Matrix H Articles

[kfbkfb]

SQ is said to be very sensitive to L(t) and R(t) channel balance errors (the SM decoder needed an upgrade to deal with this issue), does Matrix H still work well (directionality minimally affected by L/R balance errors, possibly caused by a tape recording with the L and R input adjustments slightly incorrect)?


Kirk Bayne

 

[fizzywiggs41]

SQ is said to be very sensitive to L(t) and R(t) channel balance errors (the SM decoder needed an upgrade to deal with this issue), does Matrix H still work well (directionality minimally affected by L/R balance errors, possibly caused by a tape recording with the L and R input adjustments slightly incorrect)?


Kirk Bayne

Given those circumstances I suppose any matrix would.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

A good friend sent me a hard copy cdr in the mail complete with the track list from someone in the know. For those interested I'll list all the artists and songs plus the length of each.

Intro fanfare (1:13)
Steve Gibbons Band -Right Side Of Heaven (0:48) fr Right Side Of Heaven
Steve Gibbons Band -Rolling On (6:19) Fr Right Side Of Heaven
Racing Cars -Weekend Rendevous (5:09) Fr Weekend Rendevous
Coloseum II-Put It This Way (5:11) Fr Electric Savage
Phil Manzanera/801-Law And Order (4:31)fr Listen Now
Andy Fairweather Low - Shimmy Do- Wa- Say (4:19)fr Be Bop And Holla
The Stranglers -Burning UpTime (2:15) fr No More Heroes
The Motors -Phony Heaven (4:18) fr Motors I
The Motors -Freeze (4:43) Fr Motors I
Phil Manzanera/801 -Falling Feeling (5:16) fr Listen Now
Andy Fairweather Low -Ain't No Fun Anymore (5:14) fr Be Bop And Holla
Steve Gibbons Band -Two Lane (3:17) Fr Right Side Of Heaven
Racing Cars -Standing In The Rain (4:23) fr Weekend Rendevous
LoneStar -Bells Of Berlin (8:44) fr Firing On All Six

Tony Wilson Best Of Quad Creations from 1977. BBC Radio One , Presented by Alan Freeman.
4 Track Album Recordings .

Minor correction here for ........The Steve Gibbons Band album title. Ooops

S/B The Steve Gibbons Band -Rollin On........... ,and on the original broadcast date there were 5 Quad tracks ,not 4 as previously stated.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Yes "Jonathan King " did host that Jan 78 show.He played songs in stereo and quad, the quad songs were preceded by a little electronic note/tune so as to warn you they were h/hj encoded.

ANDY FAIRWEATHER LOW-BE BOP AN' HOLLA
-Checking Out The Checker
-Lighten Up
-Be Bop And Holla
-Shimey Do I Say
-Ain't No Fun Anymore
(5 tracks in H)

LONE STAR
-Firing On All Six
-Lonely Soldier
-Bells Of Berlin
-From All Of Us
(4 tracks in H )

Odb (Tim Souster)
-Arboreal Antecedents
( works for electronic orchestra....H/HJ )


STEVE GIBBONS BAND-RIGHT SIDE OF HEAVEN
-Rollin' On
-Please Don't Say Goodbye
-2 Lane
-Gave His Life To Rock & Roll
( 4 tracks in H )

COLOSSEUM II-ELECTRIC SAVAGE
-Intergalactic Strut
-Lament
-Put It This Way
COLOSSEUM II-(their upcoming album for '77 )
-The Inquisition
( 4 tracks in H )

PHIL MANZANERA-801 BAND
-Law And Order
-Remote Control
-Falling Feeling
-Out Of The Blue
(4 tracks in H/HJ, but there may have been 6 originally)

NEIL ARDLEY'S BELIEF ONE
-electronic music composed for quadrophonic






More to come

Correction to this post


THE STEVE GIBBONS BAND-ROLLIN' ON
-Right Side Of Heaven
-Rollin' On
-Please Don't Say Goodbye
-Tulane
-Gave His Life To Rock And Roll
(5 tracks in H)


COLLESEUM II - ELECTRIC SAVAGE
-Intergalactic Strut
-Lament
-Put It This Way
COLLESEUM II- WAR DANCE
-The Inquisition
(4 tracks in H)

 

[quadaholic]

I wish there were more stranglers songs. Those guys were the best.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Considering that the FCC 'S listener's tests rated Matrix H 3rd , after SQ-(2nd) and 444 discrete first and ALL Matrix systems were permitted by the FCC. In fact most listeners at the FCC trails tied both SQ and 444 with their ratings submitted .
I personally think it was a big mistake for Aunty Beeb to change Matrix H .......and then not much later dump
H quad , entirely( in favour of Ambisonics) , when they had an effective quad Matrix system (H) that was proven viable for broadcasts.


444 never stood a chance as the general public would have had to make a financial investment however small. Also the 444 system backers also would have to follow suit , to invest $$ in order to initiate the operation of said system.
FWIW This was considered as a big drawback, or concern by the FCC in conclusion of the listeners trails.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

I wish there were more stranglers songs. Those guys were the best.

I was on line earlier today and I could not get on to the links (of which there must have been 6 ) all which mentioned an August 77 date for The Stranglers sessions at The BBC via John Peel. Unfortunately, but I tried.

 

[kfbkfb]

^^^
Nimbus Records 1990 UHJ Promo (have to watch on YouTube though)


I know a Matrix H decoder was built using a Sansui QS variomatrix decoder, were there any logic directed decoders specifically built for optimum decoding of Matrix H?

(the above YouTube video has pretty good directionality decoded w/DPL2 music mode)


Kirk Bayne

 

[quadaholic]

I was on line earlier today and I could not get on to the links (of which there must have been 6 ) all which mentioned an August 77 date for The Stranglers sessions at The BBC via John Peel. Unfortunately, but I tried.

Got it, I was thinking more stranglers in H as opposed to just stereo. The Peel sessions did such a great job documenting so many great bands. Just wish a few more ended up in four channel form.

 

[MidiMagic]

The problems with UMX, BMX, UD-4, and H were that playing them on an ordinary stereo caused phasey stereo images.

Is that what is meant by "stranglers"?

 

[quadaholic]

^^^
Nimbus Records 1990 UHJ Promo (have to watch on YouTube though)


I know a Matrix H decoder was built using a Sansui QS variomatrix decoder, were there any logic directed decoders specifically built for optimum decoding of Matrix H?

(the above YouTube video has pretty good directionality decoded w/DPL2 music mode)


Kirk Bayne

The problems with UMX, BMX, UD-4, and H were that playing them on an ordinary stereo caused phasey stereo images.

Is that what is meant by "stranglers"?

Nah, I was referring the band of that name. awesome band.

 

[Soundfield]

I personally think it was a big mistake for Aunty Beeb to change Matrix H .......and then not much later dump
H quad , entirely( in favour of Ambisonics) , when they had an effective quad Matrix system (H) that was proven viable for broadcasts.

The BBC did not dump Matrix H in favour of Ambisonics.
As posted previously-
The BBC never broadcast anything encoded Ambisonically or publicly expressed any interest in doing so. They were interested in the performance of the Calrec soundfield microphone but only ever used it for stereo broadcasts.
As Richard Elen wrote in Studio Sound, October 1979-

"This year, the BBC took delivery of two Calrec Soundfield Mark III (production model) microphones. Prior to this, however, the BBC had already assessed the prototype Mark II mic - described by some as the most important mic development since Blumlein. It is perhaps unfortunate that the prototype Calrec soundfield mic didn't make its appearance on the BBC scene until after the first run of matrix-H and HJ experimental surround-sound broadcasts had been completed. It is hoped the transmissions in the latter format will start again soon, and will no doubt make use of the soundfield mic, but in the meantime, BBC studio managers and researchers are amassing a good deal of information on the performance of the mic in stereo applications, which will obviously be a great deal of use when surround broadcasts are continued."

But of course they never were continued. The public lack of interest in the whole year long quad experiment saw to that.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

The BBC did not dump Matrix H in favour of Ambisonics.
As posted previously-
The BBC never broadcast anything encoded Ambisonically or publicly expressed any interest in doing so. They were interested in the performance of the Calrec soundfield microphone but only ever used it for stereo broadcasts.
As Richard Elen wrote in Studio Sound, October 1979-

"This year, the BBC took delivery of two Calrec Soundfield Mark III (production model) microphones. Prior to this, however, the BBC had already assessed the prototype Mark II mic - described by some as the most important mic development since Blumlein. It is perhaps unfortunate that the prototype Calrec soundfield mic didn't make its appearance on the BBC scene until after the first run of matrix-H and HJ experimental surround-sound broadcasts had been completed. It is hoped the transmissions in the latter format will start again soon, and will no doubt make use of the soundfield mic, but in the meantime, BBC studio managers and researchers are amassing a good deal of information on the performance of the mic in stereo applications, which will obviously be a great deal of use when surround broadcasts are continued."


Yep ,Richard Elen was definitely a fan of Ambisonics .






But of course they never were continued. The public lack of interest in the whole year long quad experiment saw to that.

That they were never continued is very true, but not for lack of public interest as that's debatable My understanding was that there was a labour dispute that halted any more broadcasts in quad (for 79 onwards).

And then around 1982 they started a program of ambisonic stereo broadcasts . Although mixed in stereo only for broadcast , The play "Gilgamesh" was mixed for full periphonic ambisonics.
And thereafter The Beeb continued on a course of ambisonics. A quick check of the Quadraphonic Discography, lists the UHJ programming from the Beeb


Photo of May 82 , Hifi For Pleasure, and BBC Radio Times.

 

[Soundfield]

That they were never continued is very true, but not for lack of public interest as that's debatable My understanding was that there was a labour dispute that halted any more broadcasts in quad (for 79 onwards).

And then around 1982 they started a program of ambisonic stereo broadcasts . Although mixed in stereo only for broadcast , The play "Gilgamesh" was mixed for full periphonic ambisonics.
And thereafter The Beeb continued on a course of ambisonics. A quick check of the Quadraphonic Discography, lists the UHJ programming from the Beeb


Photo of May 82 , Hifi For Pleasure, and BBC Radio Times.View attachment 76954View attachment 76955View attachment 76956

Yes, periphonic recordings down mixed to stereo for transmission.

“Martix H was dumped in favour of Ambisonics” implies that the thinking was ‘well quad didn’t work so we’ll switch over to ambisonics instead”. It was nothing like that. The quad experiment (and it was only ever that) ran its allotted course. It was not judged internally to be a success with the public, or indeed technically, and came under some press criticism as being a waste of public money. Yes, there were some labour issues at the end of the experimental period but they only really fed into the ‘waste of money’ narrative. The BBC did do sporadic research into ambisonics over the next several years, as they do with all kinds of potential new technologies. But it has never reached anywhere near the point of adoption.

The BBC’s official R&D publications on the subject make its in house experiments and policy regarding the system over the years clear. There are some 42 BBC whitepapers that make reference to ambisonics. There’s not been much activity recently though, the last policy whitepaper (WHP221) was published in 2012 (“Upping the Auntie - A broadcaster’s take on ambisonics”). This paper sets out a number of ‘Barriers to Adoption of Ambisonics’ including-

Production Tools:
“Perhaps the most noticeable barrier to the adoption of Ambisonics in production is the lack of suitable hardware and software tools. There is a large number of tools available for the coding, manipulation and decoding of Ambisonic audio, many of which have been developed by the academic and enthusiast community for their own purposes. However, most of these tools are unsuitable for use in a broadcast environment.”
Decoders:
“Decoders are also an issue. Listening rooms and speaker set-ups vary considerably, making Ambisonic decoding a complex process. A number of decoding software packages are available, but most require the user to choose a preset speaker layout, or create their own decoding matrix. Interoperability is generally limited with decoders either running as VST, or requiring other virtual routing tools such as JACK.”
Microphone Choice:
“The recordings described in this paper used sound field microphones, because they were the only type that were easily available. Engineers tend to have a preference for different microphones in different areas and like to be offered a choice. Higher-order multi-capsule microphones such as the MH Acoustics “Eigenmike” are in development, but for the moment are expensive and not readily available.”
Poor Marketing:
“Finally, there seems to be a lack of convincing Ambisonics demonstrations. It could be argued that one of the reasons Ambisonics has failed to move into the mainstream is little or bad marketing. Ambisonics needs to prove itself though a greater number of excellent demonstrations in order to convince more influential industry figures.”

It concludes –

“Content producers are excited by the creative opportunities that Ambisonics presents, but there is a shortage of tools available that are suitable for broadcasting. Subjective tests showed that first-order Ambisonics seems to offer advantages over 5.1 with certain types of material – namely sound effects and ambience – but that it suffers with narration. Similarly, the height dimension works better when replaying content where the sound sources do not lie on the horizontal plane, but are spread across the sound field.”

On the subject of further work it didn’t make any great commitments-

“This paper answers a number of important questions, but it also raises many. Although the quantitative results are generally inconclusive the qualitative results suggest future areas of research.”
&
“An investigation into how the lossy audio compression technologies employed in the broadcast chain would affect Ambisonics signals would also be beneficial. It would also be informative to conduct subjective testing in a ‘normal’ domestic environment with a relatively low cost Ambisonics set-up, to simulate a typical audience member’s listening environment.”

There have been no papers since that indicate there has been any further research other than the 2013 WHP261 (”Localisation of Elevated Sources in Higher-Order Ambisonics”) which was less than positive, and there certainly doesn’t seem to be any change in policy. After 10 years I don't think there will be.

 

[Owen Smith]

Given the current massive squeeze on the BBC's finances by freezing the licence fee for a few years at a time of higher inflation, I doubt the BBC have any interest in pursuing ambisonics or similar. They're more concerned with whether they're going to have to close any services to make ends meet.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Yes, periphonic recordings down mixed to stereo for transmission.

“Martix H was dumped in favour of Ambisonics” implies that the thinking was ‘well quad didn’t work so we’ll switch over to ambisonics instead”. It was nothing like that. The quad experiment (and it was only ever that) ran its allotted course. It was not judged internally to be a success with the public, or indeed technically, and came under some press criticism as being a waste of public money. Yes, there were some labour issues at the end of the experimental period but they only really fed into the ‘waste of money’ narrative. The BBC did do sporadic research into ambisonics over the next several years, as they do with all kinds of potential new technologies. But it has never reached anywhere near the point of adoption.

The BBC’s official R&D publications on the subject make its in house experiments and policy regarding the system over the years clear. There are some 42 BBC whitepapers that make reference to ambisonics. There’s not been much activity recently though, the last policy whitepaper (WHP221) was published in 2012 (“Upping the Auntie - A broadcaster’s take on ambisonics”). This paper sets out a number of ‘Barriers to Adoption of Ambisonics’ including-

Production Tools:
“Perhaps the most noticeable barrier to the adoption of Ambisonics in production is the lack of suitable hardware and software tools. There is a large number of tools available for the coding, manipulation and decoding of Ambisonic audio, many of which have been developed by the academic and enthusiast community for their own purposes. However, most of these tools are unsuitable for use in a broadcast environment.”
Decoders:
“Decoders are also an issue. Listening rooms and speaker set-ups vary considerably, making Ambisonic decoding a complex process. A number of decoding software packages are available, but most require the user to choose a preset speaker layout, or create their own decoding matrix. Interoperability is generally limited with decoders either running as VST, or requiring other virtual routing tools such as JACK.”
Microphone Choice:
“The recordings described in this paper used sound field microphones, because they were the only type that were easily available. Engineers tend to have a preference for different microphones in different areas and like to be offered a choice. Higher-order multi-capsule microphones such as the MH Acoustics “Eigenmike” are in development, but for the moment are expensive and not readily available.”
Poor Marketing:
“Finally, there seems to be a lack of convincing Ambisonics demonstrations. It could be argued that one of the reasons Ambisonics has failed to move into the mainstream is little or bad marketing. Ambisonics needs to prove itself though a greater number of excellent demonstrations in order to convince more influential industry figures.”

It concludes –

“Content producers are excited by the creative opportunities that Ambisonics presents, but there is a shortage of tools available that are suitable for broadcasting. Subjective tests showed that first-order Ambisonics seems to offer advantages over 5.1 with certain types of material – namely sound effects and ambience – but that it suffers with narration. Similarly, the height dimension works better when replaying content where the sound sources do not lie on the horizontal plane, but are spread across the sound field.”

On the subject of further work it didn’t make any great commitments-

“This paper answers a number of important questions, but it also raises many. Although the quantitative results are generally inconclusive the qualitative results suggest future areas of research.”
&
“An investigation into how the lossy audio compression technologies employed in the broadcast chain would affect Ambisonics signals would also be beneficial. It would also be informative to conduct subjective testing in a ‘normal’ domestic environment with a relatively low cost Ambisonics set-up, to simulate a typical audience member’s listening environment.”

There have been no papers since that indicate there has been any further research other than the 2013 WHP261 (”Localisation of Elevated Sources in Higher-Order Ambisonics”) which was less than positive, and there certainly doesn’t seem to be any change in policy. After 10 years I don't think there will be.

Any way you wish to term it ... it was never continued, that "it" being Matrix H.


BTW There is a chap on line who is asking for a donation or subscription for the Phil MANZANERA-801 Matrix H .broadcast❤ ( @pastdaily.com.)

 

[DuncanS]

Any way you wish to term it ... it was never continued, that "it" being Matrix H.


BTW There is a chap on line who is asking for a donation or subscription for the Phil MANZANERA-801 Matrix H .broadcast❤ ( @pastdaily.com.)

I too have a copy but its unplayable on a flood damaged cassette!

 

[kfbkfb]

Any investigations as to how DAB stereo adversely affects matrix encoding (many years ago, on a Usenet radio forum, one frequent poster had, IIRC, their signature as "DAB sounds worse than FM", from what I've read about DAB, it uses MP2 and in recent years, the MP2 data rate has been lowered and lowered)?

We only have HD radio here and, AFAIK, there haven't been any identified matrix quad broadcasts.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Soundfield]

Any investigations as to how DAB stereo adversely affects matrix encoding (many years ago, on a Usenet radio forum, one frequent poster had, IIRC, their signature as "DAB sounds worse than FM", from what I've read about DAB, it uses MP2 and in recent years, the MP2 data rate has been lowered and lowered)?

We only have HD radio here and, AFAIK, there haven't been any identified matrix quad broadcasts.


Kirk Bayne

Yes DAB is dreadful. The UK was an early adopter and now we are stuck with this ancient technology. DAB audio is indeed encoded in MP2. It wasn't too bad to start with when there were just a small number of BBC stations operating at high bit rates, but a huge number of commercial stations have grown up over the years up occupying the available bandwidth at the expense of bit rate. A later version, DAB+, is licenced for use in the UK with aacPlus HE v2 encoding which is marginally less ghastly. However, only a small percentage of stations use it, and none of the BBC networks unfortunately. Thankfully very high quality FM is still very much the mainstay of the UK radio system.

I very much doubt anyone will have tried transmitting matrixed quad over DAB - why would they? No one under 60 has ever heard of such a thing! But I've found if you feed the low bit rate stuff into an Involve SM you can get some unpleasant burbling noises from the rear channels.

 

[DuncanS]

As I live on the 'wrong' side of a hill I need a high gain roof top antenna & booster to get DAB, there are 2 DAB radio stations I tend to listen to, Planet Rock & BBC Radio 6. Planet Rock is on DAB and broadcast in MONO! yet in stereo on the internet, but the internet version has rather more adverts for Gambling firms which annoy me! Even though I live in a poor reception area, FM reception is better, no DAB digital burbling brook sounds.