ALL TESTS ON THE SURROUND MASTER

[chucky3042]

S 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!

The Lava light is a must. Re HDMI , when I can afford the $20K per year license fees and the 30% failure rate in the circuitry.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The Lava light is a must. Re HDMI , when I can afford the $20K per year license fees and the 30% failure rate in the circuitry.

Now that you mention it Chucky, my brand new SONY uber expensive Laser 3D projector was delivered a few years ago and was never opened until recently [blame it on the pandemic..] and the HDMI input was KAPUT and I had to send it to Sony for repair and they charged me. It was never used until recently but they said it was out of warranty. And to make matters worse, I asked them to fully calibrate it...famous last words ..it was only optimized for 1080p so for 3D and 4K I'm ON MY OWN!

$20K licensing fee PER YEAR: HIGHWAY ROBBERY!

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Hang in there Chucky! He's warming up to ya, but apparently now your instruction manual sucks!

You got a real winner on your hands there mate (I say his cart. and/or hookup is probably what sucked ***.)

 

[jaybird100]

Hang in there Chucky! He's warming up to ya, but apparently now your instruction manual sucks!

You got a real winner on your hands there mate (I say his cart. and/or hookup is probably what sucked ***.)

He was comparing the SQ mix of that Billy Joel album to the discrete Q8; that may have also been a discrete mix made by someone in the group. Columbia did make a different mix for SQ that would make the record more "stereo and mono compatible", which they wouldn't have to do with the Q8. Another example of this is the Burton Cummings album which features "Stand Tall". DV, for the SACD release, used the Columbia Q8 mix. If you have both the SACD (or Q8), and the SQ LP, the difference is quite obvious. It's a shame he chose such a bad example of an SQ record (which it appeared he was trying to decode in QS), to a discrete mix. I had that same receiver at one time, and the setting for SQ, labeled "Phase Matrix", is with the selector all the way to the right. There would be a noticeable difference.

 

[MidiMagic]

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 see some of the problems with his test:

If he expects the drums to be in the back, then his discrete mix is not the same as the SQ mix on the record.

You can put drums and bass in any place in SQ, but if you want to put them on a phonograph record, they must be in front center. Otherwise, the groove will overcut or the stylus will jump out of the groove. This is true with SQ, QS, or DS. With BMX or H, the drums and bass must be near the center of the room. And with CD-4, the drums and bass must not be panned left or right.

This is not a problem with Surround Master, but with the fact that it is recorded on a phonograph record.

If he doesn't like it, he can send it to me.

 

[fredblue]

Hang in there Chucky! He's warming up to ya, but apparently now your instruction manual sucks!

You got a real winner on your hands there mate (I say his cart. and/or hookup is probably what sucked ***.)

bahh.. he only does Harry Nilsson's pussycats, Mister P.! no suckin' ***, no dicks, ohh-kaaayyyy!! no doggy stylings neither, just miaow miaow cats!! meee? owww!! ‍♀

i'm glad he had another look at the SM, it's a great gizmo!

i wouldn't part with mine for all the Tea in Yorkshire!

he should maybe re-read the Manuel, even if he finds most of the info to be Fawlty, especially when Basil's in his Towers!

"BASIL...!!!!"

 

[fredblue]

I see some of the problems with his test:

If he expects the drums to be in the back, then his discrete mix is not the same as the SQ mix on the record.

You can put drums and bass in any place in SQ, but if you want to put them on a phonograph record, they must be in front center. Otherwise, the groove will overcut or the stylus will jump out of the groove. This is true with SQ, QS, or DS. With BMX or H, the drums and bass must be near the center of the room. And with CD-4, the drums and bass must not be panned left or right.

This is not a problem with Surround Master, but with the fact that it is recorded on a phonograph record.

If he doesn't like it, he can send it to me.

those "Bass Rear Left/Drums Rear Right" style CBS Quad mixes by **** Bogert & Warren Vincent (1976's Tower Of Power "Ain't Nothin' Stoppin' Us Now", 1977's Return To Forever "Musicmagic", 1975's Minnie Riperton "Adventures In Paradise", 1975's Michael Martin Murphey "Swans Against The Sun", 1977's The Manhattans "Feels So Good", 1977's The Miracles "Love Crazy") must be "Scotch Mist" then because when the SQ LP is decoded properly the Drums & Bass are in the correct Rear channels, they are not in the Centre Front and the stylus doesn't jump out of the groove or anything

also, i'm afraid what you're saying about CD-4 does not mirror my experience either, on The Doobies' "Toulouse Street" album for example, the Quad mix has Drums primarily in one Front channel and i've had that CD-4 disc demodulate so well it was virtually indistinguishable from the discrete 4-channel.

 

[fredblue]

He was comparing the SQ mix of that Billy Joel album to the discrete Q8; that may have also been a discrete mix made by someone in the group. Columbia did make a different mix for SQ that would make the record more "stereo and mono compatible", which they wouldn't have to do with the Q8. Another example of this is the Burton Cummings album which features "Stand Tall". DV, for the SACD release, used the Columbia Q8 mix. If you have both the SACD (or Q8), and the SQ LP, the difference is quite obvious. It's a shame he chose such a bad example of an SQ record (which it appeared he was trying to decode in QS), to a discrete mix. I had that same receiver at one time, and the setting for SQ, labeled "Phase Matrix", is with the selector all the way to the right. There would be a noticeable difference.

feels like we're drifting into mythological territory almost..

i'm pretty sure CBS didn't make 2 Quad mixes, one 4-channel discrete mix and another 2-channel SQ matrix-encoded mix destined for SQ LP.

with CBS there would be only one Quad mix, the discrete 4-channel master mix.

that 4 channel mix got fed out from the console into an SQ encoder, encoded simultaneously to lessen generational degradation and kept Flat with no EQ in order to reduce phase anomalies that might otherwise futz with SQ.

i'd be very surprised if there's more than one Quad mix of 1976's "Burton Cummings" album (i.e. a different SQ mix distinct from the discrete one that was on Q8) by that stage in 1976 we were lucky to get just one mix at all let alone two!

i imagine any perceived differences would be down to the facets, limitations and dare i say it, deficiencies of the SQ system, the drawbacks of the encode/decode process and turntable setup (as we know, correct azimuth and axial tilt compensation beneficial to getting optimum results with SQ, it was a fussier format to make the most of than was perceived by some, i reckon) and whatever decoder was being used at the time.

 

[Aging quadie]

The Lava light is a must. Re HDMI , when I can afford the $20K per year license fees and the 30% failure rate in the circuitry.

My SM V2 was still in the box when V3 was announced -- and it still is! I really could have benefitted from the V3's TOSLINK input to decode all the QS and SQ needledrops I digitized. So I passed on V3, figuring the next generation would have that and an HDMI output as well.

Yet I keep seeing these cheap-o RCA to HDMI converters for connecting vintage audio/video gear to contemporary televisions. Couldn't Involve Audio approach one of these HDMI licensees to produce third-party circuitry for the next-gen Surround Master? Or at least contract one of them to produce an affordable external converter that Involve could offer through its website?

 

[chucky3042]

My SM V2 was still in the box when V3 was announced -- and it still is! I really could have benefitted from the V3's TOSLINK input to decode all the QS and SQ needledrops I digitized. So I passed on V3, figuring the next generation would have that and an HDMI output as well.

Yet I keep seeing these cheap-o RCA to HDMI converters for connecting vintage audio/video gear to contemporary televisions. Couldn't Involve Audio approach one of these HDMI licensees to produce third-party circuitry for the next-gen Surround Master? Or at least contract one of them to produce an affordable external converter that Involve could offer through its website?

We sell a third party HDMI converter with our Y4 system and it works well.....I have one at home

 

[Aging quadie]

I'd love to have a Y4 system, but at age 76 on a fixed income, it's just not in my future. However, if that third-party converter is available through Involve Audio, I didn't see it on your website.

 

[chucky3042]

I'd love to have a Y4 system, but at age 76 on a fixed income, it's just not in my future. However, if that third-party converter is available through Involve Audio, I didn't see it on your website.

Write me an email and I will get the details for you
[email protected]

 

[MidiMagic]

those "Bass Rear Left/Drums Rear Right" style CBS Quad mixes by **** Bogert & Warren Vincent (1976's Tower Of Power "Ain't Nothin' Stoppin' Us Now", 1977's Return To Forever "Musicmagic", 1975's Minnie Riperton "Adventures In Paradise", 1975's Michael Martin Murphey "Swans Against The Sun", 1977's The Manhattans "Feels So Good", 1977's The Miracles "Love Crazy") must be "Scotch Mist" then because when the SQ LP is decoded properly the Drums & Bass are in the correct Rear channels, they are not in the Centre Front and the stylus doesn't jump out of the groove or anything

also, i'm afraid what you're saying about CD-4 does not mirror my experience either, on The Doobies' "Toulouse Street" album for example, the Quad mix has Drums primarily in one Front channel and i've had that CD-4 disc demodulate so well it was virtually indistinguishable from the discrete 4-channel.

Then they reduced the entire level on the record enough to be able to put the bass and drums in modulations other than lateral.

Note that only the lowest frequencies (kick drum and bass guitar) are limited. The other drums can be placed in other locations.

This is a limitation of ALL phonograph records. Any direction other than front center (stereo, QS, SQ, and DS) needs a level reduction of 3dB in the deep bass. Center back requires a 6dB reduction. These are based on normal cutting levels. Quieter bass does not need reduction.

 

[fredblue]

Then they reduced the entire level on the record enough to be able to put the bass and drums in modulations other than lateral.

Note that only the lowest frequencies (kick drum and bass guitar) are limited. The other drums can be placed in other locations.

This is a limitation of ALL phonograph records. Any direction other than front center (stereo, QS, SQ, and DS) needs a level reduction of 3dB in the deep bass. Center back requires a 6dB reduction. These are based on normal cutting levels. Quieter bass does not need reduction.

umm... that's not what you said, hence my response you said;

"You can put drums and bass in any place in SQ, but if you want to put them on a phonograph record, they must be in front center. Otherwise, the groove will overcut or the stylus will jump out of the groove."

you never mentioned anything about reducing the overall cutting level, you only stated where you thought Bass and Drums had to go and that simply isn't the top and bottom of it.
with certain SQ records, for certain Quad mixes, CBS had them cut with Drums & Bass in the helical modulations so they would decode in each of the Rear channels.

lowering the overall cutting level may seem obvious to you since i cited those examples of Bass Rear Left/Drums Rear Right CBS Quad mixes that ended up on SQ records... but it's easy to be wise after the event i suppose!

 

[MidiMagic]

umm... that's not what you said, hence my response you said;

"You can put drums and bass in any place in SQ, but if you want to put them on a phonograph record, they must be in front center. Otherwise, the groove will overcut or the stylus will jump out of the groove."

you never mentioned anything about reducing the overall cutting level, you only stated where you thought Bass and Drums had to go and that simply isn't the top and bottom of it.
with certain SQ records, for certain Quad mixes, CBS had them cut with Drums & Bass in the helical modulations so they would decode in each of the Rear channels.

lowering the overall cutting level may seem obvious to you since i cited those examples of Bass Rear Left/Drums Rear Right CBS Quad mixes that ended up on SQ records... but it's easy to be wise after the event i suppose!

What I said the first time is what they said in the early days of matrix. This was said for those who want the bass and drums to blast out of the speakers.

I clarified what I meant the second time.

 

[fredblue]

What I said the first time is what they said in the early days of matrix. This was said for those who want the bass and drums to blast out of the speakers.

I clarified what I meant the second time.

all you have to do in such an instance is surely just turn the volume up and the Bass and Drums blast out? ta-da! it's a non-issue!

 

[jaybird100]

feels like we're drifting into mythological territory almost..

i'm pretty sure CBS didn't make 2 Quad mixes, one 4-channel discrete mix and another 2-channel SQ matrix-encoded mix destined for SQ LP.

with CBS there would be only one Quad mix, the discrete 4-channel master mix.

that 4 channel mix got fed out from the console into an SQ encoder, encoded simultaneously to lessen generational degradation and kept Flat with no EQ in order to reduce phase anomalies that might otherwise futz with SQ.

i'd be very surprised if there's more than one Quad mix of 1976's "Burton Cummings" album (i.e. a different SQ mix distinct from the discrete one that was on Q8) by that stage in 1976 we were lucky to get just one mix at all let alone two!

i imagine any perceived differences would be down to the facets, limitations and dare i say it, deficiencies of the SQ system, the drawbacks of the encode/decode process and turntable setup (as we know, correct azimuth and axial tilt compensation beneficial to getting optimum results with SQ, it was a fussier format to make the most of than was perceived by some, i reckon) and whatever decoder was being used at the time.

Fred, if you have that particular Burton Cummings SQ LP, play "Stand Tall", and listen carefully. Do you hear the piano notes of the intro oscillating left to right, across the front speakers? And that Burton's singing sounds like he's at the bottom of a barrel? Now, listen to the same track from the D-V SACD, which, I presume, is the same mix as the Q8. VERY different! I also wouldn't be surprised if the Q8 tape of Wendy Carlos's S-OB was as she intended, but the SQ LP would have sounded a lot worse (to her ears, anyway) than it actually did, had it been made from the discrete Q8 master. I'm sure there are other examples, too.