Ambiophonics
In article ,
STC wrote:
It is not exactly true that we need a separate component. I have tried with
IPod and PC using their ambiophonics software or players with good results.
Currently, the low cost component is about US120 and it is good enough for my
SACD player without any perceivable loss of resolution.
I have to agree that the best performance is sitting at the sweet spot but
then even stereo setup requires a sweet spot. As I was listening to
Sheffields Test CD -Walkaround, I noticed that the centre was way off to the
left. I never noticed this flaw in the stereo setup before.
If our purpose of High Fidelity is the ability to bring out the best from the
recording then why are we ignoring the obvious improvement. We forego the the
convenience of integrated amplifiers for separate power and preamplifiers for
the sake of higher fidelity. We are chasing higher bit rate in false hope of
being able to recreate the true essence of live music in our room. Yet, we
show resistance to Ambio.
Most of us listen to music alone. So the sweet spot is still the same and
doesnt matter. For those who listen in a group then maybe Ambio is not the
answer.
Looking at myself, I was very reluctant to try Ambio at the beginning for
the same reasons as stated by Gary. Furthermore, I thought it would make me
an outcast in the world of audiophiles for the different approach.
So what are we really after? Musical enjoyment or the unwritten rules as to
how we should achieve them?
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:28:07 PM UTC+8, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
snipped for brevity
The simplest explanation of why it hasn't caught on is that it requires
additional complexity beyond normal stereo listening. You have to purchase
the components (not heavily advertised) to convert the signals, and you
have
to sit in the sweet spot to make it work. Not real suitable for sharing the
playback experience.
Gary Eickmeier
I tried Ambiophonics a number of years ago. It reminded me too much of
the matrix-style "quadraphonic sound of the 1970's . Even with "Steering
Logic" And later with Dolby "Pro Logic", I was never fond of it.
It's not a question of " do we want High-Fidelity" but rather a question
of does a surround process further that goal. In my opinion it does not.
Sitting in a "sweet spot" is not realistic and sound emanating from 4
(or 5) channels is also not realistic, at least, not to me. SACD was
available with multiple channels and even that didn't do what *I*
wanted it to do - which is to say reproduce the ambience and sound of a
good hall and do it realistically.
It's hard enough to get two-channel stereo right (again IMHO) without
going of f on a tangent to try to reproduce the ambience of a hall. I
used to have a device from Philips that had built-in "hall algorithms"
it purported to take the two-channel stereo signal in and output
4-channels with the sound of a certain hall overlaid on it. Some of the
"halls" it supposedly mimicked were Carnegie Hall in NYC, The
Concergetbouw in Amsterdam, Royal Albert Hall in London, Symphony Hall
in Boston etc. I Thought it did a much better job than any Quadraphonic
or Ambiphonic or other multi-channel recording I ever heard. And still,
it had a problem. The recordings, unless they were recorded on an
acoustically dead soundstage - the way movie soundtracks are generally
recorded ('Ben-Hur's' soundtrack sounded great when "played" in Carnegie
Hall!) merely added the algorithm ambience to that of the hall where the
recording was made. Sometimes that was pleasant, and sometimes it
wasn't. If the Philips box hadn't died, I'd likely still be using it!
Don't misunderstand me here, I think Dolby or DTS sound for films is
excellent, it's just music that I don't think is well served by most of
the surround recording formats that I've heard.
|