Matrix vs Discrete

[jimfisheye]

If the aim wasn't more about limiting access to older or competing formats we could have software media players that had the ability to decode anything and everything from the past as SOP. These aren't mysteries of the universe someone stumbled across and no one understands! (There's a Spinal Tap quote in there somewhere...) These are all known systems.

The analog formats... Sure, how do you get at digitizing the raw data. Get in between certain analog points and if something skews it goes runaway and nothing can bring it back. I don't mean to do a deep dive into technical limitations around that. Software could support a lot of formats is all I'm saying. Programmers are crafty. They're being told no and software spoofing is the MO right now.

But we have 24 bit lossless audio in as many channels as anyone wants 100% discrete. And we have a 12 & 16 channel mix format now that's here to stay. A lot to work with there!

 

[Asklia]

Involveaudio: Ui, I hope you guys survive. Much luck!

 

[atrocity]

Would it make sense for someone to start producing record players that can handle wax cylinders?

Yes. And it's good news for anyone with a cylinder collection and a mere $30,000! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archéophone

 

[atrocity]

Most? You'd be very hard pressed to find a modern TT with 78rpm.

It's actually not that difficult, though I can't say whether any of them are any good.

 

[jimfisheye]

Learning more than I would have imagined about playing cylinder records on adapted equipment in the matrix vs discrete thread. I don't feel as bad about my digressions anymore!

 

[Asklia]

Involveaudio: Ui, I hope you guys survive. Much luck!

I would really like to see the fresh layout. And buy two of the decoding boards for my second Bose 4401.

 

[DrKlahn]

When I started out in the hobby Laser Disc was the premium video format and DPL was the name of the game. The receivers and preamps of the time had various upmixing modes like Jazz, Dance Hall, Club, etc. Some of the modes were somewhat effective with certain material. And of course DPL could be a good way to upmix 2ch if you wanted to.

Then came Dolby Digital (AC3 as it was called) and DTS. Both fully discrete 5.1. I remembering buying an add on board for my Sony LD player to experience it. It was huge improvement over DPL in every way. Then came DVD-A and SACD with 5.1. Same thing, blew away trying to matrix the music unless the engineer was incompetent.

What we have today with Atmos, provided the mix is handled well, is the most immersive and best sounding yet.

Maybe I missed the boat, but those pricey for the time receivers and preamps I had back in the early days did not match discrete with their matrixed options. Todays Dolby and DTS upmix options work fine to my ears when I decide to use them (I don't often upmix). I don't have any old DPL equipment to go head to head for a comparison, but I do so little upmixing that it's not a high priority for me if an old DPL option would happen to sound better.

I can respect that people are going to have different takes and tastes. To me discrete wins easily. And has for a long time.

 

[barfle]

When I started out in the hobby Laser Disc was the premium video format and DPL was the name of the game. The receivers and preamps of the time had various upmixing modes like Jazz, Dance Hall, Club, etc. Some of the modes were somewhat effective with certain material. And of course DPL could be a good way to upmix 2ch if you wanted to.

Then came Dolby Digital (AC3 as it was called) and DTS. Both fully discrete 5.1. I remembering buying an add on board for my Sony LD player to experience it. It was huge improvement over DPL in every way. Then came DVD-A and SACD with 5.1. Same thing, blew away trying to matrix the music unless the engineer was incompetent.

What we have today with Atmos, provided the mix is handled well, is the most immersive and best sounding yet.

Maybe I missed the boat, but those pricey for the time receivers and preamps I had back in the early days did not match discrete with their matrixed options. Todays Dolby and DTS upmix options work fine to my ears when I decide to use them (I don't often upmix). I don't have any old DPL equipment to go head to head for a comparison, but I do so little upmixing that it's not a high priority for me if an old DPL option would happen to sound better.

I can respect that people are going to have different takes and tastes. To me discrete wins easily. And has for a long time.

Trying to get four channels in a single LP groove was always going to be a compromise. The engineers in the early 70s did a pretty good job with what they had to work with, but certainly a maatrix was going to suffer from crosstalk and phase camcellation issues. Amd the carrier-based format was picky and required even more specialized gear than the matices did.

Today’s tech has pretty much solved all the issues with LP based quad, and gone way past what Imcould have imagined when I was finding out just how much fun AV could be.

That’s not to say that I intend to divest myself of my beloved quad LPs, or that I won’t still buy something that catches my eye (or ear). But I won’t expect it to do what an Atmos BD can do.

 

[Electric Moo]

Beyond decoding matrix material, I enjoy using the Surroundmaster to play stereo recordings: if there's phase information for it to chew on, it really spreads out & envelopes the room.

One of my faves is "Zeit" by Tangerine Dream.

My matrix setup is dismantled pending some amp restoration I'm doing, but I look forward to getting it back up & running.

I also have a project I want to press on vinyl, which will be Involve/matrix encoded. It's the best way to get surround onto LP, IMO.

 

[DrKlahn]

Beyond decoding matrix material, I enjoy using the Surroundmaster to play stereo recordings: if there's phase information for it to chew on, it really spreads out & envelopes the room.

One of my faves is "Zeit" by Tangerine Dream.

My matrix setup is dismantled pending some amp restoration I'm doing, but I look forward to getting it back up & running.

I also have a project I want to press on vinyl, which will be Involve/matrix encoded. It's the best way to get surround onto LP, IMO.

My experience isn't in the vinyl space and I haven't heard a Surroundmaster. Has anyone compared technology like this with todays upmixing? It would be a really interesting comparison. The latest from Dolby, DTS or Auro vs an older analog solution.

Wouldn't it be great to have all the toys and infinite time to play with all of this?

 

[Owen Smith]

Has anyone compared technology like this with todays upmixing? It would be a really interesting comparison. The latest from Dolby, DTS or Auro vs an older analog solution.

I have the latest from Dolby, DTS and Auro. But my AVR has no multi channel analogue inputs (still hoping for analogue to HDMI convertor for that) and I have no legacy decoders or modern quad decoders (was hoping to get Shadow Vector from Malcolm Lear but that seems stuck in eternal limbo).

 

[chucky3042]

My experience isn't in the vinyl space and I haven't heard a Surroundmaster. Has anyone compared technology like this with todays upmixing? It would be a really interesting comparison. The latest from Dolby, DTS or Auro vs an older analog solution.

Wouldn't it be great to have all the toys and infinite time to play with all of this?

We did , I can attach the report if you want but we are slightly biased! It did not include ATMOS as it was not around then

 

[chucky3042]

I have the latest from Dolby, DTS and Auro. But my AVR has no multi channel analogue inputs (still hoping for analogue to HDMI convertor for that) and I have no legacy decoders or modern quad decoders (was hoping to get Shadow Vector from Malcolm Lear but that seems stuck in eternal limbo).

It would cost us and the guys at Shadow vector now around $25 K per year for the HDMI license.

 

[Owen Smith]

It would cost us and the guys at Shadow vector now around $25 K per year for the HDMI license.

I'd be happy to have an external box that converts multi channel analogue to HDMI. Ideally that box would have something like 4 sets of multi channel analogue inputs and be able to select between them, allowing CD-4, Q4 and two matrix decoders (legacy and new for example) to be selected. If you needed more than 4 you could get an external switch, or two convertors to HDMI (if they existed).

Malcolm Lear's Shadow Vector decoder can output the matrix decode as ADAT, which is multi channel PCM over optical. There's no technical reason AVRs and processors couldn't take that as input.

 

[mandrix]

I'm happy to have an external box that converts multi channel analogue to HDMI. Ideally that box would have something like 4 sets of multi channel analogue inputs and be able to select between them, allowing CD-4, Q4 and two matrix decoders (legacy and new for example) to be selected. If you need more than 4 get an external switch, or two convertors to HDMI.

Malcolm Lear's Shadow Vector decoder can output the matrix decode as ADAT, which is multi channel PCM over optical. There's no technical reason AVRs and processors couldn't take that as input.

You have an analog > HDMI converter for mch? Link please. I have the opposite, HDMI > mch analog, easy to find though.

 

[chucky3042]

We did , I can attach the report if you want but we are slightly biased! It did not include ATMOS as it was not around then

Ah here it is and we compared:

We did it as an in house honest comparison to see how we racked up against the other formats available in 2009. It was not for media purposes.

Enjoy

 

[Owen Smith]

You have an analog > HDMI converter for mch? Link please. I have the opposite, HDMI > mch analog, easy to find though.

You misunderstand, I want one to exist so I can buy one. But it doesn't. I've edited my post to be clearer.

What I was trying to say is it's not necessary to have HDMI in the surround master or shadow vector. An external box could do the job and would be the one needing licencing fees not our compatriots in the surround community.

 

[JediJoker]

...I want [an analog multichannel-to-HDMI converter] to exist so I can buy one. But it doesn't.

You and I both. Live analog playback with room correction is the dream.

 

[Asklia]

From MiniDSP you might get Room Correction units, although analog in and out. I have such a device behind my beloved Bose 4401.

 

[JediJoker]

From MiniDSP you might get Room Correction units, although analog in and out. I have such a device behind my beloved Bose 4401.

I'm familiar with their products. The issue is that most modern AVRs only have digital multichannel inputs. For such owners wanting to integrate analog multichannel into their digital systems, an HDMI output multichannel ADC is needed. My AVR does have an analog 7.1 input, but it is strictly a straight-through input that does not get digitized, and therefore doesn't go through the built-in room correction. I don't want to set up an entire separate device with another room correction profile; I just want to use what I already have for all my sources, including quad tapes.