Matrix vs Discrete

[Sal1950]

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

Yea, and the open reel quad tapes also.
But I'm an ole man forget things now and then. LOL

 

[MidiMagic]

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

Look at everything Walmart has. Most of them have 78.

 

[MidiMagic]

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.

I don't consider that an improvement. Call it a complication requiring new recording formats.

I want content on the same formats I already collect. I don't need discrete.

 

[jimfisheye]

I don't consider that an improvement. Call it a complication requiring new recording formats.

I want content on the same formats I already collect. I don't need discrete.

You don't consider literally getting a master recording instead of a mutilated analog matrix encoded copy of it an improvement!?!?
You trollin' me?

 

[Owen Smith]

You don't consider literally getting a master recording instead of a mutilated analog matrix encoded copy of it an improvement!?!?

For once I find myself in complete agreement with @jimfisheye.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I don't consider that an improvement. Call it a complication requiring new recording formats.

I want content on the same formats I already collect. I don't need discrete.

None of what you want is ever going to happen. Why not stop the endless whining and ranting about it?

 

[JediJoker]

You don't consider literally getting a master recording instead of a mutilated analog matrix encoded copy of it an improvement!?!?
You trollin' me?

I assure you: they are serious about preferring analog-matrixed surround in all its forms.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

I don't consider that an improvement. Call it a complication requiring new recording formats.

I want content on the same formats I already collect. I don't need discrete.

You don't consider literally getting a master recording instead of a mutilated analog matrix encoded copy of it an improvement!?!?
You trollin' me?

None of what you want is ever going to happen. Why not stop the endless whining and ranting about it?

I assure you: they are serious about preferring analog-matrixed surround in all its forms.

It's like I've said before... Don't feed a ("whining and ranting", moaning) troll...

 

[par4ken]

But the thought of going back to something lesser in music playback is like thinking of buying an old car rather than an improved new car.

True but there is something special about old cars. If I wasn't into audio so much I'm sure that I would be into collecting and restoring old cars. That would be a far more expensive hobby!

There is a direct parallel, the old stuff is much better (or at least heavier built) and is much simpler, infinity better looking as well. Many/most new features of modern automobiles actually annoy me! I love harking back to those old simpler times.

On the other hand I don't advocate building cars like they used to, that would be rather silly! The exact same principle goes for audio systems! I might make an exception to that rule regarding tube based equipment where vintage technology could be integrated into a modern system, but I acknowledge that is not for everyone.

If you like vintage stick with it or run it alongside of something more modern. Don't expect a modern rebuild of purely old technology! Don't expect technology to stop where you feel comfortable!

 

[jimfisheye]

One thing I had not considered before is that not everyone is interested in chasing the original sound of a mix. I assumed the end goal for everyone was to hear a mix someone else made with 1:1 intentional reproduction or as close as possible/reasonable. I'm learning! (Not really understanding, mind you. But learning.)

 

[key_wiz]

I don't consider that an improvement. Call it a complication requiring new recording formats.

I want content on the same formats I already collect. I don't need discrete.

That’s like wishing they’d release stuff on 8-track.

 

[kfbkfb]

Anyone have a setup where they can A/B Hafler/DynaQuad and Dolby Pro-Logic decoding (maybe a DVD w/Dolby Surround)?

I videotaped several Dolby Surround encoded TV shows in recent years and listened to them using Dolby Pro-Logic decoding, I also time shifted some movies from my streaming services and listened to them using Hafler/DynaQuad decoding, my casual observation is that Hafler/DynaQuad sounds about as good as Pro-Logic decoding.


Kirk Bayne

 

[chucky3042]

I am new to this thread but truth be known I am really a stereo guy! I see little to be gained in the multi channel mess and ATMOS. I have you guys at a disadvantage as you have not heard Involve decode WITH our SST (Sweet Spot Technology) together, makes 4 speakers go a long way.

I like the view that inside those 2 channels is a hidden surround world if you so chose to extract it, but if you prefer dumb ol stereo good on you.....go for it. The wonderful thing is stereo is compatible to everything and does not need compression and expands out to surround if properly encoded indistinguishable form discrete (see attached study we did years ago.....it really was fair and blind with test monkeys). I think the public is confused as hell about the complexity of ATMOS and who the hell is gonna put all these speakers in a room except if you believe the lie about single speaker ATMOS (poo).

I say we need to go back to the future weather it be Involve encode/ decode or the guys at shadow vector (love that name). If anyone is in doubt just listen to the Suzanne Ciani quad record she did with intelligent Involve triband encode, not my style of music but I still cannot believe how discrete it was in really difficult patched eg pink noise mixed in with gongs and bells n stuff.

 

[barfle]

I have the gear to decode CD4, SQ & QS, but other projects have gotten in the way of getting it all hooked up. I am certainly looking forward to hearing all thise quad records I’ve been collecting for half a century and more. FWIW, that project is ahead of enabling my Atmos speakers.

But I’m enjoying the heck out of most of my digital surround discs (sadly, I have a few where the music just sucks).

Once I get all that old (well, the SM is new) gear integrated into my setup, I’ll probably do a bit of comparing and contrasting the formats, but I’m making it so I no longer have to choose one over the other. Lots of my quad discs will never see a digital release, I’m afraid.

 

[btalont]

I have the gear to decode CD4, SQ & QS, but other projects have gotten in the way of getting it all hooked up. I am certainly looking forward to hearing all thise quad records I’ve been collecting for half a century and more. FWIW, that project is ahead of enabling my Atmos speakers.

But I’m enjoying the heck out of most of my digital surround discs (sadly, I have a few where the music just sucks).

Once I get all that old (well, the SM is new) gear integrated into my setup, I’ll probably do a bit of comparing and contrasting the formats, but I’m making it so I no longer have to choose one over the other. Lots of my quad discs will never see a digital release, I’m afraid.

I too have CD4/SQ/QS and now have all of it up and running including getting my Oppo set up to put out 4 channel from the surround sound formats and playing SACDs and DVDs on it..all through my Marantz 4300...some amazing sound but I guess discrete 4 channel is my format of choice.

 

[jimfisheye]

The notion of comparing an original discrete surround mix to a matrix encoded copy of it made to repurpose a two channel delivery format is absurd on the face of it.

If it's actually a critique that the alteration on the sound from the encoding improved the sound from the discrete original... Shots fired!

The matrix system was intending to reproduce the discrete original the best it could. That was the original idea. We can't just lose the plot there! There was no discrete consumer format to release in. Not because someone preferred the degradation of the matrix encode. Because it wasn't an option! Now we can deliver the original 1:1. The thing everyone wanted in the first place. No one is gonna look back!

The real complaint is format depreciation, right?
100% with ya there! At least in acknowledging the frustration.

All I can say is that in this digital age, keeping music in standard full audio files and liberating proprietary formats is the way to go and be future proof. Multichannel wav files and lossless compressed copies in flac or wavpack is what you want to keep and play. Just because you can! Mystery hardware boxes with decoders hidden in them needed to play some copy protection riddled proprietary format? Hell to the f no!!

Is this always obvious up front? No!
So keep some old gear around. When you catch wind of something, jump a little. With 7.1.4 Atmos releases, for example, I'm ripping them to 12 channel wavpack. (And the odd 16 channel mix to 16ch.) These are lowest common denominator standard audio files. They will play on anything that plays PCM digital 100 years from now no matter what gaslighting Dolby is up to.

 

[barfle]

The matrix systems were a decent early attempt at surround sound, and although they did introduce plenty of artifacts, a lot of those old quad records still please my ears. Sure, it would be nice to get a digital copy so it won't be subject to wear like an LP, but I have very little faith that most of my classical titles will ever be released on a digital disc. Tomita seems to be the only one, and although he's usually fun to listen to, it's not really what the composer had in mind.

 

[jaybird100]

I am new to this thread but truth be known I am really a stereo guy! I see little to be gained in the multi channel mess and ATMOS. I have you guys at a disadvantage as you have not heard Involve decode WITH our SST (Sweet Spot Technology) together, makes 4 speakers go a long way.

I like the view that inside those 2 channels is a hidden surround world if you so chose to extract it, but if you prefer dumb ol stereo good on you.....go for it. The wonderful thing is stereo is compatible to everything and does not need compression and expands out to surround if properly encoded indistinguishable form discrete (see attached study we did years ago.....it really was fair and blind with test monkeys). I think the public is confused as hell about the complexity of ATMOS and who the hell is gonna put all these speakers in a room except if you believe the lie about single speaker ATMOS (poo).

I say we need to go back to the future weather it be Involve encode/ decode or the guys at shadow vector (love that name). If anyone is in doubt just listen to the Suzanne Ciani quad record she did with intelligent Involve triband encode, not my style of music but I still cannot believe how discrete it was in really difficult patched eg pink noise mixed in with gongs and bells n stuff.

This brings up a question, Chucky. I use the Evaluation Encoder module... is it also tri-band? My encodings sound damn good, and it would be nice to know I'm tri-band on both ends.

 

[jaybird100]

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!

On that note, imagine having Involve's Surround Master circuitry included in a receiver or processor... that's the ultimate!

 

[fizzywiggs41]

For me it was always the magic of matrix.
4 channels ,with 2 hidden in the stereo mix , to be extracted with a decoder.
And decoders added realistic depth and ambient music , which could be sometimes superior to the Discrete mix , just as quad recording of Santana LOTUS has proven.

And then the incredible Synthesis of older stereo recordings with a decent quad decoder.Some sounded so good in Synthesis matrix , you almost swore it was a purposeful quad recording.
And today those decoders are still very much relevant.

Discreet Demodulators , CD 4, were very picky and carried a high pitch noise signal with the proper cartridge. When they worked , (but never with every track on the vinyl LP ) , they sounded very good as was intended. I never experienced a single vinyl CD 4LP that was perfect, noise free , but it did get close at times.

We now have a number of discrete formats to champion what was supposed to be true quad and surround.
So I can't say that CD 4 was even comparable, to actual discreet , as intended.

But I can say with a good decoder , I find matrix to be most appealing, and close enough to sound discrete , not perfection , but darn near. And I do not seek perfection , just a great sounding recording.