Surround Master - What's Next? EV? DY? UHJ?

[oxforddickie]

Hi All

This tread is getting a bit nasty, but here goes.

First - Rustyandi is not our "chief tester" he is in fact our first and closest (in terms of distance) customer, he has a wonderful knowledge of all forms of surround and offers an opinion based on actually listening to the thing. He does not have a technical knowledge of how the Surround Master works any more than the "great" Oxforddickie but at least he has the dignity of reporting accurately what he hears.

On Rustyandi's request we did a vectorscope look at an EV recording of "one fine morning" by lighthouse, it really sounded very discrete. Yes I understand the vectorscope is not a totally accurate quantitative test but it can be an interesting visual clue to whats happening.

here it is, the delay was not Rustyandie "backing out of the challenge" it was us being a bit too busy to publish the test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbktwj2wJKY&feature=youtu.be

Regards

Chucky

It's not getting nasty, it's just certain people say something without proving it.

FACT: Rusty may be your first customer, but he has shown his total lack of knowledge here, many times, when it comes to the inner workings of surround systems.

Yoy say discrete? Doesn't mean it's accurate, which is the main point when it comes to decoding.

He fails to take up my offer of proving his claims, and all you do is show useless vectorscope images. Why dont you actually put togethjer a sampler of discrete vs your unit so people can tell for themselves?

AND, i'm not 'great'. I'm just an engineer who has taken the trouble to get to know the matrix systems almost personally. AND i don't hide behind words and pictures. My proof is out there!!!

 

[rustyandi]

Why would you want to put discrete up against
a Matrix system when the discrete will always have a better separation
As for the Vectorscope show me a better way to demo?
I have shown you what the decoders can do with
the LPs all you have is done is talk
show us the better way

 

[oxforddickie]

It is YOU that is saying that this magical decoder can do everything including accurately decoding EV-4. I HAVE shown the other way, and i'm waiting for you do accept my offer of seeing how well this unit decodes.

My proof is out there, pictures mean nothing when discussing audio. Why will you not accept my offer? Afraid to be proven wrong?

 

[oxforddickie]

Forgot: I think it's pretty obvious why it needs the decoded results to be compared to a discrete version of the track(s) used. To show how close in image placement, etc the decode is.

 

[chucky3042]

Hi All

So what do we want, a comparison of discrete vs Involve or some sort of accuracy test of decoding EV?? As I do not have any source files that have subsequently been encoded into EV this could be difficult.

A direct comparison of Discrete encoded into 2 channels and then decoded back to surround would be much easier. If this is wanted give us a bit of time over the next week or so and we might be able to slot that job in.

And who is the judge , jury and executioner?

Please clarify

Regards

Chucky

 

[oxforddickie]

What is required, to back up Rusty's claims that it accurately decodes EV-4, is plain and simple.

An EV-4 encoded track, of known origin, which i, or someone else, can supply, that is also available in a discrete format so that the accuracy of the decode can be evaluated. By this i mean, as previously mentioned, image location, stability etc.

This then really needs to be made available for the members here to evaluate. I will also do a decode as a 'measure' of what is possible. These three files will be made available here for all to download, and comment on.

I will add here that due to technical constraints it is not possble to get exactly the same results as is possible qith SQ & QS. This is one reason they died off so quickly after their superiour brotheren appeared.

By the way. this should have been done when for QS when you first announced it, but we'll leave that for now.

So, are you up for it?

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

Ok, please, there's no need for this thread to be a nasty thread.


Rustyandi hasn't necessarily claimed it decodes EV-4 accurately, just that when playing ev-4 through the decoder, you can hear decoding happening. He flat out said in his response he doesn't know how accurate it is. And, when we're dealing with a format that collectors probably have only 1 or 2 records of in their collection (I myself have only 2 EV-4 records)...basically, they're just saying, if you have a few of those floating around, and feel like giving them a spin, the involve decoder will decode something with them. How accurate? Well.....I would guess it would be better than playing them through an old ev-4 decoder that only got, what, 3dB out of them?

On the other hand, I do want to know just how accurate all decoding methods are. I sat on some of the SQ and QS scripts for a while before I got around to playing with them, but once I did, I spent much time decoding test records and comparing to past scripts, comparing to conversions I had from decoders, comparing to discreet sources.....just to hear what exactly everything is doing.

Chucky, as I mentioned before, I do have a discreet version of the One Fine Morning track. If we wanted to hear some apples to apples to apples comparisons, you could post a recording straight off the record for Richard to do a software decode of, and also post a 4 channel recording off the involve. I could then post my Q8 recording. That would give us discreet vs. involve vs. ev-4 software decode.

For me, this is just a curiosity, I have nothing to lose from this, and knowledge to gain on what is capable of doing what.

What I think we all need to keep in mind is, hardware and software decoding are 2 different things, with their pros and cons. A software decode has allowed us to dig deeper into this, and also allows as much time as needed to be taken to process the data, but it requires creating a conversion to use. If you want to just throw on a record and listen, a hardware decoder is necessary, and it's great that we have enough interest still that new decoders are being built. Both these approaches have a need and a place.

 

[oxforddickie]

I don't want this to get nasty, but as an engineer who has worked in QA, what is said must be right, and his continual statements that it decodes EV-4 without any real qualification is just plain wrong. Especially as these people are selling a unit. There are folks here who seem to breath on every work Rusty says, and it's not right.

This is why i would like this test, to put it in the records whether it can or cannot decode EV-4.

Of course, if Rusty would care to openly admit that he has no real knowledge of it's ability's to decode EV=4, DY or UHJ (give me strength!) then we can call it a day.

other-wise.... test on.

 

[chucky3042]

Hi All

yep lets do it. Give me a few days but Armyofquad suggestion looks workable.

As a matter of clarification I do not claim the Involve decoder is the best decoder of all formats but I do claim it does a good job of most. I also claim it is a very good decoder of plain old stereo. We have conducted tests that show the Involve decoder is as good or better than the QSD-1 and on my recent listening tests we believe our SQ version will exceed the Tate but this is still to be evaluated by qq reviewers shortly. Oh I also claim we do it in REAL TIME!!!!!!!!

My main claim is Involve is the best decoder of Involve encode format and that Involve encode is indistinguishable from stereo. I really do not like this tone that somehow we are rouges or tricksters that underlines Oxforddickies continued attacks on this and other forums on the web. Frankly our target market has nothing to do with this forum it is more a mass market simplification in that we believe surround has become very messy with incompatible systems, high bandwidth discrete systems, complexed menu setups, the stupidity of 5.1/ 7.1, center channels etc. We believe in a return to the most common format - stereo but one where the surround is cleverly hidden within (Involve encode). This really is a side show.


But let the challenge begin!!!! (but give me a while as we are really busy on other more profitable ventures)

Regards

Chucky

 

[oxforddickie]

My 'attacks' are because of the comments made by your 'official' tester. Not very proffesional!

I look forward to the results

 

[chucky3042]

The "official" tester is your words not ours. Your attacks are not restricted to this qq forum and quite unrelated to Rustyandi.

Regards

Chucky

My 'attacks' are because of the comments made by your 'official' tester. Not very proffesional!

I look forward to the results

 

[rustyandi]

Just in case you forgot
I have said that I have nothing to do with INVOLVE
I only heard about them through this Forum
And was interested in what they were doing
As people may remember I asked Charlie if I could say that the Involve
was a Quad decoder as he wanted it to be used as a Stereo Surround
I am not selling any thing
I do not know everything
I thought that others may be interested in what they were doing
I just listen and enjoy Music.

People can take notice of what I say or not Just like my Wife

 

[quadsearcher]

This is very cool. It seems like finally everybody is on the same page. "This really is a side show." I have a lot of respect for a company not only developing interesting new products, but willing to take time to make analytical comparisons with a fairly obscure obsolete system for which the product was never intended. AOQ, we're lucky to have the three versions for comparison, especially the Q8 for directional placement reference. OD, respect to you for sticking to your beliefs, words and the intentions behind them are easily misunderstood in print or the forum format but correct representation is important and for all the feather-ruffling this may cause, at least it looks like it may remove some ambiguity.

I have a friend releasing a 12" 45 soon hopefully, and it occurred to me how great it would be if it was actually a surround mix "hidden" on a stereo record. We are looking into Dolby but the cost vs. selling it to the bean counters is not good. Also, not surprisingly, it took so long to get everything to sit nicely in a stereo mix that it might be hard for the engineer to muster up the energy to do a surround mix. A lot of respect is due the folks who made the good surround mixes!

-John.

Hi All

yep lets do it. Give me a few days but Armyofquad suggestion looks workable.

As a matter of clarification I do not claim the Involve decoder is the best decoder of all formats but I do claim it does a good job of most. I also claim it is a very good decoder of plain old stereo. We have conducted tests that show the Involve decoder is as good or better than the QSD-1 and on my recent listening tests we believe our SQ version will exceed the Tate but this is still to be evaluated by qq reviewers shortly. Oh I also claim we do it in REAL TIME!!!!!!!!

My main claim is Involve is the best decoder of Involve encode format and that Involve encode is indistinguishable from stereo. I really do not like this tone that somehow we are rouges or tricksters that underlines Oxforddickies continued attacks on this and other forums on the web. Frankly our target market has nothing to do with this forum it is more a mass market simplification in that we believe surround has become very messy with incompatible systems, high bandwidth discrete systems, complexed menu setups, the stupidity of 5.1/ 7.1, center channels etc. We believe in a return to the most common format - stereo but one where the surround is cleverly hidden within (Involve encode). This really is a side show.


But let the challenge begin!!!! (but give me a while as we are really busy on other more profitable ventures)

Regards

Chucky

 

[oxforddickie]

The "official" tester is your words not ours. Your attacks are not restricted to this qq forum and quite unrelated to Rustyandi.

Regards

Chucky

Explain yourself, just what are you implying?

 

[oxforddickie]

Just in case you forgot
I have said that I have nothing to do with INVOLVE
I only heard about them through this Forum
And was interested in what they were doing
As people may remember I asked Charlie if I could say that the Involve
was a Quad decoder as he wanted it to be used as a Stereo Surround
I am not selling any thing
I do not know everything
I thought that others may be interested in what they were doing
I just listen and enjoy Music.

People can take notice of what I say or not Just like my Wife

THEY and YOU continually state you as their tester. YOU continually state things that your not willing to back up.

 

[rustyandi]

Have a nice Cuppa Tea
and a lay down

 

[oxforddickie]

I have a question for you. WHy is it that you are unwilling to do the test and why is it that someone from Involve is doing it for you.

By the way, if you look back on the SQ discusions, YOU were the final tester who decided which version was to be used. Had my cuppa, and ready ro roll.....

Ashes anyone?

 

[watsontr]

:chill
Yawn

 

[oxforddickie]

No, it wasn't iced tea, can't stand the stuff. Nice hot English tea, with no milk and two sugars

If your bored, get up and do something.............

 

[chucky3042]

Hi Richard

Please go to http://osdir.com/ml/surroundsound/2013-06/msg00086.html

and check out your comment:

On 06/27/13 17:35, Richard wrote:
Steven, i'm going to agree with you. There's a lot of 'talk' about that unit, but to be honest, it's flawed in many areas (i've read the test reports), plus i have serious doubts about the knowledge base of the team behind it.



also on http://osdir.com/ml/surroundsound/2013-06/msg00086.html

your comment was:


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Richard <zoanne1uk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, if you knew their main tester has no real knowledge of what he talks about. He's always 'making things up' and making ridiculous claims for this unit, it's probably him they quote. it's a shame really, because i'm sure if it was properly designed, and didn't use un-professional means, and people, to advertise it, it would be better appreciated

Their claim to 'perfectly reproduce' the original sound in 3 dimensions, from a 2 channel source , is, to put it mildly, questionable. (Especially as much studio recorded music 'imaging' is entirely created during the mixing stage). It's also funny that they put a testimonial on their site from someone who gushes about the way the Surround Master opens up the sound of Beatles' *mono recordings*.

And their comparisons to DPLII lack information on what mode of DPLII was used, and what settings....



I certainly support your right to voice an opinion on the SM where ever you want but to do so without any supporting data with allegations that contradict the test and review data in this forum is in my opinion very unprofessional (yes I am a fully qualified double degree engineer)

Anyway I will strangely enjoy doing these tests against discrete and EV.

In regards to Rustiandi he was our first local customer who immediately found a bug in our software upon testing the early beta versions of the SM (oh he found the bug with his silly vectorscope - go figure that). So he got the first of the SQ units as I prefer to release one unit locally for an independent look see - as some times we are too close to see problems. Its better to have to replace a local released unit than have to do an international product recall. Common sense really.

You have a nice cuppa on me.

Regards

Chucky

Explain yourself, just what are you implying?