INVOLVE SQ - IS COMING
- Thread starter chucky3042
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 313
Wow. There are no words.
A small part of me wishes I'd had a chance to go through that lot.
But...if I start posting photos of my place that resemble anything like that, you have my permission to take me out back somewhere and shoot me.
SQ Decode - Dynaquad, EV Stereo-4, Sansui QS Encode
Dynaquad Encode:
Lt=Lf+0.25Rf+Lb-0.5Rb
Rt=Rf+0.25Lf+Rb-0.5Lb
EV Stereo-4 Encode:
Lt=Lf+0.3Rf+Lb-0.5Rb
Rt=Rf+0.3Lf+Rb-0.5Lb
Sansui QS Encode:
Lt=Lf+0.414Rf+jLb+j0.414Rb
Rt=Rf+0.414Lf-jRb-j0.414Lb
CBS SQ Decode:
Lf=Lt
Rf=Rt
Lb=-0.707(-jLt+Rt)
Rb=0.707(Lt-jRt)
Using an HP Calculator with rectangular/polar
conversions (for example), the directionality of
the various encoded Lf,Rf,Lb,Rb decoded with
an SQ decoder can be determined.
Kirk Bayne
Dynaquad Encode:
Lt=Lf+0.25Rf+Lb-0.5Rb
Rt=Rf+0.25Lf+Rb-0.5Lb
EV Stereo-4 Encode:
Lt=Lf+0.3Rf+Lb-0.5Rb
Rt=Rf+0.3Lf+Rb-0.5Lb
Sansui QS Encode:
Lt=Lf+0.414Rf+jLb+j0.414Rb
Rt=Rf+0.414Lf-jRb-j0.414Lb
CBS SQ Decode:
Lf=Lt
Rf=Rt
Lb=-0.707(-jLt+Rt)
Rb=0.707(Lt-jRt)
Using an HP Calculator with rectangular/polar
conversions (for example), the directionality of
the various encoded Lf,Rf,Lb,Rb decoded with
an SQ decoder can be determined.
Kirk Bayne
RSilverman is lucky that he is in L.A. where the stuff comes in from Australia.
Even if I got it tomorrow it may have to wait till Saturday for me to have time to make first impressions.
Also it really is neat to see a smaller audio company investing in research that will only benefit a small group of individuals dedicted to preserving a nearly forgotten type of recording. Catering to a group that is small, but you also understand it's importance and mutually benefit from it. I wish the whole economy were that balanced. Not to mention all the extra work and deling with us and all our questions and tests and suggestions... And arguments. Not many companies get that close to their customers and give them that much access. I hope nothing in this experience makes you second guess direct interction with clients and taking on niche markets.
Even if I got it tomorrow it may have to wait till Saturday for me to have time to make first impressions.
Also it really is neat to see a smaller audio company investing in research that will only benefit a small group of individuals dedicted to preserving a nearly forgotten type of recording. Catering to a group that is small, but you also understand it's importance and mutually benefit from it. I wish the whole economy were that balanced. Not to mention all the extra work and deling with us and all our questions and tests and suggestions... And arguments. Not many companies get that close to their customers and give them that much access. I hope nothing in this experience makes you second guess direct interction with clients and taking on niche markets.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,905
Hi Q8
Thanks for the praise about being kind to you guys, but actually I have only been a bit kind on the SQ stuff. My motivations are pure greed on everything else.
The SQ is a thank you to all the extreme nutters, HiFi fanatics, one eyed old time surround purists of the QQ forum. We really are with you guys 100% in philosophy.
Surround was closer to the truth in the 70's but in other ways the technology lagged the market with Sansui coming on the scene too late to save a confused consumer. So the general experience of the surround consumer back then was pumping, blurred images, incompatible formats and it only really worked for a centrally located sweet spot seat, hence stereo won again. Along came Dolby in the mid 80's who cleverly recognised that cassette's were a dead medium and they changed horses to 5.1 channel surround that importantly did three things
1 Unified the surround brand format confusion to a known respectable Dolby name so consumers felt secure again.
2 Standardised to a highly stereo compatible format similar to SQ and Hafner Dynaco and stuck a small front/ back delay.
3 Created the center channel "band aid" to fix the center vocalist image for off center listeners.
Pity it was such a mess but from a market perspective it won. Since then the decode got better, digital compressed and uncompressed formats have arrived, more and more channels to fix holes have happened but overall to my ears the result is still poor and unrealistic in my opinion. We strongly believe and have proven (internally) that better results are available with a modern day revamp of the older matrix technologies with the great advantage of total stereo compatibility, low data bandwidth, no compression, better circular depth of image, lower market setup problems (see today's complicated menu based receivers).
On top of all that we have our other technology "Total Perspective" that we have not demonstrated to any QQ members yet (Hey Rustyandi, we are demonstrating it to a bunch of University types tomorrow - will be setup for a few days) that gets rid of the need for a center channel providing a consistent stable image in all seated positions in the room. This means Rustyandi will not need his listening chair bolted to the sweet spot!!!!!!!
Put all this together with our Intelligent INVOLVE encode technology that is fully stereo indistinguishable and we believe we have revolutionized surround sound for the MASS MARKET, not just our beloved nutters in QQ. Oh, we have successfully demonstrated in a full cinema 3D (FULL HEIGHT) from 4 recorded channels, 4 speaker columns with correct imaging is all seats of the cinema - no center channel.
The QQ forum is a tough test ground with many of the most knowledgeable surround people, if we survive you guys then at least we know we are better that the current surround sound 5.1....22.2 (or 900 channel wave field synthesis lunacy). The problem is to find mass market consumer electronics companies that have the guts to stand aside from the existing mediocrity and show a new path that actually delivers. Bit like when Nakamichi was the first company to license Dolby B noise reduction then advent, Harmon Kardon then the rest of the "sheep" will hopefully follow.
I am in fact a greedy megalomaniac.
Regards
Scrooge Chucky
Thanks for the praise about being kind to you guys, but actually I have only been a bit kind on the SQ stuff. My motivations are pure greed on everything else.
The SQ is a thank you to all the extreme nutters, HiFi fanatics, one eyed old time surround purists of the QQ forum. We really are with you guys 100% in philosophy.
Surround was closer to the truth in the 70's but in other ways the technology lagged the market with Sansui coming on the scene too late to save a confused consumer. So the general experience of the surround consumer back then was pumping, blurred images, incompatible formats and it only really worked for a centrally located sweet spot seat, hence stereo won again. Along came Dolby in the mid 80's who cleverly recognised that cassette's were a dead medium and they changed horses to 5.1 channel surround that importantly did three things
1 Unified the surround brand format confusion to a known respectable Dolby name so consumers felt secure again.
2 Standardised to a highly stereo compatible format similar to SQ and Hafner Dynaco and stuck a small front/ back delay.
3 Created the center channel "band aid" to fix the center vocalist image for off center listeners.
Pity it was such a mess but from a market perspective it won. Since then the decode got better, digital compressed and uncompressed formats have arrived, more and more channels to fix holes have happened but overall to my ears the result is still poor and unrealistic in my opinion. We strongly believe and have proven (internally) that better results are available with a modern day revamp of the older matrix technologies with the great advantage of total stereo compatibility, low data bandwidth, no compression, better circular depth of image, lower market setup problems (see today's complicated menu based receivers).
On top of all that we have our other technology "Total Perspective" that we have not demonstrated to any QQ members yet (Hey Rustyandi, we are demonstrating it to a bunch of University types tomorrow - will be setup for a few days) that gets rid of the need for a center channel providing a consistent stable image in all seated positions in the room. This means Rustyandi will not need his listening chair bolted to the sweet spot!!!!!!!
Put all this together with our Intelligent INVOLVE encode technology that is fully stereo indistinguishable and we believe we have revolutionized surround sound for the MASS MARKET, not just our beloved nutters in QQ. Oh, we have successfully demonstrated in a full cinema 3D (FULL HEIGHT) from 4 recorded channels, 4 speaker columns with correct imaging is all seats of the cinema - no center channel.
The QQ forum is a tough test ground with many of the most knowledgeable surround people, if we survive you guys then at least we know we are better that the current surround sound 5.1....22.2 (or 900 channel wave field synthesis lunacy). The problem is to find mass market consumer electronics companies that have the guts to stand aside from the existing mediocrity and show a new path that actually delivers. Bit like when Nakamichi was the first company to license Dolby B noise reduction then advent, Harmon Kardon then the rest of the "sheep" will hopefully follow.
I am in fact a greedy megalomaniac.
Regards
Scrooge Chucky
JR Hearne
Member
Hi to all
Just received my unit today!!! Have not tried it yet but would like to thank the team at surround master for there work and to this forum for making it possible to have a decoder with the SQ feature!
Jay
Just received my unit today!!! Have not tried it yet but would like to thank the team at surround master for there work and to this forum for making it possible to have a decoder with the SQ feature!
Jay
My surround master rrived thismorn as I was headed out to werk. Didn't even have time to open the box! I will get to see it visually tonight, but doubt I can give any comments on the audio untill late night on Saturday EST. We shall see! I will probably lean towards the party titles so my gf doesn't get bored (okay, I want to hear them too).
jpaustruy
New member
Hi all
I receives my Involve SQ unit for two days.
It is yet installed but I have to listen how he works with the CBS SQ test disc!
Regards
I receives my Involve SQ unit for two days.
It is yet installed but I have to listen how he works with the CBS SQ test disc!
Regards
RSilverman
Senior Member
Next Impression:
Played a few things with a friend last night (for maybe 30 minutes - time is oh-so limited).
QS: very discrete separation on the one we tested: avante guard classical album by Chihara. I have my system set up to toggle between the Involve SM and my SQD-2020. As far as QS goes, there's no comparison. Now I can't say whether Involve was making it's own quad mix on the fly or if it was properly decoding the QS, but seperation between front/back was very clean and very noticeable.
SQ: I tested a couple records. The first Chase album has some trumpets moving around the speakers in the first cut so it was a good one to play with. The SQD-2020 offered a surprisingly good deal of front/back separation but the sound is smeared between channels. The Involve was about 30% less smeared sounding, I'd guess. Honestly, it wasn't a huge difference to our ears, so maybe it was more like 15-20% less smeared (an arbitrary scale, I know, but you get the idea, I suppose).
In terms of overall sound quality, though, hands down Involve is better. the soundstage is wider and there's more high end.
Pros:
Soundstage
* Solid QS decoding (for the 15 QS albums I have. oy).
* Better high ends
* Somewhat better SQ decoding than the Sony SQD-2020
Cons:
* Was expecting better front/back separation in SQ. Were my expectations too high? On three others SQs I tried, there was no noticeable difference in decoding between the 2020 and the Involve as far as these ears go.
Anyone else have a chance to mess with theirs yet?
Played a few things with a friend last night (for maybe 30 minutes - time is oh-so limited).
QS: very discrete separation on the one we tested: avante guard classical album by Chihara. I have my system set up to toggle between the Involve SM and my SQD-2020. As far as QS goes, there's no comparison. Now I can't say whether Involve was making it's own quad mix on the fly or if it was properly decoding the QS, but seperation between front/back was very clean and very noticeable.
SQ: I tested a couple records. The first Chase album has some trumpets moving around the speakers in the first cut so it was a good one to play with. The SQD-2020 offered a surprisingly good deal of front/back separation but the sound is smeared between channels. The Involve was about 30% less smeared sounding, I'd guess. Honestly, it wasn't a huge difference to our ears, so maybe it was more like 15-20% less smeared (an arbitrary scale, I know, but you get the idea, I suppose).
In terms of overall sound quality, though, hands down Involve is better. the soundstage is wider and there's more high end.
Pros:
Soundstage
* Solid QS decoding (for the 15 QS albums I have. oy).
* Better high ends
* Somewhat better SQ decoding than the Sony SQD-2020
Cons:
* Was expecting better front/back separation in SQ. Were my expectations too high? On three others SQs I tried, there was no noticeable difference in decoding between the 2020 and the Involve as far as these ears go.
Anyone else have a chance to mess with theirs yet?
Dear RSilverman, Your Expectations were too high as far as front to back separation was concerned! When it hits all four corners you've had The best SQ has to offer! Did you by any chance raise the volume levels of the rear channels while listening through the INVOLVE SQ? The Sony 2020, as a gain riding only unit, I once owned one, shut off sound from adjacent channels to increase apparent separation...it was by definition perfect in one direction, because all other directions were shut down. This was also one of the main criticisms of the unit...it momentarily shut down a good portion of the sound to produce a small portion for directional purposes. Through the INVOLVE you should not gain better separation in this manor, but rather the same separation without audible pumping and loss of special information, along with better clarity!....and all of this ends with a better decoded program. In fact you indicated this....Try raising the volume levels to the rear channels! You may be pleasantly surprised by this simple solution?
Dwight .
Dwight .
Also your results may be skewed if your speakers don't match, or you are too far outside of the sweet spot, or there is something or someone between you and one or more of the speakers and if they aren't pointed at you. I only ever ended up messing with the balance was when I was INVOLVE decoding Stereo and something sounded wrong. On QS and SQ, even when things were not moving around, I heard differant instruments and sounds isolated in the rear channels. Back in the Saddle Again by Aerosmith is an exceptional example where the instruments are localized plus you have the galloping circling around you and the whip cracks and vocals ping ponging around. I have never had the Sony unit be able to do that. It seems like half the sounds end up in the wrong channels. Kinda slow and pumpy.
Very Pumpy!
Dwight
Dwight
Hi. All
Sorry have not replied with more test of my SQ SM Unit, one of my speakers have gone on the blink the mid range driver voice coil has gone and the upper bass driver has torn at the foam edge I have a 4 way system. I`ll get back when fixed. Bill....
Sorry have not replied with more test of my SQ SM Unit, one of my speakers have gone on the blink the mid range driver voice coil has gone and the upper bass driver has torn at the foam edge I have a 4 way system. I`ll get back when fixed. Bill....
I got mine Saturday afternoon. Hooked it up and started to play "Chase". Wow! Nice separation without the kind of obvious pumping and steering that I get from the Tate (which needs another trip to the shop, too).
Next I tried some QS material and was underwhelmed. Played some test tones and realized that everything was going to the right places, but for some reason in QS mode the rear channels are quieter than in SQ mode. That's a minor annoyance with my receiver (speaker levels can be adjusted, but it's slightly painful), but one I'm perfectly willing to live with. Once I turned up the surround levels everything was great.
Next up was EV-4. "Uncle Bob White" by Rich Mountain Tower had much more interesting separation than I'd previously heard. Not sure how accurate it was, but it sure sounded good!
I still haven't had the time to just sit for hours and really run the thing through its paces, but so far I'm very encouraged by what I'm hearing.
Thanks so much for building this thing!
Next I tried some QS material and was underwhelmed. Played some test tones and realized that everything was going to the right places, but for some reason in QS mode the rear channels are quieter than in SQ mode. That's a minor annoyance with my receiver (speaker levels can be adjusted, but it's slightly painful), but one I'm perfectly willing to live with. Once I turned up the surround levels everything was great.
Next up was EV-4. "Uncle Bob White" by Rich Mountain Tower had much more interesting separation than I'd previously heard. Not sure how accurate it was, but it sure sounded good!
I still haven't had the time to just sit for hours and really run the thing through its paces, but so far I'm very encouraged by what I'm hearing.
Thanks so much for building this thing!
Hi. All
Still have not got my speakers repaired yet.
It`s been very quiet lately on the Involve SQ unit front, I suppose everyone is enjoying there music in a new dimension of aureole delight….
Still have not got my speakers repaired yet.
It`s been very quiet lately on the Involve SQ unit front, I suppose everyone is enjoying there music in a new dimension of aureole delight….
I want to semi-retract this. Apparently I just really had a knack for initially chosing QS material without a lot of surround activity (e.g., "Pretzel Logic"). I've since played quite a bit of other material and have been happy with the channel levels. "Tony Mottola and the Quad Guitars" makes an excellent demo.
Having said that, I haven't found a lot of stereo material that upmixes spectacularly yet. I need to go back and try some of the demo tracks others have suggested, but one I'll toss out there that I think works well is the original studio version of Pink Floyd's "Astronomy Domine".
Is the Tony Mottola disc on vinyl or CD ?
My copy is vinyl and I am unaware of any CD version, which doesn't mean there isn't one.
On a side-note, prior to getting the Involve unit, I had been spending a lot of my music time digitizing 12" singles from the 1980s. I was beginning to question the quality of my setup after encountering so many records with sibilance and other mastering or pressing issues. But the last couple weekends I've been playing a lot of vintage 1970s vinyl through the Involve box and have been very, very happy with the quality of the records. I guess things just took a nose-dive right before and after the CD came along.
Glad to hear the Surround Master is doing its stereo to surround magic. Mine is heading here in the next week or so.
On the sonic nose-dive, yes that is what drove the move to SACD and DVD-A and more recently DSD Downloads.
Nice that there are higher quality audio options out there !
Similar threads
