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

[JonUrban]

and if anyone else want to leave, so be it. This shit is really getting me ticked off, and I have far more important things to be pissed about.

 

[Owen Smith]

I've not heard one of these decoders in use, or played around with one. But, I did listen to the Jim Croce conversion that was released using it. And when comparing the involve decode with a QS-Final script decode of the same album, it was no contest....the script won, hands down.

QS-Final won? Are you sure it was QS-Final? It was pretty vague and "everything in the middle of the soundfield", OD was sufficiently dis-sastisfied with it he stopped doing QS conversions. QS/II produces much better results, I've compared conversions done with both.

 

[oxforddickie]

No smear, just the basic truth. Now, do your worst Jon, because i really couldn't give a tosss

 

[Owen Smith]

Calm down guys, please.

 

[oxforddickie]

Give it up Owen, QQ isn't worth it.They deserve everything they get. OK Jon, now do it.

 

[JonUrban]

Give it up Owen, QQ isn't worth it.They deserve everything they get. OK Jon, now do it.

You have been warned. You leave me no choice.

Goodbye

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

Ugh.....

Please don't let anyone think I'm backing any smear campaign, or that I wish to be involved in anything in which there are sides.

Yes, I preferred QS-Final to the involve decode that is out there, I know QS-Final II does better, but QS-Final is what I had access to. However, please don't let my observation of which method I felt did the better decode in one specific example be interpreted as a smear, as I only had 1 example to compare to, and I still haven't heard a comparison to vintage QS decoders.

 

[Owen Smith]

Ugh indeed, an unfortunate outcome.

Thanks for confirming it was QS-Final. As you say, more than one decode and a comparison with vintage QS decoders would be prefferable. I'm not that involved in the quad underground so I don't know what if anything is available.

 

[JonUrban]

For those that care, OD was given a chance to follow the QQ rules MULTIPLE TIMES and he failed to do so. He is no longer a member here.

I am sure he will continue to speak poorly about QQ and it's members, as he has done in the past. I probably should have banned him when he attacked me on his blog one of the "other times" he got pissed off, but I foolishly allowed him to remain here and treated him with the respect he did not show me or our forum.

If any of you disagree with me banning him, fine, you are free to start your own forum and allow OD to post and ruin it for you. It's so much fun.

Now, can we please get back to getting along with each other and having some semblance of dignity when we have differing opinions?

 

[Q8]

Ugh.....

Please don't let anyone think I'm backing any smear campaign, or that I wish to be involved in anything in which there are sides.

Yes, I preferred QS-Final to the involve decode that is out there, I know QS-Final II does better, but QS-FinalI is what I had access to. However, please don't let my observation of which method I felt did the better decode in one specific example be interpreted as a smear, as I only had 1 example to compare to, and I still haven't heard a comparison to vintage QS decoders.

I think someone stated that the Jim Croce Involve decode that was floating around was done with an earlier, later changed test version of the surround master. Can Chucky or someone verify if I'm right? If so, that decode shouldn't be used for comparison.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

If that's the case, thanks for pointing that out. In that case, I'd like to hear better examples of the decode. I know Jon has one....perhaps now we can make an ugly thread not ugly, and have some lively discussion on different methods and fair comparisons.

 

[watsontr]

Yes, I preferred QS-Final to the involve decode that is out there, I know QS-Final II does better, but QS-Final is what I had access to. However, please don't let my observation of which method I felt did the better decode in one specific example be interpreted as a smear, as I only had 1 example to compare to, and I still haven't heard a comparison to vintage QS decoders.

I think the real emphasis on testing of the Surround Master should be against whatever real time hardware was available. If the units deliver results the equl or better of a Sansui or Tate for their respective matrix, surely this is what this community has wanted for quite some time? Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[The Bushmaster]

OH darn...And he insulted us "Cowboys" as he left. And I didn't get a chance to call him out into the street at "high noon".

 

[timbre4]

If that's the case, thanks for pointing that out. In that case, I'd like to hear better examples of the decode. I know Jon has one....perhaps now we can make an ugly thread not ugly, and have some lively discussion on different methods and fair comparisons.

That's absolutely what we should do starting now and let the QQ folks provide civil and meaningful commentary that advance the hobby/obsession!

 

[chucky3042]

Hi All

The sun is shining, the birds are singing nice to have a fresh start.

Just a thought, "Rustyandi" made an interesting observation a few days ago stating something along the line of.......a matrix system cannot sound as good as the discrete version as it has greater separation...... (I hope I got the wording correct as I cannot find the correspondence).

I with the greatest respect I actually disagree with this view as our own admittedly internal studies on panels of "test animals" suggested a slight preference or the matrixed Involve encode/ decode for reasons of increase in the sound richness or fullness, and better distinction of surround sound elements.. See attached.

So with a view of settling this long term argument may I suggest we make this comparison challenge more interesting: Yes we will provide examples of discrete VS EV and Discrete VS involve QS .....but here is the twist, we will not tell you which version is the matrix! That way your preconceptions will not effect the result. Also may I suggest we ask two questions,

1 Which one is discrete?
2 Which do you prefer?

For this to work we will need to pre issue the correct answer to a person trusted by this forum, of high character and apparent super powers (maybe JonUrban hopefully) to ensure we do not cheat and put our fingers on the scales. The correct answer could be issued after everyone has had time to trial the samples.

What to you fine fellow say? Or am I just plain crazy?

Regards

Chucky

 

[rustyandi]

I have just been talking to Charlie about what I meant
About Discreet being better than Matrix
I was talking about decoding EV4 through the Surround Master againts the Q8 discreet track
As I said the S/M and QSD1 decoding may not be 100 Pc. correct but at the moment they give the best
results
But a test of Discreet against Matrix is always a good talking point
You never learn anything unless you try.

I will always try anything once and if I don't like I don't do it again

I told my only daughter that

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

I agree it's an interesting idea for a test, and I am interested in the results. However, discreet is the intended mix as completed by the engineer and producer. If a matrix encoding and decoding results in getting more favorable feedback over the discreet, that to me suggests that perhaps the producer/engineer team need to look into their mixing style. I think there was once talk about SQ decodes of DSOTM being preferable to the discreet due to the discreet being too discreet....not so sure I've heard comments on that more recently though. I never felt that way anyways. But, perhaps some things were even mixed to be overly exaggerated in their panning, to sound good in the matrix format.

It's an interesting test, and I look forward to it, and seeing the results. But at the end of the day, discreet is what is intended, matrix encoding and decoding is a compromise to carry a surround mix in a stereo medium. Just my opinion, though.

 

[rustyandi]

I have just played the full LP
Jim Croce
I Got A Name QS with the Surround Master (Involve)

I have not played him for a while I like his style of music
There was mention of a download that was not very good and
the image seemed to move around
I did not hear any of this, just a steady image at the front and
guitars and vocals in the rear
The intro to (Recently) has a single drum tap in the L/R channel
I don't know how the download works but there must been a problem

 

[ChristopherLees]

well everybody's hifi is different...the same equipment needs to be used every time in A/B tests...
Whilst I knew what was used for the involve decode on the net...I think I asked about 6-8 times what hifi gear (turntable tonearm cartridge preamp) was used for The QS computer decode scripts and generally got abused every time.

 

[watsontr]

Whilst I knew what was used for the involve decode on the net...I think I asked about 6-8 times what hifi gear (turntable tonearm cartridge preamp) was used for The QS computer decode scripts and generally got abused every time.

Well that's how it was Christopher but it is up to us to make it what it should be. I don't have one of these units but they sound like they are a positive step for us and this should be clarified in the near future with the testing proposed. I'd still like to hear a side by side test of Tate vs SM for SQ and VM vs SM for QS. Maybe some of the recent buyers will be able to do the testing if they have the time and the gear?

In addition, maybe there's a clan here who would also like to work on developing scripts to be shared. Any thoughts?