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

[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.

 

 

[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

[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? 

 

[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.

[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. 

[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.