Beyond stereo?

[semente]

10 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Correct, but >2 does so much better than 2.

It's really only audiophiles stuck on 2 with their rock music. Nice explanation here: https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html

 

You like to assume what people listen to, how they stand in regards to foo, that they've never heard of Toole...

Well often you are wrong.

@gmgraves only listens to "classical", which also makes for over 90% of what I listen to.

I also attend live recitals on a weekly basis.

 

10 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

How do you know he didn't wet his pants??

 

You got me there, he probably did. 

 

I didn't express myself clearly, I meant to say that JA's and the other guy's earth-shattering experiences don't make it a fact that you can accurately record and reproduce a live soundfield with JJ's multichannel processing technique, even if I can perfectly imagine how spatial rendition would be more involving and realistic.

[semente]

9 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

We're in diehard 2ch audiophile territory here 

Plus with typical speaker, the same drivers are creating the onset response and diffuse field simultaneously...

 

That's my point exactly.

No matter how many channels/ speakers you add, no matter how much processing sci-fi messing you do, the speakers will always be reproducing both instruments and room cues.

[semente]

42 minutes ago, STC said:

 

How can a speaker produce the room cues? Speakers suppose to output what's in the recording. 

 

I meant reproducing both recorded instruments and recorded room cues:

 

the speakers will always be reproducing both instruments and room cues

[semente]

22 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So you don't understand how it's possible to encode each separately and then render using different driver compliments separately with each signal. Nor apparently comprehend the research about 4ch minimum for envelopment and the separate encoding already linked.

Ok then.

 

Not OK.

You didn't read my waterdrop analogy.

 

It's OK to call it immersive or enveloping but it is not a reproduction of the original Soundfield.

 

[semente]

3 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Right

Yes

[semente]

5 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Here's another, older view of an Ambiophonics demo at an audio show.  Ralph Glasgal presiding.

 

Did you attend that demo?

If so, can you give provide some feedback?

 

Thanks

[semente]

How many audiophiles do you get in a family/household?

I'm sure a single sweet spot is enough for most homes...

[semente]

56 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

I am a bit behind but I will reply anyway since these principles are important.  .A solo violin can sound realistic in a home room or a concert hall.  But this is a rare exception.  Same for recordings of a solo violin.  So when AR put a recording of a string quartet on a concert hall a good soundfield was generated and fooled me and most others.  But at home it is much harder to fool one since two speakers are not good enough even for a string quartet even if tw0 speakers were adequate in a real hall. 

 

That's because at home direct sound is far more predominant than reflected sound.

[semente]

1 minute ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Binaural is just the term used to describe two eared listening, nothing to do with earphones or speakers.  If you deliver, in a recording and reproducing system, all the two eared localization cues that one normally experiences in everyday hearing, then it does not matter, what mics, what speakers, what media, or what earphones one uses.  This is now actually becoming possible and cost effective.  The nice thing about paying attention to the binaural psychoacoustic rules is that non binaural localization cue items like extreme frequency response, and extreme flat frequency response become minor factors.

 

Is this because people are focusing their attention on spatial reproduction instead of sound reproduction?

[semente]

25 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

There are lots of good speakers available nowadays: the top model  Radialsthallers (SP?), The Martin Logan Neoliths (and the CLXs - with subwoofers, of course) The Maggie MG-20.7i, the top model Magicos, and on and on and on. But the essential truth is that no one speaker does everything correctly, and I'm a dipole kind of guy. Any speaker that I lust over just has to be either an electrostatic or an isodynamic design. I would be as happy as a puppy with two peters if I had a pair of MG-20.7i's or a pair of Neoliths, but since I'm retired, I have to make do with my Martin Logan Vantages in system #1 and my Maggie MG-0.7s in system #2!

 

Your frustrations with gimmicky surround recordings are a large part of my general disdain for the formats. I rarely heard well recorded surround performances that used the rear channels only for ambience. Don't misunderstand, those type of recordings exist, I'm just not interested enough to seek them out. As I've said before, I spent most of the 1970's chasing "Quadraphonic" sound. At the end of that chase, I was completely disgusted. Later, when Dolby 5.1 and DTS came along, I gave it a brief re-trial. I thought that 5.1 (and 7.1 or 10.1 or whatever) was an even bigger gimmick than quad and while it's probably fine for home cinema (for which it was developed) I find it totally wrong for music on several levels. So, I stick to 2 channel stereo.  

 

That's the thing, most of my music library does not exist in multichannel.

Some recordings may be acquired in a 3 channel version but even those are a small percentage.

[semente]

3 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

I am not sure what you mean by predominant.  But in both the hall and the home the level of indirect sound normally exceeds the energy of the direct sound.  In the home all the reflections have the same localization cues no matter where the phantom frontal image seems to be.  This is sensed as a lack of envelopment or whatever you want to call it.  If you put two speakers behind you and crosstalk cancel them you can correct this error and now the static room reflections are not nearly as bothersome as before.  Mute the rears or make them stereo and the effect is sorely missed.

 

I meant that if you put a pair of speakers on the stage and listen from row 7 the amount of reflected sound is much more relevant/significant than at home sitting 2 or 3 metres away from the same speakers.

This is probably why the AR demos worked.

[semente]

7 hours ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

What are the 20.7is?  I think on technical grounds that line sources are the best to work if you keep changing things.  But with Ambiophonic systems the differences in speakers are a lot harder to hear.

 

I hope you don't mind the cheekiness but one could say the same of 3D TVs. 

[semente]

48 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I only agree partlially with this statement. Ambiophonics system will make your ordinary speakers to sound better ( immediate upgrade)  but at the same time,  the Ambiophonics system can reveal the speakers weakness easily. 

 

IOW, yes - quality of speakers become less of an importance but the limits also would be easily become evident. 

 

Sound better is a bit vague (and subjective).

Can you elaborate on that?

[semente]

19 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

Yes.  The widest stage is achieved when one is on the center line between the speakers.  This is like stereo except that one can move forward and back a lot more.

 

With stereo playback, moving back and forth in a room greatly affects frequency response below 300Hz.

 

Does the same happen with your software?

[semente]

10 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

No.  But in stereo there at a lot of reasons why moving might change the bass response.  The basic problem is that when both ears hear both speakers bass is doubled when there is bass in both speakers.  The exact amount of doubling depends on a lot of things so that a problem.  With XTC there is no doubling as long as you have good XTC.  So it matters a lot less where you are in the room.  But from 90 Hz down all bets are off.  Stereo and XTC are no different when it comes to very low bass.

 

RACE is a mathematical concept in a way like stereo,  It is vendors who use the equations or concepts to make components or software just as in the stereo or home theater worlds.

 

 

But this change happens when I measure the response at the listening spot of a single loudspeaker.

These measurements were made in from a former living room with speakers I no longer own:

 

listening spot: 2.50m from front wall

front of speakers: 0.60m to both walls

 

 

 

listening spot: 2.75m from front wall

front of speakers: 0.60m to both walls

 

 

listening spot: 2.75m from front wall

front of speakers: 0.60m to side wall, 0.75m to front wall

 

 

listening spot: 3.00m from front wall

front of speakers: 0.60m to side wall, 0.75m to front wall

 

 

[semente]

Found a few more:

 

listening spot: 3.00m from front wall

front of speakers: 0.60m to side wall, 0.75m to front wall

listening height: 1.00m

 

 

listening spot: 3.00m from front wall

front of speakers: 0.60m to side wall, 0.75m to front wall

listening height: 1.05m

 

 

 

 

RTA with pink noise at final position, no room correction (1/3 octave smoothing)

 

left

 

right

 

[semente]

7 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

See measurements here https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/32987-bacch-ambiophonics-etc/?page=2#comment-691440

Ralphs analysis would be nice, but it appears measurements will be mandatory for anyone attempting this with the MiniAmbio. Perhaps STalker could explain.

 

Some Klang Valley demo Ambiosonics videos 

 

I will, thanks.