Reality Technologies - New surround technology

[Q8]

Maybe if seperate volume controls are not feasable cost wise, you may add or change a button on the remote to switch the center volume between the current volume, and a volume equal with the other speakers. That way, it can adjust for either circumstance.

 

[Q8]

Oh, looking at the manual I guess there isn't a remote, I don't know why I keep thinking there was a remote. Adding even one button or switch to the unit may proove to be too costly, but I think one button or switch that goes between two center volume options may solve the issues for 99% of your customers. Maybe option be could be throwing in some sort of cheap attenuator that brings the level down to that of the other other outputs.

 

[ChristopherLees]

surround receivers all have adjustable speaker levels in their set up menu...I have often adjusted the .1 channel level on a receiver when switching between dts music and ac3...as the dts music .1 seemed to be usually louder than other material..so why can't people just lower the level of the center speaker on the receiver by simply adjusting it if it's too loud...it would take a minute at most...usually it says plus or minus something in db...and you can do it by remote control...the only problem I see is if the receiver can't be adjusted in the 5.1 analogue input mode, in which case a $2 pot with rca's either side will solve the problem of a receiver that was made with it's analogue inputs bypassing all the fine level adjustments that the receiver has.

anyway the main reason for buying this unit is for the QS decoding....and possible future SQ decoding...and if the receiver does a better job at dolby pro logic 5.1 then just use that setting 5.1 pro logic and leave the decoder to do it's QS quadraphonic stuff, which the dolby pro logic receiver is crap at doing

 

[bangsezmax]

surround receivers all have adjustable speaker levels in their set up menu...I have often adjusted the .1 channel level on a receiver when switching between dts music and ac3...as the dts music .1 seemed to be usually louder than other material..so why can't people just lower the level of the center speaker on the receiver by simply adjusting it if it's too loud...it would take a minute at most...usually it says plus or minus something in db...and you can do it by remote control...the only problem I see is if the receiver can't be adjusted in the 5.1 analogue input mode, in which case a $2 pot with rca's either side will solve the problem of a receiver that was made with it's analogue inputs bypassing all the fine level adjustments that the receiver has.

anyway the main reason for buying this unit is for the QS decoding....and possible future SQ decoding...and if the receiver does a better job at dolby pro logic 5.1 then just use that setting 5.1 pro logic and leave the decoder to do it's QS quadraphonic stuff, which the dolby pro logic receiver is crap at doing

I'm really not getting the complaints on this. Decoders don't have level settings. Nowadays they're built in to the receivers and you set the levels there. Not to mention, it takes me all of four clicks to get to my center channel level on the receiver. I don't get it.

 

[byrdman7]

I'm really not getting the complaints on this. Decoders don't have level settings. Nowadays they're built in to the receivers and you set the levels there. Not to mention, it takes me all of four clicks to get to my center channel level on the receiver. I don't get it.

I am going to address some of the comments in this thread that seem directed at me. If one reads the complete thread from start to end it will become clear why I am upset with the performance of the 5.1 mode. In addition to QS decoding the unit was advertised as superior to PL and dts in the 5.1 mode. If the issue was reversed and the 5.1 mode worked great and the 4.0/4.1 mode did not would there be silence, I think not.

I have lost count of the surround systems I have set up and calibrated over the years for friends and their friends so I am no novice. I have found many things in common with all, they want to put a disc in the player and it sound good. If it does not sound good they have no idea where to start the correction process. In short, people are for plug and play and you lose them with anything beyond. It is not realistic to ask the consumer to fix out of balance outputs on a unit to get it to match other components in a system. This should have been addressed before the first unit was shipped. I was shocked to read the process thought in addressing the center channel. The choice of a lesser evil is not problem solving IMHO. I would think that Reality has a better business plan than a niche market. If not, who will buy their product after QQ Forum people purchase? The fact is their are few who still listen to QS vinyl. A professional installer would run like hell from this unit for a 5.1 set up.

My last comment is the best way to introduce hum and signal loss in line is with a cheap Chinese made attenuator.

Reagan

 

[phydo]

Hi Q8

Really good comment and you clearly understand the difficulties here. The only negative is that on a lot of systems setting the center low or "level" in spite of inadequate center channels the listener then ends up with a severe hole in the middle with the main action or vocalist missing. The cost of a separate pre amp or booster is higher than an attenuator.

As mentioned I welcome comment and am happy to do an update on software. Believe it or not the Surround Master is the result of 4.5 years of R+D effort and whilst looking simple it is in fact so complicated that we could not contain all its functions on one DSP. I regret any inconvenience to users but some things can only be finalised by the feedback of customers even after our best efforts and intentions.

Regards

Chucky

As I read these posts I am struck by the outstanding good faith Chucky and his staff are exhibiting by the personal support they are providing to their customers. As consumers we would be truly blessed if all manufactures adopted Reality Technologies customer support business model.

Justin

 

[ChristopherLees]

I am going to address some of the comments in this thread that seem directed at me. If one reads the complete thread from start to end it will become clear why I am upset with the performance of the 5.1 mode. In addition to QS decoding the unit was advertised as superior to PL and dts in the 5.1 mode. If the issue was reversed and the 5.1 mode worked great and the 4.0/4.1 mode did not would there be silence, I think not.

I have lost count of the surround systems I have set up and calibrated over the years for friends and their friends so I am no novice. I have found many things in common with all, they want to put a disc in the player and it sound good. If it does not sound good they have no idea where to start the correction process. In short, people are for plug and play and you lose them with anything beyond. It is not realistic to ask the consumer to fix out of balance outputs on a unit to get it to match other components in a system. This should have been addressed before the first unit was shipped. I was shocked to read the process thought in addressing the center channel. The choice of a lesser evil is not problem solving IMHO. I would think that Reality has a better business plan than a niche market. If not, who will buy their product after QQ Forum people purchase? The fact is their are few who still listen to QS vinyl. A professional installer would run like hell from this unit for a 5.1 set up.

My last comment is the best way to introduce hum and signal loss in line is with a cheap Chinese made attenuator.

Reagan

So in your present set up, how many db in level do have you to reduce your center speaker by on the marantz receiver to make it sound ok?

 

[bangsezmax]

So tonight I listened to the following stereo recordings in 4.1:

Bruce Springsteen -- "4th of July Asbury Park (Sandy)." Guitars everywhere. You have no idea how many guitars were recorded for this track until you hear it in the QS mode.

Jimi Hendrix -- "House Burning Down". Has to be heard to be believed. If you like an "active" quad mix, there can be no more active. And it was created before quad even existed. How did he know this device would exist to decode his insane mix ideas? Here's Jimi blowing your mind once more. Try it. I dare you.

Diesel -- "Sausolito Summer Night" -- Picked this one on a whim. It sounds awesome. Big goofy well-recorded pop song. Huge and wide with lots of cool rear elements through the Surround Master.

Poco - "Crazy Eyes" -- The banjo comes in fully (and in stereo) in the rears. Very cool.

Bottom line -- there are lots of great stereo recordings that sound mind-blowing through the Surround Master in 4.x because people mixed the stereo recordings with cool phasing ideas that become total ear candy through this box. But that center channel in 5.x will ALWAYS be a compromise when you're starting with stereo input. Do the math! Why even bother with five channels when you're starting with two?

Just leave this unit in 4.0/4.1 and don't look back.

 

[byrdman7]

I will not be posting comments or answering any questions on this thread until the attenuator I ordered arrives and further testing is complete.

Reagan

 

[ChristopherLees]

Got a feeling that you haven't "tried to balance the center output to match the other channels to see what happens" via the volume control settings on your receiver...

 

[chucky3042]

Hi Bangsezmax

Really good comment about "Do the math!". When you do the maths you soon find it is in fact impossible to derive 3 distinct outputs L', C. R' from 2 inputs L, R. Basically 2 input variables - 3 solutions cannot happen. You can "beat up" the problem using direction dominance techniques as we and others have done. Spare a thought for Dolby and other waveform synthesis types that create 22 or up to 900 channels from say 5 inputs!

Regards

charlie

So tonight I listened to the following stereo recordings in 4.1:

Bruce Springsteen -- "4th of July Asbury Park (Sandy)." Guitars everywhere. You have no idea how many guitars were recorded for this track until you hear it in the QS mode.

Jimi Hendrix -- "House Burning Down". Has to be heard to be believed. If you like an "active" quad mix, there can be no more active. And it was created before quad even existed. How did he know this device would exist to decode his insane mix ideas? Here's Jimi blowing your mind once more. Try it. I dare you.

Diesel -- "Sausolito Summer Night" -- Picked this one on a whim. It sounds awesome. Big goofy well-recorded pop song. Huge and wide with lots of cool rear elements through the Surround Master.

Poco - "Crazy Eyes" -- The banjo comes in fully (and in stereo) in the rears. Very cool.

Bottom line -- there are lots of great stereo recordings that sound mind-blowing through the Surround Master in 4.x because people mixed the stereo recordings with cool phasing ideas that become total ear candy through this box. But that center channel in 5.x will ALWAYS be a compromise when you're starting with stereo input. Do the math! Why even bother with five channels when you're starting with two?

Just leave this unit in 4.0/4.1 and don't look back.

 

[Q8]

Maybe it may help to burst this thread into multiple threads, maybe one for info about the Surround Master and the company and ordering, one for problems and technical support and one for listening tests and impressions about different recordings through the unit? I'm not sure that one thread can contain everything about the Surround Master anymore.

 

[Varian]

Hi,


Hi bangsezmax,
What kind of receiver do you have for the Yamaha CA-2010? Also is your Camara working? I would still like to see photos of your system. Email me back.

Thanks,
Varian
Varian

 

[bangsezmax]

Hi Bangsezmax

Really good comment about "Do the math!". When you do the maths you soon find it is in fact impossible to derive 3 distinct outputs L', C. R' from 2 inputs L, R. Basically 2 input variables - 3 solutions cannot happen. You can "beat up" the problem using direction dominance techniques as we and others have done. Spare a thought for Dolby and other waveform synthesis types that create 22 or up to 900 channels from say 5 inputs!

Regards

charlie

Charlie, I think you and your team have done an outstanding job with this product. I love what it does with good stereo sources and (of course) with QS material. SQ will be the icing on the cake.

 

[JonUrban]

Maybe it may help to burst this thread into multiple threads, maybe one for info about the Surround Master and the company and ordering, one for problems and technical support and one for listening tests and impressions about different recordings through the unit? I'm not sure that one thread can contain everything about the Surround Master anymore.

This is a good idea. Let me figure it out. There are posts in this thread that are way off topic.

 

[JonUrban]

This thread is being closed for archiving. For future discussion, please use the following two threads:

For discussion of the Surround Master PRIOR to purchase, use this thread:
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?17160

For discussion of the Surround Master by those who own the unit, use this thread:
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?17161

THANKS!