On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:13:03 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


In article ,
Roy roy wrote:
I would have thought any history of surround sound for recording would
contain more than a passing mention of Ambisonics. It seems to me like
the Betamax of surround sound - technically superior but poorly
marketed.

It was never marketed. Superb though it is, the costs were horrendous.
Four full bandwidth speakers and amps - one for each corner - and a
further four good quality speakers and amps (but not necessarily with as
good a bottom end) for the sides.

4 channels == horrendous? Never set up a dolby prologic system by adding
another amp and speakers? Not everybody does surround sound with a crappy
5 channel integrated receiver.

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
It was never marketed. Superb though it is, the costs were horrendous.
Four full bandwidth speakers and amps - one for each corner - and a
further four good quality speakers and amps (but not necessarily with as
good a bottom end) for the sides.

4 channels == horrendous?

Eight, actually. And of course the cost of the decoder, which was
expensive too.

Never set up a dolby prologic system by adding another amp and speakers?

You can't 'set up' a Dolby Pro Logic system by simply adding another amp
and speakers. That gives you Hafler. For ProLogic you need a decoder and
amps. But you don't need the same quality speakers for what is basically a
bandwidth limited FX channel carrying different information.

Not everybody does surround sound with a crappy 5 channel integrated
receiver.

Not everyone would pay out perhaps 4 times the cost of a good stereo
system for one with limited uses. Which is why it failed.

--
*Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:32:05 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
It was never marketed. Superb though it is, the costs were horrendous.
Four full bandwidth speakers and amps - one for each corner - and a
further four good quality speakers and amps (but not necessarily with as
good a bottom end) for the sides.

4 channels == horrendous?

Eight, actually. And of course the cost of the decoder, which was
expensive too.

Never set up a dolby prologic system by adding another amp and speakers?

You can't 'set up' a Dolby Pro Logic system by simply adding another amp
and speakers. That gives you Hafler. For ProLogic you need a decoder and
amps. But you don't need the same quality speakers for what is basically a
bandwidth limited FX channel carrying different information.

Not everybody does surround sound with a crappy 5 channel integrated
receiver.

Not everyone would pay out perhaps 4 times the cost of a good stereo
system for one with limited uses. Which is why it failed.

It failed bacause there was almost no four channel media. The difference
between then and now is prolog encoding of movies during the 90's and
dolby digital DVD and SACD now.