Ambiophonics, What it is

[Ralph Glasgal]

Like tweeting, it is not feasible to describe something like Ambiophonics in a forum such as this. But basically Ambiophonics is so named as to be accepted as the inevitable replacement for stereophonics and 5.1 at least in the same sense that 5.1 has not replaced stereo and stereo has not really displaced mono. (Think news broadcasts, AM radio, telephones, shortwave, muzac, TCM. etc.). Like stereo and its cousin 5.1, Ambiophonics can be used to reproduce 2.0 or 5.1, 7.1, 10.2 etc. media. Also although one can make optimized Ambiophonic 2.0 or Panambiophonic 4.0 recordings using an Ambiophone, a normal Ambiophonic playback system is fully compatible with standard exsisting recordings. Also like stereo, Ambio is in the public domain. Anybody can make Ambiophonic products or use it without charge. TACT Audio, Ambio4you and several other companies are already making such products but it is a well kept secret, alas. Also, like stereo, Ambio comes in all price ranges including DIY and free. The real price is the intellectual effort required to unlearn stereo and understand Ambiophonic principles.

In brief, Ambiophonics in all its versions is a loudspeaker binaural methodolgy. In contrast, stereophonic reproduction (including 5.1) is based on an unusual sonic illusion akin to an optical illusion and as such has easy to demonstrate psychoacoustic defects that cannot be overcome, only tolerated. I use the term binaural to mean how we hear normally-nothing to do with earphones. Basically, binaural technologies, such as Wavefield Synthesis, Ambisonics, and Ambiophonics, strive to produce a home soundfield that closely resembles what you would have heard had you been at the microphone position during the recording session. For a variety of reasons, the stereo loudspeaker triangle cannot reproduce such a soundfield even if the recording, the media, and the reproducing equipment are perfect.

For audiophiles, who are not interested in the 3D reproduction of movies, video, games, etc. listening Ambiophonically to 2.0 media such as LPs,CDs, and MPs yields reproduction with greater clarity, depth, timbral fidelity, dynamic range, purity, perspective, pace, coherence, and musicality. In brief, you get more normal psychoacoustic realism even if you don't care about the wide soundstaging or creating a Domestic Concert Hall, as John Atkinson once termed this.

You can see a Domestic Concert Hall if you read the recent Bergen Record (N.J.) newspaper article at
http://bit.ly/hW4kwD
click at the bottom to see the second article.

Ralph Glasgal
www.ambiophonics.org

[metronimo]

The real price is the intellectual effort required to unlearn stereo and understand Ambiophonic principles.

I agree. And the best way to unlearn is to try cross-talk cancellation in a very crude way: with a physical barrier.

[mep]

For audiophiles, who are not interested in the 3D reproduction of movies, video, games, etc. listening Ambiophonically to 2.0 media such as LPs,CDs, and MPs yields reproduction with greater clarity, depth, timbral fidelity, dynamic range, purity, perspective, pace, coherence, and musicality. In brief, you get more normal psychoacoustic realism even if you don't care about the wide soundstaging or creating a Domestic Concert Hall, as John Atkinson once termed this.

Ralph Glasgal
www.ambiophonics.org

All the things you mentioned as improvements are what audiiphiles spend big money on in hopes of improving those very areas. So now we have some whizz bang software/hardware combo that is going to bring us all of this? How long has your product been on the market and who is using it and reviewing it? Marketing claims/hype all read well on paper, but the bigger the claims are is usually proportional to the user disappointment. Anyone remember the Carver C-9 Sonic Hologram generator? How about all of those settings on your AVR receiver like "club" "stadium" "rock concert" etc. Does anyone really listen to those wretched settings?

[Ralph Glasgal]

All the things you mentioned as improvements are what audiiphiles spend big money on in hopes of improving those very areas. So now we have some whizz bang software/hardware combo that is going to bring us all of this? How long has your product been on the market and who is using it and reviewing it? Marketing claims/hype all read well on paper, but the bigger the claims are is usually proportional to the user disappointment. Anyone remember the Carver C-9 Sonic Hologram generator? How about all of those settings on your AVR receiver like "club" "stadium" "rock concert" etc. Does anyone really listen to those wretched settings?

Ambiophonics is not a product it is a methodology like sterophonics. So far only a handful of suppliers offer Ambiophonic products and most users just use the free software files. Mostly, once you understand how Ambiophonics differs from stereophonics you can then do your own configurations just as you can with stereo. The products you mention were early attempts to correct the difficiencies of plain stereo. I am sure that if you can master the basics of Ambiophonics you may find ways to tweak it to taste just as one does with stereo. Basic Ambiophonics via just two speakers does not involve the newer extremely sophisticated concert-hall ambience features generated by convolution from real precisely measured hall impulse responses. But even if one does not like such convolved ambience, such surround sound options do not besmirch two speaker Ambiophonics any more then stereo is tarnished by the poor performance of 5.1 surround sound.

Actually, at the moment only very skilled computer mavens can utilize the concert-hall ambience programs and hundred odd hall impulse responses available. There is no component version available for normal audiophiles to use. Also adjusting the levels of a variety of ambient surround speakers is a lifetime occupation for perfectionists. Also, if you only listen to Chesky-like solo vocalists with guitar or small combo you don't need the ambience.

It would be great if one of the magazines would review or write an article about Ambiophonics but so far only the Bergen Record, a newspaper in New Jersey, has done so. http://ly/hW4kwD
(don't forget to click on the second part at the bottom) There are lots of postings on various forums and some of them are posted at www.ambiophonics.org

The sonic hologram was a brave attempt to solve the problem of stereo crosstalk. But at the time Bob Carver did not have digital processors available to do the job properly. He could only do a one shot cancelation whereas what is needed is a recursive algorithm. Also he did not realize that the speaker angle must be narrowed by about two thirds to correct for pinna problems. Lkewise some of the pioneering attempts at generating signals for surround speakers were not adequate. Are we not to play SACDs because 78s were not high fidelity in 1910?

But I really have to tell you that watching 5.1 movies or TV Ambiophonically via four speakers is where it's at. Also, two speaker stereo is an artform like black and white photography and going from stereo to Ambio is no more likely than expecting the black and white guys to adopt color.

Ralph Glasgal

[metronimo]

All the things you mentioned as improvements are what audiiphiles spend big money on in hopes of improving those very areas.

mep, sometimes spending big money is not a solution. Just stick a big panel between some random cheap speakers, setting them next to each other (as close as possible), then put your forehead against the panel in order to isolate your right ear from the left speaker and the left ear from the right speaker. Listen carefully. Then pick up your jaw from the floor and try again with your favorite speakers. If you remember the Carver gizmo, as I do since I tried it in the 80's, then you might agree that this simple panel trick gives much better results. Some recording engineers are using small physical barriers while mixing, so it's not only a matter of "whizz bang software/hardware combo", as you suggest. What Mr. Glasgal (and others) are trying to do is create a virtual barrier because a physical barrier is too impractical. Mr. Glasgal allow us to use and implement his algorithm freely like Benjamin Franklin allowed people to build glass harmonicas.

[Ralph Glasgal]

As above, a physical barrier is as per audiophile requirements. It introduces no cables, no noise, no distortion, no frequency response changes, no concerns of analog versus digital, no controls, and so is an ideal 2.0 tweak. But this wall between your legs needs to be thicker than your head and ten inches or more is ideal. It needs to extend from the floor to a few feet above your head. It does not need to go all the way to the speakers, but it is good if the speakers are close enough to the far end of the barrier to be considered near field. The inner edges of the speakers should be about parallel to the wall and so firing along it. If the speakers are at too wide an angle the wall does not work well since sound goes around the end of it where you are sitting. RPG made such a wall years ago but you can just use a big mattress on end. See Stereophile, July 1988, Audio Video Interiors, Nov. 1995

If you can hear differences in cables then a wall like this is the only way you can go. If you are not in this category and also want to watch TV and movies Ambiophonically and in real surround, then you must use one of the new electronic versions of the wall. There are now free software versions, if you are into PCs, or audio components from Hong Kong and TacT if you are not and want other conveniences like remote control, 5.1 playback, and input selection.

Ralph Glasgal
www.ambiophonics.org
glasgal@ambiophonics.org

[Steve Williams]

This stuff is absolutely fascinating. I, for one am most interested in learning more.

Ralph, in another thread here, Tom Danley posted the following which I also found fascinating. Is this also ambiophonics

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showth...ll=1#post38519

[Ralph Glasgal]

The Tom Danley experiment is not Ambiophonics. But his description does describe the difficulties in producing psychoacoustic versimilitude (binaural realism as opposed to the stereophonic sonic illusion) using relatively standard recording methods and the 60 degree loudspeaker triangle for reproduction.

The Ambiophonic group has developed a mic assembly called the Ambiophone which you can read about and see on the Ambiophonic site. This two or four channel device does make it easy to make full 2.0 or 4.0 recordings that sound great when played back Ambiophonically. You can sample some of these recordings by downloading them from the Ambiophonic website. The 4.0 DTS encoded demo tracks also need RACE processing of the front and rear pairs if you want 3D sound. Other samples are already RACE processed so you just need to put your speakers closer together and listen to what an Ambiophone can do. But note that like stereo the best results require that you adjust the RACE parameters for your own speakers, recordings, room, etc. so these pre processed samples may not be optimum for you. But the point is to compare stereo to Ambio while listening. You can do this just by moving up to the sixty degree angle and then back again to the approximately twenty degree angle. This way you can decide if you like to hear at least this 2.0 recording stereophonically or Ambiophonically. Hopefully, you will do this using your own favorite tracks sometime.

Ralph Glasgal

[Steve Williams]

Thanks Ralph

What is RACE processing

[Kal Rubinson]

What is RACE processing

It's what NJ State Troopers used to do on the Turnpike.