Matrix vs Discrete

[MidiMagic]

Backward compatibility? Where's the backward compatibility with Dolby Pro Logic? If you have that, you can't play any of these.

I remember reading about the National Association of Broadcasters putting its foot down on all the different versions of the so-called standard record. There were differences in all of these factors:
- Turntable Speed
- Hole size
- Center or outside start
- Vertical, lateral, or diagonal recording
- Groove size
- Playback equalization
- Different finishing groove

The NAB said that their members would not play your records unless they conformed to THIS standard:
- Turntable Speed of 78.26 rpm - the average of the 76 rpm Victor was using and the 80 rpm Columbia was using.
- Hole size - 5/16 inch
- Center or outside start - Outside start
- Vertical, lateral, or diagonal recording - Lateral recording
- Groove size - for a 3-mil stylus
- Playback equalization - 250 Hz turnover frequency for the bass restoration
- Different finishing groove - eccentric finishing groove

We need this kind of clout again. There are too many different standards.

I was happy when Dolby Pro Logic was the ONLY system in use. I wish it still were.

 

[Owen Smith]

Backward compatibility? Where's the backward compatibility with Dolby Pro Logic?

That is unrelated to Atmos. Dolby introduced "Dolby Surround" which does not accurately decode any of the old Dolby Surround, Pro Logic or Pro Logic II formats. But there was no reason why Atmos could not have co-existed with those.

 

[MidiMagic]

That is unrelated to Atmos. Dolby introduced "Dolby Surround" which does not accurately decode any of the old Dolby Surround, Pro Logic or Pro Logic II formats. But there was no reason why Atmos could not have co-existed with those.

Could have, but doesn't, so Dolby makes more money. You have to rebuy your Dolby Surround videos for them to work on new systems. More royalties.

 

[par4ken]

Could have, but doesn't, so Dolby makes more money. You have to rebuy your Dolby Surround videos fort them to work on new systems. More royalties.

There is no shortage of Dolby Surround or Dolby PLII decoders available on the used market so what is the problem? While I hear what you are saying you can't expect old technology to be carried over forever. I would bitch more about no SQ and QS decoders being included in modern equipment. Stick to vintage!

 

[MidiMagic]

There is no shortage of Dolby Surround or Dolby PLII decoders available on the used market so what is the problem? While I hear what you are saying you can't expect old technology to be carried over forever. I would bitch more about no SQ and QS decoders being included in modern equipment. Stick to vintage!

Why can't we? If the recordings exist, the system should handle them.

They want you to replace all of your old recordings with new ones - and they get more royalties.

It's like software on computers. Some of the companies think that anything ten years old or older no longer exists.

 

[MidiMagic]

5.1 speaker layout was not intended to be like Quad with the listener equal distant from all 4 speakers
"Rear" speakers in 5.1 are intended to be to the side or just slightly behind the MLP.
Only for 7.1 are the "Rears" pushed way to the rear, and "Side" surrounds are now in the approx same position as the "Rears" used to be in 5.1.

Dolby surround (original) and Pro Logic DO work with the back speakers behind you or to the sides.

Original quad works better with you sitting between the back speakers, because it removes the cogging problem - but you don't hear anything behind you.

 

[Bill B]

Why can't we? If the recording exist, the system should handle them.

They want you to replace all of your old recordings with new ones - and they get more royalties.

I would say it’s a matter of demand vs the additional costs of adding that capability. If only one out of a thousand (or ten-thousand) probable purchasers care about that capability then it isn’t worth it to the manufacturer to include it.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just common sense. Would it make sense for someone to start producing record players that can handle wax cylinders?

 

[MidiMagic]

There is no shortage of Dolby Surround or Dolby PLII decoders available on the used market so what is the problem? While I hear what you are saying you can't expect old technology to be carried over forever. I would bitch more about no SQ and QS decoders being included in modern equipment. Stick to vintage!

Eventually the parts in those old decoders (QS, SQ, and DS) age and quit working, and many of them can't be had now.

I am close to getting TWO SMs.

 

[MidiMagic]

I would say it’s a matter of demand vs the additional costs of adding that capability. If only one out of a thousand (or ten-thousand) probable purchasers care about that capability then it isn’t worth it to the manufacturer to include it.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just common sense. Would it make sense for someone to start producing record players that can handle wax cylinders?

No, but most of them still have the 78 rpm speed - compatibility back to 1895.

 

[MidiMagic]

So would you say that having the surrounds content duplicated into the rear speakers makes the overall 5.1 mix sound even better? I always have the impression that it would sound somewhat muddier, and that getting the sound only from a single pair of speakers (whether it's the surrounds or the rears) would make it sound cleaner.

That's what they do in theaters.

 

[MidiMagic]

The "carry on, then" part was for you then.

Don't take it as a snobby admonition. It's a setup strategy that has a lot of bang for the buck. It's mentioned because it's not just an obvious intuitive tip. (Until you know in hindsight anyway.) I just see these casual comments... "Oh, just adjust the delays. It doesn't matter. The AVR has these controls. Just start turning stuff on!" Sometimes more passive strategies do some heavy lifting better.

I'll try to make an example with a turntable. You've heard the result of an off center hole in a vinyl record? Speed ramping up and down cartoonishly. Pretty altering! So... Let's crank up the speed correction DSP! Silly right? It would take moving the mountain with that and you'd create more artifacts than you started off with. Or... just grab a hole file and put the thing back to center. The 2nd great pyramid looks taller because it's built on a hill, right?

But you absolutely can dial in delays for a single sweet spot. If that's the setup in a very small space, then carry on with that! But if you have something weird going on and had not considered any of this, it might be a frugal way to upgrade things.

Are these still the bucket-brigade delays they used in the 1970s?

 

[jimfisheye]

Are these still the bucket-brigade delays they used in the 1970s?

Everything is digital nowadays. AVRs have DSP. Some amps and pro install gear have digital and network in the front end. Any audio on a computer of course.

With digital audio a delay like this will be the audio stream simply shifted in time. Nothing generational in any way. But even with the older stuff, correcting a time smear is usually more critical than a slight fidelity loss for it.

 

[par4ken]

No, but most of them still have the 78 rpm speed - compatibility back to 1895.

Since the late seventies early eighties I've seen very few turntables with the 78 speed. Again not a problem, if you need 78 just stick to vintage.

I know that I'm drifting away off topic but I actually built a speed control for my turntable from an Audio Amateur article by Gary Galo. It works only on synchronous motors and is just an audio (sine wave) generator feeding an amplifier driving a power transformer. The idea is that the power produced is cleaner than the mains power and will spin the motor smoother, also by varying the frequency you can change the speed of the motor, even up to the 78 speed. I don't bother using it with my Ariston turntable.

I have an old Lenco turntable (thrift store purchase) with a 50 Hz motor so it runs fast at 60 Hz, my speed control makes it spin at the correct speed. And yes it does have the 78 speed. Apparently not all 78's are exactly 78 either, many were cut at slightly different speeds, just as different labels used different equalisation!

 

[par4ken]

Eventually the parts in those old decoders (QS, SQ, and DS) age and quit working, and many of them can't be had now.

I am close to getting TWO SMs.

I'm sure that they will outlive all of us. I've replace capacitors in some for better sound, rarely because they are actually bad. You can often get vintage equipement cheap enough that you can hedge your bet by getting a spare.

Great to hear that you are (close to) getting a couple of Surround Masters.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

No, but most of them still have the 78 rpm speed - compatibility back to 1895.

Since the late seventies early eighties I've seen very few turntables with the 78 speed. Again not a problem, if you need 78 just stick to vintage.

Agreed... In the past when I needed to play/record 78's I used a separate turntable with dedicated cartridge along with it's own pre-amp and filters. I backed up quite a few old couples favourite 78's onto CD this way... Yes, even old people preferred the convenience of CD's!

 

[Guy Robinson]

They want you to replace all of your old recordings with new ones - and they get more royalties.

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was

 

[Sal1950]

It's like software on computers. Some of the companies think that anything ten years old or older no longer exists.

Could I offer you a little cheese with your wine?

No, but most of them still have the 78 rpm speed - compatibility back to 1895.

Most? You'd be very hard pressed to find a modern TT with 78rpm.

Eventually the parts in those old decoders (QS, SQ, and DS) age and quit working, and many of them can't be had now.

And eventually the parts in your old Edison Cylinder player will wear out and need rebuilding
too if you wish to continue playing those old recordings.

Thankfully many of those recordings are being now being reissued digitally with not only superior sound quality, but the ability to hear the channel separation in a fully discreet manner. The way they were intended to be heard, but couldn't do to the limitations of 1970s tech. Only the CD4 vinyl pressings could come close.

 

[Owen Smith]

Only the CD4 vinyl pressings could come close.

You're forgetting Q4, which came closer than CD-4 and was a lot more reliable (though rare and expensive).

 

[par4ken]

You're forgetting Q4, which came closer than CD-4 and was a lot more reliable (though rare and expensive).

Correct but you are all downplaying matrix! Tate SQ decodes and QS Vario-matrix decodes sound very nearly discrete. The big plus is what they can do with regular stereo. I don't know how I would have got by for all those years without my S&IC and no new quad releases!

 

[jimfisheye]

No one is downplaying analog matrix encoding. We're more celebrating being able to deliver those channels of audio discretely and directly because the delivery format CAN now! Full respect to the very desperate struggles of delivering a multichannel mix that way.