Listening to Now (Derived/Fake Surround-Specify Method)

[kfbkfb]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fakeSynonyms section: imitation, simulated, synthetic [maybe simulated would be a better word - circling back to the original descriptions of matrix decoders fed stereo content]


My basement speaker setup is a trapezoid (LB & RB speakers closer together than LF & RF), the DTS demo CD has excellent directionality but DPL2 music fake surround doesn't seem to have much in the way of LB/RB separation (the KCJJ AM stereo/DPL2 music quad encoded content does have good LB/RB separation though).


Kirk Bayne

 

[par4ken]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fakeSynonyms section: imitation, simulated, synthetic [maybe simulated would be a better word - circling back to the original descriptions of matrix decoders fed stereo content]


My basement speaker setup is a trapezoid (LB & RB speakers closer together than LF & RF), the DTS demo CD has excellent directionality but DPL2 music fake surround doesn't seem to have much in the way of LB/RB separation (the KCJJ AM stereo/DPL2 music quad encoded content does have good LB/RB separation though).


Kirk Bayne

As I've repeated over and over "I don't like Dolby".

The term simulated might be slightly better than fake but not by much. Sansui first used the term "synthesizer" with the QS-1. That rather weird phase modulation scheme IMHO would classify as a simulation or synthesis. With the move to vario-matrix I guess that the term stuck. Likely it was thought that it was a descriptive way of describing just what it was doing in a way that was easy for the general public to understand.

I think also that they underplayed just how good the surround mode was because they were promoting QS as an encode/decode system. If people realized just how effective (and not fake) the surround mode was there might have been no need for actual QS. It might of actually helped equipment sales even after the supply of new QS material dried up.

 

[kfbkfb]

Maybe Fake/Simulated Surround Sound

(from now on, I'll listen to the content I comment on with both DPL2 music and L-R/DynaQuad - so far, the stereo popular music I've commented on hasn't had much [fake] surround content [maybe due to mixing them for mono compatibility])


Kirk Bayne

 

[LB-V]

I would take issue with the term "fake".

Yes, that title has been troubling me in the same way....but with nothing better to suggest....I left it alone. "Fake" is akin to saying something is cheap...a fair description when applicable, as opposed to "less expensive".

Anyway, I throw it out there we could replace "Fake" with "Non-Discrete". That sort of covers everything, I believe, we intend to include in this thread. And I agree with you @par4ken, there is nothing fake about it, simply a different means of developing and listening to quad / surround. Remarkable, in my opinion, from a technical standpoint.

 

[humprof]

I don't mind "fake" at all. Although I always put mental scare-quotes around it, it's still a convenient term, and I think we all know what we mean by it.

 

[humprof]

@J. PUPSTER inspired me. I thought about trying some Ornette (Skies of America) or jazz singer Rene Marie (Voice of My Beautiful Country) or even Pat Metheny (American Garage), but finally settled on Carla Bley. Too many choices, though: "Star Spangled Banner Minor" from European Tour 1977? "United States" from The Very Big Carla Bley Band? The "America the Beautiful" medley from the Liberation Music Orchestra's Not In Our Name? Turns out the Dolby Surround Upmixer (with Center Spread) on my Marantz does a good job of spreading the big band on Looking for America around my listening room. RBCD on a 5.1.4 system.
https://www.discogs.com/master/1290776-The-Carla-Bley-Big-Band-Looking-For-America

 

[The56Kid]

As I previously mentioned, I love listening to stereo sources (mostly FLAC files I rip from my CD collection) via my Yamaha AVR’s 7ChEnhancer DSP. Obviously, not all of them display great Pseurround, as my younger brother and I refer to it, but the ones that do sound great.

Jerry Granelli UFB - News From The Street is an excellent recent example. The band’s instrumental groove (2 guitars, bass, drums) resolves fantastically well in Pseurround. I always felt it was a great sounding CD, but it’s way more engaging now.

 

[LB-V]

Pseurround

I like it!

 

[MidiMagic]

I prefer extracted.

The material is already there in the recording.

In the case of the Dynaco diamond, Dynaquad, Stereo-4, and QS, the system is just finding any material that is already in the recording and sending it to the correct direction.

I have several recordings of live performances where the audience sounds are in the back speakers.

I DO like Dolby Surround/PL/PLII because they eliminate cogging.

 

[kfbkfb]

AFAIK, this thread title is an extension of the "...in fake Quad" thread title (skimming that thread, the posters seem ok with using the word "fake"), IMHO, this thread title is fine the way it is.


Kirk Bayne

 

[kap'n krunch]

"electronically enhanced to SIMULATE Surround"???

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.discogs.com/master/27199-Tomita-Pictures-At-An-Exhibition
Bought this at a thrift store ($0.99, but with my senior discount $0.75) a few days ago (I already had the CD-4, purchased in 1975).

I was curious to find out if the stereo mix had much out of phase content, w/DPL2 music, the "artificial" ambience is routed to LB and RB, I didn't notice any LB/RB channel separation though.

(I'll try it later on my DynaQuad system)


Kirk Bayne

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Obviously, not all of them display great Pseurround, as my younger brother and I refer to it, but the ones that do sound great.

This seems to be a case of disputed psemantics. I do have a problem with fake surround and other synonyms because it doesn't give credit to what can be an excellent process of decoding stereo into surround.

In a stereo record there can be an amplitude difference between 1 and 0 between the two chs, and a potential phase difference between zero deg & 180 deg. In an RM/QS decoder amplitude difference denotes left/right position, and phase difference denotes is this sound in front, side center, or rear. The way regular stereo recordings are produced lends very well to this sort of decoding.

Decoding, extracting, all are more aptly descriptive than fake. A term I have championed for years is simply S2S, or, Stereo to Surround. A simple descriptive term that envelops it all. Of course there are many sub-sets of this which is why we have fake surround sans subwoofer and so many other over lapping subjects. I do not envy the moderators trying to wrangle this herd of cats.

At any rate I'm sure @par4ken and @LB-V would agree that S2S done right is not fake, but real surround sound.

 

[stevendive]

This seems to be a case of disputed psemantics. I do have a problem with fake surround and other synonyms because it doesn't give credit to what can be an excellent process of decoding stereo into surround.

In a stereo record there can be an amplitude difference between 1 and 0 between the two chs, and a potential phase difference between zero deg & 180 deg. In an RM/QS decoder amplitude difference denotes left/right position, and phase difference denotes is this sound in front, side center, or rear. The way regular stereo recordings are produced lends very well to this sort of decoding.

Decoding, extracting, all are more aptly descriptive than fake. A term I have championed for years is simply S2S, or, Stereo to Surround. A simple descriptive term that envelops it all. Of course there are many sub-sets of this which is why we have fake surround sans subwoofer and so many other over lapping subjects. I do not envy the moderators trying to wrangle this herd of cats.

At any rate I'm sure @par4ken and @LB-V would agree that S2S done right is not fake, but real surround sound.

It’s easy to overlook that stereo is a form of encoding and is somewhat arbitrary, especially when you think of all the microphone methods used.

Gerzon recognised that the usual stereo decoding, which occurs at the ear, gives a mediocre result for energy versus frequency across the stereo front sector. This is why, as well as ambisonics, he invented what is known as superstereo/stereo enhance, which creates a pseudo B-format (3 channel) matrix from stereo that is sent to a standard UHJ decoder, then 4 or more loudspeakers. The fun bit is being able to wrap the stage around you but the intention is to give a better than stereo front stage by better dealing with energy vs. frequency across the front sector.

 

[stevendive]

Apologies if this belongs in another thread, but along with enjoying Atmos and 5.1 mixes on Apple Music, I've also enjoyed listening to some stereo mixes in pseudo-surround via my receiver's surround modes. I've especially enjoyed some older music from these bands:

Riverside
Lunatic Soul
The Pineapple Thief

I hope some of this music is eventually released in genuine surround or Atmos.

As a matter of general habit these days, I default to using the superstereo option in ambisonics for stereo playback. My main reason for doing this is it gives me a more satisfactory front sound stage than old fashioned stereo, not because it can smoothly wrap the sound almost around when ‘width’ is turned up beyond about 0.6 on the dial, although that can be fun.

The most spectacular result I got was with Kraftwerk - Computer World (Remastered), which did wrap almost all the way around and sounded amazingly good, almost as good as I’d expect a B-format recording to be. Excellent imaging through at least 270 degrees (azimuth). Now to try a few more Kraftwerk…

 

[LB-V]

A term I have championed for years is simply S2S, or, Stereo to Surround

That is a great descriptor...it has my vote.

 

[kfbkfb]

I'm including listening to surround encoded content with the "wrong" decoder as Fake Surround, so...


I just bought the mp3 of track 1 of the "Star Wars - The Sound Of Hollywood (Eloquence)" CD which is processed in AMSI (Ambient Surround Imaging).

I listened with DPL2 music - OK with my 4.1 system (trapezoid speaker arrangement, LB and RB much closer together than LF and RF [due to space limitations]), the imaging in LF and RF is good, not much ambience routed to LB+RB though.

I also listened with (original) DPL, much more ambience is routed to LB+RB.

I also listened with my DynaQuad system, L and R imaging very good, sound beyond L and R, a lot of sound routed to S (my listening position is very close the the S speaker system though)

Star Wars (now called ep. 4) is my favorite movie, I probably won't buy the CD, this mp3 of track 1 is fine for me.


Kirk Bayne

 

[kfbkfb]

Just found this, w/DPL2 music, there's more content in LB and RB than most fake surround sound created with DPL2 music.

(original) DPL doesn't have as much of a soundfield as DPL2 music does from this QSound demo.

(had read that the SM decoder works well w/QSound, wanted to try it w/DPL2 music)


Kirk Bayne

 

[kfbkfb]

Mainly a question - my MQA (remastered) CD of the Best of Joe Walsh has significantly more fake surround than the original CD (DPL2 music & DynaQuad).

IMHO, the MQA remastering process is greatly increasing the volume of the L-R part of the stereo, anyone found any other cases where a remastered stereo album/song has a lot more (or maybe, unfortunately, less) fake surround sound?


Kirk Bayne

 

[par4ken]

Mainly a question - my MQA (remastered) CD of the Best of Joe Walsh has significantly more fake surround than the original CD (DPL2 music & DynaQuad).

IMHO, the MQA remastering process is greatly increasing the volume of the L-R part of the stereo, anyone found any other cases where a remastered stereo album/song has a lot more (or maybe, unfortunately, less) fake surround sound?


Kirk Bayne

More likly that the excessive processing done to the regular CD squashed out much of the L-R ambiance. The MQA may just be better mastered (not that the actual MQA process is better).