Why Haven;t You Tried Immersive 3D Audio Yet?

[wisnon]

Audio Processors | ILLUSONIC

[witchdoctor]

I really do not know what your experience is with classical music in Mch. Yours seems like the typical response of someone who has not actually heard it properly set up in a system of quality. With all due respect, you are only guessing at what it is capable of. For what purpose, I have no clue.

 

Absolutely none of the dire negative consequences you ascribe occur with discretely recorded Mch in my system or those of numerous friends who, like me, are frequent live classical concert attendees. There is also a parade of listeners who have heard stereo vs. Mch on my system, or on those of my friends, including about 50 members of a local audio society within the last year. The comparison overwhelmingly favors Mch to the ears of most all of these listeners. I have a fair number of friends who prefer classical and who consider Mch one of the great all time breakthroughs toward greater realism in audio.

 

I agree that the type of music one prefers is key. But, it works in reverse of what you say. It is the classical music that excels in Mch, since at its best it realistically captures the acoustic of the venue with the performers arrayed naturally within it. The pop/rock is often just a gimmicky, repanned remix of a previous multi track stereo release. Consequently, it is the classical releases that greatly outnumber pop/rock in Mch, most of them recorded natively in hi rez Mch.

 

I am quite happy with my library of thousands of Mch discs in 2D 5.1 or 7.1. 3D, which is the theme of this thread, is of interest to me. However, I seriously doubt that 3D music will amount to much in my lifetime in terms of available recordings. I have heard discrete Auro 3D, however I have no interest so far in artificially synthesized 3D. I will wait and see on 3D, but I am totally committed to 5/7.1 Mch.

 

Thanks for your post. I have not compared Auro 3D to discrete MCH recordings and hope to do so in the next month or so. When experiencing classical music I tend to favor concerts at qello.com. I fire up my projector and the auromatic upmixer and have a lot to choose from for like $8 a month. I understand Medici.tv has a lot to offer as well

 

https://qello.com/?tier=spotlight_classic_music

[witchdoctor]

To be sure, Mch music, whether from SACD, BD-A, BD-V or downloads, is only a niche. However, that niche for music listeners rides on the coattails of the huge Mch HT market, equipment-wise. (FWIW, my system contains no HT-specific equipment except for a TV monitor and a center channel speaker.)

 

Also, the SACD has sufficiently "caught on" over the past 15+ years to provide me with a substantial classical library in hi rez Mch. New releases keep coming. See the following site to assess the quality and quantity of SACDs:

 

hraudio.net

 

There are I believe well in excess of 10,000 SACDs in the catalog. Some are out of production. Some are stereo reissues from older masters. The remainder are predominantly classical releases, recorded over the past 15 years in discrete-miked Mch in hi rez. I have over 2,000 of those in my collection, which is still growing.

 

I am not clear on what you mean by existing 2.0 media containing "the hidden location information". That is true for recordings made with certain special mike setups: binaural, coincident pair(Blumlein,etc.), when played with headphones or restrictive speaker setups. It may also be done via DSP, like Ambiophonics, BACCH, or others you have cited. But, talk about something not catching on. That would be true of all these technologies plus others you cite.

 

Nice resource, I like they have recommendations. I just got the new Sony Universal player the UHPH1 and am looking forward to some fun. I don't think this is a 0 sum equation where it is one or the other. If I want to listen in 2 channel I press a button on my remote.For multichannel I load the disc and let it play in the native format. For 3D audio I have several choices via my Marantz 7702 processor but most of the time I prefer Auro 3D. If I am going to sit and take the time to listen to music its enjoyable to pick the format that I feel best matches the recording.

 

HRAudio.net - Top Recommendations

[witchdoctor]

I am not sure why you are saying somewhat.

With respect, when I said music I was referring to all kind of genre out there. Outside this forum, not many would have heard of HRAudio or 2L or Bluecoast. I have about 3000 Cds and about 100 or less SACDs. Some of them are still in wrappers for years.

I wasn't looking for another new format or remastered stereo into Mch. I want my current collection and my future collection which will be predominately in stereo as that what 99% of the population would buy to sound realistic. If it is in multi channel then it makes things easier as I can always play them in mch and with the convolution speakers they would sound awesome but how do I improve the existing stereo recordings?

On the other point you raised, it is wrong to say you need DSP for Ambiophonics although having one replaces the need to use a physical divider between the speakers.

 

The flexibility of using an upmixer for 3D audio is why I recommend it. It is native format agnostic. If you don't like the upmixer you can turn it off. If Auro 3D doesn't hit the mark I have like 4 other upmixers on my processor I can try in addition 2 stereo.

 

I didn't mention this in my first post but will say that the choice of speaker for your height channels is important. I have nearly perfectly matched height channels with my bed channels. The rule of thunb for movies is your surround channels aren't that important. I think for music they are very important and would get the closest match to your bed channels as possible.

[witchdoctor]

There are no other channels to retrieve. The surround effect that you get with multi channels is rather limited. In a concert hall, the ambiance sound is said to be around 75% compared to the direct sound. How many channels do you think that would require to recreate such ambiance in your room? I am currently using 10 speakers just for the ambiance using convolution filters and still think I would probably need another 6 for my small room.

 

The idea is to get immersed in 3D sound with the existing stereo recording. Binaural with two "channel" headphones can give you realistic 3D "being there" sensation. Unfortunately, binaural would not work with speakers unless you isolate the speakers.

 

Disclosure: I do use Ambiophonics method. Even though I advocate Ambiophonics, I have no commercial interest in this non-profit organization.

This captures what auro 3d tries to emulate. it is the only format with 3 layers and the 3 layer setup can be done with 9 speakers. In my room you cannot localize the speakers, it just sounds natural.

[witchdoctor]

Audio Processors | ILLUSONIC

 

This looks very interesting but I'll bet is is $$$, Thanks for posting

 

http://www.illusonic.com/audio-processors/iap-16/movie/

[Kal Rubinson]

I want my current collection and my future collection which will be predominately in stereo as that what 99% of the population would buy to sound realistic. If it is in multi channel then it makes things easier as I can always play them in mch and with the convolution speakers they would sound awesome but how do I improve the existing stereo recordings?

I do not think we share the same meaning for "realistic" or "improve" or, even, "awesome." Having lived through generations of such manipulations, I grant you that DSP has made them more malleable and effective. Still, it is not my perception of reality.

 

That is not to say that a truly immersive and discrete process would not be an improvement for both of us but that is unlikely to be commercially viable.

[wisnon]

This looks very interesting but I'll bet is is $$$, Thanks for posting

 

http://www.illusonic.com/audio-processors/iap-16/movie/

 

The 16channel top of the line one is $20K retail.

The others are cheaper. This is 4D sound.

[witchdoctor]

The 16channel top of the line one is $20K retail.

The others are cheaper. This is 4D sound.

 

OK, in line with dadasat, Storm audio and trinnov

[wisnon]

Illusonic Immersive Processing

 

Illusonic

[Ralph Glasgal]

STC is one of the few people in the world who have actually installed a fully functioning 3D Ambiophonic system. Such a system is not inherently more expensive than any other stereo or 5.1 surround (Dolby/Auro) and is named Ambiophonics to indicate that like stereophonics it can be used with all kinds of reproduction (and recording) media and applications, and for music, games, cars, video, etc. In its two speaker version it is flatter in frequency response than stereo by far, (see NYU thesis) and delivers a wide stage from most 2.0 media with depth, clarity, realism, and freedom from localization cue distortion. If you can use two more speakers you can add Envelophonics to the basic Ambio frontal system. This 2nd speaker pair reproduces the front channels but being Ambiophonic provides a set of very very reflections that not only swamp the later static room ones, but provide reflections that move in tandem with things on the front stage. This is how real halls work and Toole, Griesinger and others have termed this effect envelopment. Also, offside Ambio is a lot better sounding than offside stereo and in 5.1 you never need a center speaker. Also you can have a lot of listeners along a long center line without getting a hole in the middle or mono.

 

Now if you want a full circle of direct sound in the horizontal plane for 5.1 SACDs or movies, you just put another easily positioned Ambio speaker pair behind you. Finally, if you want a Domestic Concert Hall, you can add surround speakers driven by real hall impulse responses, including height, and make a concert hall better than can be built. Auro/Dolby/DTS not needed.

 

There are several such systems already operating including one just outside NYC. But no non vinyl reviewer from Stereophile or TAS has ever crossed the Hudson River to learn for themselves what Ambiophonics can do. There have been rave reviews in German publications. BACCH, Sonic Holography, Lexicon's Panorama, and Polk are other examples of such alternates to stereo so this basic defect of stereo has not gone unnoticed. If you go to the Ambiophonics archive at Home Page you can read tutorials, papers, play demo recordings, see links to the NYU listening panel study, Ambio components and apps, hall impulse responses, etc.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

What kind of music do you listen to?I very much doubt that the "immersion" factor would outweigh the losses in imaging focus and in tonal accuracy with classical music, which is what I listen about 90% of the time.On the other hand, I'm not fussy when it comes to pop/rock and could easily live with a more involving sound, less accurate reproduction (i.e. a pair of Bose 901s) because it's mostly played as background music...

 

I don't think so.

The topic is titled "Why Haven;t You Tried Immersive 3D Audio Yet?".

If you've been following @witchdoctor you'll know he means something different from your "regular" multi-channel.

 

This is what I am referring to.

If I understand correctly, it's not the same as multi-channel...

 

Yes, I get that @witchdoctor is hot for 3D audio, mainly via Auro 3D. What was not clear in your reference to "immersion" is that you seemed to be finding fictitious faults with anything that went beyond the 2-channel stereo paradigm, including current 2D Mch, but also 3D audio.

 

I think your conclusions are misleading. There need not be any losses in "imaging focus and in tonal accuracy" just because we went beyond 2-channel reproduction. In fact, I have heard many Mch systems where the result is exactly the opposite.

 

But, let me return to 3D. I believe that there is theoretical upside from adding additional spatial dimensions to audio reproduction. The more information we capture and reproduce from the live event, the closer we can approach perceived sonic realism. But, going mono to stereo was a bigger step than stereo to today's 2D Mch is. And, 3D offers even less of an improvement over 2D.

 

So, one reason not to go 3D is that it just does not add that much relative to the cost. That was my own takeaway from hearing Auro 3D with discretely recorded 3D material provided by Auro themselves. Possibly, much more listening could change my impression, who knows?

 

Some might feel the same way about Mch not being worthwhile vs. stereo. I strongly disagree myself and find 2D Mch to have been a revelation for the past 9 years. I am not alone in that assessment.

[semente]

Yes, I get that @witchdoctor is hot for 3D audio, mainly via Auro 3D. What was not clear in your reference to "immersion" is that you seemed to be finding fictitious faults with anything that went beyond the 2-channel stereo paradigm, including current 2D Mch, but also 3D audio.

 

I think your conclusions are misleading. There need not be any losses in "imaging focus and in tonal accuracy" just because we went beyond 2-channel reproduction. In fact, I have heard many Mch systems where the result is exactly the opposite.

 

But, let me return to 3D. I believe that there is theoretical upside from adding additional spatial dimensions to audio reproduction. The more information we capture and reproduce from the live event, the closer we can approach perceived sonic realism. But, going mono to stereo was a bigger step than stereo to today's 2D Mch is. And, 3D offers even less of an improvement over 2D.

 

So, one reason not to go 3D is that it just does not add that much relative to the cost. That was my own takeaway from hearing Auro 3D with discretely recorded 3D material provided by Auro themselves. Possibly, much more listening could change my impression, who knows?

 

Some might feel the same way about Mch not being worthwhile vs. stereo. I strongly disagree myself and find 2D Mch to have been a revelation for the past 9 years. I am not alone in that assessment.

 

I never said we there'd be losses by going beyond 2-channel; I said there'll be losses if you pick a certain number of channels and DSP them into any larger number of channels.

 

The best sound possible can be had by matching a channel to a single mic; I would like to be proven wrong but I am convinced that any mixing, mashing and DSP'ing will have a negative impact in "imaging and tonal accuracy".

 

Grab a 5 channel 5 mic "purist" recording and have a go.

[semente]

There are no other channels to retrieve. The surround effect that you get with multi channels is rather limited. In a concert hall, the ambiance sound is said to be around 75% compared to the direct sound. How many channels do you think that would require to recreate such ambiance in your room? I am currently using 10 speakers just for the ambiance using convolution filters and still think I would probably need another 6 for my small room.

 

The idea is to get immersed in 3D sound with the existing stereo recording. Binaural with two "channel" headphones can give you realistic 3D "being there" sensation. Unfortunately, binaural would not work with speakers unless you isolate the speakers.

 

I am not against the idea, in fact I think it's a good one as long as you use a mic for every channel.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I never said we there'd be losses by going beyond 2-channel; I said there'll be losses if you pick a certain number of channels and DSP them into any larger number of channels.

 

The best sound possible can be had by matching a channel to a single mic; I would like to be proven wrong but I am convinced that any mixing, mashing and DSP'ing will have a negative impact in "imaging and tonal accuracy".

 

Grab a 5 channel 5 mic "purist" recording and have a go.

 

I think we totally agree that any scheme to artificially expand from 2-channel stereo into Mch is going to be considerably inferior sonically to what can be achieved by discretely recorded Mch. I have heard nothing to disprove that. Kal agrees with that, as well. I doubt 3D audio offers any change to that.

 

Not sure about your only one mike/channel dictum, however. Yes, I have some excellent examples of that on Mch SACDs - Channel Classics, for example. BIS tends to be almost, if not quite, as minimalist, I understand.

 

But, I also have some multi-miked, Mch albums on other labels that are pretty good in their own right. I am a big fan of SACDs from the Concertgebouw on the RCO Live label that I do not believe adhere to that dictum, for example. There are others. Mch recordings by Boston's Sound/Mirror team on a number of labels are also examples. It all depends.

[witchdoctor]

STC is one of the few people in the world who have actually installed a fully functioning 3D Ambiophonic system. Such a system is not inherently more expensive than any other stereo or 5.1 surround (Dolby/Auro) and is named Ambiophonics to indicate that like stereophonics it can be used with all kinds of reproduction (and recording) media and applications, and for music, games, cars, video, etc. In its two speaker version it is flatter in frequency response than stereo by far, (see NYU thesis) and delivers a wide stage from most 2.0 media with depth, clarity, realism, and freedom from localization cue distortion. If you can use two more speakers you can add Envelophonics to the basic Ambio frontal system. This 2nd speaker pair reproduces the front channels but being Ambiophonic provides a set of very very reflections that not only swamp the later static room ones, but provide reflections that move in tandem with things on the front stage. This is how real halls work and Toole, Griesinger and others have termed this effect envelopment. Also, offside Ambio is a lot better sounding than offside stereo and in 5.1 you never need a center speaker. Also you can have a lot of listeners along a long center line without getting a hole in the middle or mono.

 

Now if you want a full circle of direct sound in the horizontal plane for 5.1 SACDs or movies, you just put another easily positioned Ambio speaker pair behind you. Finally, if you want a Domestic Concert Hall, you can add surround speakers driven by real hall impulse responses, including height, and make a concert hall better than can be built. Auro/Dolby/DTS not needed.

 

There are several such systems already operating including one just outside NYC. But no non vinyl reviewer from Stereophile or TAS has ever crossed the Hudson River to learn for themselves what Ambiophonics can do. There have been rave reviews in German publications. BACCH, Sonic Holography, Lexicon's Panorama, and Polk are other examples of such alternates to stereo so this basic defect of stereo has not gone unnoticed. If you go to the Ambiophonics archive at Home Page you can read tutorials, papers, play demo recordings, see links to the NYU listening panel study, Ambio components and apps, hall impulse responses, etc.

 

Wonderful resource, thank you

[witchdoctor]

This thread has been an eye opener (ear opener?) for me. I have pushed back on purchasing SACD's because my PC didn't play them and I thought at $20 or so a pop they were expensive. I decided to buy an SACD player after comments from members in another thread got me interested. Now the link provided me in this thread gave me a recommended list to start with. I will check it out.

There is still the issue of content availability (and expense).

Auro 3d can be adjusted for your room. I have settings for just how much I want to engage the height channles and the type of content I am playing. It helps dial it in.

[STC]

I do not think we share the same meaning for "realistic" or "improve" or, even, "awesome." Having lived through generations of such manipulations, I grant you that DSP has made them more malleable and effective. Still, it is not my perception of reality.

 

That is not to say that a truly immersive and discrete process would not be an improvement for both of us but that is unlikely to be commercially viable.

 

 

Preference is always subjective and therefore I agree with you that we may not be sharing the same meaning for the terminologies I used. Perhaps, you are implying I do not know what good sound is. Actually, you are saying that. My reference is very limited. The only reference I have is the 15 minutes drive to a concert hall designed by Kirkegaard Associates. I was there during the the technical briefing. The presenter demonstrated how her voice without the microphone could reach every corner of the hall clearly. Each seat was designed to have the same sabin of a human body so that the sound is always the same irrespective of the crowd. It is a good reference point to me; a perception of reality to me.

 

And I do not need DSP. The whole idea of Ambiophonics is to show that you can retrieve more information from stereo without DSP.

 

My perception of reality..

 

[Ralph Glasgal]

The stereo loudspeaker 60 degree triangle is now 86 years old. Even its inventor (Alan Dower Blumlein) indicated it was not psychoacoustically perfectable. The idea that nothing now available can improve on the stereo triangle is a myth and no longer supportable. Improvements may not be perfect in the sense of attaining concert hall realism but the standard should be: are things like Ambisonics, Wavefield Synthesis, Ambiophonics, BACCH, Auro, Dolby, DTS better than the stereo loudspeaker 60 degree triangle.

Ambiophonics the latest of these, certainly is and is quite affordable, as affordable as any stereo system or in its surround versions a lot les costly than most 5.1 systems. As to the quality of a variety of Ambio apps and components, you can read the testimonials and NYU listening panel results, or this review in German, below. All Ambiophonic components and apps are quite low priced or even free. The most expensive component is about $120 for the hi-rez miniambio. Perhaps this is why Ambio is so slow to replace stereo. It is also hard to break old habits and resist all the audiophile dogma out there. Also no advertising or patent revenue and it is for homes not movie theaters, http://www.lowbeats.de/test-software-app-xivero-amtra-und-amtra-play/

 

[witchdoctor]

Preference is always subjective and therefore I agree with you that we may not be sharing the same meaning for the terminologies I used. Perhaps, you are implying I do not know what good sound is. Actually, you are saying that. My reference is very limited. The only reference I have is the 15 minutes drive to a concert hall designed by Kirkegaard Associates. I was there during the the technical briefing. The presenter demonstrated how her voice without the microphone could reach every corner of the hall clearly. Each seat was designed to have the same sabin of a human body so that the sound is always the same irrespective of the crowd. It is a good reference point to me; a perception of reality to me.

 

And I do not need DSP. The whole idea of Ambiophonics is to show that you can retrieve more information from stereo without DSP.

 

My perception of reality..

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33043[/ATTACH]

 

I have not tried Yamaha processors which are the kings of DSP. They have sent crews out to famous halls and clubs and some how taken measurements to create algorithms. When engaged in your home they claim to recreate the ambience of these halls. I tried them in like 2000 or so and felt they watered down the sound. fast forward to today and I wonder how much they have advanced since then. Has anyone tried this latest version:

 

per yamaha-

This AV receiver is equipped with a variety of sound programs that utilize original DSP technologies from Yamaha. These sound programs allow you to easily create sound fields like actual movie theaters or concert halls in your room to enjoy natural stereoscopic sound fields. It is now possible to use the AV Controller App to adjust the DSP parameters in a basic or advanced mode to match the mood of your favorite movie or music album.

[Ralph Glasgal]

The Domestic Concert Hall, which can be Implemented using inexpensive Ambiophonic techniques, apps and hardware is meant primarily for large scale classical music and wide stage surround movies. Ambio is really wasted on audiophiles who only listen to a vocal soloist and a guitar. For this kind of music you should move your speakers very close together to eliminate pinna location distortion, and raise the frequency at which the peaks and dips due to crosstalk begin to occur. So in brief, Ambio does deliver tonal accuracy and imaging focus for classical music or pop for that matter far in excess of what is possible with the usual stereo speaker arrangement. Nothing to do with how the 2.0 recordings was made be it LP or CD.

[STC]

I have not tried Yamaha processors which are the kings of DSP. They have sent crews out to famous halls and clubs and some how taken measurements to create algorithms. When engaged in your home they claim to recreate the ambience of these halls. I tried them in like 2000 or so and felt they watered down the sound. fast forward to today and I wonder how much they have advanced since then. Has anyone tried this latest version:

 

per yamaha-

This AV receiver is equipped with a variety of sound programs that utilize original DSP technologies from Yamaha. These sound programs allow you to easily create sound fields like actual movie theaters or concert halls in your room to enjoy natural stereoscopic sound fields. It is now possible to use the AV Controller App to adjust the DSP parameters in a basic or advanced mode to match the mood of your favorite movie or music album.

 

Witchdoctor, there is a simpler non DSP option. Start with your two main speakers. And if you are married, get you wife's permission to use the mattress. Choose your favourite classical track. Disable the sound effects, if any. Move your speakers closer to less than 1/3 of your stereo setup. Put the mattress in between, right up to your face. You probably need two or three mattresses. Hear the 3D sound. Then you can use the DSP (available for free) or the MiniDSP and remove the mattresses. Get a good binaural microphone to record the sound with the mattress and with DSP. Do a blind test. If you think the DSP degrades the sound then drop the idea.

 

But sometimes when something is free or cheap it may not be palatable to people.

[Kal Rubinson]

Preference is always subjective and therefore I agree with you that we may not be sharing the same meaning for the terminologies I used. Perhaps, you are implying I do not know what good sound is. Actually, you are saying that. My reference is very limited. The only reference I have is the 15 minutes drive to a concert hall designed by Kirkegaard Associates. I was there during the the technical briefing. The presenter demonstrated how her voice without the microphone could reach every corner of the hall clearly. Each seat was designed to have the same sabin of a human body so that the sound is always the same irrespective of the crowd. It is a good reference point to me; a perception of reality to me.

Actually, my intention was to use the statement to extract myself from this thread. I have great respect for Ralph and no reason to disrespect you.

[Sam Lord]

witchdoctor,

 

Good job handling my quips with such grace, appreciated! FWIW, Bob didn't care for 5.1 ever, though it became a large part of Meridian's business. In the early rollouts, he thought that 3 channels were the best compromise for typical homes with means. 3 channels can provide every 3-D spatial cue, though height must be attained with a vertical triangle. Chesky's 4ch recordings were said to be some of their best, but I don't have any. ATC's mch demos at AES have been miserable failures: incredibly, they don't care much about time alignment and that is more critical for mch than even for stereo. Basically, their hearts aren't in it.

 

Beyond the resource problem I mentioned before, there are two big tradeoffs in practical playback spaces:

 

1) Spatial accuracy in an anechoic space improves with the increase in transducers (ideally specced, located, and blended) but the accurate zone becomes accordingly smaller.

 

2) Reflected sound with greater numbers of transducers becomes a huge problem in any reasonably live space. 11 channels of 2- or 3-way speakers, for example, becomes a mess that DSP can never repair.

 

I *do* believe in the primacy of direct radiation far more than most listeners, but only because few of them have correct time alignment in their systems.

 

In most rooms and with most good speakers, the equilateral triangle arrangement is not as good as narrower setups, IME.

 

Bob Stuart-

 

S&V: What to you think about the new object-based sound formats, Dolby Atmos, or Auro-3D?

Stuart: I think they’re better than we’ve had before because they have height. But there’s always been very good technology for that in the Ambisonic technology. Auro-3D gives the highest resolution in 3D sound.

 

I noticed you use ATC speakers, they are releasing new speakers for immersive setups-

 

An install-specific sibling, the SCM12i, will also be available as of Q1 2017. This model will feature threaded mounting points to mate with widely-available wall and ceiling brackets from K&M and Adaptive Technologies to simplify installation – useful in complex multichannel systems, such as those required by Auro 3D, Dolby Atmos, or DTS:X.

 

The stereo loudspeaker 60 degree triangle is now 86 years old. Even its inventor (Alan Dower Blumlein) indicated it was not psychoacoustically perfectable. The idea that nothing now available can improve on the stereo triangle is a myth and no longer supportable. Improvements may not be perfect in the sense of attaining concert hall realism but the standard should be: are things like Ambisonics, Wavefield Synthesis, Ambiophonics, BACCH, Auro, Dolby, DTS better than the stereo loudspeaker 60 degree triangle.

Ambiophonics the latest of these, certainly is and is quite affordable, as affordable as any stereo system or in its surround versions a lot les costly than most 5.1 systems. As to the quality of a variety of Ambio apps and components, you can read the testimonials and NYU listening panel results, or this review in German, below. All Ambiophonic components and apps are quite low priced or even free. The most expensive component is about $120 for the hi-rez miniambio. Perhaps this is why Ambio is so slow to replace stereo. It is also hard to break old habits and resist all the audiophile dogma out there. Also no advertising or patent revenue and it is for homes not movie theaters, http://www.lowbeats.de/test-software-app-xivero-amtra-und-amtra-play/

 

[STC]

.....

 

.....

2) Reflected sound with greater numbers of transducers becomes a huge problem in any reasonably live space. 11 channels of 2- or 3-way speakers, for example, becomes a mess that DSP can never repair.

....

 

 

I am using 12 speakers and 8 of them for convolution. The only time alignment really mattered was the first pair of the convolution. It is not an issue in my system. I don't think it was an issue with Ralph's system too. He is using 60 speakers. A mixture of Sound Labs, Acoustats and MBL Radial.