Surround Master V3 has landed (news, discounts etc)

[chucky3042]

That's how I test all things musical. If it sounds great to my ears, as far as I am concerned it's great. I consider the SM2 to be great.

Similar to my test of speakers

 

[mandrix]

I stopped going to Oxford Dickie's site years ago. Always some drama going on. I don't remember much now, though.
I'm with you guys though, I don't care how technical the discussion is but at my age it's just a waste of time (for me).

If it tastes good, eat it, if it sounds good, play it.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

His report is seriously flawed. He created his own test signals, rather than using test tones provided by test records that are properly encoded. Doing it as he did, he could skew the results however he wants. Talk about arrogant!

I haven't dug deep in that article, and probably shan't waste my time doing so, but there is nothing inherently wrong with using purpose created test tones as part of the design & testing of surround decoders.

Even in the earliest days of quad an analog sine wave generator would be input to a surround encoder to test the outputs of the decoder. This eliminates the variables in LP pressings, cartridge and pre-amps. And back then as it is today, it is not reasonable to drop a tone arm, lift it, & repeat a million times during the design & testing of a decoder circuit. Today test tones for any desired encoding SQ/QS or otherwise can be easily done on a PC. I've done this myself & found the SM v2 to be an exemplary performer.

Different test tones or noise bursts can be used to analyze attack/decay characteristics and identify pumping. And at some yes subjective listening must be involved. I remember comments made by Jim Fosgate when collaborating with Peter Scheiber that Scheiber was particularly sensitive to pumping & other unnatural artifacts where Fosgate was most sensitive to changes in amplitude separation. So compromises were made. And Chucky has said, in effect, it isn't all in the numbers. I think the SM has such an excellent design leading to constant power, high separation artifact free decoding that any "compromises" they made was well chosen.

 

[ar surround]

Seriously does any body actually understand this "test report". Zero documentation of frequencies used, test criterion, equipment. It a total joke.

That's how I test all things musical. If it sounds great to my ears, as far as I am concerned it's great. I consider the SM2 to be great.

Test tones? Uh...duh? Matrix encoding / decoding is part science, part black art. That's why I find it so fascinating. What good is a matrix device that tests perfectly yet produces artifacts in certain situations, sounds "artificial," etc? For example, the esteemed Fosgage Tate II 'Surround' mode and my beloved Lexicon Logic7 can sound spectacular but can also make a mess out of things with certain material. I've yet to hear the Surround Master make a mess out of anything. Never ever. I often have to tweek the bass up a bit, but that's why equipment includes tone controls.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

est tones? Uh...duh? Matrix encoding / decoding is part science, part black art. That's why I find it so fascinating.

Often the art of audio design is mentioned. But in the case of matrix surround I think your "black art" is most appropriate. In fact I think Severus Snape had something to do with the SQ system.

What good is a matrix device that tests perfectly yet produces artifacts in certain situations, sounds "artificial," etc?

Yep. If it tests good but sounds bad your testing the wrong thing. Still testing is a required part. I guess the point is your ears & the testing should agree.

For example, the esteemed Fosgage Tate II 'Surround' mode and my beloved Lexicon Logic7 can sound spectacular but can also make a mess out of things with certain material. I've yet to hear the Surround Master make a mess out of anything.

The basic QS/RM Vario-Matrix is just a great concept for quad or stereo & much of it's "sonic signature" depends on how it's implemented.

In another post I think you commented on how stereo to surround seems like magic (the good kind) to you. Discrete SACD, DVD-A, you just expect to work. But S2S can be a real surprise & I totally agree. My 1st encounter with surround sound was a stereo record (Switched on Bach) played through an ultra-simple 3rd speaker L-R hook up. I was blown away. And I've have that same appreciation today.

 

[gvl_guy]

Just FYI. "John Ford" was banned for 24 hours on the Facebook page. After some nasty messages back and forth, I told him he could not participate if he wasn't going to be respectful. One more time like that and he'll be banned permanently. He's been quiet since.

 

[himey]

Just FYI. "John Ford" was banned for 24 hours on the Facebook page. After some nasty messages back and forth, I told him he could not participate if he wasn't going to be respectful. One more time like that and he'll be banned permanently. He's been quiet since.

Sounds like OD to me. He has no self control so it fits his MO.

 

[DuncanS]

Seriously does any body actually understand this "test report". Zero documentation of frequencies used, test criterion, equipment. It a total joke.

It says a picture paints a thousand words, but this picture (by the great Bridget Riley), the album cover of the Faust tapes doesn't describe the music!

 

[chucky3042]

Test tones? Uh...duh? Matrix encoding / decoding is part science, part black art. That's why I find it so fascinating. What good is a matrix device that tests perfectly yet produces artifacts in certain situations, sounds "artificial," etc? For example, the esteemed Fosgage Tate II 'Surround' mode and my beloved Lexicon Logic7 can sound spectacular but can also make a mess out of things with certain material. I've yet to hear the Surround Master make a mess out of anything. Never ever. I often have to tweek the bass up a bit, but that's why equipment includes tone controls.

The difference is we have been using goat entrails for years

 

[chucky3042]

I haven't dug deep in that article, and probably shan't waste my time doing so, but there is nothing inherently wrong with using purpose created test tones as part of the design & testing of surround decoders.

Even in the earliest days of quad an analog sine wave generator would be input to a surround encoder to test the outputs of the decoder. This eliminates the variables in LP pressings, cartridge and pre-amps. And back then as it is today, it is not reasonable to drop a tone arm, lift it, & repeat a million times during the design & testing of a decoder circuit. Today test tones for any desired encoding SQ/QS or otherwise can be easily done on a PC. I've done this myself & found the SM v2 to be an exemplary performer.

Different test tones or noise bursts can be used to analyze attack/decay characteristics and identify pumping. And at some yes subjective listening must be involved. I remember comments made by Jim Fosgate when collaborating with Peter Scheiber that Scheiber was particularly sensitive to pumping & other unnatural artifacts where Fosgate was most sensitive to changes in amplitude separation. So compromises were made. And Chucky has said, in effect, it isn't all in the numbers. I think the SM has such an excellent design leading to constant power, high separation artifact free decoding that any "compromises" they made was well chosen.

Really well thought out comments Sonik!

 

[chucky3042]

Often the art of audio design is mentioned. But in the case of matrix surround I think your "black art" is most appropriate. In fact I think Severus Snape had something to do with the SQ system.


Yep. If it tests good but sounds bad your testing the wrong thing. Still testing is a required part. I guess the point is your ears & the testing should agree.


The basic QS/RM Vario-Matrix is just a great concept for quad or stereo & much of it's "sonic signature" depends on how it's implemented.

In another post I think you commented on how stereo to surround seems like magic (the good kind) to you. Discrete SACD, DVD-A, you just expect to work. But S2S can be a real surprise & I totally agree. My 1st encounter with surround sound was a stereo record (Switched on Bach) played through an ultra-simple 3rd speaker L-R hook up. I was blown away. And I've have that same appreciation today.

Actually my first surround experience was the L-R trick, i still like it today

 

[Sonik Wiz]

The difference is we have been using goat entrails for years

Me too. But it didn't have anything to do with audio.

 

[watsontr]

Not sure who John Ford is - seems like he has a wordpress site where he goes by "The Matrix" - the test is also posted there. Involve Surround Master v2 Test Report

I don't think it could be him. There are very few spelling mistakes and on past performance, that seemed to be his forte. Other than creating contempt and bad feelings, little else

 

[jaybird100]

Just FYI. "John Ford" was banned for 24 hours on the Facebook page. After some nasty messages back and forth, I told him he could not participate if he wasn't going to be respectful. One more time like that and he'll be banned permanently. He's been quiet since.

I was careful not to be disrespectful, as much as possible, to him, until he called me a troublemaker. I don't know what crawled up his butt and died, but it had no place on the forum. He just couldn't stand being told he was wrong.

 

[chucky3042]

Test tones? Uh...duh? Matrix encoding / decoding is part science, part black art. That's why I find it so fascinating. What good is a matrix device that tests perfectly yet produces artifacts in certain situations, sounds "artificial," etc? For example, the esteemed Fosgage Tate II 'Surround' mode and my beloved Lexicon Logic7 can sound spectacular but can also make a mess out of things with certain material. I've yet to hear the Surround Master make a mess out of anything. Never ever. I often have to tweek the bass up a bit, but that's why equipment includes tone controls.

Hey AR Surround you really hit the nail on the head, its the part science and part black art that really attracted me to finding a solution. What is so important is that once solved it enables a set and forget approach of just putting anything on the DVD/ CD/ whatever and out comes accurate surround. I claim better than discrete.

 

[fredblue]

I don't think it could be him. There are very few spelling mistakes and on past performance, that seemed to be his forte. Other than creating contempt and bad feelings, little else

who could it be then!?
next to nobody cares enough about all that stuff but him and a handful of us loonies on here! he's probably just got spellcheck on at the moment or something

 

[Soundfield]

who could it be then!?
next to nobody cares enough about all that stuff but him and a handful of us loonies on here! he's probably just got spellcheck on at the moment or something

Far from mistake free - I actually thought there was about the amount of spelling errors, typos and grammatical mistakes that usually populate his deranged ramblings for it to be him. He was never great on accuracy.

 

[par4ken]

Far from mistake free - I actually thought there was about the amount of spelling errors, typos and grammatical mistakes that usually populate his deranged ramblings for it to be him. He was never great on accuracy.

With the exception of accurate decodes. You can't be a degree out on phase nor a dB out in amplitude!

 

[watsontr]

who could it be then!?
next to nobody cares enough about all that stuff but him and a handful of us loonies on here! he's probably just got spellcheck on at the moment or something

I did go back and read his tripe on Quad Bob. Sure enough, his fingerprints (misspellings, etc) are all over it

 

[Sonik Wiz]

It says a picture paints a thousand words, but this picture (by the great Bridget Riley), the album cover of the Faust tapes doesn't describe the music!
View attachment 78832

Is that one of those 3D pics? Where if you stare at them for a bit with crossed eyes you see the lyrics?