Is a good soundstage possible with 2 speakers only

I've just read this article: and it left me wondering if what the article says is true then why ambiophonics is not more popular among audiophiles? I never even heard it mentioned here on Audiogon.

Skimming over it briefly, I felt it was little more than a sales ad for another audio gizmo that’s supposed to make our listening events more enjoyable…. According to THEM and their noted ‘Brain’

Although it comes off like some fascinating new remarkable innovative technology, or some nifty brand new idea I think it’s simply put a come on.

Wasn’t TACT a maker of electronic equalization?

Some of the notes there like “the typical stereo system.” Seem to indicate this is for the folks that aren’t willing to do room treatments and take the pains of component, speaker and room management seriously, and an offer for another remedy is being provided.

Nearly every aspect of audio has some ‘brain’ behind it. The orig designer, the design tweaker or innovator, or some previous other authority involved in acoustics and/or electronics.

From what I’ve seen here only…. There’s tons of folks that are eeking by and quite happily with just two speakers. In fact, I’d say it’s an overwhelming majority that are getting by with merely two speakers…. now & then, a sub or two.

When only advice is given as to setup parameters with existing equipment, I’ll pay more heed to the paper (s) and their author. If however some additional devices or gizmos need to be purchased in order to possess such gains as are being described, then it becomes an advertisement. Nothing more.

Of course… everyone is free to rush out and try any ideas from anyone posting them to the web. So do feel free to give this a go.

I’ve enough on my plate with two speakers and a sub… that I don’t need to add a cople more speakers, amps, etc. to it all. So I’ll just remain in the less than optimum camp, according to Les Leventhal & Ralph Glasgal…. And who knows… they might be right! I’m apparently OK with ignorance. It’s free enough.
Read the Wiki article. It's much shorter.
That Wiki article was good, and it's obvious by the references and the end, that there have been MANY MORE than just, "the Brain at TacTquot;&(Boz) that have been studying Ambiophonics. Actually it's study, together with other Psychoacoustic phenomena, has been continuing for over a century. Only now, through the powers availed by DSP, can more be done about what is lacking in the reproduction of recorded events. I suppose ignorance(or blindness) can be bliss, but(personally)- I'm now using a TacT Room Correction System(RCS 2.2X- MUCH more than simply equalization), and have found it indispensable, given the miserable acoustic in which my system now resides. I've no doubt whatever processor Boz has developed to deliver more of the original venue that exists in a recording; MUCH research and thought has gone into the design and functionality. This from a former strict, anti-digital, Straight-Wire-With-Gain adherent.
In my system and with my ears, 2 channel is often better than multichannel. MC requires the same quality source amps and speakers. Most 2 channel is not ideally positioned if it also suits MC. It will also require pro level EQ. Good luck.
The acoustic and psychoacoustic principles behind Ambiophonics are perfectly valid. Back in college I did some experimenting along similar lines, and even invented a passive inter-aural crosstalk cancellation system, but it was wildly impractical to say the least.

I don't doubt the claims made for very dramatic improvements in imaging, but if I understand correctly the downside is that your ears have to be in the right location for it to work - probably moreso than even the most sweet-spot-critical stereo setups. Thus I think an Ambiophonic setup would fit some people's listening style, but not others'.

dealer/manufacturer/inventor of the passive inter-aural crosstalk cancellator, circa 1984.
Why not try the free player?

I have some extra speakers to try it with (don't particularly feel like moving my main speakers). Would be even cooler if there was a Squeezebox plugin.

I'll keep my answer to the OPs question as a big Yes.

OK... I wanna change 'ignorance' to 'obstinacy’.

But are they, TACT, selling something or not, to achieve this better sound stage for the two ch listener?

Yes. They are.

I nearly fell asleep reading the whole of that article/pitch and settings instructions. In fact I had to stop before I did.

Apparently, our er, my brain has adjusted to using merely two speakers. As I said before, it seems that way for the vast majority as well…. But if some new method appeals to some other’s then super. Go for it.

I’d like to know if it matters what other pair of loudspeakers, amps, and cabling will matter as well, for this setup. Since more audio gear is going to be needed along with more setup and measurements.

Or can one just drift into Best Buy and get some El Cheapo monitors and zip wire and what about another amp? Won’t one be then needed for those extra speakers?

Damn little about all this ambiphonic integration and application seems either simple… or inexpensive.

I wonder why Lexicon or other manufacturers did not get on board with TACT and their uh, ‘tact’ on acquiring more accuracy in the sound stage.

It seems to me money was only a part of and not the only aspect of, which needed to be polished up. All that tweaking by the end user, voicing of additional transducers, amps, etc, on the surface make this implementation of TACT’s process a fairly heady experience for the run of the mill audio nut to acquire, setup and apply.

BTW… how does this TACT process differ from or be better than the auto room correction system now available from Audacy, or like that used by Krell in their ARS Evolution series?

Maybe it’s just all about everyone is trying to build a better mousetrap, or a new one. TACT’s is merely another. Their’s plenty of them. So there’s the argument for WHICH one, and then the argument for ‘IF’ electronic correction alters the sound adversely.