Soundstage! Review of Ambiophonics system.

[STC]

Reviewer’s comment:- I have also heard numerous high-end, multichannel systems, all of which couldn’t hold a candle to what we heard.

 

Full Review Here. 

 

https://www.soundstageglobal.com/index.php/blogging-on-audio/201-howard-kneller/858-a-day-with-ralph-glasgal-founder-of-the-ambiophonics-institute

[shtf]

14 hours ago, STC said:

Reviewer’s comment:- I have also heard numerous high-end, multichannel systems, all of which couldn’t hold a candle to what we heard.

 

Full Review Here. 

 

https://www.soundstageglobal.com/index.php/blogging-on-audio/201-howard-kneller/858-a-day-with-ralph-glasgal-founder-of-the-ambiophonics-institute

 

"Ralph returned to his great passion, audio. According to Ralph, stereo and multichannel playback didn’t sound right to him. He identified the problem as interaural crosstalk, a then already-known artifact that is created during the operation of virtually all stereo playback systems." -Howard Kneller Senior Contributor SoundStage!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

IMO, Ralph is naive (or arrogant) to think interaural crosstalk is the only or even the most significant barrier toward a musical playback system "not sounding right".  I think Ralph's vast resources spent and the potential investments in software and hardware nightmare required to generate an impressive 3D phonomena of sound that some find impressive only substantiates my suspicions about Ralph, his technologies, and his pursuits.  Which doesn't say much for Howard Kneller either.

 

Not to say that Ralph's endeavors are a complete waste but it's pretty much assured that he has done zero to address the universal distortions that generate such a raised noise floor in virtually every last playback system such that that a good percentage of the music info embedded in a given recording, though read and processed, remains inaudible at the speaker.  Due to the much raised noise floor resulting from these universal distortions.

 

IOW, I suspect there is some sonic benefit to Ralph's technologies that takes a severely compromised music playback presentatiion by giving it an improved level of 3-D, at great expense mind you.  But make no mistake, the presentation itself still remains just as severely compromised because the fidelity of the input signal itself still remains significantly compromised.  In fact, an Ambiophonics playback presentation is guaranteed to sound even more compromised due to the additional hardware, connections, wiring, etc.  Kinda' like improved 3-D at all costs.  But I suppose playing with Ambiophonics is better than robbing banks.

[STC]

6 hours ago, shtf said:

 

"Ralph returned to his great passion, audio. According to Ralph, stereo and multichannel playback didn’t sound right to him. He identified the problem as interaural crosstalk, a then already-known artifact that is created during the operation of virtually all stereo playback systems." -Howard Kneller Senior Contributor SoundStage!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

IMO, Ralph is naive (or arrogant) to think interaural crosstalk is the only or even the most significant barrier toward a musical playback system "not sounding right".  I think Ralph's vast resources spent and the potential investments in software and hardware nightmare required to generate an impressive 3D phonomena of sound that some find impressive only substantiates my suspicions about Ralph, his technologies, and his pursuits.  Which doesn't say much for Howard Kneller either.

 

Not to say that Ralph's endeavors are a complete waste but it's pretty much assured that he has done zero to address the universal distortions that generate such a raised noise floor in virtually every last playback system such that that a good percentage of the music info embedded in a given recording, though read and processed, remains inaudible at the speaker.  Due to the much raised noise floor resulting from these universal distortions.

 

IOW, I suspect there is some sonic benefit to Ralph's technologies that takes a severely compromised music playback presentatiion by giving it an improved level of 3-D, at great expense mind you.  But make no mistake, the presentation itself still remains just as severely compromised because the fidelity of the input signal itself still remains significantly compromised.  In fact, an Ambiophonics playback presentation is guaranteed to sound even more compromised due to the additional hardware, connections, wiring, etc.  Kinda' like improved 3-D at all costs.  But I suppose playing with Ambiophonics is better than robbing banks.

 

 

You remind me of Muhammad Ali and Joe Bugner fight that took place in my country in 1975. Out of nowhere, a local man who washed buses for a living issued Ali a challenge to a fight claiming he could knock him out. Until very recently, you had no idea what a binaural recording was but now commenting on 3D audio and accuracy without hearing one. Your understanding of recording is so shallow that you thought a M/S microphones represent actual sound heard by you.

 

You are maligning someone who made his algorithm free for the public and it is being used by several products under different names without benefitting him a penny. Not only him who is or was naïve and arrogant but also those used him to make stereo RCA vinyl, his stereo dimension control or his design for radio station for stereo transmission. 

 

His only naivety was to use a laser vinyl player. Perhaps, he wrongly payed attention to vibration caused by a TT or he probably lost his TT which he took to Antarctica in 1957 to see how well TT could perform in such a cold environment. He even wrote about it in the Hifi mags in 1958.

 

At least, Howard had the courage to visit unlike other reviewers and editors who have avoided his open invitation like a plague ( two of them hang out in this forum and one was recently caught with his pants down with MQA endorsement) . Perhaps, they already knew vibration or whatever bs they have been spewing would become irrelevant.

 

 

[motberg]

I have tried most of the ambiophonics softwares, including the miniAmbio box (also have upgraded Carver C-16, and C-9's).

I have not had great success with the software, I tried a full barrier for a reference and I think very tough to beat with software.

I am now using partial barriers and a Black Ice - Foz SS-X, with carefully selected tube and just a touch of the dimension control active.

This results in a similar (but not as complete) effect to the full barrier, with a little 12AU7 warmth thrown into the mix.

I also have a clean path to the same amp with good passive preamp, silver litz, etc..... for most my music listening the Foz path is preferable, even if not as exactingly detailed. Probably if I could afford some nice floor-to-ceiling line-source electrostatics that would provide a nice big enveloping soundstage - I would not need the Foz.. but the grandkids, etc. take budget priority for now so it is nice to have such affordable stuff like the amibio softwares and Foz to add to my small-room music enjoyment. 

[STC]

52 minutes ago, motberg said:

I have tried most of the ambiophonics softwares, including the miniAmbio box (also have upgraded Carver C-16, and C-9's).

I have not had great success with the software, I tried a full barrier for a reference and I think very tough to beat with software.

I am now using partial barriers and a Black Ice - Foz SS-X, with carefully selected tube and just a touch of the dimension control active.

This results in a similar (but not as complete) effect to the full barrier, with a little 12AU7 warmth thrown into the mix.

I also have a clean path to the same amp with good passive preamp, silver litz, etc..... for most my music listening the Foz path is preferable, even if not as exactingly detailed. Probably if I could afford some nice floor-to-ceiling line-source electrostatics that would provide a nice big enveloping soundstage - I would not need the Foz.. but the grandkids, etc. take budget priority for now so it is nice to have such affordable stuff like the amibio softwares and Foz to add to my small-room music enjoyment. 

 

Carver, Polk and others earlier attempts were using analogue circuit which cannot effectively do the cancellation. Moreover, for proper cancellation to work like wearing a headphones, you need to eliminate the pinna function to make the speakers invisible. This is only achievable when the speakers are closer and in front of you where the pinna is less excited. 

 

I do not how Fox works. AFAIK, it is not based on RACE so it may not function like a binaural playback or actually doing the crosstalk cancellation. 

 

You don’t need line source although it works better. I started with harbeth and I don’t really sense any different with the crosstalk cancellation effect. For the rear ambio, I use cheap JVC HT speakers and it works great to create the 3D image. 

 

The besst option is to try with Aria3D which is a web based free player or get the $10 Ambiodsp VST plugin. If you more into Audiophile recordings then Soundpimp is a better choice as partial cancellation is more suitable for studio and pop recordings. Barrier can work for nearfield but it is not practical. The food think about barrier is you can prove there is no DSP or any trick that changes the recordings. It only prevents the sound from the opposite speaker reaching the ear. 

 

Hope it helps. Email me if you need more info. The address is in my profile. 

 

Regards,

ST

[shtf]

On 8/17/2019 at 5:44 PM, STC said:

 

 

You remind me of Muhammad Ali and Joe Bugner fight that took place in my country in 1975. Out of nowhere, a local man who washed buses for a living issued Ali a challenge to a fight claiming he could knock him out. Until very recently, you had no idea what a binaural recording was but now commenting on 3D audio and accuracy without hearing one. Your understanding of recording is so shallow that you thought a M/S microphones represent actual sound heard by you.

 

You are maligning someone who made his algorithm free for the public and it is being used by several products under different names without benefitting him a penny. Not only him who is or was naïve and arrogant but also those used him to make stereo RCA vinyl, his stereo dimension control or his design for radio station for stereo transmission. 

 

His only naivety was to use a laser vinyl player. Perhaps, he wrongly payed attention to vibration caused by a TT or he probably lost his TT which he took to Antarctica in 1957 to see how well TT could perform in such a cold environment. He even wrote about it in the Hifi mags in 1958.

 

At least, Howard had the courage to visit unlike other reviewers and editors who have avoided his open invitation like a plague ( two of them hang out in this forum and one was recently caught with his pants down with MQA endorsement) . Perhaps, they already knew vibration or whatever bs they have been spewing would become irrelevant.

 

 

 

There you go acting silly.  Again.  Who has time to waste / spend on every inferior technology that comes along, just like MQA?  Better yet, who has time to spend / waste on a technology that deals entirely with the effects rather than the cause? 

 

As stated previously, Ambiophonics does nothing to address the distortions that greatly that's GREATLY compromise the fidelity of the input / output signal of our playback systems.  The diference I see between Ambiophonics and MQA is that MQA claims to address and resolve these rather serious distortions (though MQA does no such thing) while Ambiophonics simply ignores the significantly compromised signal and instead offers a Sonic Holography-like solution combined with 10, 20, or 50 surround speakers and amps and cables along with some algorithms. 

 

I knew and still know some associates, including industry insiders who take this hobby quite seriously and I've yet to encounter a single one make any mention of Ambiophonics, bianuaral recordings, or even sonic hologrophy, or even multi-channel.   Even though Ralph and Amibiphonics have been around for quite some time.  Frankly, I'm surprised some of them haven't.

 

And though Ambiophonics may provide some benefit, in and of itself it can do nothing to irmprove the musicality of a mid-fi system, except by adding mutiple more channels of sound carrying the same already compromised signal and with each new electronic component induce even further compromise to an already severely compromised signal but still generate a phenomena of surround sound that in and of itself is obviously pleasing to some.

 

As much as I despise everything about MQA, I'd have to venture that MQA has the potential to generate a more musically natural sound (not saying it does) to a given high-end playback system than Ambiophonics. 

 

But with MQA I see nothing but ill intent while with Ambiophonics I do not see ill-intent but rather I only see naivete.  However, with you moderating more and more of the threads you open on a given subject, which always eventually points the audience to Ambiophonics as the ultimate solution I'm really having second thoughts about the no ill-intent thing.

 

 

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, shtf said:

 

There you go acting silly.  Again.  Who has time to waste / spend on every inferior technology that comes along, just like MQA?  Better yet, who has time to spend / waste on a technology that deals entirely with the effects rather than the cause? 

 

Ambiophonics is not a technology on its own. It doesn't alter the original signal in any way. In fact, you can play your SOTA equipment as they are and implement ambio in another system next to it playing along with your SOTA system and it would work just fine.

 

 

Quote

 

As stated previously, Ambiophonics does nothing to address the distortions that greatly that's GREATLY compromise the fidelity of the input / output signal of our playback systems.  The diference I see between Ambiophonics and MQA is that MQA claims to address and resolve these rather serious distortions (though MQA does no such thing) while Ambiophonics simply ignores the significantly compromised signal and instead offers a Sonic Holography-like solution combined with 10, 20, or 50 surround speakers and amps and cables along with some algorithms. 

 

It just shows how shallow is your understanding. Ambiophonics is only related to two speakers. There is no such thing as 10 , 20 or 100 speakers. Get your facts correct first before posting.

 

 

Quote

 

I knew and still know some associates, including industry insiders who take this hobby quite seriously and I've yet to encounter a single one make any mention of Ambiophonics, bianuaral recordings, or even sonic hologrophy, or even multi-channel.   Even though Ralph and Amibiphonics have been around for quite some time.  Frankly, I'm surprised some of them haven't.

 

I'm surprised that you are surprised because despite claiming to be a person actively involved in audio reproduction system you too never heard of a binaural recording. Birds of a feather flock together so don't expect your friends to know better. BTW, there is no Ambiophonics in technical sense. Maybe, if you mention interaural crosstalk cancellation maybe they would probably recall some basic stuff of about stereo reproduction.

 

Quote

 

And though Ambiophonics may provide some benefit, in and of itself it can do nothing to improve the musicality of a mid-fi system, except by adding multiple more channels of sound carrying the same already compromised signal and with each new electronic component induce even further compromise to an already severely compromised signal but still generate a phenomena of surround sound that in and of itself is obviously pleasing to some.

 

Always read and understand something before commenting. Ralph got 5 systems with different speakers and a few others with mid and lo-fi. But you wont understand because that would require to understand what is crosstalk in the first place. I mean interaural crosstalk. And remember this because I have already told you many times that it does NOT need anything more than the two speakers which you already have. No multiple surround.

 

Quote

 

As much as I despise everything about MQA, I'd have to venture that MQA has the potential to generate a more musically natural sound (not saying it does) to a given high-end playback system than Ambiophonics. 

 

Perhaps, Toole and other prominent audio designers know less than you. 

 

Quote

 

But with MQA I see nothing but ill intent while with Ambiophonics I do not see ill-intent but rather I only see naivete.  However, with you moderating more and more of the threads you open on a given subject, which always eventually points the audience to Ambiophonics as the ultimate solution I'm really having second thoughts about the no ill-intent thing.

 

 

You have a great opportunity to prove your point. Write your opinion to Howard's review and tell him how naïve he was to believe what he heard at Ralph's place. Perhaps, suggest his hearing and taste ought to be checked.  Also, send your M/S video recordings to show how great you system is.

 

BTW, is your technology of vibration control is so limited that the moment you use Ambiophonics technique it stops working. Shouldn't your technology improve Ambiophonics too? 

 

[shtf]

5 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Ambiophonics is not a technology on its own. It doesn't alter the original signal in any way. In fact, you can play your SOTA equipment as they are and implement ambio in another system next to it playing along your SOTA system and it would work just fine.

 

It just shows how shallow is your understanding. Ambiophonics is only related to two speakers. There is no such thing as 10 , 20 or 100 speakers. Get your facts correct first before posting.

 

Forgive me for my lack of memory on facts about an inferior technology that introduces a phenomena of sound as an alternative to so many systems that are otherwise boring and unmusical.  But isn't multi-channel kinda' the naturual progression once one embraces Ambiophonics?  I see in Ralph's system he has many speakers.  Don't you have 16 or 20 speakers in your "reference" system also?

 

5 minutes ago, STC said:

I'm surprised that you are surprised because despite claiming to be a person actively involved in audio reproduction system you too never heard of a binaural recording. Birds of a feather flock together so don't expect your friends to know better. BTW, there is no Ambiophonics in technical sense. Maybe, if you mention interaural crosstalk cancellation maybe they would probably recall some basic stuff of about stereo reproduction.

 

I can't speak for others but in my case I've heard of biaural recordings but had never knowingly listened to one.  That is until you and I engaged in a prior discussion about 5 months ago.  So I went out and bought a couple to listen to.  Not bad but nothing overwhelming either.  And no I performed no system alterations.  As for interaural crosstalk cancellation, again, we're essentially talking flavors of sonic holography, right?  Well, then of course we add in Ralph's algorithms "to make it sound right".

 

5 minutes ago, STC said:

Always read and understand something before commenting. Ralph got 5 systems with different speakers and a few others with mid and lo-fi. But you wont understand because that would require to understand what is crosstalk in the first place. I mean interaural crosstalk. And get this into your head because, I have already told you many times that it does need anything more than the two speakers. No multiple surround.

 

Ok.  It's in my head.  BTW, what's not in your head is these are all mid to low fi systems at best.  I look at this picture below and all I see is a performance-limiting nightmare regardless product quality or price and regardless of how many new angles the seriously compromised sound is coming at you.  But you can't see that because you and Ralph haven't a clue how seriously compromised your playback systems' level of musicality really is.

 

Behold above is an excellent example of yet another mid to low fi system.  Ever wonder why we never see a Formula 1 race car towing a U-Haul trailer around the track?  IMO, aside from the phenomena of surround sound, from a pure performance and levels of musicality perspective, this is at least as big a joke as MQA or a bad acid trip.  But I can see from some naive perspectives systems such as this may appear as a wet dream.

 

5 minutes ago, STC said:

Perhaps, Toole and other prominent audio designers know less than you. 

 

I can say that, just like you and Ralph, all of their studies and R&D were conducted using severely compromised playback systems and without exeception.  If and it is so, I'd also venture that at least some of their findings, just like yours and Ralph's, are potentially just as serverely compromised.  I can also pretty much assure you that just like you and Ralph, they too haven't a clue what plagues every last playback system.  Any studies conducted with significantly compromised playback systems would also translate to potential compromises in any subsequent product design.  But let's be honest.  You and Ralph obviously think Toole and others know less than you, otherwise you wouldn't be evangelizing Ambiophonics with such fervor.

 

5 minutes ago, STC said:

You have a great opportunity to prove your point. Write your opinion to Howard's review and tell him how naïve was he to believe what he heard. Also, send your M/S video recordings to show how great you system is.

 

Why don't you fly him out to my house and I'd be happy to demonstrate how far short of the musical mark Ambiophonics is?

 

5 minutes ago, STC said:

 

BTW, is your technology of vibration control is so limited that the moment you use Ambiophonics technique it stops working. Shouldn't your technology improve Ambiophonics too? 

 

I dunno.  What is Ambiophonics exactly?   Software algorithms?  My technology is focused on sensitive electronic instruments.  If such hardware is associated with Ambiophinics as it always seems that Ambiophonics is surrounded by a grotesque overabundance of hardware, then that hardware would be potentially impacted just like any other hardware.  The software is really irrelevant as my technology has everything to do with sensitive electronic instruments where precision and accuracy is paramount.  Since you and Ralph completely ignore this sector, I see nothing about Ambiophonics that might lead me to believe that precision and accuracy are paramount but if Ambiophonics involves the use of sensitive electronic instrument, then the answer is yes.

 

I can say with confidence that with the technologies I employ and will the vast amounts of music info embedded in every last recording previosuly inaudible due to a much raised universal noise floor and now becoming audible with a much lowered noise floor, Ambiophonics should be completely unnecessary.  But it's entirely possible crosstalk cancellation might indeed be a longstanding shortcoming that needs to be addressed to some degree, whether it be Ralph's flavor or another's.  I leave the door open here for the simple reason that I'm dealing with the cause rather than the effects like Ambiophonics and MQA do.  And when the cause is sufficiently addressed the effects change little to much.   Surely you agree with me here, right?

 

So answer me this.  Why do you insist on moderating your threads on Ambiophonics?  And why is it that with what seems to be nearly every thread you start or post you make is just a lead in for Ambiophonics?  Why so controlling and so clandestine?  Why not allow others to speak freely and let the chips fall where they may?  And why not come right out and say, "I'm bought and sold on Ambiophonics and I'm either a paid or unpaid agent for Ambiophonics and as an Ambiophonics user I'm convinced Ambiophonics is the ultimate solution for all who seek the ultimate in playback performance?  Is that so hard?

 

Cuz IMO, right now you're making Ambiophonics smell a lot like MQA.

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, shtf said:

 

Forgive me for my lack of memory on facts about an inferior technology that introduces a phenomena of sound as an alternative to so many systems that are otherwise boring and unmusical. 

 

Glad that out of 100K members in AS, you are the only one so keen about this inferior technology.

 

1 hour ago, shtf said:

 

But isn't multi-channel kinda' the naturual progression once one embraces Ambiophonics?  I see in Ralph's system he has many speakers.  Don't you have 16 or 20 speakers in your "reference" system also?

 

As another member said here -  you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

 

 

1 hour ago, shtf said:

 

So answer me this.  Why do you insist on moderating your threads on Ambiophonics?  

 

 

 

Thanks for the suggestion. @The Computer Audiophile , kindly give me the moderating option for this thread.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Glad that out of 100K members in AS, you are the only one so keen about this inferior technology.

 

 

As another member said here -  you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

 

 

 

Thanks for the suggestion. @The Computer Audiophile , kindly give me the moderating option for this thread.

Done

[Hugo9000]

I've never heard of this system.  If using headphones, will regular stereo recordings processed with Ambiophonics yield a similar effect to binaural recordings?

 

Or does it allow binaural recordings to play back over stereo loudspeakers with a similar effect to binaural recordings over headphones?

 

 

[STC]

14 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

I've never heard of this system.  If using headphones, will regular stereo recordings processed with Ambiophonics yield a similar effect to binaural recordings?

 

Or does it allow binaural recordings to play back over stereo loudspeakers with a similar effect to binaural recordings over headphones?

 

 

 

Unlike the earlier attempts by Carver, Yamaha, Polk and others Ambiophonics doesn’t touch your original signal. Your original signal in whatever format is reproduced exactly like in stereo. 

 

In theory, ( I have also done that with cheap speakers ), you can use your existing system without any form of alteration by adding a second set of speakers next to your current speakers and send the RACE processsing via your second set. 

 

It is free, if you use a DAW, you can use the ping pong effect plugin which comes free with every DAW and route the signals for XTC. I did my first crosstalk cancellation with a mattress in between the speakers playing SACD’s with the player. The only addition was the mattress and moving the speaker closer to form a 20 degrees angle. It worked. You can try with your table speakers and PC by placing a mattress in between. Just make sure they are capable of isolating the opposite signals from entering your other ear. 

 

This is is not about binaural recording. It is about reproducing any stereo recordings as like listening with headphones less the internalization effect. It changes how you hear the standard stereo to binaural like sound because all the cues are now more consistent with the natural sound cues. 

 

You can find more info at Ralph’s non profit institute’s webpage. 

 

Thanks for your interest. 

[andrewinukm]

I can understand why STC is so taken with Ambiophonics. Been using Ambiophonics for 5 years now, mostly in near field setting. Also went around promoting it to fellow audiophiles, but gave up as most are unable to accommodate DSP in their system. 

 

Currently my setup is a nearfield desktop PC setup:

27in monitor in the centre, small speakers (Audience One) 80cm apart (centre-to-centre). Small subwoofer on the floor.

 

For casual listening & gaming, it makes a nice 60° equilateral triangle when I'm sitting at the desk.

 

For serious listening, I sit about 1.8m away from the speakers. So the angle narrows to about 25°. Then I turn on Ambiophonics VST (in my Foobar or Jriver). As a budget purist, I don't use external DSP, bit-is-bits/bit-perfection and all that.

 

The sound frees itself from the speakers. Centre imaging becomes solid. Soundstage expands: widening and deepens. Very involving.

 

Caveat, vocals may possibly sound a wee bit drier, but the clarity is just amazin'. Hypothesis: I attribute the warmth of vocals in traditional stereo to the multiple signals arriving at the ears at different times. 

 

For small space, highly recommended to try.

 

Recently Polk incorporated cross-talk cancelling concept into their flagship Legend L800, calling it "SDA Pro" technology. I consider it as half of Ambiophonics, and I'm interested to listen to it if the opportunity arises.

[STC]

On 5/5/2020 at 5:07 PM, andrewinukm said:

Caveat, vocals may possibly sound a wee bit drier, but the clarity is just amazin'. Hypothesis: I attribute the warmth of vocals in traditional stereo to the multiple signals arriving at the ears at different times. 

It is because of the setting. Otherwise, I don’t see much difference and listening tests using others seemed to prefer one with crosstalk. 
 

See if you perceive dryness in this recording. But this is a binaural recording so some tonal difference is possible due our pinna difference.