Proarte Dolby Surround CDs from 1990-91

[Bill Brent]

Hi

any one familiar with this series - dolby surround (pretty much SQ) put out by Intersound on the ProArte label?
I was just playing their sampler (catelog #CDX013) has some neat stuff on it - but I never went for the regular releases - mainly because I just wasn't into matrix encoding.

 

[JonUrban]

I remember seeing them, but never bought them. The only Dolby CDs I bought were a few of the RCA's (Tomita, etc)

 

[Cai Campbell]

Hmm, never heard of the Proarte label, and I don't seem them on Mark Anderson's list of Dolby surround CDs. What type of music did they produce?

I've had pretty good luck with Dolby CDs played through the Tate in surround mode, even with the speaker placement being "off". To my ears they sound better than when played with DPL or DPLII.

 

[TopTip]

Hmm, never heard of the Proarte label, and I don't seem them on Mark Anderson's list of Dolby surround CDs. What type of music did they produce?

I've had pretty good luck with Dolby CDs played through the Tate in surround mode, even with the speaker placement being "off". To my ears they sound better than when played with DPL or DPLII.

It is there (on Mark Anderson's lists) but now thet aye called "Intersound"

 

[berninahusq]

I have a couple two or three Dolby Surround ProArte CDs. I forget which artists they are from....let me check....

 

[TallPaulInKy]

This maybe a little old to reply to the thread but I have some knowledge of the ProArte and Classical heritage surround sound CDs issued by the company. ProArte (also known as Intersound) always struck me as a low priced version of an audiophile label like Tel-Arc. The early surround sound releases were label Dolby Surround but later ones simply said Digital Surround Sound. For example their sampler..Surround Sound Sampler. CDX 013 was released in two different versions. The first using Dolby Surround and the revised release uses Shure's HTS system. Both have the same title and basic graphics, and catalog number but the track listings are different. But then that is expected because the second (or revised CD was issued highlighted the newest releases. They are listed on Mark Anderson's list. Steve Vining is credited as Produced, recorded and mixed by on all of them. My guess is by using the Shure system, they did not have to pay for use of the Dolby name and have Dolby consultants on hand. Overall for basic classical pops the CDs are good value.

 

[Disclord]

This maybe a little old to reply to the thread but I have some knowledge of the ProArte and Classical heritage surround sound CDs issued by the company. ProArte (also known as Intersound) always struck me as a low priced version of an audiophile label like Tel-Arc. The early surround sound releases were label Dolby Surround but later ones simply said Digital Surround Sound. For example their sampler..Surround Sound Sampler. CDX 013 was released in two different versions. The first using Dolby Surround and the revised release uses Shure's HTS system. Both have the same title and basic graphics, and catalog number but the track listings are different. But then that is expected because the second (or revised CD was issued highlighted the newest releases. They are listed on Mark Anderson's list. Steve Vining is credited as Produced, recorded and mixed by on all of them. My guess is by using the Shure system, they did not have to pay for use of the Dolby name and have Dolby consultants on hand. Overall for basic classical pops the CDs are good value.

Dolby has never charged for non-theatrical encoding or to use the Dolby Surround logo - nor do they require a consultant on the project. If you want a Dolby consultant on hand, that costs money, but anyone can buy the Dolby Surround encoder and issue Dolby Surround encoded CD's, DVD's, etc... Same for Dolby Digital. (Dolby DOES charge for Dolby Stereo and Dolby Digital encoding for films destined for theatrical release, as well as including a Dolby consultant if needed)

Shure didn't charge anything to use their process either (or the logo) and their system was cheaper to purchase overall too (so Dolby gave away their encoder to studio's and labels that were thinking of buying the Shure Stereosurround encoder) - plus, unlike the Dolby Surround encoder, the Shure Stereosurround encoder didn't limit the rear channel to 7kHz bandwidth - they were full range and only the decoder was limited in the surround channel - Shure figured that, as decoders got better, users would benefit because the software wasn't artificially limited in frequency response like Dolby Surround. In fact, Dolby Surround encoders STILL limit the surround channel's frequency response to 7kHz - it's only Dolby Pro Logic II encoding that allows full frequency response in the surround channels. Shure's Stereosurround process was the first Dolby compatible process to offer a full range encoded surround channel - and better basic fidelity than Dolby too, even when listened to in plain stereo without decoding, because Shure used very high quality wide-band phase shifters on all the channels.

 

[TallPaulInKy]

Thanks for the info, I just know on the RCA Surround Sound audio disks I have and the other ProArtes that are Dolby (with the Logo) generally mention the names of the "Dolby Lab Consultants." So I put two and two together and I guess got five.
I must add that seldom do I see the Dolby Logo on audio disks now days.

 

[krkier]

I must add that seldom do I see the Dolby Logo on audio disks now days.

Most of the CDs from the german artist Schiller are labeled Dolby Surround".

I also have a CD and a vinyl LP from Vibravoid which are Dolby Surround encoded.

-Kristian

 

[STLJLC]

Hate to resurrect this thread, but I have a Pro-Arte "stereosurround" CD that I picked up cheap. CDS 587 "Stravinski, Fireworks - The Firebird." I notice it is on this list:

http://members.cox.net/surround/dolby/dolby.htm

It purports to be "recorded with Shure HTS Stereosurround equipment." I've been trying to do a little research, and then I found this thread. Does this mean that it is matrix encoded, and if so, will one of the Dolby settings on my receiver correctly decode it? (Or am I hopefully not asking a stupid question.) I thought for a year or so that when the cover said "Digital Surround Sound," it was just wordsmithing.

 

[Disclord]

Hate to resurrect this thread, but I have a Pro-Arte "stereosurround" CD that I picked up cheap. CDS 587 "Stravinski, Fireworks - The Firebird." I notice it is on this list:

http://members.cox.net/surround/dolby/dolby.htm

It purports to be "recorded with Shure HTS Stereosurround equipment." I've been trying to do a little research, and then I found this thread. Does this mean that it is matrix encoded, and if so, will one of the Dolby settings on my receiver correctly decode it? (Or am I hopefully not asking a stupid question.) I thought for a year or so that when the cover said "Digital Surround Sound," it was just wordsmithing.

Shure's Stereosurround process (which was used on many CD's and television broadcasts) and Dolby Surround are encoded in exactly the same way - i.e. Left, Right, Center and a single surround channel. However, the Shure process didn't limit the surround channels frequency response to only 100 to 7 kHz during encoding - it encoded a full-bandwidth surround and relied upon the decoder to supply the frequency limiting (the thought being that as decoders got better, their frequency response would become wider and the encoded software wouldn't be the limiting factor). Dolby only started encoding full-bandwidth surround channels when Pro-Logic II became available. So, Dolby Pro-Logic or Pro-Logic II, Circle Surround and Lexicon Logic-7 will all decode Stereosurround accurately, with Pro-Logic being the most accurate since the others will generate stereo surrounds, which Stereosurround didn't encode. The best decoding of all is from Shure's HTS-5300 Acra-Vector Logic Decoder which was introduced at the same time Shure introduced the Stereosurround process.

 

[STLJLC]

Answers the question perfectly, thanks Disclord. I spent some time earlier sitting in the recliner, listening to the disc and cycling back and forth between forced multi-channel stereo, and then through the dolby pro-logic II circuitry, and comparing each to 2-ch stereo. I can discern the depth, but my ears are getting older... But not a bad little find for 2 bucks at the Goodwill.

 

[TallPaulInKy]

I have quite a few of the Pro Arte disks and they vary in surround defintion from very good to excellent, when played back on standard Dolby Pro Logic Surround. If you have a chance to seek out, or find in your used CD bins a copy of Sample Surround (Pro-Arte CDX013) Then pick up a copy. There are two editions both with the same title and catalog number. It was their surround sampler and the first one prominently displays the Dolby Surround logo on the cover, whereas the revised or second edition simply states Digital Surround Sound. Both are an excellent sampling of then current Pro Arte titles. I personally like the Dolby disk better because of the jet plane fly bys left off the revised disk. In the Toccato and Fugue in D minor for organ (on both disks), the first 15 seconds the organ appears in the center channel only (mono) Then it expands to left and right channels (for stereo), then into the surround speakers for hall acoustics. It is very easy to tell the difference with that one selection. Amazon.Com has both disks for as low as one penny each, used. The postage will cost more than the disk. Both are very well musically.

 

[fredblue]

I just got this "Sample Surround" CD (the later one with fly-by effects removed) and its pretty neat thru PLII Music

 

[Disclord]

Wanna make me a copy? The thing I do not like about Dolby PL-II is that the right back channel is always out of phase with the left back channel due to the matrix decoding (and encoding) used. It makes it unpleasant, to me, to listen to - I'm really sensitive to phase and PL-II in both music and movie modes kinda makes me Ill to listen to due to the out of phase RB channel. DTS Neo-6 doesn't have the problem and since it separates the signals into 9-16 bands and decodes each separately, I find I prefer it for films.

 

[fredblue]

Wanna make me a copy? The thing I do not like about Dolby PL-II is that the right back channel is always out of phase with the left back channel due to the matrix decoding (and encoding) used. It makes it unpleasant, to me, to listen to - I'm really sensitive to phase and PL-II in both music and movie modes kinda makes me Ill to listen to due to the out of phase RB channel. DTS Neo-6 doesn't have the problem and since it separates the signals into 9-16 bands and decodes each separately, I find I prefer it for films.

Of course! I'd be more than happy to make you a copy.

I wonder if it might be more cost effective to buy it used on Amazon for 1 cent though, rather than me burn a disc and ship it to you from the UK to the USA?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/6301886291/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

Your comments on Neo-6 are real food for thought, I must play around with it more.. I've kind of got cosy with PLII doing the synthesising preferring the extra Panorama & Dimension toys of PLII Music in particular to DTS Neo but I'm open to new things so I'll give it a go as I trust your judgement

 

[Disclord]

Of course! I'd be more than happy to make you a copy.

I wonder if it might be more cost effective to buy it used on Amazon for 1 cent though, rather than me burn a disc and ship it to you from the UK to the USA?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/6301886291/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

Your comments on Neo-6 are real food for thought, I must play around with it more.. I've kind of got cosy with PLII doing the synthesising preferring the extra Panorama & Dimension toys of PLII Music in particular to DTS Neo but I'm open to new things so I'll give it a go as I trust your judgement

I just bought the CD - thanks a bunch for the link!

 

[Owen Smith]

Wanna make me a copy? The thing I do not like about Dolby PL-II is that the right back channel is always out of phase with the left back channel due to the matrix decoding (and encoding) used. It makes it unpleasant, to me, to listen to - I'm really sensitive to phase and PL-II in both music and movie modes kinda makes me Ill to listen to due to the out of phase RB channel. DTS Neo-6 doesn't have the problem and since it separates the signals into 9-16 bands and decodes each separately, I find I prefer it for films.

My problems are the opposite. I'm not sensitive to phase so PL-II is OK for me. DTS Neo-6 on my Arcam AVR350 shows some odd frequency problems, probably part of the multi band processing. During dialogue the main dialogue will be firmly in the centre speaker, but I get snatches of high frequency dialogue sibilance in the front left or front right, which is incredibly irritating. It was enough to stop me using Neo. Of course it may be a crappy implementation in my Arcam, but I'd have thought they just licenced the software from DTS.

 

[Disclord]

My problems are the opposite. I'm not sensitive to phase so PL-II is OK for me. DTS Neo-6 on my Arcam AVR350 shows some odd frequency problems, probably part of the multi band processing. During dialogue the main dialogue will be firmly in the centre speaker, but I get snatches of high frequency dialogue sibilance in the front left or front right, which is incredibly irritating. It was enough to stop me using Neo. Of course it may be a crappy implementation in my Arcam, but I'd have thought they just licenced the software from DTS.

What year is your receiver from? I had a 2002 Kenwood with Neo 6 and sometimes the left back channel would sound like someone was singing. The engineers at DTS didn't have a lot of matrix experience when they designed the system - their ideas were sound but the implementation was bad. Neo 6 has gone through something like 6 revisions - now, it's basically perfect and they have extended the decoding to 16 bands from the original 9. The Music mode of Neo sucks, but I love the movie mode. Of course all development has stopped on Neo now that DTS owns Neural.

 

[Owen Smith]

What year is your receiver from? I had a 2002 Kenwood with Neo 6 and sometimes the left back channel would sound like someone was singing. The engineers at DTS didn't have a lot of matrix experience when they designed the system - their ideas were sound but the implementation was bad. Neo 6 has gone through something like 6 revisions - now, it's basically perfect and they have extended the decoding to 16 bands from the original 9. The Music mode of Neo sucks, but I love the movie mode. Of course all development has stopped on Neo now that DTS owns Neural.

I bought it brand new around 2005 (possibly 2006), I'd have to dig the receipt out to be sure. But the model had been out for a year at that stage and I don't believe there were any codec changes in the very modest set of firmware upgrades in that time. So the codec could go back to 2004 or 2005.

EDIT: who or what is Neural and why is it better than Neo?