You are here

Log in or register to post comments
johnny p.
johnny p.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 days ago
Joined: Aug 3 2011 - 4:50pm
Cambridge Mechatronics Dynasonix

Just wondering if the editor-writers are aware of this (potentially) revolutionary processor - brand new as we speak. Steve Guttenberg talked about it on his blog (the unit then called "Pure Stereo") and was even featured on the Discovery Channel !

The Dynasonix technology stems from deep research at Princeton University. It promises to produce a (true) 3D soundfield using stereo recordings and only 2 speakers. Too good to be true ? Meridian's Trifield worked - why shouldn't Dynasonix ?

dbowker
dbowker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 5 days ago
Joined: May 8 2007 - 6:37am
Hmmmm

The thing is, it'll always be a fake 3D. See any of the recent 3D movies that did the 3D after the fact? Not so convincing.

This hardware could be different, but every time I hear a post process surround mix, especially from a 2 channel setup, I get really annoyed after the initial "cool" factor wears off. That usually occurs in about 10 minutes.

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 11 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
The name sucks but there

The name sucks but there appears to be some real science behind it.  OTOH, I doubt it has any better commercial prospects than Ambiophonics.

Kal

johnny p.
johnny p.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 days ago
Joined: Aug 3 2011 - 4:50pm
Yes, but this could be

Yes, but this could be different. It doesn't require special recordings or a surround setup.

It really does seem miraculous. Now to find one.....

WillWeber
WillWeber's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 week ago
Joined: Nov 11 2010 - 7:54am
3D? uh BS!

"True 3D"?  Not possible from two speakers, I don't care what they call it. The physics don't compute.

A true 3D wavefront would require much more spatial information than is possible with merely two sources. This is likely going to poison the market for if/when someone really does introduce actual wavefront audio. Related pet peave: the word "holographic" that is so over-used by audio reviewers has already had its real meaning diluted to ether.

Conventional stereo already provides an illusion of spatial imaging, often with impressive depth and spread. I am curious what this "revolutionary" processing does though. Perhaps it can enhance this illusion, but without any FX artifacts? Real information cannot be replaced once the two mics have sampled the original, thereby omitting vast portions of the information. Fake information might be synthesized from cues in the two channel data, but that is not real information.

WillW

johnny p.
johnny p.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 days ago
Joined: Aug 3 2011 - 4:50pm
The creators of this process

The creators of this process claims that it eliminates crosstalk between the speaker-ears. Something never done before - without (acute) adverse effects. I wouldn't write it off just yet - but everyone should remain skeptical (based on the history of audio claims). 

Certain audiophiles in New Jersey heard it (playing their music) and were most impressed. One is Allen Edelstein - who has written his fair share of letters to Stereophile.

Ralph Glasgal
Ralph Glasgal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Aug 8 2011 - 3:53pm
Ambiophonics
Kal Rubinson wrote:

The name sucks but there appears to be some real science behind it.  OTOH, I doubt it has any better commercial prospects than Ambiophonics.

Kal

In the case of Ambiophonics, there are already commercial component products from TacT Audio and a Hong Kong Company, DSP4you  The TACT products list for around $2500, $5000, and $12,000.  The Chinese one for $!50.  There are also almost uncounted software plugins, and apps for iPads and Droids mostly free.  Anyone can read about all this at www.ambiophonics.org where there are many technical papers, tutorials, and kudos.

As discussed below the future of components as we know them today is limited so I would not expect either Ambio or True Stereo to end up in a lot of high-end boxes.  Tablets and things like Jamboxes, foxL's, docking stations, and soundbars are where all the action is now.  Of course, this does not mean that Ambiophonics  is not a high-end technology like stereophonics.  Ambio, like stereo can be in clock radio, cars, home theaters, Meridians or Krells.

Ambiophonics really works. It is not a tweak, it is simply loudspeaker binaural as opposed to earphone binaural.  As luck would have it, Ambio works with most existing 2.0 recordings such as LPs and CDs.  The enhanced clarity, depth, wide stage, and presence has to be experienced to be believed.

I am not sure this is for Stereophile readers, however.  Like a black and white photography club, when a member brings in the first color photograph, it is regarded as heresy.  The color makes it harder to appreciate the high black and white resolution and the exquisite gamma scale.  Stereo is a similar art form.  Despite the comb filtering, the limitation of ITD to about 220 microseconds (even if 700 is on the disc), a similar reduction in microphone captured interaural level differences, a doubling of bass level for center sources compared to side sources, and pinna direction finding errors, one can still treasure the stereo sonic illusion as an artform, even if it cannot be truly realistic in the binaural hearing sense.

One thing is true now and that is that the future of things like Ambiophonics is in the software realm.  That is where all the action is now.  It will not be long before all audio processing will be done in PC or tablet like devices.  No knobs, switches, or even cables as things become wireless.  Only high power digital amplifiers and special speakers will be available as conventional components.

Perhaps there is somebody reading this in the New York metropolitan area that would like to come for a demo and report back to this forum.

Ralph Glasgal

glasgal@ambiophonics.org

This is a better way to reach me if you like.     

johnny p.
johnny p.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 days ago
Joined: Aug 3 2011 - 4:50pm
I am very excited about the

I am very excited about the Ambiophonics processors. I wish the TacT got reviewed - but I guess this goes against the stereophonic dogma of speaker set up.

The research group at Princeton claim that their processor produces greater depth than Ambiophonics. And it doesn't require extra speakers for playback.

It will be an interesting comparison - when it can be done.

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 11 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Commercial Success
Ralph Glasgal wrote:

As discussed below the future of components as we know them today is limited so I would not expect either Ambio or True Stereo to end up in a lot of high-end boxes.  Tablets and things like Jamboxes, foxL's, docking stations, and soundbars are where all the action is now.  Of course, this does not mean that Ambiophonics  is not a high-end technology like stereophonics.  Ambio, like stereo can be in clock radio, cars, home theaters, Meridians or Krells.

Ambiophonics really works. It is not a tweak, it is simply loudspeaker binaural as opposed to earphone binaural.  As luck would have it, Ambio works with most existing 2.0 recordings such as LPs and CDs.  The enhanced clarity, depth, wide stage, and presence has to be experienced to be believed.

I am sorry if my glib comment suggests a criticism of the technology of Ambiophonics (which, as Ralph says, "really works) or of this new offering (which I have not heard).  However, commercial success for either in high end audio is unlikely because this small segment of the audio world is either staunchly committed to traditional stereo reproduction or, in an even smaller sub-segment, true multichannel reproduction.  Getting either segment to move off the dime and adapt to these new configurations is a tough sell, as I am sure Ralph knows. 

All that said, I have been impressed with the couple of Ambiophonics demos I have heard but put off by the necessity to reposition my large speakers in a way that is incompatible with other listening modes.  If these technologies enhance listening to portable devices, fine, but that ain't of any interest to me.

Kal

johnny p.
johnny p.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 days ago
Joined: Aug 3 2011 - 4:50pm
Surprising - I thought the

Surprising - I thought the goal of high end was greater realism of recorded music. If Ambiophonics really works, then it's a big leap in that goal. Why would audiophiles mind putting their (two) speakers closer together and get a much wider soundstage as a result ? Yes, large speakers might look funny - but how about all those medium/small designs ? Stand mounted systems would be easy.

The only problem I see is the (recommended) new speakers - that are more directional in nature. Still not a tall order if 'philes do stand-mounted mains and a pair of subs (in the corners, where they belong). With so few audiophiles involved in a surround-setup, they shouldn't have the problems you have.

The TacT processor has been out for three years - yet not one U.S. review. Ignorance on the behalf of reviewers is the first strike - dyed-in-the-wool audiophiles is probably a second. But if explained to them correctly, this idea might really take off......

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 11 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
"Really works."
johnny p. wrote:

Surprising - I thought the goal of high end was greater realism of recorded music. If Ambiophonics really works, then it's a big leap in that goal. Why would audiophiles mind putting their (two) speakers closer together and get a much wider soundstage as a result ?

If I agree that Ambiophonics "really works," it only means that the effects I heard were enjoyable and were distinctly different from standard listening mode.  I cannot say that it endows the music with greater realism until/unless I can live with it for a while.

johnny p. wrote:

The TacT processor has been out for three years - yet not one U.S. review. Ignorance on the behalf of reviewers is the first strike - dyed-in-the-wool audiophiles is probably a second. But if explained to them correctly, this idea might really take off......

There are system configuration issues in addition to speaker placement. However, I requested a sample of the DSP4you device a while ago but, so far, nothing has appeared.

johnny p.
johnny p.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 days ago
Joined: Aug 3 2011 - 4:50pm
Well - you sounded more

Well - you sounded more enthusiastic about Ambiophonics last year. At the "What's Best" forum, you said a demo of it was "quite impressive".

And system configuration won't affect most audiophiles - as they have 2-channel equipment. 

It's been said that surround done-right sounds more real than stereo. But how much more ? Writers like JA never took to it. And this lines up with what Mr. Glasgal says about 5.1 - basically "the same" as good old stereo.

Not diving into multi-channel may have been the right call, after all. Imagine if audiophiles can get 3D sound without special recordings or extra loudspeakers ? (maybe 2 rear speakers would be needed - but these can be small and insignificant).

A new world could be upon of us - if we are open-minded about it......

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 11 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Sure....

Open-minded?  I hope I have demonstrated that.  I thought the Ambiophonics demos impressive enough for me to pursue the possibility of a review but for many reasons (none directly ascribable to Ralph who has tried to advance the issue) this has not yet happened.  Short of actual and extensive hands-on experience, I see no reason to officially endorse (or diss) Ambiophonics. 

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 11 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Duplicate post

 

 

 

johnny p.
johnny p.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 days ago
Joined: Aug 3 2011 - 4:50pm
You claim open-mindedness -

You claim open-mindedness - but 3 years go by without you reviewing the TacT processor.

It sounds like we need a 2-channel reviewer to step up to the plate. Anyone interested ?

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 11 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Sure.

They are, of course, always welcome to do so.

Kal

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading