - either VST reverb plugins or things like rackmount units - in particular the Lexicon MX-400 seems interesting as it actually has a 2-in 4-out 'surround reverb' capability. Product: MX400 | Lexicon Pro
My main question is whether the additional channels really need to be physically modeled for their role - 'early front stage reflections' 'rear ambient field' etc, or whether the type of tweakable parameters available in a pro reverb can get you 'close enough'.
Any experience/ feedback would be interesting.
Robbed from an Audiogon discussion:
To me, "you are there" is the whole point. I love live classical music, and my entire aim is to come as close as possible to that at home. The single most important addition to my system in helping me achieve this was my JVC XP-A1010 Digital Acoustic Processor, along with its associated four ambiance speakers.
Not only does this do an amazing job of extracting and synthesizing concert-hall ambiance, it also somehow makes the instrumental tone colors much more natural. It's but a slight exaggeration to say that the difference it makes is analogous to the difference between seeing a painting of actors on a stage and seeing real actors on a real stage. It's absolutely amazing. And many years out of production.
-Bob
I have 3 of these things which I use either singly or in combination to deliver a convincing "you are there" experience. The adjustments available with these machines are quite comprehensive, but once dialed in are very convincing. They are getting hard to find, but do pop up from time to time. Incidentally, the input is "passed through" in analog so there is no AD/DA conversion going on with the front mains -- making it a great processor to use along with a MiniAmbio.
There might still be a Stereophile review of the 1010 online; it is a very interesting read.
To me, "you are there" is the whole point. I love live classical music, and my entire aim is to come as close as possible to that at home. The single most important addition to my system in helping me achieve this was my JVC XP-A1010 Digital Acoustic Processor, along with its associated four ambiance speakers.
Not only does this do an amazing job of extracting and synthesizing concert-hall ambiance, it also somehow makes the instrumental tone colors much more natural. It's but a slight exaggeration to say that the difference it makes is analogous to the difference between seeing a painting of actors on a stage and seeing real actors on a real stage. It's absolutely amazing. And many years out of production.
-Bob
I have 3 of these things which I use either singly or in combination to deliver a convincing "you are there" experience. The adjustments available with these machines are quite comprehensive, but once dialed in are very convincing. They are getting hard to find, but do pop up from time to time. Incidentally, the input is "passed through" in analog so there is no AD/DA conversion going on with the front mains -- making it a great processor to use along with a MiniAmbio.
There might still be a Stereophile review of the 1010 online; it is a very interesting read.
Last edited:
I agree that the JVC 1010 is a remarkable device, if now a bit antiquated. I used four of them to fabricate a real concert hall in the early 90's and prove the theory that convolving real measured hall impulse responses was superior to trying to record hall ambience during a performance. But now we have computers and better stuff to do this and I drive 26 surround speakers (I never throw out a speaker or an amplifier, just add it to the system) using Waves Audio Software and their library of 100 or so hall, studio, church, etc. impulse responses. You can see how easy it is to do this if you go to Ambiophonics PC/MAC DIY and scroll down to the screen picture near the bottom. Of course there is a lot of text elsewhere on the Ambio site about the theory of all this. John Atkinson once called this Ambiophonic method, The Domestic Concert Hall. Unfortunately, the coming of 5.1 stopped JVC and others in their tracks.
This is the ultimate tweak and you can spend the rest of your life adjusting the real halls to suit your preferences. You also can't be computer phobic. But if you only listen to Chesky-like discs of a single soloist accompanied by a guitar you don't want any of this. You don't even need two speakers for such almost mono unless you enjoy the crosstalk and combing.
Ralph Glasgal
This is the ultimate tweak and you can spend the rest of your life adjusting the real halls to suit your preferences. You also can't be computer phobic. But if you only listen to Chesky-like discs of a single soloist accompanied by a guitar you don't want any of this. You don't even need two speakers for such almost mono unless you enjoy the crosstalk and combing.
Ralph Glasgal
I've done the same basic configuration before (with and without processing).
What I've come to conclude (both personally and via informal testing of others) is that:
1. In part you are effecting "cancellation" at higher freq.s by decreasing the spl in the "center" vs. Left and Right.
2. That increase in pressure Left and Right of Center *can* allow for an expanded "sound stage" and lateral imaging that becomes "free" of the loudspeaker (..and can extend far left of the left loudspeaker and far right of the right loudspeaker - recording dependent).
..at the same time I *also* noted that reflections from the walls (left of left loudspeaker and right of right loudspeaker), became a problem - both in contributing to a noise-like loudness and diminished imaging detail.
Of course I also tried the loudspeakers in rotated inward via the Ted Jordan method that Earl effectively advocates. Similar problems there with reflections (..though its right speaker effecting left wall and vice versus), stage becomes most restricted to the outer baffles of the loudspeakers, though you can "pull" them much farther apart to *effect* a large sound-stage while having a smaller locus for "images". (..the problem there is that the recording becomes less dependent, the soundstage can neither "expand" fully nor is "shrunk" fully when the recording should.) For casual listening or multi-listener listening it's excellent, but it isn't correct for "critical" two-channel listening.
Very interesting comments, ScottG. Things have improved a lot since I moved to the configuration in the pic. This is referred to as an OPSODIS distribution, and has already been mentioned previously in this thread. I have to re-read those posts to gain some insight into it since I find this extremely promising. I´m impressed right now!
I was indeed finding the 20-30 degree angle necessary for the low-mid range not complementing the mid-highs and high frequencies. So this seems to be the best compromise. The left and right higher frequencies units are now very close to each other and the overall result is more like that from a physical barrier.
Luckily my speakers are perfect for this kind of experiments. No need to behead the poor things since the mid-high boxes are removable.
Attachments
Last edited:
I just tried Ambiophonics yesterday. First i used a mattress between the speakers, then i used the Ambiophonics algorithm using my laptop as a DSP.
Boy, this is nothing short of amazing, and i think this is the best improvement in audio in the last 15 years.
Yes, it really works. The theory behind is solid, as far as i can see.
Boy, this is nothing short of amazing, and i think this is the best improvement in audio in the last 15 years.
Yes, it really works. The theory behind is solid, as far as i can see.
This is an old trick, as far as i know, proposed by Hafler and M. Gerzon in the 70s. Yes, it works expanding the stereo. A better implementation would allow to adjust the amount of substraction "a" in the side channels, so you'd have the speakers output as this:
far left: L-(a*R)
left: L
right: R
far right: R-(a*L)
There's a Gerzon file (search "The Gerzon Archive") in which he examines the use of the L-R signal in a quadraphonic setup. Very interesting. I have a Sansui QS-1 quadraphonic "synthesizer" that does a version of what Gerzon proposes. I've yet to hook it up and listen to it.
But Ambiophonics goes far beyond this idea. Plus it doesn't require 4 speakers to project 180º stage width!
I think of Ambiophonics as "a better way to present 2 channels using only 2 speakers". The hafler/gerzon setup above would be "a better way to present 2 channels by using 4 speakers".
Last edited:
If the recording was made with stereo mics separated by nine feet, you want to space your speakers nine feet apart and listen from some distance back in the usual way. If the recording was made with stereo mics in a dummy head where the ears would be, you want to listen with headphones - and keep your head still! If the recording was done with stereo mics close together but not in a dummy head, do the "ambiophonic" trick with stereo speakers - and keep your head still. (When did that term "ambiophonic" crop up? When I was interested in this stuff ca. 1984, the buzz-terms were "binaural" and "sonic hologram.")
These days, few recordings are done any of of those ways. They are recorded on tracks that are processed for effect and mixed down. Those you want to listen to ... how? .. in whatever way the recording engineers would approve, I guess.
You know what's surprising to me? Now days lots of people listen on headphones. Lots of others have surround speakers at home. With high-speed internet to deliver the goods, it is possible to distribute versions of recordings that are made specifically for those playback systems. Yet the record companies cling like Luddites to the old one-size-fits nobody format.
Last edited:
Another thing. Don't think the recording engineers are not up-to-speed on all this. It's not exactly new news. If the recording engineer wants binaural cross-talk cancellation added to the signal, he can put it in before the music leaves the shop. It is an interesting subject though.
Another another thing. Information cannot be mined from the ether. If it could, Maxwell's demon would overthrow the second law of thermodynamics. "Recovering" lost information is only possible when the recoverer has knowledge other than what is on the two stereo channels - things like where the microphones were placed, what a violin sounds like, how big the room was, etc., etc.. Guess wrong, and the result can sound awful.
Another another thing. Information cannot be mined from the ether. If it could, Maxwell's demon would overthrow the second law of thermodynamics. "Recovering" lost information is only possible when the recoverer has knowledge other than what is on the two stereo channels - things like where the microphones were placed, what a violin sounds like, how big the room was, etc., etc.. Guess wrong, and the result can sound awful.
Last edited:
I stumbled across ambiophonics about a year ago, while working on a car project. I tried it with my Summas at home, but found that the effect was more pleasant in the car. I've started a new thread on my forum to discuss it here:
http://forum.audiopsychosis.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7
It's pretty shocking how wide a soundstage can be achieved with the speakers literally inches apart. I tried audiomulch and some other tricks with my Summas, but found the effect distracting and phasey. Basically the soundstage got wider, but the artifacts weren't worth the trouble. The *physical* barrier is intriguing though.
In defense of ambiophonics, I didn't invest the time to tweak the settings like I should have. I have a feeling that one could get very impressive results with a pair of Summas and a day's worth of software tweaking.
The thing that really piques my curiosity about crosstalk cancellation is the fact that waveguides could be a partial substitute for a physical barrier. Seems like a lot less hassle than a digital solution, and there are some WAF advantages too. (I have a very hard time finding a good spot for my Summas, due to their size.)
http://forum.audiopsychosis.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7
It's pretty shocking how wide a soundstage can be achieved with the speakers literally inches apart. I tried audiomulch and some other tricks with my Summas, but found the effect distracting and phasey. Basically the soundstage got wider, but the artifacts weren't worth the trouble. The *physical* barrier is intriguing though.
In defense of ambiophonics, I didn't invest the time to tweak the settings like I should have. I have a feeling that one could get very impressive results with a pair of Summas and a day's worth of software tweaking.
The thing that really piques my curiosity about crosstalk cancellation is the fact that waveguides could be a partial substitute for a physical barrier. Seems like a lot less hassle than a digital solution, and there are some WAF advantages too. (I have a very hard time finding a good spot for my Summas, due to their size.)
Last edited:
Hi Patrick....
I've read here and here , that's horns can do the job.
BUT only if they can target one of your ears at once. Obliviously a narrow beaming (1° or 2° !!!) and what to do for the low range?
With the same idea in mind, it's possible too to think of two tunnels going from the speaker to each side of the head. Even if not thinking of induced resonances, I bet it would not being very pleasant. Keele has been proposing ears trumpets too.
In the mechanical ways of obtaining XTC, the physical barrier remains the easiest solution. But (for sure it has been said before, just I feel lazy to read all the thread), many experimenters do the mistake of putting the barrier only between the speakers : it has to be between the ears first. Can say that it's real duty is to change the HRTF by improving the shadowing effect of the head, then isolating one ear from the controlateral speaker beam.
Keele (again...) has been drawing something nice: a kind of rooster crest to put on the head. Very easy to do, I've tried it and it works, but it's hard to live with.
Yeah, that'd be the major problem
I've read the papers you gave me. When I saw the drawings, I thought to myself, OMG, is there anyone really doing this ?!
So you must be crazy enough
Code:
t's pretty shocking how wide a soundstage can be achieved with the speakers literally inches apart. I tried audiomulch and some other tricks with my Summas, but found the effect distracting and phasey. Basically the soundstage got wider, but the artifacts weren't worth the trouble. The *physical* barrier is intriguing though.
In defense of ambiophonics, I didn't invest the time to tweak the settings like I should have. I have a feeling that one could get very impressive results with a pair of Summas and a day's worth of software tweaking.
The thing that really piques my curiosity about crosstalk cancellation is the fact that waveguides could be a partial substitute for a physical barrier. Seems like a lot less hassle than a digital solution, and there are some WAF advantages too. (I have a very hard time finding a good spot for my Summas, due to their size.)I have also experienced the artifacts in software cancellation that Patrick mentions (in all different incarnations that I have been able to try at home so far).
A combination of both software cancellation plus physical barrier is what I am currently using. I´ll explain:
Current software cannot seem to safactorily cancell the higher frequencies. On the other hand, a physical barrier cannot cancel the lower range (around 400hz or so) as effectively as software can.
So you set up your software for mild cancellation (it is effective down the range and keeps the higher frequencies clear and pure, no artifacts to be heard) and put together a barrier. Result: you still have a barrier in your room but you have by far the best sound you have ever heard in a playback system.
The pics show the lower part of the barrier. The top will be removable. Total height will be 160cms or so.
Attachments
Last edited:
My experience is similar. The processing makes the high frequencies sound funky. But at low frequencies, you can use quite a bit without creating audible artifacts. I am using waveguides in both of my ambiophonic setups. One is at home, with Gedlee Summas. This is virtually identical to what Choeuri is using at Princeton, but bigger.
The second set is in my car, using Unity horns of my own design.
Interestingly, the Unity horn works VERY nice with ambiophonics. I think it's because the midrange and the tweeter are so close together. With the Summas, I have to "dial in" a lot of processing before the soundstage widens. With the Unities, even a small amount of DSP noticeably widens the stage.
Having said that, the Summas are more listenable at the moment, because they are smoother, more dynamic, and have lower HOMs.
Both setups seem to work very well for ambio. I'm not sure if I'll ever go back to stereo.
poldus, I am impressed, I like.
I think that the barrier works best because it also blocks the right speakers sound from bouncing off the left wall and entering the left ear.
Patrick, I've been playing with horns for a bit and am intrigued by the oblate spheroid. It seems close to the peavey quadratic (throat curves to conical wall extending to the mouth). I'm working on the 6.5" mcm round horn (the one used by zaph using a dome in the tmm design).
Since I'm in a living room used by family, I can't use a barrier. After ambiophonics, I'll never go back to stereo triangle. Even now I only listen to 1 speaker. 2 weeks ago, I tried 2 speakers and the center image was a hazy cloud 3-4' wide, aweful. Back to mono I went.
Norman
I think that the barrier works best because it also blocks the right speakers sound from bouncing off the left wall and entering the left ear.
Patrick, I've been playing with horns for a bit and am intrigued by the oblate spheroid. It seems close to the peavey quadratic (throat curves to conical wall extending to the mouth). I'm working on the 6.5" mcm round horn (the one used by zaph using a dome in the tmm design).
Since I'm in a living room used by family, I can't use a barrier. After ambiophonics, I'll never go back to stereo triangle. Even now I only listen to 1 speaker. 2 weeks ago, I tried 2 speakers and the center image was a hazy cloud 3-4' wide, aweful. Back to mono I went.
Norman