It would be interesting to see how the Surround Master does its thing decoding the matrixed quad versions. But it is a novelty and not necessary given that each layer usually adds cost to the product.
Dutton Vocalion: What's Next?
- Thread starter jefe1
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
I'm not sure why DV includes a CD layer on their (MCH) SACDs, they have to spend extra money/time to acquire (and prepare for mastering) the stereo version, it might cost less to just run their (prepared for mastering) Quad mix thru a software QS encoder to create the content for the stereo CD layer.
Kirk Bayne
Kirk Bayne
i suspect because their existing customer base before they went with Surround SACD mostly comprised Stereo listening CD buyers and they wouldn't want to alienate their old customers.
While I like the idea of getting the original encoded versions of these releases as well as the discrete versions, I agree with other posters that it would be unnecessary and might not be appreciated by those lunatic stereo only listeners. Many DV releases had only discrete versions (no matrix) originally, to use Involve to QS encode would seem to be pointless. If someone needs an encoded version just get the Involve encoder and do it yourself. If DV was issuing Blu-ray audio discs instead of SACD there would be room to include the original matrix versions, but as they don't the point is moot. As unfortunate as it is remember that many/most of these discs will be sold to people who will never listen in multichannel. The stereo CD layer is there for compatibility, many people do not have SACD playback capability, they will purchase the disc as a regular CD.
What started all of this (for me) about providing the Quad mix for the stereo CD layer was what happened to me, I bought the Godfather/Montenegro and Dr. Teleny DV MCH SACDs, both of these were RCA single inventory CD-4/Quadradisc releases, so the stereo mix is a folddown of the Quad mix.
When I bought the DV MCH SACD of Indian Reservation/Raiders, I thought that the stereo layer would also be a folddown of the Quad mix, but it was the separate stereo mix which got me thinking about ways to provide the Quad mix for stereo listeners, matrix encoding or (Quadradisc type) Quad to stereo folddown seem to be the only ways, of course, matrix encoding means that various decoding methods can be applied to get some semblance of the Quad mix.
Kirk Bayne
When I bought the DV MCH SACD of Indian Reservation/Raiders, I thought that the stereo layer would also be a folddown of the Quad mix, but it was the separate stereo mix which got me thinking about ways to provide the Quad mix for stereo listeners, matrix encoding or (Quadradisc type) Quad to stereo folddown seem to be the only ways, of course, matrix encoding means that various decoding methods can be applied to get some semblance of the Quad mix.
Kirk Bayne
Well simply put, the effort of doing that brings way more sales, because you appeal to a much wider demographic. In the end it becomes worth it.
Last edited by a moderator:
What could have, should have happened in the early quad days is that everything should of been mixed in some sort of quad, with no separate stereo release. If that would of been done quad could have survived. I always thought that the quad version of most releases sounded better than the stereo version even when played in stereo. The stereo purists would disagree, I do have to admit that in some cases the stereo version does sound better though. As far as the general public is concerned, they wouldn't of noticed either way.
Alternatively QS Surround mode could have been made the standard for quad, that way every stereo release would already be encoded. Out of phase information could be added to the stereo mix to throw some sound sources across the rear, if desired.
It's very easy to make your own fold-down mix from the discrete quad mix if you so desire.
It was 1991 before I heard (most of) my CD-4 discs in quad, IMHO, the CD-4 quad to stereo folddown provided a good stereo effect, both thru speakers and headphones.
DV could even use DynaQuad encoding of the discrete quad mix for the stereo CD layer on their MCH SACDs, just add LB+RB and place this in phase is L and out of phase in R, could be decoded by SQ, QS, EV Stereo-4, speaker matrix since all of these decoders would route this content to CB.
I emailed DV some time ago about this, maybe I used the wrong email for suggestions or maybe I didn't explain myself very well, I'll try again soon.
Kirk Bayne
DV could even use DynaQuad encoding of the discrete quad mix for the stereo CD layer on their MCH SACDs, just add LB+RB and place this in phase is L and out of phase in R, could be decoded by SQ, QS, EV Stereo-4, speaker matrix since all of these decoders would route this content to CB.
I emailed DV some time ago about this, maybe I used the wrong email for suggestions or maybe I didn't explain myself very well, I'll try again soon.
Kirk Bayne
I still fail to see the point. If you want quad you have the discrete version. If you want a fold-down or encode for some reason just do it yourself. There would be very very little interest in either from most of DV's potential customers.
I have a few SACDs wo/CD layer, if DV goes to the cost/trouble of having a CD layer, I'd like it to be something special (some sort of folddown of the quad mix) because the stereo mix of most DV releases has already been available (in some cases for decades).
This is in line with the idea of releasing the quad mix folded down to stereo as the selling point (the Jackson 5 LP is an example).
Kirk Bayne
This is in line with the idea of releasing the quad mix folded down to stereo as the selling point (the Jackson 5 LP is an example).
Kirk Bayne
The original stereo mix on both the CD & SACD layers is newly remastered by Michael Dutton, which is a big selling point in-and-of itself.
These are HYBRID discs, and the CD layer guarantees the discs can be played on "any" player. Yes, the CD layer is stereo, but if that layer were to be QS-encoded, that would insure that anyone with a home theater system could enjoy some sort of surround sound, even without a dedicated SACD player. As for how the Surround Master would handle that, since someone asked, it would do an excellent job with decoding it. Pro Logic II would do a fine job, too, but most new receivers and processors don't include it anymore.
How does QS-encoding the CD layer solve or lessen either of those problems?
It's all about broad market appeal. The stereo folk get their Hi-Def stereo with the added bonus of a Quad layer should they decide to explore that route. Meanwhile, we get the Quad stuff we've been begging for with the added bonus of the stereo side.
I was pretty surprised to learn that an SACD would play (the stereo CD layer, obvs) in my 1987 Dodge Daytona. These cars came with notoriously quirky CD-players that sometimes won't play regular CD's. Burned CD's are right out. (I've name my CD player "Jeffrey" as it absolutely refuses to play my Eagles' Greatest Hits CD). But I pop in my SACD of the Guess Who and it starts right up. Insane!
NOW.... just for shits and giggles before anybody giggles and shits.... do you suppose there is enough data space on an SACD to provide a QS or SQ mix after the stereo mix of the album on the 2ch SACD layer?? Say on an album with 8 songs, 1-8 are stereo, 9-16 are SQ-encoded.
That way you're getting CD Stereo, SACD-quality Stereo, SACD Quality SQ-encoded version and the discrete on the multichannel layer. I would imagine this wouldn't be possible with overly long albums. But then it probably begs the question.... do the SQ-encoded tapes (or QS) still exist?
I was pretty surprised to learn that an SACD would play (the stereo CD layer, obvs) in my 1987 Dodge Daytona. These cars came with notoriously quirky CD-players that sometimes won't play regular CD's. Burned CD's are right out. (I've name my CD player "Jeffrey" as it absolutely refuses to play my Eagles' Greatest Hits CD). But I pop in my SACD of the Guess Who and it starts right up. Insane!
NOW.... just for shits and giggles before anybody giggles and shits.... do you suppose there is enough data space on an SACD to provide a QS or SQ mix after the stereo mix of the album on the 2ch SACD layer?? Say on an album with 8 songs, 1-8 are stereo, 9-16 are SQ-encoded.
That way you're getting CD Stereo, SACD-quality Stereo, SACD Quality SQ-encoded version and the discrete on the multichannel layer. I would imagine this wouldn't be possible with overly long albums. But then it probably begs the question.... do the SQ-encoded tapes (or QS) still exist?
The QS matrix can be decoded with Dolby Pro-Logic 2 and also the completely passive speaker matrix, which only requires 1 speaker and some speaker wire.
(if DV did use QS, they could provide [the simple] wiring diagram for speaker matrix decoding on their website)
Kirk Bayne
(if DV did use QS, they could provide [the simple] wiring diagram for speaker matrix decoding on their website)
Kirk Bayne
My motivation for QS encoding the CD layer was to get the Quad mix in an easily playable, widely used format (maybe radio stations would choose to broadcast the QS encoded Quad/stereo version of popular songs rather than the well known stereo version).
Kirk Bayne
Kirk Bayne
Well, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea say if there were a title out there that ONLY came out in QS & discrete. If the stereo mix is nothing more than a fold down (therefore all edit points and levels match the "stereo" version and won't piss off the stereo-only crowd) then why not put the stereo fold-down on the CD layer, the QS-encoded version on the SACD 2ch layer and the Quad on the multichannel layer.
I'd be game as long as there's no possible way of pissing off the stereo crowd. Because you just know they're going to cluck loudly if something goes askew. But if their beloved stereo version is proven and known to be nothing more than a Quad fold down, then they shouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 4.0 to 2.0 fold down, and a 2.0 QS encoded layer.
Does that make sense? Gotta do our best to keep all interested parties happy.
I'd be game as long as there's no possible way of pissing off the stereo crowd. Because you just know they're going to cluck loudly if something goes askew. But if their beloved stereo version is proven and known to be nothing more than a Quad fold down, then they shouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 4.0 to 2.0 fold down, and a 2.0 QS encoded layer.
Does that make sense? Gotta do our best to keep all interested parties happy.
MidiMagic
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,277
I would rather the CD layer have the QS.
Actually the fold down of a QS recording IS the QS recording. To have a multitrack that mixes down to good QS, the multitrack has to be compatible with QS. Making a separate "fold down" would be superfluous because the QS mix serves the same purpose.
I want to buy a simple CD or LP, not a bunch of layers I will never use.
Actually the fold down of a QS recording IS the QS recording. To have a multitrack that mixes down to good QS, the multitrack has to be compatible with QS. Making a separate "fold down" would be superfluous because the QS mix serves the same purpose.
I want to buy a simple CD or LP, not a bunch of layers I will never use.
There's nothing saying the discrete version couldn't be passed through a QS encoder to offer an encoded stereo layer on the red book CD layer. The SACD stereo layer could remain stereo, for the purists.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
- Sticky
