I know this topic was discussed about a month ago, but I had some thoughts as a user of such a system and I decided that at the risk of being shouted down, I would offer some input. First off, let it be said that that all the science and in fact any questions about any aspect of the ambiophonic experience is answered in depth at the website, and the curious/ open minded should go there. As for myself, I've had all mannner of systems over the past 25 years, from solid state to tube, cheap to expensive, vintage to latest flavor of the month. I found the ambiophonic setup to be the largest step forward in enjoyment of my music listening of anything "different" I've ever tried, and frankly the improvements made cable changes, power conditioners, etc. seem superfluous in comparison. That being said, let me address a few of the posters on the previous thread's questions/comments. Yes, the system does have a low WAF, at least if done with the dividing wall. I've actually hinged my dividing wall so that it folds together for ...entertaining. Making it light weight so that it can simply be picked up and placed against the wall behind the speaks is another option.NO!!! the simple setup described by musiclover4 in his post does not sound like headphone listening at all, but rather like really good stereo because your 2 ears our not get the early arrival signals generated by the opposite channel immediately after receiving the correct one from their channel. In fact, I was setting up a turntable, and tweaking it with test records 2 days ago and I thought that it might be easier just to have the 2 main channels playing when trying to dial in anti-skate,etc. It just so happened that I played the soundstaging tests...drum beats far left then center, mid left then center near left then center...etc. Frankly the results floored me to such a degree that I had to play the tracks againand walk over to the widely spaced front ambience speakers to verify they weren't still playing...these wide left sounds were coming from 7 ft. to the side of the speaks. This led me to put on the venerable bang barroom and harp lp...not my standard listening fare, but a great recording none the less. It was unbelievable with things going on all along the front wall, completely unplaceable relative to the speaks actual position, and all this from 2 speaks only 6 in. apart. If an audiophile was blind folded and walked into this room with a good stereo recording playing, 9 out of 10 could not come close to picking out the positioning of the speakers. In fact aaudiophiles because of all they "know" would probably think that their had to be some highly optimized rule of thirds/equilateral triangle /tweaked toe in thing going on to get such great stereo. I found this quite instructive to say the least. Not the feeling of perfrormers in a space that you get with the full setup, but for plain 2 channel listening it was quite impressive (IMHO). Yes the sweetspot is narrow for the absolute bbest effect, but so are most audiophile setups. Most of us if pushed would have to admit that when we can, we listen from some certain spot, and this is no different.
Several posters seem to be confusing ambiophonics with ambisonics. This is understandable but incorrect. Ambisonics is a specific encode/decode process with little software support, whereas ambiophonics is made to work well with any stereo source, and does not depend on the gimmicks of discrete multi-channel recordings such as dts, dolby digital etc. As in any stereo listening their are mike setups that work better than others, but I'd say as a loose generalization that the same ones that sound good on a regular stereo setup 50's-60's jazz, pink floyd,etc., sound good ambiophonically, and the ones that sound compressed and flat...the multi-miked to death pop dreck sounds worse,just like your used to with a standard 2 channel setup. The well regarded classical recordings are supposed to be fantastic...but alas that's not a genre that's ever done it for me.
In closing, it seems to me that we music/audio obseesed types often don't see the forest for the trees. I hope that we can admit to ourselves that we are an anomalay, oddballs when viewed by the main stream of society. 20 years ago it seemed that everyone I knew was heavy into "listening" to music. I think only those in deep denial could believe that those numbers have grown. Musiclover4 and myself have much more in common with you than does the average person you'll bump into today. That same average person would find it only slightly more bizarre that someone has a wall between their speakers than the fact that you paid 1000 dollars for speaker cable or $2500 for a "record needle" or whatever your audio sin might be. I myself was quite skeptical about the ambiophonic claims/setup and I approached it in a very cost conscious manner. But it has been the largest single step forward in my enjoyment of my music that I have ever experienced, and I'll only continue further down the road to refining the system and never turn back to regular 2 channel again.
Should this mean anything to you...maybe and maybe not. But, when someone with a passion for the same basic hobby that I have is espousing something that they consider this profound, I do try to approach it with an open mind. This is the same reason that I subscribed to Sound Practices and Valve. While I didn't ultimately choose the miocro power SET route, I've heard some pretty damn good sounding systems. The one time naysayers in the press were well behind the curve on the SET amps, but many were later charmed by their virtues...you guessed it...after listening. As Oscar Wilde said some 100 years past..."The well-bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves."
Happy Listening,
todd
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - ambiophonics revisited...long - a9ballkid 05:31:03 09/26/01 (1)
- good post ! thanks ! nt. - snkby 18:25:21 09/26/01 (0)