Customer Survey! (super short)

[MidiMagic]

Hi there all!

We have a survey at the request of our mysterious benefactors-to-be, and would really appreciate it if you would take the time.
I'm trying to send this to existing customers but it requires an opt-in - thanks to those who already have. If you haven't, here's the link.

It's only...er...three questions. Should take less than two minutes.

Survey Link!

Actually - I managed to do a send to all email addresses - so you won't be signed up to the mailing list (which is an infrequent mailout anyway - last one was March I think)

Yours, in a white-wine sauce,

~David (The Bitch)

I don't have one yet, so I can't answer the questions.

And since I make my recordings directly as matrix recordings, I don't have any discrete material (or player) to use for comparison.

I use three methods:

Live performance to matrixed 2-track or 4-track. When using 4-track, I matrix the vocals to 1 and 2 and the instruments and surround field to 3 and 4.

MIDI instruments to matrixed 2-track.

Remixing existing recordings.

I use the mixer tricks on my website to do these.

 

[jaybird100]

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

It was instant; I had set up an A/B switch, selecting between the output of the SACD player, and that of the SM, which was being fed from the Evaluation Encoder, in the Smart Encode mode. I heard a very slight softening of the separation with the SM, but you wouldn't notice it unless you were specifically listening for it. This result is what convinced me to make the backup copies of the SACD's. It also convinced me that SM technology belongs in car audio, too.

 

[chucky3042]

It was instant; I had set up an A/B switch, selecting between the output of the SACD player, and that of the SM, which was being fed from the Evaluation Encoder, in the Smart Encode mode. I heard a very slight softening of the separation with the SM, but you wouldn't notice it unless you were specifically listening for it. This result is what convinced me to make the backup copies of the SACD's. It also convinced me that SM technology belongs in car audio, too.

Interesting, did you get any additional surround on the SM version? Thats what I noticed when we did the comparison. Separation was about the same (remember my 12 db rule!)

 

[jaybird100]

Interesting, did you get any additional surround on the SM version? Thats what I noticed when we did the comparison. Separation was about the same (remember my 12 db rule!)

Honestly, I didn't. I was listening for any difference in the overall effect. In my opinion, It was a virtual tie. That's how good SM technology is, why I'm a believer in its potential.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Speaking of the Encoder, reminds me how much I miss Bill Brent’s online radio style shows in Involve matrix encoded music. Such a brilliant idea, that should have gathered more interest (especially here on the QQ!)

No need to derail this thread, just had to spout off about it.

 

[chucky3042]

Speaking of the Encoder, reminds me how much I miss Bill Brent’s online radio style shows in Involve matrix encoded music. Such a brilliant idea, that should have gathered more interest (especially here on the QQ!)

No need to derail this thread, just had to spout off about it.

Do you know why it stopped?

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Do you know why it stopped?

I read that he had some health issues. Also, the web service he was on shut down his site. Don’t know anymore than that, sorry.

 

[par4ken]

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!

My comments about matrix being sometimes better than discrete would predate the launch of the super decoders. I remember just how good the QS encoded Carole King Music album sounded via the Audionics 106A (SQ decoder). Despite being the wrong decoder for QS and without any separation enhancement and no blend, the result was a wash of sound (audio nirvana)!

Not surprising that with the launch of the Space and Image Composer reviews and comments about it being better than discrete were common. Remember that discrete meant Q8 and CD-4 both with their own sonic limitations. We also had open reel but they were not as common, Stereotape Q4 releases were high speed dubbed and as such could have sounded a bit better. Now with SACD we have a real discrete program source to compare. IMHO now encoding and decoding is mostly unnecessary. The real use for any decoder is to enhance stereo!

I disagree with the 12db rule. I'm sure that level of separation is more than enough to discern direction but higher levels still are preferable. Those SQ decoders (even full logic) that use fixed blend across the rear produced separation figures of -12 or -14dB. The effect of that is to pull the rear speakers much closer together. I have always fully agreed with the SQ systems original design philosophy that left to right separation is far more important than front to rear separation.

So in conclusion overall surround effect is totally subjective, both matrix and discrete can sound very good. A very basic decoder (even dyna quad) can sound excellent on some material. High separation "super decoders" can sound excellent as well, rivalling discrete. Todays discrete is the gold standard and some material can not be effectively reduced to matrix. I've only ever heard "that sound" from discrete, and only from relatively few releases.

 

[jaybird100]

I read that he had some health issues. Also, the web service he was on shut down his site. Don’t know anymore than that, sorry.

I guess the person to ask is Bill.

 

[hobie1dog]

Done

 

[chucky3042]

My comments about matrix being sometimes better than discrete would predate the launch of the super decoders. I remember just how good the QS encoded Carole King Music album sounded via the Audionics 106A (SQ decoder). Despite being the wrong decoder for QS and without any separation enhancement and no blend, the result was a wash of sound (audio nirvana)!

Not surprising that with the launch of the Space and Image Composer reviews and comments about it being better than discrete were common. Remember that discrete meant Q8 and CD-4 both with their own sonic limitations. We also had open reel but they were not as common, Stereotape Q4 releases were high speed dubbed and as such could have sounded a bit better. Now with SACD we have a real discrete program source to compare. IMHO now encoding and decoding is mostly unnecessary. The real use for any decoder is to enhance stereo!

I disagree with the 12db rule. I'm sure that level of separation is more than enough to discern direction but higher levels still are preferable. Those SQ decoders (even full logic) that use fixed blend across the rear produced separation figures of -12 or -14dB. The effect of that is to pull the rear speakers much closer together. I have always fully agreed with the SQ systems original design philosophy that left to right separation is far more important than front to rear separation.

So in conclusion overall surround effect is totally subjective, both matrix and discrete can sound very good. A very basic decoder (even dyna quad) can sound excellent on some material. High separation "super decoders" can sound excellent as well, rivalling discrete. Todays discrete is the gold standard and some material can not be effectively reduced to matrix. I've only ever heard "that sound" from discrete, and only from relatively few releases.

Dont get me wrong I agree that I prefer 35- 40 db separation and the SM is set to achieve that. When we increased the separation beyond that it sounded "mechanical" , its not all about a numbers chase. Re the 12 db "rule" we did yet another one of our trials will 11 people and on a deadpan/ blind test created a jig where we could vary the leakage from 3 db to infinite and determined at what point each test subject could pick a reduction of separation. The listeners were again a cross section of types from the average mug to golden eared. I was very supprised as I was expecting around 20 dB

 

[jaybird100]

My comments about matrix being sometimes better than discrete would predate the launch of the super decoders. I remember just how good the QS encoded Carole King Music album sounded via the Audionics 106A (SQ decoder). Despite being the wrong decoder for QS and without any separation enhancement and no blend, the result was a wash of sound (audio nirvana)!

Not surprising that with the launch of the Space and Image Composer reviews and comments about it being better than discrete were common. Remember that discrete meant Q8 and CD-4 both with their own sonic limitations. We also had open reel but they were not as common, Stereotape Q4 releases were high speed dubbed and as such could have sounded a bit better. Now with SACD we have a real discrete program source to compare. IMHO now encoding and decoding is mostly unnecessary. The real use for any decoder is to enhance stereo!

I disagree with the 12db rule. I'm sure that level of separation is more than enough to discern direction but higher levels still are preferable. Those SQ decoders (even full logic) that use fixed blend across the rear produced separation figures of -12 or -14dB. The effect of that is to pull the rear speakers much closer together. I have always fully agreed with the SQ systems original design philosophy that left to right separation is far more important than front to rear separation.

So in conclusion overall surround effect is totally subjective, both matrix and discrete can sound very good. A very basic decoder (even dyna quad) can sound excellent on some material. High separation "super decoders" can sound excellent as well, rivalling discrete. Todays discrete is the gold standard and some material can not be effectively reduced to matrix. I've only ever heard "that sound" from discrete, and only from relatively few releases.

While having the ability to enhance stereo recordings, I disagree about the decoder's main use being to do just that. Many of us, those who've been "quaddies" since the 70's, have nice libraries of matrix-encoded quad records; I have about 400 of them, and I know there are others who have even more. When I listen to those records, I like to hear them as they were intended.

Since my car's CD player doesn't play SACD's, I create QS-encoded CD's of my SACD's so I can enjoy the surround mix in the car. Granted, I can't decode them, but they sound excellent in stereo, too. Of course, at home, I can play them through the SM, and hear an amazing surround presentation, nearly indistinguishable from the discrete.

As for playing stereo recordings through the SM, I have found many records that sound like discrete quad, and others that don't have as pronounced a quad effect, but yet still better than just plain vanilla stereo.

 

[par4ken]

While having the ability to enhance stereo recordings, I disagree about the decoder's main use being to do just that. Many of us, those who've been "quaddies" since the 70's, have nice libraries of matrix-encoded quad records; I have about 400 of them, and I know there are others who have even more. When I listen to those records, I like to hear them as they were intended.

Since my car's CD player doesn't play SACD's, I create QS-encoded CD's of my SACD's so I can enjoy the surround mix in the car. Granted, I can't decode them, but they sound excellent in stereo, too. Of course, at home, I can play them through the SM, and hear an amazing surround presentation, nearly indistinguishable from the discrete.

As for playing stereo recordings through the SM, I have found many records that sound like discrete quad, and others that don't have as pronounced a quad effect, but yet still better than just plain vanilla stereo.

I too have a large library more than 400 of matrix quad (not bragging) but a very much larger library of stereo. I always "decode" my stereo wherever whenever possible. IMHO the Involve needs a pre-synth circuit or hall/QS/surround switching to be more effective for that purpose. Myself, I don't like straight QS for stereo enhancement and I absolutely hate Dolby PL.

Nothing wrong with encoding for car stereo playback. I use a circle surround decoder in my truck. My Sony Mex deck plays SACD, DTS, so for myself I would make discrete DTS discs just for that purpose. I would never keep SACDs in my vehicle, nor would I keep regular CDs as they will quickly suffer damage. Burned copies are fine, just throw them away when damaged and burn yourself a new copy!

 

[jaybird100]

I too have a large library more than 400 of matrix quad (not bragging) but a very much larger library of stereo. I always "decode" my stereo wherever whenever possible. IMHO the Involve needs a pre-synth circuit or hall/QS/surround switching to be more effective for that purpose. Myself, I don't like straight QS for stereo enhancement and I absolutely hate Dolby PL.

Nothing wrong with encoding for car stereo playback. I use a circle surround decoder in my truck. My Sony Mex deck plays SACD, DTS, so for myself I would make discrete DTS discs just for that purpose. I would never keep SACDs in my vehicle, nor would I keep regular CDs as they will quickly suffer damage. Burned copies are fine, just throw them away when damaged and burn yourself a new copy!

Exactly right. That's what I do. My Honda HR-V has a great sound system, albeit just stereo. The discs I've made with the encoder, both SACD and DVD-A, create a wider soundstage, which makes the car sound bigger than it is. It even has a subwoofer!

I like how the SM, in the Involve 4.1 mode, creates surround from stereo, but there's no right, or wrong, way to do it. It's a matter of individual taste. You can probably get the effect you want, with the SM, just by lowering the levels slightly on the Surround channels. Give it a shot and see if that improves things.

 

[chucky3042]

Yes I know we are all off topic but it is an interesting chat.....thank you all so much for helping out on this survey!'

My real passion has been and still is for a unified and simple, universally compatible sound format. One that any mug can pickup and play on anything and not have to get up and change settings or think is it DTD/ Dolby 5.1/ ATMOS/ SACD something blah blah. In addition a format free of any negative license fees or quality compression and can be transmitted in anything radio/ tv/ YouTube/ SACD/ vinyl/ CD/ cassette/ wax cylinder/ flag semaphore (reduced data rate).

I find myself as usual in furious agreement with Jaybird100, Par4ken, AR Surround, Sonik and the Pup in the chat about perceived surround quality comparisons. So the real axe I have to grind is that I strongly believe surround will never be a real success (as was stereo) until we all chill off and take a step back to the future and standardise on a surround compatible stereo......off course I am pushing our Involve stereo/ surround format as it really sounds like stereo and even the best ears have difficulty in distinguishing it from the best discrete formats.

It ticks all the boxes, everyone can play it with or without surround equipment and no loss, ITS FREE, no compression, other systems can decode it to some extent as its very close to the original stereo. I think all the major brands simply must have Dolby and all the other LOGOS as that is what people look for.....its a logo count without any understanding.

I remember prior to Dolby B cassette noise reduction Philips greatly resisted the adoption of Dolby B as it made the cassette no longer totally cross comparable. In retrospect I think they were wrong but I fully agree with there philosophy. Its what made video tape a failure and the compact Disc a great success....universal compatibility!

What am I missing?

There I feel better now.

 

[kfbkfb]

Sadly, many CD remasters are "brick wall" volume limited (which is weird since the Radio business found that "brick wall" volume limiting drives away listeners - allowing some dynamic range helps retain radio listeners)

Any experiments using wide dynamic range content -> QS encoding -> "brick wall" volume limiting (stereo) -> SM QS decoding to see if QS encoding can survive?


Kirk Bayne

 

[chucky3042]

Sadly, many CD remasters are "brick wall" volume limited (which is weird since the Radio business found that "brick wall" volume limiting drives away listeners - allowing some dynamic range helps retain radio listeners)

Any experiments using wide dynamic range content -> QS encoding -> "brick wall" volume limiting (stereo) -> SM QS decoding to see if QS encoding can survive?


Kirk Bayne

Should survive as the decode is more to do with phase relativity

 

[ar surround]

Sadly, many CD remasters are "brick wall" volume limited (which is weird since the Radio business found that "brick wall" volume limiting drives away listeners - allowing some dynamic range helps retain radio listeners)

Any experiments using wide dynamic range content -> QS encoding -> "brick wall" volume limiting (stereo) -> SM QS decoding to see if QS encoding can survive?


Kirk Bayne

You can get rid of that limiting since most of it seems to come from the drums stem. Take one of the on-line extraction programs to get the drums stem, invert it, and then back it out of the mix. Reduce the volume of the drums stem and mix it back into the tracks. Also, you can make a very non-limited sounding 5.1 from these stems. An example (Remember the LL Bean commercial with the golden retriever from 2008):

 

[ar surround]

I disagree with the 12db rule. I'm sure that level of separation is more than enough to discern direction but higher levels still are preferable. Those SQ decoders (even full logic) that use fixed blend across the rear produced separation figures of -12 or -14dB. The effect of that is to pull the rear speakers much closer together. I have always fully agreed with the SQ systems original design philosophy that left to right separation is far more important than front to rear separation.

Ken, the answer is "It depends."

- In general, I've found that 'infinite' separation across the rears is often desirable. If the separation isn't extreme, I sometimes get rear images that can appear to be coming from the front. However...

- I have had instances where I needed to bleed front-center vocals into the rears in order to bring the vocals out a bit into the room. (Lexicon Logic7 was uncanny at doing this.) I detest front-center vocals that are reticent between (or behind) the front sound stage while the rest of the presentation is 'in your face.' That's my complaint about the Azteca quad.

- Sometimes the mix is such that I use more than 12 dB front to back if I want to really emphasize elements in the rears. On the other hand, I've had songs that are immersive by their nature, i.e. The Moody Blues The Voice. With this song, I found that my homemade 5.1 sounded better with the rears blended a bit more into the fronts to maintain its immersive character.

This is all so much fun!

 

[jaybird100]

Yes I know we are all off topic but it is an interesting chat.....thank you all so much for helping out on this survey!'

My real passion has been and still is for a unified and simple, universally compatible sound format. One that any mug can pickup and play on anything and not have to get up and change settings or think is it DTD/ Dolby 5.1/ ATMOS/ SACD something blah blah. In addition a format free of any negative license fees or quality compression and can be transmitted in anything radio/ tv/ YouTube/ SACD/ vinyl/ CD/ cassette/ wax cylinder/ flag semaphore (reduced data rate).

I find myself as usual in furious agreement with Jaybird100, Par4ken, AR Surround, Sonik and the Pup in the chat about perceived surround quality comparisons. So the real axe I have to grind is that I strongly believe surround will never be a real success (as was stereo) until we all chill off and take a step back to the future and standardise on a surround compatible stereo......off course I am pushing our Involve stereo/ surround format as it really sounds like stereo and even the best ears have difficulty in distinguishing it from the best discrete formats.

It ticks all the boxes, everyone can play it with or without surround equipment and no loss, ITS FREE, no compression, other systems can decode it to some extent as its very close to the original stereo. I think all the major brands simply must have Dolby and all the other LOGOS as that is what people look for.....its a logo count without any understanding.

I remember prior to Dolby B cassette noise reduction Philips greatly resisted the adoption of Dolby B as it made the cassette no longer totally cross comparable. In retrospect I think they were wrong but I fully agree with there philosophy. Its what made video tape a failure and the compact Disc a great success....universal compatibility!

What am I missing?

There I feel better now.

Speaking of Philips, their insistence on cross-compatibility is why we never had discrete quad cassettes. I'm with you all the way, Chucky. Will Involve be at the CES Show in January? More people, especially those in the audio and record industries, need to hear this system, and what it can do.