Reality Technologies - New surround technology

[chucky3042]

NEW SURROUND TECHNOLOGY FROM AUSTRALIA

Hello to all members of the forum, having just joined this is my second post so if I infringe the rules in anyway please inform me!

Reality Design Pty Ltd is a audio electronic research company based in Melbourne Australia. Our team has contributed to designs such as

2007 CES design honoree:
Nakamichi Dragon (was Phoenix) Electrostatic loudspeaker (discontinued)

2012 CES award for Innovation in home theatre:
Liquid Base 8mm glass panel electrostatic loudspeaker

Whilst electrostatic loudspeakers seem a world away from the subject of home theatre they have definitely been a major inspiration for our work in surround sound.

SURROUND SOUND – OUR VIEW (hope we do not offend!)

I think we can all agree that the ultimate aim for surround sound is to place the listener (all the listeners) in the original sonic environment that the recording was intended to be. How we achieve this generates debate and can provide fertile ground for confusion and misdirection

In the mid 1970’s the first mass market attempts were made with a myriad of not very compatible systems such as SQ, QS, RM, CD4 etc. Aside from the poor cross compatibility between the systems that created market confusion all systems only worked for one position within the listening room. For all other positions the center and rear image would wander left or right dependent on where the listener sat. In addition all systems had sonic problems of either poor separation, surging, pumping or other sounds. In addition to all this partners (wives and girlfriends) would not like the center channel as it was often not compatible with the décor of the room.

As a result market continued to be dominated by stereo which at least provided a good quality sound (in the sweet spot).

Surround really to proliferate in the market around the mid 1980’s when Dolby did two great things. They provided a center channel that assisted in maintaining a center image for those in the room that were not in the sweet spot. Most importantly they provided a strong safe and secure market name on which major consumer electronic companies standardized.

Since then there has been little innovation and only slight improvement. However consumers, commentator’s audiophiles and sound companies have all noted, and many have commented on the many shortcomings of current surround technology. These include poor decoding of stereo sources, lack of a smooth continuous frontal image, center image under or above the screen and a poor or lack of rear image.

Today the market is primed for additional technical advances in that it is looking for a true 3D (including height) system. Current 2D systems do not provided this in spite of the marketing peoples attempts to hoodwink consumers!.

The main solution to-date for improving surround sound offered by the industry seems to be the addition of more and more channels such as 7.1, 9.1, 11.1, 22.2 and up! Apart from not solving the problem of consistent imaging in all seats very few homes would cope with more than 5.1 speakers. The result has not been the great commercial success such systems had hoped for. More recently we have seen the promotion of wave field synthesis techniques that can solve the consistent imaging problem and produce 3D sound but at the expense of between 60 and 900 individually controlled and driven speakers! In this writers opinion this will never fly commercially. Even in commercial Cinemas there will be an insufficient return on investment to install and maintain these expensive and necessarily complex systems.

It is our view that the world today requires a system which will meet the following specifications

1. Produce a full circular surround sound without preference for location, whether it be front, back or sides.
2. Produce this sound without surging, or pumping or adding any artifacts.
3. Be capable of producing this from current recordings i.e stereo recordings.
4. Enable all listeners in a room to hear surround sound and thus eliminate the “sweet spot”.
5. Remain compatible with the stereo or surround sound equipment in place today.
6. Produce a full 3D sound including height.
7. Achieve all the above with a minimum of speakers and no more than 5.1

Reality has achieved this.


We have developed:

INVOLVE

INVOLVE is the most advanced surround decoder developed to this date. Unlike virtually all of the existing analogue decode systems that are based on the old SQ matrix equations, we have based ours on the Sansui (Takahashi) QS matrix equations. Like QS our system is fully symmetrical in all directions.. We can encode full surround into stereo so that no one can hear the difference to a raw stereo track. The system is capable of up to 40 db separation in all directions without any sonic artifacts such as pumping, pop sounds and surges.

All SQ based encode/ decode systems struggle to produce a convincing rear surround as the matrix is heavily left/ right biased. Sansui’s QS has always offered the potential of the most symmetrical matrix platform but due to the real complexities of the variomatrix and the difficulty to realize stable electronics for this complexity it had previously never reached its full potential.


INVOLVE has taken the original QS equations and has produced

1 The super intelligent INVOLVE encoder (patent pending) produces an encoded “stereo/ INVOLVE” two channel mix that is indistinguishable from the original stereo recording. This was a key issue with the old QS recordings – the sound stage width was significantly reduced. Our intelligent encode has solved this problem and like QS is fully mono compatible.

2 The INVOLVE decoder (patent pending) like the better QS decoders uses a 3 band system complete with a variomatrix style DSP controller. However unlike existing matrix decoders we have incorporated a series of psychoacoustic factors into the variomatrix control equations. In addition all processing is fully digital and as such INVOLVE does not suffer from tolerance issues

3 INVOLVE 3D is achieved by using 4 signal channels (two for the lower and 2 for the upper). Due to the extreme linearity of INVOLVE a full 3D sound field is achieved with the advantage of full stereo compatibility with a bandwidth only twice that of stereo.

Involve is capable of an unprecedented accuracy of stereo decode and in our instant A/B tests against discrete systems the listener cannot tell the difference (actually when pushed most “preferred” INVOLVE – but it is close). It has a net advantage of full stereo compatibility with full surround and minimum bandwidth.

Test Results

We can provide full test results on request.

STATUS

We are awaiting our new plastic molded enclosure but we should have initial stock in 2 -3 months. Meanwhile we do have a limited quantity of approximately 20 units in a metal enclosure (see pictures). Two versions are available - the basic unit with 2 channel virtual and 4 channel decode $325, and the more advanced unit 2 channel virtual and 4 or 5 channel (including center) for $395. We are discussing licensing the system with some major CE’s but given administrative delays it could be a while before you see it incorporated anywhere.

TOTAL PERSPECTIVE

TOTAL PERSPECTIVE (patent pending) is a system that produces consistent stereo imaging regardless of where the listener sits within a room. This is achieved with the use of 2 (stereo) or 4 speakers (surround) and eliminates the need for a center channel. A person can walk around the room and the center vocalist or instrument will remain in the same position and not wander from left to right. In addition to this the system is ideally suited to automotive surround / stereo as all 4 occupants are sitting away from the central sweet spot.

Trials of audience reaction to TOTAL PERSPECTIVE have been conducted with a general result of no listener preference for or against TOTAL PERSPECTIVE in the sweet spot and a virtually universal preference for TOTAL PERSPECTIVE when the listener is off center. That is, TOTAL PERSPECTIVE produces consistent and correct imaging in all positions, without degrading the image in the central sweet spot.

Extending this concept to surround it is possible to use only 4 speakers to achieve full consistent surround in all positions of the room (including rear field positioning).

Physically the system requires a 4 channel amplifier to be used for stereo, 8 channel for surround. The amplifier requires special processing and Total Perspective designed speakers are also required. Thus current systems are not capable of Total Perspective and additional or upgraded equipment is required.


Total Perspective 3D has been tested with a 3D recording. It is capable of providing a full 3D surround in a medium sized movie theatre with just 8 audio channels . Most importantly it provides 3D sound to all seats of the house without the need for a center channel. This is important to theatres as perforated screens to allow speakers to be located behind the screen are not the best option for 3D as non-perforated screens project a better 3D image.


STATUS

We have produced an 8 channel 100w per channel amplifier incorporating Total Perspective and Involve. See picture. We are currently working to reduce the production cost. and also the designing of a TOTAL PERSPECTIVE/ INVOLVE preamplifier.

In approximately 3 months we will have ready for sale miniature Total Perspective speakers. These units operate from 80Hz – 20kHz and thus require an external subwoofer.

We are offering the system for licensing to amplifier and speaker manufacturers

The below color charts show the effect of TOTAL PERSPECTIVE against that of plain stereo. YELLOW zones represent good imaging GREEN acceptable.


TSS.

TSS is a 2 channel surround virtualizer that produces a convincing surround to 70% of listeners and an enhanced width for the other 30%. We believe our TSS virtualizer is the equal (or better) than other known commercial virtualizers. We developed it to complete our IP portfolio, so we can offer properly decoded and reproduced surround from just two speakers.

What we can offer in addition to this is the use of TSS with TOTAL PERSPECTIVE. This produces an enhanced surround experience to ALL listeners in the room – not just the one in the sweet spot.

This is a step towards the ideal of (one or two) speaker surround in all positions in the room from just a stereo source (if you want).

Please note our INVOLVE decoder box comes complete with TSS ability.


For more information please visit our website www.reality-design.com.au

Regards

Charles Van Dongen

CTO Reality Design Pty Ltd

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Interesting proposition but light on specifics. No mention/reference to any decoding/synthesis processes since SQ/QS. Also, the demand for 4 channel signals is not insignificant as it is already half way to 5.1 and the need for bi-amping is not explained.

We'll see what happens.

 

[leevitalone1]

and scource? Is a new format required? If it decodes present discs, BD etc.

 

[oxforddickie]

I've read the description, and apart from some obvious errors, there's very little explanation of what exactly this system is trying to do. SO, your basing it on QS (which was not mono compatible) but you say you've overcome the 'width' problem.

So, i know how you did that, but what your left with is not QS. To be honest, i see nothing here that improves on the one system you make no mention of at all, and that is UHJ/Ambisonics. Also, the need for bi-amping is really questionable, and an extra expense that most will not be willing to make.

So, have you discussed with the record labels on producing material for ths system.


OD

 

[DKA]

I've read the description, and apart from some obvious errors, there's very little explanation of what exactly this system is trying to do. SO, your basing it on QS (which was not mono compatible) but you say you've overcome the 'width' problem.

Well, they are trying to sell it, so giving you the entire guts when they're trying to justify a $400 price tag may not be the wisest thing.

Seems like a combination of old and new technology via hardware decoding. Not my dance, as I obviously am a supporter of a very different type of technology, but absolutely the best of luck to you.

 

[leevitalone1]

Well, they are trying to sell it, so giving you the entire guts when they're trying to justify a $400 price tag may not be the wisest thing.

Seems like a combination of old and new technology via hardware decoding. Not my dance, as I obviously am a supporter of a very different type of technology, but absolutely the best of luck to you.

ah! the best system I've seen is the Smyth realiser.

 

[JonUrban]

Welcome and thanks for giving us the details of you product. You've come to the right place to start at least. Of course, we have some super knowledgeable folks here, so be prepared for some tough questioning!

At any rate, good luck with your product, and of course you are welcome here.

 

[proufo]

Aren't alll surround patents taken already?



Good luck and success!

 

[chucky3042]

Hello again

Sorry to be slow in replying to comments. Things can be very hectic and I had to get clarification from our patent attorney on what specifics we can reveal. In addition commercially we are reluctant to give away all our developments! Below are my replies to your comments.

Regards

 

[chucky3042]

Interesting proposition but light on specifics. No mention/reference to any decoding/synthesis processes since SQ/QS. Also, the demand for 4 channel signals is not insignificant as it is already half way to 5.1 and the need for bi-amping is not explained.

We'll see what happens.

Re Kal’s comments

I hope this message contributes a few more specifics. I did not discuss many of the systems since QS/ SQ as most (with the exception of ambisonics) are an evolution of these two early systems. The problems of surround sound still remain such as pumping, image smear, incorrect panning, false spectral emphasis, poor separation, center channel image shift/dominance, image drift outside the sweet spot.

These are the primary issues we have been researching for the past 4 years.

I think my original contribution to the forum was not totally clear that we actually offer two completely separate yet complimentary systems. Both can be used with other formats of home surround systems.

TOTAL PERSPECTIVE

TP is fully compatible to all other forms of sound systems stereo, 5.1, 7.1, other decoders. Its only function is to remove the sweet spot from the room and to present a consistent image to all positions within a room. We believe it is a real alternative to the center channel as we do not create an image BELOW the TV in addition the ergonomic factors of mounting a center channel are usually not good.

Yes each TP speaker requires two amplifier channels so for stereo you require 4 amplifier channel, for surround you require 8 channels.

We have found the system creates a great freedom within a room, no more races to the central sweet spot. In fact I usually find myself drifting away from the center seat (I think I like the novelty!).

In addition when used with 2channel surround virtualizes most listeners report a surround effect in ALL seats of the room – not just the sweet spot.

TP IS NOT A SURROUND DECODER – It is a sound delivery system that eliminates the sweet spot and creates consistent imaging for all.

Below are some well conducted trials on the performance of TP. Yes they are not independent tests but they are genuine.










Stereo with and without Total Perspective.
Room setting.









Author: David Alexandrou
Internal use only.



Quick intro:

Total Perspective is an audio image perspective correction system, removing both the need for a centre channel, and increasing the ‘sweet spot’ to encompass an entire audience.

System comparison:

Straight stereo vs. Total Perspective Stereo, tested in central position and to one side.


Set-up:

Clip used: For You by Tracy Chapman – Strong central vocal and acoustic guitar.
Speakers: RTA Electrostatic Total Perspective speakers
Presentation: Audio only

Speaker width to speaker ratio is Non-Dolby 1:1
Note: Central Imaging is traditionally considered difficult in this configuration.

Test Subjects: 11

Format:

Subject was played the audio, switching between Stereo with and without Total Perspective. The listener was made aware of whether or not T.P. was turned on.

The subject was then asked to comment on various qualities of the sound, paying attention to

• Any discernable differences between the two systems
• Sound stage quality
• Central imaging.

The subject was then asked if they had a preference to any of the systems in particular, and asked to give reasons for their answer.

This test was repeated for the central “sweet spot” position, and in a position seated approximately 1 meter left of centre.



Differences

Subjects were asked if they could discern a difference between Stereo and T.P, results are as follows:

In central seated position:

Yes: 6
No: 5

In left seated position:

Yes: 11
No: 0


Preferences

Subjects were asked if they had a preference for either system. The results were as follows:

In central seated position:

Stereo: 4
TP: 2

No preference: 5

In left seated position:

Stereo: 0
TP: 10

No preference: 1




Observable qualitative results:

For the Central position:

It was a fairly even split as to whether or not a difference was heard. Approximately half had no preference, but 4 people preferred stereo in that position in that room.
Comments seem to indicate that a preference to straight stereo was due to a sharper central image, although one person said that stereo had more of a surround feeling, which seems counter-intuitive to the theory.
There was a general observation that T.P. brought the image forward from the speakers when compared to stereo, among both those with no preference and those who preferred T.P. in this position.



For the side position:

Everyone was able to hear a difference, and there is almost unanimous preference for T.P. on, the predominant reason being that it restored the sound back to where it should have been, or as one subject said “It’s like being back in the middle chair”. There was one unexpressed preference, where the sound seemed to have shifted from the left speaker to the right speaker; it is considered that the subject may have had some hearing loss in one ear.

Conclusions

The test data to date suggests strongly that T.P. does correct the sound stage for anyone not sitting in the central position.
The results for people in the central position are less clear-cut – one reason could be that in the non-standard speaker width to listener ratio of 1:1 is a lot harder to maintain a central image compared to the standard 1:2 employed by Dolby. Also, the nature of the T.P speakers may have created a difference in the timbre of the sound when TP was switched on, which may have affected the subject’s preference.





The above results translate well to surround or actual 3D and 2 channel virtualizers.






INVOLVE

INVOLVE does not require TOTAL PERSPECTIVE to work, it can work well with conventional speaker/ amplifier combinations. If TP is not used we have a version that has a fully separated center channel and sub output as in 5.1.

If the listener used TP in conjunction with INVOLVE they obtain a surround that is as good as discrete in ALL SEATS OF THE ROOM without the need of a center channel.

Below is another internal test document that we produced some time ago, I assure you they are warts and all!






Involve vs Discreet
Room setting.









Author: David Alexandrou
Internal use only.



Quick intro:

Involve audio is a 4/5 to 2 encode/decode matrix that can also decode surround from existing 2 channel sources.

System comparison:

Discreet audio vs. Involve Audio
Set-up:

Clip used: Money – Dark Side of the Moon 4 channel DVD-audio
Speakers: RTA Electrostatic Total Perspective speakers
Presentation: Audio only

Speaker width to listener ratio 1:1
Note: Central Imaging is traditionally considered difficult in this configuration.

Test Subjects: 11

Format:

Subject was played the audio, switching between the discreet and Involve versions of the audio. The systems were only identified as either No. 1 or No. 2.

The subject was then asked to comment on various qualities of the sound, paying attention to
• Any discernable differences between the two systems
• Audio Quality
• Surround quality.

The subject was then asked if they had a preference to any of the systems in particular, and asked to give reasons for their answer.



Preferences

Subjects were asked if they had a preference for either system. The results were as follows:

Involve: 5
No Preference: 4

Discreet: 2


Observable qualitative results:

In each case where Involve was picked as the preference, the results point to either an increase in the sound richness or fullness, and better distinction of surround sound elements.

The subjects who preferred discreet had a different reason to each other.


Conclusions

The test data as it stands indicates strongly that Involve matrix decoding is as good as or better than discreet surround sound.





For those who want more info I have attached some Excel tables and our test data of INVOLVE.



In my previous document I failed to mention that we do not require encoded material as we produce a very convincing surround from conventional stereo sources. Having said that our INVOLVE encoder is very different to any encoder we know of. We are finalizing patents as I write but suffice to say it is an “intelligent” encoder that produces a 2 channel source that is indistinguishable from normal stereo. I am sorry I cannot say much more for a while!

I will respond to the other contributors in the next few days.

Regards

Charlie

 

[chucky3042]

Still getting used to this forum! Not sure how to attach some Excel documents (could someone advise)




Regards

Charlie

 

[DKA]

Sounds like something worth trying out for someone who wants a passive, hardware decoder. Perhaps there are some samples which can be provided to see what this, at its best, can do.

I hope to see this in the hands of someone who truly knows what can be accomplished with stereo when you take the time and get an opinion from them. We, very often, sell stereo short.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

...........................................

I think my original contribution to the forum was not totally clear that we actually offer two completely separate yet complimentary systems. Both can be used with other formats of home surround systems.

TOTAL PERSPECTIVE

TP is fully compatible to all other forms of sound systems stereo, 5.1, 7.1, other decoders. Its only function is to remove the sweet spot from the room and to present a consistent image to all positions within a room. We believe it is a real alternative to the center channel as we do not create an image BELOW the TV in addition the ergonomic factors of mounting a center channel are usually not good.

Yes each TP speaker requires two amplifier channels so for stereo you require 4 amplifier channel, for surround you require 8 channels.

We have found the system creates a great freedom within a room, no more races to the central sweet spot. In fact I usually find myself drifting away from the center seat (I think I like the novelty!).

In addition when used with 2channel surround virtualizes most listeners report a surround effect in ALL seats of the room – not just the sweet spot.

TP IS NOT A SURROUND DECODER – It is a sound delivery system that eliminates the sweet spot and creates consistent imaging for all

..............................................................................................

INVOLVE

INVOLVE does not require TOTAL PERSPECTIVE to work, it can work well with conventional speaker/ amplifier combinations. If TP is not used we have a version that has a fully separated center channel and sub output as in 5.1.

If the listener used TP in conjunction with INVOLVE they obtain a surround that is as good as discrete in ALL SEATS OF THE ROOM without the need of a center channel.

Thanks for the clarifications. It was not clear to me before that there were 2 different elements with different purposes. I am still unclear about the need for biamping but will follow this as it goes.

 

[chucky3042]

Hello All

Can anyone advise on how to attach a pdf file - I am having no luck!

 

[JonUrban]

You can attach the following file types by using the MANAGE ATTACHMENTS section which you can get to by selecting GO ADVANCED when you post:

bmp, doc, gif, jpe, jpeg, jpg, mp3, pdf, png, psd, txt, zip. There are size limitations for each file type.

 

[JonUrban]

Just attach it to you post as I did below with this Acura brochure that I had on my laptop. The pdf file must be under 3Mb in size.

Excel spreadsheets are not a file type that is supported via attachments, but you can link to one stored somewhere else on the internet.

ACURA TSX WAGON BROCHURE (TEST ATTACHMENT)
View attachment TSX_wagon_brochure.pdf

 

[chucky3042]

Hello All

Hopefully here is a test report of the performance of INVOLVE

Regards

Charlie

 

[Overture]

Hey all,

I'm jumping in here for a quick update - my name is attached to the test document, I did the numbers etc. I'm also responsible for getting the DSP implementation up and running.

Just for what it's worth, those results are a few years old - a few bugs in the architecture have been ironed out since then and the distortion is much lower as a result.
Also, the panning linearity tests on the were based on absolute voltages and as such are not logarithmic - the diagonal linearity in particular seems to stray a bit, but in dB terms it strays about 3db at worst.

I'll do a new set of curves once I have the new hardware implementation in front of me, as time permits.

P.S. Hello all

~D

 

[chucky3042]

Hello Again

I have attached the excel (converted to pdf ) lab notes that formed the basis of the previous test reports. In it you can see some of the test subject listener verbal responses.

Regards

Charlie

 

[chucky3042]

Hello All

I know at the start of this correspondence some people were a bit confused that TOTAL PERSPECTIVE was not part of the surround INVOLVE decoder but instead a sound delivery system that gets rid of the need for the center channel and facilitates a consistent sound image for all listeners in the room.

One of its other characteristics is that for most listeners it makes 2 channel surround sound virtualizers (2D and the latest 3D) work convincingly in all seats of the room - not just the sweet spot or one "hero" seat. As you will understand 2 channel surround sound virtualizers do not work with all listeners but to a significant percentage of listeners it can produce compelling imaging. I know some companies that have developed such devices believe it can often produce better surround imaging than say 5.1. The real issue is its not for all people and it only really works in the sweet spot.

We have developed our own 2 channel virtualizer called TSS. In our experience it works as well or better that most other packages in many ways it completes our IP portfolio. We are currently looking at true 3D virtualisers but this will be say 6 to 12 months away. Meanwhile we have obtained a very good 3D virtualizer package (sorry cannot reveal which one) and used it in comparison to our TSS and with TOTAL PERSPECTIVE.

The results are in my opinion dramatic as it showed the 3D virtualizer did work for most users but when used with our TOTAL PERSPECTIVE produced a convincing 3D image in all seats of the room with just 2 speakers. I was part of the study an listed as CHARLIE. Please note I did not get great rear or 3D from the package (but others did), instead I heard good "side action" in all seats with a bit of vertical. I think all users reported surround of some level in all seats.


Please find attached our papers.

Regards

Charlie