On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:08:09 AM UTC+8, Audio_Empire wrote:
Yes, I noticed that after I saw my response in print. But then, it was
too late to call the article back. 8^)
I too realized that I posted the wrong draft.
) . With respect, many just presumed that Ambiophonics is just another DSP scheme.
Unlike all the other schemes that you have mentioned, Ambiophonics is available for free of charge to the public. It is not adding or taking away anything from the recordings and it got nothing to do with the recording. The best demo I could think of is The Sheffield/ XLO test CD's "Walkaround". It reveals the position of Doug Sax and the ambiance better and accurate that a normal Stereo will never be able to match.
My curiosity is not about whether Ambiophonics is better or not but the reluctance of audiophile to try it out. As I have observed, those in non audiophile category embrace Ambiophonics as closer to realism but hardcore audiophiles do not adopt them despite clearly awed with it. They continue to tweak their system and rush back for another demo and then go back to more tweaking and adjustments until they gave up.
This prompted me to ask if we are after high fidelity or something else. (Pls see the first post). The more I look into this I notice that it is not music but some sort of obsession with their system and format.Like a vinylphile will never accept anything digital despite some digital are better recorded than vinyl.
But I realize that the same thing with room treatment. Many prefer to change cables or amplifiers to tame the bass rather than a simple room treatment or just replacing the speaker to a smaller bass shy one.
To those interested, please see here.
http://www.ambiophonics.org/Demos.html