Customer Survey! (super short)

[chucky3042]

Done and dusted. As for surround reproduction, discrete still wins for me

So have you done a synchronized instant a/B comparison from a involve encode source? I keep hearing that statement, I know it seems instinctive but as far as I am aware we are the only ones to have done it

 

[chucky3042]

So have you done a synchronized instant a/B comparison from a involve encode source? I keep hearing that statement, I know it seems instinctive but as far as I am aware we are the only ones to have done it

Just to elaborate some more, given the lack of discrete recorded material with a side by side comparison Involve format recorded material the only way to do it is as we did several years ago. We arranged a switch and 2 paths one path was discrete straight through, the other path was discrete then encoded into Involve stereo, then decoded into surround and then passed back through the A/ B switch.

We then got a panel of 11 listeners with varied listening ability ranging from golden eared to the average Joe and asked them to pick what they preferred, attached is is the report.

Summarized result:

Here were the actual comments (CVD was me, DJA was Bitch- the tests were blind)

So either way its real close, so I must confess in the case of one magazine reviewer who said he preferred discrete, knowing full well he did not do the real comparison, I was less than impressed!

Synchronized A/ B is the only test we regard as valid as more than a few seconds lag destroys the comparison when its close.

 

[ar surround]

Your Marantz SR7013 seems to be a well chosen product, indeed. I see on B&H & Crutchfield it is discontinued. May I ask what year it is?

I bought it last summer. It is a 2018 model. The latest model is the SR7015, so the SR7013 is one generation behind.

Apparently it is still around. Amazon has one from a third party crook for $2800, which is absurd especially for a discontinued product:

https://www.amazon.com/Marantz-Receiver-SR7013-Compatibility-Automation/dp/B07GVL1Y6C
For reference, I paid $1600 as a closeout from Audio Advisors. I especially wanted it for Auro 3D. I have things arranged so that I can use the five height speakers with my Surround Master. When used judiciously, Auro 3D perched atop the IA quad presentation is really something to behold.

 

[ar surround]

You need to do an instant a/b with an involve encoded source vs the discrete. We did such trials and there was a preference to involve (published it in all tests elsewhere... It was a fair triall

Discrete mixes can really be boogered-up too. (Ask me how I know this.) I can easily understand how the IA encoded source of a mega-discrete mix will sound better than the original source mix. There needs to be some blending of the channels for a convincing mix, otherwise it sounds...well, like sh!t.

 

[chucky3042]

Discrete mixes can really be boogered-up too. (Ask me how I know this.) I can easily understand how the IA encoded source of a mega-discrete mix will sound better than the original source mix. There needs to be some blending of the channels for a convincing mix, otherwise it sounds...well, like sh!t.

How do you know this?????.........................................................you said!!!!

 

[chucky3042]

Discrete mixes can really be boogered-up too. (Ask me how I know this.) I can easily understand how the IA encoded source of a mega-discrete mix will sound better than the original source mix. There needs to be some blending of the channels for a convincing mix, otherwise it sounds...well, like sh!t.

Actually you nailed it!

 

[ar surround]

How do you know this?????.........................................................you said!!!!

I've been making my own 5.1 mixes. My nascent stuff sounded too disjointed. Then I remembered the 12dB rule. It's not a hard and fast rule, but I use it as a starting point. I've actually encountered situations where less than 12dB sounds better. For example, sometimes only 6dB on the front-to-back drums yields a more energetic mix.

I generally make these 5.1 mixes of stuff that I like but which have lousy stereo mixes. If it sounds great upmixed with the SM, then I don't bother. I did make a few of theses 5.1 mixes for stuff that sounds great with the SM. With a lot of hard work, I can make mixes that are somewhat more discrete than what comes out of the SM. Now, is it worth the effort? NO!

I've also manipulated a few stereo files to add some time-shifting (similar to pre-synth) to material where the rear presentation from the SM is anemic. I find it to be a very effective way of bringing the rears to life.

 

[chucky3042]

I've been making my own 5.1 mixes. My nascent stuff sounded too disjointed. Then I remembered the 12dB rule. It's not a hard and fast rule, but I use it as a starting point. I've actually encountered situations where less than 12dB sounds better. For example, sometimes only 6dB on the front-to-back drums yields a more energetic mix.

I generally make these 5.1 mixes of stuff that I like but which have lousy stereo mixes. If it sounds great upmixed with the SM, then I don't bother. I did make a few of theses 5.1 mixes for stuff that sounds great with the SM. With a lot of hard work, I can make mixes that are somewhat more discrete than what comes out of the SM. Now, is it worth the effort? NO!

I've also manipulated a few stereo files to add some time-shifting (similar to pre-synth) to material where the rear presentation from the SM is anemic. I find it to be a very effective way of bringing the rears to life.

Sounds like you need to experiment with involve encode one day

 

[alansanchez86]

Done. We're pretty biased

 

[barfle]

After almost four years in moving boxes (I’m afraid I lost count, it’s been so long), I unpacked my rather extensive collection of vinyl and shellac. I find that I have quite a few dbx encoded discs in the mix, along with a remarkably large percentage of SQ, QS & CD-4 LPs.

So, while I admit this is off-topic, I have a wish-list item for @chucky3042 - dbx decoding! Yeah, I have all the hardware already, but it’s taking up more room than I had planned for, and while it seems to this retired engineer that it ought to be doable, I don’t really have a clue.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

After almost four years in moving boxes (I’m afraid I lost count, it’s been so long), I unpacked my rather extensive collection of vinyl and shellac. I find that I have quite a few dbx encoded discs in the mix, along with a remarkably large percentage of SQ, QS & CD-4 LPs.

So, while I admit this is off-topic, I have a wish-list item for @chucky3042 - dbx decoding! Yeah, I have all the hardware already, but it’s taking up more room than I had planned for, and while it seems to this retired engineer that it ought to be doable, I don’t really have a clue.

You might consider this:

http://www.anaxwaves.com/DxICodec/
Win or Mac, Type 1 or disc decoding, only 15 Buckaroos on the Windows store.

 

[barfle]

You might consider this:

http://www.anaxwaves.com/DxICodec/
Win or Mac, Type 1 or disc decoding, only 15 Buckaroos on the Windows store.

Well, I already have the hardware. And routing through my PC seems like more trouble than it’s worth. But thanks for the suggestion.

 

[par4ken]

I am am bit skeptical of tests that attempt to prove that matrix sounds better than discrete. Discrete can after all be mixed in any possible fashion. That being said as far back as the 1970's I've often said that sometimes I actually prefer matrix. If a discrete mix is too sparse or contains too many disparate elements some blending caused by imperfect encoding/decoding may make things sound a bit better. It will certainly result in a "richer sound".

The discrete DV releases of material that were mixed for SQ can sound a bit over the top, while a decoded version can sound more normal. Which is better is purely subjective. I like both.

Santana "Lotus", discrete version has pretty much only applause in the rear. To make things worse that applause is split into two groups one in the Lb speaker the other in the Rb. The applause should have been mixed right across the rear with no hole in the middle. Matrix play back throws a bit more sound into the back speakers for a much more pleasing effect.

Some discrete mixes just cannot be effectively converted to matrix. B.T.O., Donald Byrd and some Deodato immediately come to mind. Those discrete mixes have "that sound" that no matrix can duplicate. The mixes in question are very immersive with all channels fully active all the time. I don't have an Involve encoder but have experimented a fair bit over the years with encoding/decoding this type of material and the results were always disappointing. Less demanding material produced much better results.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

I am am bit skeptical of tests that attempt to prove that matrix sounds better than discrete. Discrete can after all be mixed in any possible fashion. That being said as far back as the 1970's I've often said that sometimes I actually prefer matrix. If a discrete mix is too sparse or contains too many disparate elements some blending caused by imperfect encoding/decoding may make things sound a bit better. It will certainly result in a "richer sound".

Back in the days of Evolution & MCS Review there were articles or quotes from Jim Fosgate & Charles Wood how the Fosgate SQ decoder with Tate DES was much preferred over discrete quad mixes. So, yeah, this isn't new. I agree that an over aggressive quad mix in discrete might be smoothed out by matrix encode/decode.

And conversely today a matrix quad release done on SACD or otherwise discrete might sound inferior to the original. I figure if the original was mixed & monitored with encode/decode it would be optimized for that. With out skillful remixing the new improved high res format would be neither.

My own method of S2S upmixing creates QS decoded (actually RM) in front left/right back pairs & right front/left back pairs. Then the cross talk is reduced by using the AA3 center "vocalist" eliminator. The end result is very high corner to corner seperation (where ever you set the eliminator to, say -30dB) but reults in measured separation of -12dB between any paired chs. Like center left to center right. This results in very high corner localization but complimented by a full "round" sound. It's Matrix Magic!

 

[chucky3042]

After almost four years in moving boxes (I’m afraid I lost count, it’s been so long), I unpacked my rather extensive collection of vinyl and shellac. I find that I have quite a few dbx encoded discs in the mix, along with a remarkably large percentage of SQ, QS & CD-4 LPs.

So, while I admit this is off-topic, I have a wish-list item for @chucky3042 - dbx decoding! Yeah, I have all the hardware already, but it’s taking up more room than I had planned for, and while it seems to this retired engineer that it ought to be doable, I don’t really have a clue.

Maybe on the super preamp?????

 

[chucky3042]

Back in the days of Evolution & MCS Review there were articles or quotes from Jim Fosgate & Charles Wood how the Fosgate SQ decoder with Tate DES was much preferred over discrete quad mixes. So, yeah, this isn't new. I agree that an over aggressive quad mix in discrete might be smoothed out by matrix encode/decode.

And conversely today a matrix quad release done on SACD or otherwise discrete might sound inferior to the original. I figure if the original was mixed & monitored with encode/decode it would be optimized for that. With out skillful remixing the new improved high res format would be neither.

My own method of S2S upmixing creates QS decoded (actually RM) in front left/right back pairs & right front/left back pairs. Then the cross talk is reduced by using the AA3 center "vocalist" eliminator. The end result is very high corner to corner seperation (where ever you set the eliminator to, say -30dB) but reults in measured separation of -12dB between any paired chs. Like center left to center right. This results in very high corner localization but complimented by a full "round" sound. It's Matrix Magic!

It's more about the recording "engineer" often does not have the budget/ time to position and separate every detail/ echo/ fart. The SM does this additional extraction naturally. If you read the trial comments a commonality was the additional information on those that preferred Involve

 

[jaybird100]

You need to do an instant a/b with an involve encoded source vs the discrete. We did such trials and there was a preference to involve (published it in all tests elsewhere... It was a fair triall

Actually, I did! While transferring my SACD's, through the Involve encoder, I was able to make the comparison. It was virtually impossible to tell the difference! Not to mention, these discs sound great, in stereo, in the car.

 

[chucky3042]

Actually, I did! While transferring my SACD's, through the Involve encoder, I was able to make the comparison. It was virtually impossible to tell the difference! Not to mention, these discs sound great, in stereo, in the car.

Was it instant A/B if so what actual differences did you perceive?????????

 

[kfbkfb]

The output of the Involve encoder -> SM decoder could be subtracted from the original discrete quad source (corrected for a possible phase reversal and maybe a tiny time delay in the encode/decode cycle) to see what is left over.

(a new type of decoder evaluation - the difference test)


Kirk Bayne

 

[Colin London]

Done