Stuff that sounds amazing with the Surround Master

[J. PUPSTER]

I just played Madonna's "Immaculate Collection" CD thru the SM... it sounded like discrete quad, when played through the SM's Involve 4.1 mode.

That’s one of the few QSound encoded titles isn’t it? The SM loves QSound.

https://www.qsound.com/

 

[LB-V]

I just played Madonna's "Immaculate Collection" CD thru the SM... it sounded like discrete quad, when played through the SM's Involve 4.1 mode.

I happened to have that CD....indeed, pretty nice through the SM! Good stuff.

 

[jaybird100]

That’s one of the few QSound encoded titles isn’t it? The SM loves QSound.

https://www.qsound.com/

Yes, it is QSound. Very impressive; it sounded like it was mixed for surround.

 

[jaybird100]

Another great sounding disc is Mr. Afternoon's "Szoo Wee Dmama, vol.1". This disc sounds like it's been encoded; through the SM, in the SM's Involve 4.1 mode, the separation is excellent.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Another great sounding disc is Mr. Afternoon's "Szoo Wee Dmama, vol.1". This disc sounds like it's been encoded; through the SM, in the SM's Involve 4.1 mode, the separation is excellent.

The disc is just...regular stereo. Glad to hear it decodes nicely, though! I've been meaning to do a 5.1 mix for a while, but the multitracks are in poor condition.

 

[LB-V]

Thanks to a post today by @humprof on 50 years later of some great albums, really enjoyed this one via Apple Music through the SM.

 

[fredblue]

Thanks to a post today by @humprof on 50 years later of some great albums, really enjoyed this one via Apple Music through the SM.

View attachment 80851

"Innervisions" & "Songs In The Key Of Life" are also cool through the Surround Master

 

[J. PUPSTER]

"Innervisions" & "Songs In The Key Of Life" are also cool through the Surround Master

I had hoped Stevie would have put out more actual surround material by now (as most of his stuff sounds great through a Surround Master); especially after showing interest in the Involve stuff at a NAMM show once -

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/best-customers-ever.18180/page-8#post-411053

 

[humprof]

I had hoped Stevie would have put out more actual surround material by now (as most of his stuff sounds great through a Surround Master); especially after showing interest in the Involve stuff at a NAMM show once -

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/best-customers-ever.18180/page-8#post-411053

Or at least that he would have authorized UMe to selectively remix his catalog in Atmos on Apple Music.

 

[fredblue]

Or at least that he would have authorized UMe to selectively remix his catalog in Atmos on Apple Music.

i hate to tempt fate.. but Motown have had a go at Atmosizing just about everybody on their roster already.. at this point the Atmos wave just feels too thrilling not to ride!
i'm sure it hasn't escaped Stevie's and/or Universal's notice that he's just about the only major Motown artist not to have had at least one track in Atmos!

 

[gvl_guy]

Prince and Michael Jackson are two others I would have thought would be releasing some kind of surround/multi-channel by now. I mean, they are both gone and their estates (I'm guessing) control the music. I would have thought they'd want to make some more money off their deceased relatives and this is a cheap, easy way to introduce (or reintroduce) that music to more people.

 

[fredblue]

Prince and Michael Jackson are two others I would have thought would be releasing some kind of surround/multi-channel by now. I mean, they are both gone and their estates (I'm guessing) control the music. I would have thought they'd want to make some more money off their deceased relatives and this is a cheap, easy way to introduce (or reintroduce) that music to more people.

its crazy really both artist's work's crying out for the Surround treatment. vague attempts have occurred with both, Michael Jackson's History DVD has a 5.1 Dolby Digital soundtrack and there's been one Prince studio track streaming in Atmos (When Doves Cry) and some live material but it all only scratches the surface at what could be done with their catalogues

 

[key_wiz]

Prince and Michael Jackson are two others I would have thought would be releasing some kind of surround/multi-channel by now. I mean, they are both gone and their estates (I'm guessing) control the music. I would have thought they'd want to make some more money off their deceased relatives and this is a cheap, easy way to introduce (or reintroduce) that music to more people.

I think it is for that reason that the catalogs have been a bit more “protected”. But I won’t be at all surprised if we start seeing Atmos roll-outs very soon.

 

[Overture]

I've gone back to watch the rest of Breaking Bad since I stopped at season 2 because I got...I dunno, distracted by a moving shiny thing or something - the sound design is pretty great. The ambience of the scenes, little details, birds etc, is really great through the Involve decode.

 

[amco]

For some 10 years I play all my good old CDs with a Yamaha AVR´s DTS NEO: 6 matrix mode on a 5.1 system for a great feeling of presence with most all. Could never go back to a stereo sweet spot like 2 firehoses in the eye, the DTS NEO: 6 5.1 matrix feels SO much more musical just about all over my 6m x 8m living room. In fact it is even noticable outside my living room.

So the jackpot question is: has anyone done an extended comparison of Sound Master versus DTS NEO: 6 with varied material from rock through to symphonic. As an SM would be a significant investment over my AVR, what is the general feeling on cost/benefit for musical experience on a 5.1 system ? (actually mine is 5.3, as 3 Subs also provide a great room-wide bass experience, for quality, not quantity! The idea of optimizing a bass sweet spot for one Sub is also anathema to me!!!)

In summary, I seek a feeling of great musical presence without resorting to the artifice of a critically optimized sweet spot, that seems like a Hi Fi prison cell, ha ha ha.

Looking forward to group comments !?!

 

[chucky3042]

For some 10 years I play all my good old CDs with a Yamaha AVR´s DTS NEO: 6 matrix mode on a 5.1 system for a great feeling of presence with most all. Could never go back to a stereo sweet spot like 2 firehoses in the eye, the DTS NEO: 6 5.1 matrix feels SO much more musical just about all over my 6m x 8m living room. In fact it is even noticable outside my living room.

So the jackpot question is: has anyone done an extended comparison of Sound Master versus DTS NEO: 6 with varied material from rock through to symphonic. As an SM would be a significant investment over my AVR, what is the general feeling on cost/benefit for musical experience on a 5.1 system ? (actually mine is 5.3, as 3 Subs also provide a great room-wide bass experience, for quality, not quantity! The idea of optimizing a bass sweet spot for one Sub is also anathema to me!!!)

In summary, I seek a feeling of great musical presence without resorting to the artifice of a critically optimized sweet spot, that seems like a Hi Fi prison cell, ha ha ha.

Looking forward to group comments !?!

I did some digging as I remembered years ago in the development of the good ol blue eyed monster that we did some internal listening comparisons. OK I declare a small amount of self interest and bias, I have already admitted that I am a liar. See attached, they were done to establish weather or not we had a real product or not!

And here is another summary of a few more people and names....inc me!

 

[ar surround]

Too bad @chucky3042 you didn't do a comparison of the Surround Master with Tate II Surround Decode (Not SQ, but the codec that produces surround from stereo sources) and Lexicon Logic7. As I've said before, these two codecs can produce results that are spectacular at times compared to the Surround Master, but they often make a bloody mess out of things, such as the Tate II surround yielding bizarre results and Logic7 producing bloated bass and/or an ambient mess. The SMv2 NEVER makes a mess out of anything. It is an artifact free listening experience. And as for recordings with not enough action in the rears, simply upping the volume of the rears on the SMv2 does the trick.

 

[ar surround]

AND...if you have your system set up like mine, you can use Auro 3D to generate height from the ceiling speakers.

 

[chucky3042]

Too bad @chucky3042 you didn't do a comparison of the Surround Master with Tate II Surround Decode (Not SQ, but the codec that produces surround from stereo sources) and Lexicon Logic7. As I've said before, these two codecs can produce results that are spectacular at times compared to the Surround Master, but they often make a bloody mess out of things, such as the Tate II surround yielding bizarre results and Logic7 producing bloated bass and/or an ambient mess. The SMv2 NEVER makes a mess out of anything. It is an artifact free listening experience. And as for recordings with not enough action in the rears, simply upping the volume of the rears on the SMv2 does the trick.

We did this review way back in 2009 and we did not have access to the Lexicon. Since then we have it set up in Dawson's (our beloved CEO's) home theater and basically it is not great.

At home for movies and such I have our Y4 system setup and I have put the rear speakers above my head level and there is a definite height dimension.....for the bomb drop effect

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Too bad @chucky3042 you didn't do a comparison of the Surround Master with Tate II Surround Decode (Not SQ, but the codec that produces surround from stereo sources) and Lexicon Logic7. As I've said before, these two codecs can produce results that are spectacular at times compared to the Surround Master, but they often make a bloody mess out of things, such as the Tate II surround yielding bizarre results and Logic7 producing bloated bass and/or an ambient mess. The SMv2 NEVER makes a mess out of anything. It is an artifact free listening experience. And as for recordings with not enough action in the rears, simply upping the volume of the rears on the SMv2 does the trick.

I've never heard Lexicon Logic 7 (but I did lust after their products) but I had a Sansui QSD-1 and Fosgate Tate II in house together for a number of years. In their respective stereo to surround synthesis modes they both offered 270 deg wrap around sound. It really brought a lot of enhancement to be enjoyed. But they sounded a bit different. The Sansui synthesis also enhanced the center back reverb and the Fosgate did not. Subjectively the Sansui method seemed a bit fuller (rounder?) than the Fosgate but the latter sounded a bit dryer (cleaner?) than the Sansui.

Absolutely true the SMv2 never offends and is a big step up from DPL II/. I still think it has room to improve (for stereo. Perfect for QS/SQ!) & most folks are un-aware of that as all they can compare to is something Dolby/Neo:6, or as on my pre-pro also, Anthem Logic.

The key to getting better wrap around sound from stereo with out increasing artifacts is a certain amount of control over the effect. The Fosgate offered only one mode for stereo enhance (but the S&IC did have variable) and the Sansui stuff had 3 modes of decoding, Hall (forward oriented), QS, and wrap around synthesis. I'll never pass up the chance mentioning to Chucky that some sort of similar enhancement will be much more value added than Two Speaker Surround. IIRC he feels there's enough goodness baked into the SM it doesn't need this. How about a little frosting on that cake?

He also says including too much stuff will confuse the consumer. Here's how you include those functions with input/output/balance controls & still make it look simple & attractive:

Well, it's a crappy picture but it really look quite elegant & non-intimidating in person. The QSD-2 is another good example of doing a lot with a simple front panel design.

If I have Chucky's attention you can do away with the"modes"& just have single pot for phase balance with neutral, forward, and wrap around points indicated. I certainly think the SM would benefit from this as well as an input L/R balance control. Maybe on the new up coming pre-amp?