ALL TESTS ON THE SURROUND MASTER

[Oldvalvemic]

This is a fascinating thread and most informative about the SM3 as well. I recently bought a MiniDSP Flex which I highly recommend. this device takes in analogue stereo,Spdif,optical and Bluetooth puts it through its own very useful Eq DSP and can then spit out 4 channels in any combo you need (using a matrix) via a master preamp with a remote control. Many people use this to create their own crossover points for Subs so you can have a stereo output and 2 mono sub outputs derived from your input stereo and Eq those for your perfect crossover point. I find this device useful mainly for its Eq which can be manipulated via info from REW(Room Eq Wizard) or via a DIRAC license if wanted…but i run it also as a splitter so I have one Eqed stereo pair running to the analogue input of the Surround master and thence to my 5.1 monitor controller and the other pair running direct to stereo out so i can switch easily between the 2 scenarios on my SPL 5.1 monitor controller. The DAC on this thing is phenomenal and has passed some serious testing. The introduction of the DSP for my room correction has made a massive difference and I can send the exact signal for the room to the Surround master.

 

[Oldvalvemic]

If Involve could create a monster preamp hybrid of this technology id have one less box and one less set of cables to muck about with. The DSP Eq is a seriously useful addition and the way speaker/amp tech is going is the future of audio manipulation. The multi input and remote volume capability is also really useful. I can run a variety of analogue and digital inputs to the SM3 now all easily switchable.

 

[chucky3042]

Hey gang, just letting you know that I am still kicking after 4 heart zaps in 4 weeks. And just to cheer me up here is another review of the SM on Youtube where he really gave us a bollocking and scored us with an F and says we are total crap in effect.



Enjoy!

 

[rustyandi]

Hey gang, just letting you know that I am still kicking after 4 heart zaps in 4 weeks. And just to cheer me up here is another review of the SM on Youtube where he really gave us a bollocking and scored us with an F and says we are total crap in effect.



Enjoy!

I don't think he has plugged it in right he said discrete knob
and it does not kneed a phono preamp if it is plugged into a 4 channel tape plugs
2 front out into front inputs and 4 outputs front and rear into front and rear inputs of Surround Master

 

[fredblue]

maybe he tested it with the wrong Billy Joel SQ track and could have tried "Angry Young Man"..

 

[fredblue]

i have to say, while he comes across as a kinda grouchy character (he don't half moan a lot.. and all that blather about **** and *****? let's hear it for some *** as well ) in all seriousness, he may have a point about SQ on the SM

the SM imho does not do a tremendous job with SQ encoded material of wiping out Centre Front content from the Rears, including and especially Lead Vocals that when comparing the SM's decoded SQ results to the discrete 4-channel we know that content should not be emanating back there or at the very least should be somewhat diminished.

i whined on about it here over the years (for years ) but i stopped a while back because frankly it was getting a bit tiring and truly there's way more important stuff in life

the SM is a fab wee gizmo in most other respects so maybe just ignore the grumpy sod and focus on all the good stuff you've got going on at Involve or i dunno do something to improve the SQ decoding maybe?

 

[kfbkfb]

Maybe send him a compact cassette with SQ test tones recorded on it...


Kirk Bayne

 

[chucky3042]

Maybe send him a compact cassette with SQ test tones recorded on it...


Kirk Bayne

I might arrange a separate test for front center bleed to the rear. I am sure we did it.....sorry my brain is pooched

 

[chucky3042]

Bing

I knew we did it!!!

Top row input around -7db outputs were even front Left and right at -8 db and rears were around - 24 db. That looks OK to this little black duck

Quack

 

[kfbkfb]

. (was OT)

 

[barfle]

Glad you came out of the ordeal on the right side of the daisies, @chucky3042 .

 

[fredblue]

I might arrange a separate test for front center bleed to the rear. I am sure we did it.....sorry my brain is pooched

the most important thing is your ticker is ticking and you're alive and kicking!!

 

[omnipotent1]

i have to say, while he comes across as a kinda grouchy character (he don't half moan a lot.. and all that blather about **** and *****? let's hear it for some *** as well ) in all seriousness, he may have a point about SQ on the SM

the SM imho does not do a tremendous job with SQ encoded material of wiping out Centre Front content from the Rears, including and especially Lead Vocals that when comparing the SM's decoded SQ results to the discrete 4-channel we know that content should not be emanating back there or at the very least should be somewhat diminished.

i whined on about it here over the years (for years ) but i stopped a while back because frankly it was getting a bit tiring and truly there's way more important stuff in life

the SM is a fab wee gizmo in most other respects so maybe just ignore the grumpy sod and focus on all the good stuff you've got going on at Involve or i dunno do something to improve the SQ decoding maybe?

Didn't OD point out the SM flaws?
He is a cranky so and so but knows his stuff

 

[Sonik Wiz]

I might arrange a separate test for front center bleed to the rear. I am sure we did it.....sorry my brain is pooched

Quite some time ago I did some at home testing on the SMv2 checking out decoder separation:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2020-sm-v2-testing.29536/

In regards to center front leakage to the rear chs, in QS it was down~-50dB. In SQ it was down "only' ~-16dB. Obviously not as good. But to my ears it is masked by the dominate front chs & not interfering at all. Certainly the SQ tri-band decoding puts the SM in a class all its own.

Recently I have been on an SQ LP record kick. My TT plugs into an Adcom 555 preamp & that goes to the SM. In an effort to tweak what I can, I had the inspiration to play a true monophonic LP (hello Martin Denny) and listen to only the rear chs, front power amp off. Then I adjusted the L/R balance on the preamp for lowest but equal output. I was surprised when that occurred with a setting about 10:30. Checking between QS or SQ decode that setting stayed the same. But it made a big difference & SQ has come to life in a spectacular way! I have about a dozen LP's in heavy rotation now that I just can't wait to listen to again. I really must digitize them soon.

Another surprise in doing this adjustment was I noticed quite a bit more bass bleed thorough than mid or treble, in QS or SQ. It just didn't seem to be affected or minimized the way upper frequencies were. In male voices of lower register this might explain why there seems an excessive amount of bleed through.

 

[fredblue]

Didn't OD point out the SM flaws?
He is a cranky so and so but knows his stuff

yes he knows his stuff but in the interests of forum harmony, i'd rather make no comment on OD in the context of the SM it's a can of worms i'd rather keep the lid on

 

[4-earredwonder]

Hey gang, just letting you know that I am still kicking after 4 heart zaps in 4 weeks. And just to cheer me up here is another review of the SM on Youtube where he really gave us a bollocking and scored us with an F and says we are total crap in effect.



Enjoy!

Methinks his blue lava lamp is in desperate need of an oil change!

 

[jaybird100]

SM (QS) and the Sansui implementations of QS VarioMatrix:

Kind of off the subject, but since Sansui provided the QS (encoder & VarioMatrix decoder) for both the 1974 BBC & 1975 NQRC tests and unfortunately QS didn't do well in either evaluation, I was wondering what could have gone wrong, obviously, the SM (QS) decoder works very well, but it's puzzling that Sansui couldn't make their VarioMatrix decoder work about as well as the SM.

Have there been psychoacoustics discoveries since 1973 (when the QS VarioMatrix system first appeared) that help make the SM superior to the Sansui VarioMatrix system or did the all analog composition of the Sansui VarioMatrix decoder somehow limit its directional enhancement?

edit: (BBC & NQRC info):
https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1974-29.pdfhttps://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1978-05.pdf#page=28

Kirk Bayne

Methinks his blue lava lamp is in desperate need of an oil change!

I saw that on You Tube (that guy's on FB, and I think a group member. I replied to him, mentioning that some Columbia SQ LP's used a different mix than their Q8 counterparts, so to compare them is futile. I had also suggested he try some QS records,too. He responded that he did that, but he also said the quad synthesis on the SM beat the Sansui. But something else I noticed was he was playing an SQ record with the receiver's decoder set to QS, instead of "Phase Matrix", a term Sansui used back then for SQ. OOPS!

 

[chucky3042]

Didn't OD point out the SM flaws?
He is a cranky so and so but knows his stuff

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing!!

 

[chucky3042]

Quite some time ago I did some at home testing on the SMv2 checking out decoder separation:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2020-sm-v2-testing.29536/

In regards to center front leakage to the rear chs, in QS it was down~-50dB. In SQ it was down "only' ~-16dB. Obviously not as good. But to my ears it is masked by the dominate front chs & not interfering at all. Certainly the SQ tri-band decoding puts the SM in a class all its own.

Recently I have been on an SQ LP record kick. My TT plugs into an Adcom 555 preamp & that goes to the SM. In an effort to tweak what I can, I had the inspiration to play a true monophonic LP (hello Martin Denny) and listen to only the rear chs, front power amp off. Then I adjusted the L/R balance on the preamp for lowest but equal output. I was surprised when that occurred with a setting about 10:30. Checking between QS or SQ decode that setting stayed the same. But it made a big difference & SQ has come to life in a spectacular way! I have about a dozen LP's in heavy rotation now that I just can't wait to listen to again. I really must digitize them soon.

Another surprise in doing this adjustment was I noticed quite a bit more bass bleed thorough than mid or treble, in QS or SQ. It just didn't seem to be affected or minimized the way upper frequencies were. In male voices of lower register this might explain why there seems an excessive amount of bleed through.

He Sonik

Yet again you have hit the nail on the head.

Re Bass, I fessed up some time ago that we had to make one compromise on the SM for under 300 Hz we are just using the passive matrix decode for front/ read as we ran out of processing capacity on the DSP and we had to throw something out!

Your measured separation bleed from front center agrees with our published test table above of around 16 db........you will hear this bleed if you turn the front speakers off and just listen to the rears or maybe sit very close to the rears. But if you sit and adjust things correctly in terms of level and all speakers operation you will not hear it. I did extensive tests on test apes years ago and the maximum separation that people could detect on music was 12 db.....I know this is controversial but 12 db is a "magic" number in psycho-acoustics.

Also SQ is really hyper critical of levels and it is easy to get great separation numbers but having the thing sound "mechanical". We do not chase numbers, we focus of reduction of pumping, smearing and elimination of this mechanical sound.

 

[4-earredwonder]

So when is Chucky going to come out with his SM STEALTH v.4 Surround Master with HDMI connectors?????????

And it would be a nice touch to include a 2024 Lava Lamp with LED lighting in one's choice of colors!