How come there is not single discussion on this implementation? Or am I missing something to believe that this is the best upgrade one can have in your setup. I am sure someone would have tried before and would like to know why Ambiophonics is avoided.

The basis for Ambiophonics is that placing speakers close enough to your ears that you get no significant crosstalk or audio "leakage" from the other channel improves channel specificity and stereo imaging.

I can sit 5 feet from my speakers and improve the imaging a lot compared to sitting the normal 9 feet away; same idea.

In essence, it is like using headphones, really.

It can be implemented in various ways, but it is really kind of a no-brainer, and hardly needs a gee-whiz special name.

I am afraid that is incorrect. It is an art of retrieving all information in the recording which enhances the "you are there" feeling.

Ambiophonics is essentially a loudspeaker binaural loudspeaker technology in that like Ambisonics and Wavefield Synthesis it does not rely on the stereophonic sonic illusion to provide localization. I suggest you go to the www.ambiophonics.org website and do a bit of reading as well as listen to some of the demos. Changing the stereophonic listening angle as you suggest accomplishes very little. If you get too close you have a hole in the middle. If you get too far back you get mono. The 85 year old stereo loudspeaker equilateral triangle has no basis in psychoacoustics and like optical illusions is rather illusive. Like black and white photography, perfecting this illusion is a good hobby but it is no way to see color or in the case of sound get a realistic binaural sound field in the home. (Nothing to do with earphones or binaural recordings)

The real problem for Stereophile readers is that Atkinson has never heard an Ambiophonic system and so cannot do his job as a proper journalist. But it is also not for the editor of a black and white photography magazine to extol the virtues of color picture reproduction.

Ralph Glasgal, glasgal@ambiophonics.org
B.E.P. M.S.E.E. IEEE, AES

Manipulating phase in stereo speakers to create holographic imaging was introduced in the early 1980’s.

DSP is evolving to do far more than adjust the signal to your speakers, whether there be 2 or 9, than just provide a flat frequency response in a particular room.

I hardly see much revolutionary about this, more evolutionary, IMNSHO.

Nearly all the technical aspects relating to ambiophonics have been addressed in the pages of Stereophile at one time or another.

On what basis or fact, may I inquire, do you make the claim that Mr. Atkinson has no experience with such technology?

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

glasgal wrote:

Ambiophonics is essentially a loudspeaker binaural loudspeaker technology in that like Ambisonics and Wavefield Synthesis it does not rely on the stereophonic sonic illusion to provide localization. I suggest you go to the www.ambiophonics.org website and do a bit of reading as well as listen to some of the demos. Changing the stereophonic listening angle as you suggest accomplishes very little. If you get too close you have a hole in the middle. If you get too far back you get mono. The 85 year old stereo loudspeaker equilateral triangle has no basis in psychoacoustics and like optical illusions is rather illusive. Like black and white photography, perfecting this illusion is a good hobby but it is no way to see color or in the case of sound get a realistic binaural sound field in the home. (Nothing to do with earphones or binaural recordings)

The real problem for Stereophile readers is that Atkinson has never heard an Ambiophonic system and so cannot do his job as a proper journalist. But it is also not for the editor of a black and white photography magazine to extol the virtues of color picture reproduction.

Ralph Glasgal, glasgal@ambiophonics.org
B.E.P. M.S.E.E. IEEE, AES

You are totally wrong when you say that that sitting closer to or further away from speakers changes very little.

That statement, which I know from personal experience to be completely false, totally discredits you as far as I am concerned.

Further, your statement that JA cannot do a proper job as a journalist because he may (or may not) have experience with your little pet theories is a mile off target.

If you want to promote your theories, it would behoove you to refrain from making statements that have no credibility.

Furthermore, this entire topic has no place in The Entry Level, and I hope the moderator will move it to a more appropriate forum.

wkhanna wrote:

Manipulating phase in stereo speakers to create holographic imaging was introduced in the early 1980’s.

DSP is evolving to do far more than adjust the signal to your speakers, whether there be 2 or 9, than just provide a flat frequency response in a particular room.

I hardly see much revolutionary about this, more evolutionary, IMNSHO.
...

How does placing a physical barrier between two speakers be considered as manipulating phase? I started with my PC speakers and experimented with barriers. Then I experimented with my main speakers. All I did was to move the two speakers closer to each other and put a physical barrier and heard wider soundstage and depth. Could you please explain how is that be considered as manipulating phase?

commsysman wrote:

…

You are totally wrong when you say that that sitting closer to or further away from speakers changes very little.

That statement, which I know from personal experience to be completely false, totally discredits you as far as I am concerned….

Maybe, it got to do something with near field listening where the room’s influence is greatly minimized. In stereo, your soundstage is determined by the speakers’ spread (more or less).

It would be more helpful if you had tried Ambiophonics setup and then address the shortcomings. That would be helpful for people like myself who are still trying out something new all the time to achieve perfection.

ST wrote:

wkhanna wrote:

Manipulating phase in stereo speakers to create holographic imaging was introduced in the early 1980’s.

DSP is evolving to do far more than adjust the signal to your speakers, whether there be 2 or 9, than just provide a flat frequency response in a particular room.

I hardly see much revolutionary about this, more evolutionary, IMNSHO.
...

How does placing a physical barrier between two speakers be considered as manipulating phase? I started with my PC speakers and experimented with barriers. Then I experimented with my main speakers. All I did was to move the two speakers closer to each other and put a physical barrier and heard wider soundstage and depth. Could you please explain how is that be considered as manipulating phase?

My reference to phase manipulation was intended only to show that experimentation with methods of altering soundstage & depth is not a recent development.

The use of barriers, though quite dramatic at times depending on the implementation, is not a new discovery, however.

I do not disparage anyone’s use of such treatments, only the claim that these or other methods employed in soundstage manipulation & surround sound effects are particularly groundbreaking.

Such pursuit has evolved to include today’s use of DSP, which will allow instantaneous & continuous modification to the signal with potential to produce a myriad of effects.

As I stated previously, the technology at this point in time is more evolutionary than it is revelatory.

I would also add that I would be more than a little interested in any results you might wish to share.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

I am aware of the previous attempts and also the current trend like SRS which is also a product of some sort of phase manipulation. I just wanted something that would give me a better experience in my musical enjoyment at home and found that in Ambiophonics.

I wouldn't mind a DSP if that is what it takes to bring us closer to concert hall sound. Perhaps, this video explains what I hear with Ambiophonics method. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxygEtyAsDk

Of course, my suggestion would be multichannel but, more closely related to ambiophonics and this discussion is: http://www.theoretica.us/

Kal, Choueiri was one of the Ambiophonics contributors and what we are looking at what could possibly be the first successful commercial attempt for a feasible 3D sound.

Having said that, I wonder why haven't you reviewed or visited the Ambiophonincs institute? Unless my judgment of what a good sound is horribly wrong, I don't see any logic that 7 years go by without a single review.

My understanding is, you did experience Ambiophonics demo in 2007, where you said you were impressed. The implementation costs nothing and the result is astonishing - to say the least. From the tone of Ralph post it appears Stereophile refuses a review or an audition. The least you could do is provide some feedback to honour someone who runs a non profit organization for the benefit of audiophiles to achieve their ultimate dream. i.e., true to concert hall sound.

At least, for people like myself we know where we stand with another new tech like this and many more that is going to come in the future if we get to read something from an expert like yourself.

The reality is, if the recent AES paper is believable, Ambiophonics (Ambidio) beat pure stereo or SRS in depth, width, best sound quality and best presence. Isn't that what we all want?

(Delayed response since, for some reason, this website does not tolerate my editing of previously typed sentences or will it let me selectively quote other posts. So let’s see if I can post this.)

I did greatly enjoy an Ambiophonics demo at an audio show and followed up in a correspondence with Ralph about a possible review. However, I cannot (will not) accommodate the physical separation structure in my listening room, so we talked about the electronic alternatives. Unfortunately, none of them came about and my interest faded.

I do believe this is a valid approach and I have followed Choueiri’s publications and announcements but, frankly, stereo is no longer my usual or preferred listening format. I really doubt that there is any opposition to Ambiophonics at Stereophile but that is not enough. Someone has to be positively interested in it.

Thank you for the response. The best solution is the plug and play Miniambio which is a product of MiniDSP. I am really glad to hear that you believe the approach is valid because that is the biggest hurdle for audiophiles to try out new tech. I am relieved to know that I am on the right track and Ambiophonics is not another v o o d o o gadget. I was really beginning to doubt my judgment when I do not see anyone else trying it out.

Kal, maybe the time has come for you to cross the bridge, literally. The institute is just across the river from your place. From some of the comments I read about the full blown setup - it is the closest to concert hall sound. Even in my modest setup the difference is real and passes DBT with 100% correct answers unlike cables, amplifiers or even CD vs SACD tests.
______________________
p.s. Yes. Something is wrong with the website. The cursor goes missing and I have to retype again and again.