electro-music.com   Dedicated to experimental electro-acoustic
and electronic music
    Front Page  |  Articles  |  Radio
 |  Media  |  Forum  |  Wiki  |  Links  |  Store
Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
 FAQFAQ   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   LinksLinks
 RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in  Chat RoomChat Room 
go to the radio page Live at electro-music.com radio 1 Please visit the chat
 Forum index » How-tos » Ambiophonic Sound Reproduction
Ambiophonic shortcoming, or poor implementation?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1 [3 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message

Joined: Jan 22, 2020
Posts: 2
Location: France

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:56 am    Post subject: Ambiophonic shortcoming, or poor implementation? Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread


I've been toying with ambiophonic for the last couple of days. I'm only on macOS so sadly I can't use AmbiophonicDSP, and I've only been able to explore it through the Aria3D extension (which doesn't offer detailed setting, but a few presets).

One thing I noticed, when closest to perfect cancellation I was able to get, is that the high frequencies information (up from 4-5Khz i'd say) don't seem to follow the rest of the spectrum in the imaging hologram.

The resulting sound is wide and quite exciting indeed, but the far left or right instruments seemed to be robbed from the top of their respective frequency range (as well as the very bottom, which is less problematic i.m.o.), which was only featured between the two speakers, and they ended up sounding a bit "veiled" or boxy.
This mid/high separation increased the contrast between the middle and side signal in a way that was a bit distracting, instead of having a full, united and coherent wall of sound.

Are those shortcomings intrinsic to the R.A.C.E technology (itself limited by laws of physics), or do they disappear with a closer-to-perfect cancellation?

I've read that upward from a certain point in the spectrum, the frequency waves-lengths get too short and random from proper cancellation, so this would point toward an inherent problem of 2-speakers ambiophonic system.

If this can't be overcome with the two-speaker ambiophony, does having a set of ambiphonic speakers behind, or a set of stereo speakers at 180 degrees on each side fixes that problem completely?

It would be a deciding factor for me, for if I'm to hear the violins at my 9 or 10 o clock, I do need the sheen of their bows to be coming from the same spot.

So if there are any expert present, I'd love your insight.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: Jan 22, 2020
Posts: 2
Location: France

PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

So it seems true indeed, after some reading and testing, that what I'm describing is due to the immovable fact that frequencies, as they get higher, can't effectively be canceled.

So I'm not sure Ambiphonic sound reproduction is everything it claims to be:

It claims dramatically wider sound stage when it should claim the (impressive indeed) widening of the middle band only; since under 250Htz and above 5K it doesn't do much. The vast majority of instruments frequency range extends beyond 5K, and the timbre of side instruments is then denatured because divorced from an important part of their frequency range. Moreover, this widening is at the detriment of the perceived width of the high frequencies, which, being bound to stay within the limits of the physical speakers, collapse from 60 degrees in conventional equilateral stereo to 15-25 degrees.

This is made worse by the fact that a lot of mixing engineers are in the habit of hard panning (or close to hard panning) mostly the high-frequency sounds, for it doesn't affect the stable balance of the mix. So most often, hi-hats, shakers, tambourines, high synths, etc. are the widest elements of a mix, and designed to "frame" the rest of the stage by doing complimentary job from far left and far right, resulting in a pleasant wide (wide-ish, when you had a taste of ambiophony) symmetry.

In ambio, these elements are all but made mono and confined to 10-15 degrees from the center, while the mediums of pianos, guitars, synths, etc. are indeed dramatically wider —close to 180 degree—, resulting in a virtual stage that is quite far from the intended artistic purpose of the artists and engineers.

Here are a few examples in which this proves to be a distracting problem:

- The above-mentioned high-hats, shakers, etc. going from the intended extremes to the center of the stage.

- The broad-range instruments panned widely being divorced from a very important part of their timbre, the top end (which, if it is reproduced within the bound of the speakers, is too far apart from the perceived location of the instruments to be associated with it, —if it isn't drowned in the presence of the elements from the previous point). Ex: hard-panned guitar will be featured on the extrem, but missing their shiny strings sound, or pleasantly clicky plectrum strokes, which will be either heard towards the center or drowned in the activity there.

- In the context of orchestral music, which seems to be an important aim of the ambiophonic project, the medium band of the string section will increase in width thanks to the cancellation, while the top-end of their timbre will be collapsed and clumped together in the 20 degrees in front of you. This has negative implications in three different dimensions:

1) Timbre integrity: (see point above): everything that is outside of the 20 degrees covered by the speakers will lack to some degree part of its top-end.
1) Clarity: these high frequency are important in dissociating the lines during intricate counterpoint or more complex writing in general, and the top end of the cellos being smashed down in the center along with the top-end of the first violin (and everything in between), and competing now with the top end of the woodwinds, affects clarity a lot.
2) Proximity: The top-end of the spectrum is perhaps the most important cue concerning the proximity of the source. As sound travels in the air, higher frequencies will be increasingly absorbed first, and a lack of top-end is easily interpreted as increased distance from the listener, especially in an organic/acoustic context such as orchestral music. So the first violins (supposed to be closest to you) will appear through good cancellation to your 9 or 10 o'clock, let's say, but their top end is stuck in the middle, and too far from the perceived source (far left) to be associated and combined with it. The effective sound of the violin you hear to your left ends up sounding as if a mixing engineer dialed a low-pass at 5k, which makes it sound duller, further away and less intimate and immersive as a result. This also tends to squash a little the perception of depth of the room, for the "low passed" side strings will be imitating the natural low-pass created by the air absorption for the woodwinds, brass, and percussions, resulting in a shallower space.

- Lastly, in the context of a movie: I've tested a few minutes with a few scenes of Rogue One. The effect can be helpful and interesting in some regards, but at other times, it's far from ideal: there is a scene under the rain, in which the folleys artist hard-panned left and right the sound of the rain on stone (close to white noise). In stereo (especially with a headset, but even with speakers), it allows the immersive impression of the whole scene being "rained on", while still letting an invisible space for high frequencies in the middle for dialogues and other effects. In ambio, during the same scene, the rain is squashed in the 20 degrees between the speakers, being way less pleasant and immersive, and competing a little more with dialogues, and the drony ambiance that is extended out in the broadened stereo field is then divorced from the scene in a way that sounds more artificial.

I didn't have much time to test it, but I'm sure if I stumbled into that scenario in a few minutes, there are a lot of examples of that kind during movies and video games.

So, dear people of ambiophonic leniency, am I missing something there? I have to be, because when I read ambiophonics.org, I get the impression of someone very demanding and uncompromising on quality, and yet the things I describe above, while not disturbing to the highest degree in every scenario, are surely compromises of a nature I'm not willing to make, just to have an awesomely broader mid-band.

What do you think? [/list]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 18017
Location: Allentown, PA
Audio files: 166
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I just came across your post. Sorry for the delay in responding. I appreciate you taking the time to make comments that are quite thoughtful and well-reasoned.

We haven't used the plugin for movies but I have seen the Rogue One movie and I'm not surprised at what you observe when using it in that context. Modern movie audio production techniques are quite complex. I personally don't care for the state-of-the-art in movie sound.

At any rate, I suggest you try experimenting with the plugin's controls. The movie sound already has many phase effects to enhance the stereo and to work with the various audio decoders, such as Dolby. I'd try to turn the Recursion down to 0%. Set the Space down to 5 to taste and keep Zentrum below 1.1.

We developed this to listen to stereo recordings of classical music, good pop, and electronic music. One of the best test records was the Beatles Love album - a great example of stereo mixing.

FYI, I personally don't like the effect of the Recursion control on any music, but there are Emmy-nominated Hip Hop mastering engineers that love the plugin and they use high recursion settings (more than 30%) in many commercial releases. It's a matter of taste.

So, I don't fundamentally disagree with your observations. While I may not agree with everything you say, we all have different ear-brains, and I respect you and your opinions. In fact, I'll listen for what you say in the future. I suggest you just listen to movies with your receiver in 5.1 or 7.2 or whatever you have and let the receiver pick the decoder based on the input stream from the movie. That was the intent of the producers.

I have noticed that for recordings that use hard-panned sounds, the plugin unfortunately tends to "smear" these sounds a bit across the sound-stage. In many cases, that improves the sound to my ears, but...

Use the plugin just for the music you love and if it mucks it up, to your ears, just select the bypass preset.

If you wish to discuss this further, I'm "all ears".

my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1 [3 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » How-tos » Ambiophonic Sound Reproduction
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Copyright © 2003 through 2009 by electro-music.com - Conditions Of Use