Decoding SQ Classical Records

[par4ken]

I believe he was Oxford Dickie

 

[watsontr]

I believe he was Oxford Dickie

To be honest, I had the feeling that it might be he once we’d received the “announcement”.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

I'm still scratching my head on this. They both claim not to be each other, but they both talk of the same things and have the same MO. But, at the end of the day....who cares....

 

[watsontr]

I'm still scratching my head on this. They both claim not to be each other, but they both talk of the same things and have the same MO. But, at the end of the day....who cares....

AoQ you’re right of course. I do remember a time when communication with him was less troubled (but always on the verge of being prickly) but that was well before we’d found this forum

 

[jonmchugh]

I though I should post some example decodes to demonstrate why I think this Auroran script is an improvement on the previous attempts.

The audio sample posted here is an extract of Pachelbel's Canon On A Ground In D Major, Conducted by Neville Marriner and performed by The Academy of St. Martin in the Fields. Recorded 1974 by EMI, Digitally remastered in 1997 by EMI from the SQ encoded masters.

The Scripts used are the Lucano SQ script. OD's SQ*Final and the Auroran script.

The Improvement from the Lucano script is stark and obvious, from the SQ*Final is more subtle, What I notice most with my hearing, and everyone hears things differently, is the phase-y flange-y sound his been eliminated and the very quietest details can shine though.

I post the rear channels of the decodes as a stereo flac file for you to listen to on your headphones, There are improvements in the sound of the fronts too but it's more apparent in the rears making comparision of such a subjective matter easier.
Also for reference I post the stereo source and the full 4.0 decode as flacs.

http://mchugh.it/SQLucano-rear.flac
http://mchugh.it/SQFinal-rear.flac
http://mchugh.it/SQAuroran-rear.flac

http://mchugh.it/stereo-source-SQ.flac
http://mchugh.it/Auroran-decode-4.0.flac

 

[jonmchugh]

OK, Here are a couple more comparisons.
The following is an extract of Beethoven's No.9 Conducted Rudolf Kempe Performed Munich Philharmonic 1974

http://mchugh.it/2lucanu-rear.flachttp://mchugh.it/2auroran-rear.flachttp://mchugh.it/2source.flachttp://mchugh.it/2auroran-4.0.flac

The following is an extract of Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake Conducted Andre Previn Performed London Symphony 1976

http://mchugh.it/3lucanu-rear.flachttp://mchugh.it/3auroran-rear.flachttp://mchugh.it/3source.flachttp://mchugh.it/3auroran-4.0.flac

 

[jonmchugh]

I though I should add that I don't think classical and non-classic decoding should be treated as the same thing, They way there are recorded is quite different. The script that works best for classical may or may not be the best script for non-classical and I've done no testing on non-classical music.
The quadraphonic era was a decade before I was even born and music from that era does not interest me, Classical, however is timeless.

 

[The Auroran]

I believe he was Oxford Dickie

Not so

 

[The Auroran]

I though I should add that I don't think classical and non-classic decoding should be treated as the same thing, They way there are recorded is quite different. The script that works best for classical may or may not be the best script for non-classical and I've done no testing on non-classical music.
The quadraphonic era was a decade before I was even born and music from that era does not interest me, Classical, however is timeless.

Well it's fair to say that classical music doesn't make the most of a scripts possibilities, the best way to test and compare the viability of a script against others is with a good popular music quad mix.

 

[par4ken]

Not so

It’s been Déjà Vu, sorry for thinking you are OD but this whole thing has happened before. I would ask that you consider re-posting your script for the betterment of the Quad community. If some don’t like it they are free to not use it, but your script has gotten positive reviews.

 

[par4ken]

Well it's fair to say that classical music doesn't make the most of a scripts possibilities, the best way to test and compare the viability of a script against others is with a good popular music quad mix.

I would think that a good script would work well on any kind of music, from the little I I've been reading so far it sounds like it does.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

It’s been Déjà Vu, sorry for thinking you are OD but this whole thing has happened before. I would ask that you consider re-posting your script for the betterment of the Quad community. If some don’t like it they are free to not use it, but your script has gotten positive reviews.

The Auroran has been banned. Good riddance.

 

[par4ken]

The Auroran has been banned. Good riddance.

It say's he was banned but he just posted earlier today!?

 

[The Auroran]

The Auroran has been banned. Good riddance.

You shouldn't count your chickens.........

 

[The Auroran]

It say's he was banned but he just posted earlier today!?

Just leave it alone

 

[The Auroran]

I would think that a good script would work well on any kind of music, from the little I I've been reading so far it sounds like it does.

Classical music's a poor way of testing the main areas that an Audition script will impact on. What is needed is a well spaced mix that includes the rears as if they were the same as the fronts.

 

[par4ken]

Classical music's a poor way of testing the main areas that an Audition script will impact on. What is needed is a well spaced mix that includes the rears as if they were the same as the fronts.

So a well spaced mix is the best way of testing, but are you then saying the script is not good for classical or for reproducing intermediate sounds? Some question was made of script decoding in general and how smoothly it would handle panned sounds vs four corner points by Lynn Olson in the thread about Shadow Vector Decoding. Despite all that jonmchugh is raving about how good it is on classical music. What would seem important is how good it sounds to me, and does it sound better than previous attempts, is it best for me and the music that I like, If another script works better for me I'll use that instead.
I would like to you the Auroran to consider re-posting your script as a service to the Quad community. I don’t know what happened last time, but can’t we as Dr. Phil would say press the reset button. Those that have issue with you or your script don’t have to use it. It’s your prerogative weather to share or not but I would hope you would opt to share again.

 

[MidiMagic]

It has been my experience that front-back logic diminished any ambiance in the recording. It turns down the gain on any channel with lower level (as do all gain-riding systems).

I got the best results for ambiance from the non-logic decoder and from the variomatrix phase matrix position.

I also noticed that SQ recordings boosted the ambiance beyond that on RM recordings.

 

[ssully]

Thanks, I was not aware that existed, it's expensive and hard to find so I won't bother because I'm sure I will be disappointed with it. Reason is I already own an EMI 4.0 DVD-A from the same year of 'The Planets' ASD3002 and it is not the same mix as the SQ releases. The DVD-A is mixed more like a modern 5.1 SACD classical where the the soundstage is all up front with very little noticeable ambiance from the rears. The SQ is proper quad where all speakers play an 'almost' equal role.

I have 4 releases of Holst - The Planets, Andre Previn LSO 1974 by EMI.
LP Quad (SQ) 1974 - Original and was the best until 2019 digital release.
DTS-CD 5.1 1998 - Pretty good effort for 1.2mbit lossy compression, Mix is close to the SQ decodes.
DVD-A 4.0 2001 - Not the same thing.
Hi-Rez Digital (SQ) 2019 - The new king.

The DTS-CD is very much like the original SQ release in that the rears are almost as active as the front and put you right in the middle of the orchestra. In order of preference the Best is the SQ Decoded Hi-Rez digital, followed closely behind by the SQ decoded LP, The DTS-CD is pretty good too, The DVD-A is a disappointment. (Just my personal Opinion/ Preference you understand)

I have now decoded the Hi-Rez AGAIN this time using the new Auroran script and this is big leap forward in terms of audio fidelity.

PS. I'm afraid the poor old SQ logic decoder I spent a month building does not get much love these days, gone back in a draw in the garage.

The original 4.0 master tapes from the 70s are 'the standard'; 4 channel matrixed onto LP via SQ is a compromise, less discrete, containing artifacts. I have always presumed that an EMI's 4.0 release on DVD-A (I have the one of Messiaen's Turangalila Symphony conductted by Previn) was basically a digitization of the old quad original master tapes, as they are, without remixing, or rebalancing of channels.

If that's true it would appear from your description that your DTS-CD was sourced from a decode of an SQ source, rather than from the discrete 4.0 tapes.

 

[jonmchugh]

I'm not sure there ever were any 4.0 tapes. I've read somewhere that the masters were recorded with SQ encoding live via the CBS position encoder, which explains why later digital remasters are also SQ encoded. But who knows, It's all just rumors.

My theory, IE, starting another rumor is that the 4.0 DVD is electronically created reverb making the rear channels.