Reality Technologies - New surround technology

[Q8]

The better the quality of the recording, the more likely good results through any sort of matrix device. With MP3's, my ears are happy with a bitrate of 160 or above on most recordings. When you get into the 192-320 area, I quite honestly can't tell the diff from a CD on any recording.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Audio_quality

 

[bangsezmax]

I'd love to hear anymore feedback too.....would love to know what some of my favourite artists ( Michael Jackson, Toto, Billy Joel.....) sound like through the surround master ?

I say if there are any more questions about lossy/lossless they should be asked elsewhere.

So I'm glad and excited that you asked about the actual topic of the thread!!!!

I've been listening to some "standard" recordings (not matrixed or Dolby'ed, just regular stereo) in 4-channel mode yesterday and today and the results are very enjoyable. A lot depends on the mix -- stereo presentation, EQ, phasing, etc. The better the separation in the mix, the better the effect.

Essentially what happens is the mix has room to breathe. Little parts in the background that are buried far in the back of the mix become audible (for musicians, this would be a great way to learn parts by ear). It's pretty neat because you hear things in the recording that you never really noticed before. I listened to Steely Dan's Aja and what I noticed was Fagen's little keyboard comps all over the place. On Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, there's lots of open space, and great separation between the fronts and the rears, really dramatic on the intro to "War on War." Right now I'm listening to Bruce Springsteen's The Wild, The Innocent, and the E Street Shuffle and hearing how there are layers and layers of instruments (the guitars on "4th of July, Asbury Park" for example).

The Involve decoder manages to do the separation without essentially no "pumping" effect (sounds getting audibly softer or quieter as they're processed). This is the real magic of the unit. Other processors have pulled off some of the tricks, but when you hear the sounds getting processed, it ruins the illusion and it starts to sound like you're not listening to music.

I have a Sansui QRX-999, so I was already familiar with listening to stereo recordings through QS systems. The Involve decoder just sounds much better than the decoders on my QRX-999 ever did.

Obviously, this kind of device is not for everybody. Purists won't like hearing the mix get artificially messed with, and there are moments where hearing that much more audio information can actually get a little overwhelming.

But regardless, it is a very cool sounding thing. You definitely do NOT need to have QS (or SQ) recordings in order to enjoy the effect. The recordings you mentioned (Michael Jackson, Toto, Billy Joel) should sound pretty awesome through it because those were very well-mixed records.

Note again that I haven't tried the 2-channel TSS or the 5.1 modes yet, just the 4-channel.

 

[bangsezmax]

Dixie4 --
As a test, I just put on MJ's "Off the Wall." Very nice separation -- if I just play the rear speakers, I get rhythm guitars and backing vocals very clearly with a reverb shadow of the lead vocal. Obviously, it can never get as good as a full discrete recording, but it does a pretty impressive job of pulling things apart.

 

[Q8]

Okay, I can't resist. Can someone please report on Van Halen (debut album) through the box?

Thanks!!

 

[Dixie4]

Dixie4 --
As a test, I just put on MJ's "Off the Wall." Very nice separation -- if I just play the rear speakers, I get rhythm guitars and backing vocals very clearly with a reverb shadow of the lead vocal. Obviously, it can never get as good as a full discrete recording, but it does a pretty impressive job of pulling things apart.

Thank you very much for your replies....i'm even more tempted to purchase, at some point. You mention that recordings may be a little overwhelming, but would you say it's " gimmicky " at all ?

 

[bangsezmax]

Thank you very much for your replies....i'm even more tempted to purchase, at some point. You mention that recordings may be a little overwhelming, but would you say it's " gimmicky " at all ?

Caveat -- listening to music is a subjective and highly personal experience, so what I perceive may not be what you would perceive.

When you hear a vocal or an instrument part pop up in a rear speaker unexpectedly, is that "gimmicky"? Or is it just really cool? The original recording was not designed with that intent, so the "gimmick" is (or is not) in the ear of the beholder.

When I hear something I'm not used to hearing in a recording (one that I know well) and I know that the little box plugged into my stereo is responsible for that effect, my brain tells me that something artificial must be going on. So I have to suspend disbelief a little bit in order to sit back and just enjoy the fact that I'm hearing more than what I was expecting. That's not a bad thing, but it takes a little getting used to.

Leaving aside stuff mixed for quad matrix playback, let's call this box what it is: a synthesized discreteness generator. So yeah, the end result is not "real." But it is really damned good at what it does. You'd be able to fool a lot of people into thinking they were hearing some sort of discrete recording. Again, the better the mix, the better the effect.

If you ask me if you should buy it, I can't answer that question for you. But I can tell you that I'm 100% satisfied with what it is and thrilled to own it. It sounds great and makes it fun to listen to recordings with fresh ears.

If I were me, I'd buy it (wait!! I already did!!!).

 

[bangsezmax]

Okay, I can't resist. Can someone please report on Van Halen (debut album) through the box?

Thanks!!

Not in my collection man, sorry to say.

 

[Dixie4]

Caveat -- listening to music is a subjective and highly personal experience, so what I perceive may not be what you would perceive.

When you hear a vocal or an instrument part pop up in a rear speaker unexpectedly, is that "gimmicky"? Or is it just really cool? The original recording was not designed with that intent, so the "gimmick" is (or is not) in the ear of the beholder.

When I hear something I'm not used to hearing in a recording (one that I know well) and I know that the little box plugged into my stereo is responsible for that effect, my brain tells me that something artificial must be going on. So I have to suspend disbelief a little bit in order to sit back and just enjoy the fact that I'm hearing more than what I was expecting. That's not a bad thing, but it takes a little getting used to.

Leaving aside stuff mixed for quad matrix playback, let's call this box what it is: a synthesized discreteness generator. So yeah, the end result is not "real." But it is really damned good at what it does. You'd be able to fool a lot of people into thinking they were hearing some sort of discrete recording. Again, the better the mix, the better the effect.

If you ask me if you should buy it, I can't answer that question for you. But I can tell you that I'm 100% satisfied with what it is and thrilled to own it. It sounds great and makes it fun to listen to recordings with fresh ears.

If I were me, I'd buy it (wait!! I already did!!!).

I appreciate that all things are subjective. I'd like to think it is " cool " rather than " gimmicky " The proof of the pudding is to buy one....which i'm sure i will !
How would you compare cd playback through this unit, to listening to sacd / dvd a ? Do redbook cd's sound " sacd / dvd a like " ?

 

[bangsezmax]

I appreciate that all things are subjective. I'd like to think it is " cool " rather than " gimmicky " The proof of the pudding is to buy one....which i'm sure i will !
How would you compare cd playback through this unit, to listening to sacd / dvd a ? Do redbook cd's sound " sacd / dvd a like " ?

They don't sound higher res because as the Involve guys have pointed out, you get out what you put in. That said, I have an Entech Cruncher 205.2 DAC which does some pretty magical things to CDs already. They do sound more discrete, as I've said. Not sure what I can tell you beyond that.

 

[Dixie4]

They don't sound higher res because as the Involve guys have pointed out, you get out what you put in. That said, I have an Entech Cruncher 205.2 DAC which does some pretty magical things to CDs already. They do sound more discrete, as I've said. Not sure what I can tell you beyond that.

Thank you, i really appreciate your feedback. I'm sure i will be unable to resist buying one, especially if i read more favourable reviews ( no one has posted anything negative yet )

 

[Q8]

Caveat -- listening to music is a subjective and highly personal experience, so what I perceive may not be what you would perceive.

When you hear a vocal or an instrument part pop up in a rear speaker unexpectedly, is that "gimmicky"? Or is it just really cool? The original recording was not designed with that intent, so the "gimmick" is (or is not) in the ear of the beholder.

When I hear something I'm not used to hearing in a recording (one that I know well) and I know that the little box plugged into my stereo is responsible for that effect, my brain tells me that something artificial must be going on. So I have to suspend disbelief a little bit in order to sit back and just enjoy the fact that I'm hearing more than what I was expecting. That's not a bad thing, but it takes a little getting used to.

Leaving aside stuff mixed for quad matrix playback, let's call this box what it is: a synthesized discreteness generator. So yeah, the end result is not "real." But it is really damned good at what it does. You'd be able to fool a lot of people into thinking they were hearing some sort of discrete recording. Again, the better the mix, the better the effect.

If you ask me if you should buy it, I can't answer that question for you. But I can tell you that I'm 100% satisfied with what it is and thrilled to own it. It sounds great and makes it fun to listen to recordings with fresh ears.

If I were me, I'd buy it (wait!! I already did!!!).

So long as it doesn't change the stereo image, I wouldn't consider it to be "gimicky". Pulling things apart between front and rear isn't detracting anything from the original recording, or adding anything that isn't there. When you hear something that you didn't previously hear, it is something that was there all along, but was just buried in the mix. If you go back to the stereo copy, you can usually find these "extras" if you listen hard enough. Thats part of the reason I love quad recordings so much, they tend to point out things you may have missed before.

I equate it to, lets say using a 3-way speaker over a 2-way, or a 5-way over a 3-way. Most people wouldn't consider using a 3-way full size speaker over a 1 speaker bookshelf or computer speaker but you will definately hear things you cant on the computer speaker.

At best, if things are ping-ponging around, and you hear one instrument or noise or vocal issolated to a speaker, it may be distracting, but not gimmicky. When I think of a gimmick, a gimmick usually is adding or taking away something from the original. Like frequency range expanders and whatnot. Or compression. Fake quad is just more of a wider presentation of the stereo mix.

Also, as the Reality Technology people stated, there are front/rear cues already in many stereo mixes. When you listen to something with headphones, or in four speaker stereo, sometimes you will feel like something is in front of you or behind you anyway.

 

[bangsezmax]

Okay, here's something wild. I have a Duke Ellington LP -- The World of Duke Ellington -- that's in fake stereo. It's good fake stereo, but fake nonetheless. In the rears I'm getting almost nothing. Some reverb, and that's about it, as if the thing knows that it's dealing with a fake signal.

 

[chucky3042]

Hello everyone

I have received a question from a forum member on how linear or faithful is the INVOLVE decoder with QS source material. We did a full internal test report on this (a very early unit - current version is better), please refer to page 10 and 11. Please note the output magnitude Y scale is linear not Log so we could highlight any non linearity.

Enjoy

Regards

chucky

 

[chucky3042]

Hi

Forgot to mention that the recent improvements to center imaging would have made a big improvement to these graphs but unfortunately time has not been available for a full retest yet.

Regards

Chucky

 

[Soundfield]

For UK/EU people, I've submitted a request to find out how much duty there will be on the product, we will absorb that cost ( I believe excise and duty has to be paid by the retailer anyway before we send it) - They haven't gotten back to us yet, hopefully it won't be too long.

Cheers
David.

Sadly David there's no way for the importer to avoid paying Import Duty (& VAT as it is comming from outside of the EU) and it cannot be paid by the retailer (I supose you could try sending a cheque directly to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs but I don't think that would work!). As the importer I won't be able to get it out of the Postal System until I've stumped up the cash HMRC deem necessary! This charge is based on the cost of the item (including shipping cost) and what 'product category' it falls into. Using an online calculator provided for such things I've established that (at the non discounted price) and assuming the product category of 'audio processor' the following:
Importing from: Australia
Importing to: United Kingdom
Product descriptionrocessor
Product category: Equalizers, Crossovers & Processors
Product value: AU$395.00
Country of manufacture:Australia
The cost of shipping and insurance of importing
Shipping costs: AU$18.00
Insurance costs: US$0.00
Calculation results
Total customs value:£265.84
Duty: £9.84
VAT: £55.13
Total import duty & taxes due: £64.97
Total landed cost: £330.81

Which is adds significantly to the cost (but won't put me off) - although I'm not enough of an expert to fully understand what the situation would be on the re-importing of a unit sent back for the SQ upgrade (unless this were to be declared as a warranty repair of zero value perhaps (?), would't reallly want to fork out another £64!
Hope this helps other UK members.

 

[Overture]

Sadly David there's no way for the importer to avoid paying Import Duty (& VAT as it is comming from outside of the EU) and it cannot be paid by the retailer (I supose you could try sending a cheque directly to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs but I don't think that would work!). As the importer I won't be able to get it out of the Postal System until I've stumped up the cash HMRC deem necessary! This charge is based on the cost of the item (including shipping cost) and what 'product category' it falls into. Using an online calculator provided for such things I've established that (at the non discounted price) and assuming the product category of 'audio processor' the following:
Importing from: Australia
Importing to: United Kingdom
Product descriptionrocessor
Product category: Equalizers, Crossovers & Processors
Product value: AU$395.00
Country of manufacture:Australia
The cost of shipping and insurance of importing
Shipping costs: AU$18.00
Insurance costs: US$0.00
Calculation results
Total customs value:£265.84
Duty: £9.84
VAT: £55.13
Total import duty & taxes due: £64.97
Total landed cost: £330.81

Which is adds significantly to the cost (but won't put me off) - although I'm not enough of an expert to fully understand what the situation would be on the re-importing of a unit sent back for the SQ upgrade (unless this were to be declared as a warranty repair of zero value perhaps (?), would't reallly want to fork out another £64!
Hope this helps other UK members.

Hey there,

Well I would think that as far as getting the SQ update wouldn't incur any additional because as you say, it's a "repair".
Can you send me a link to where you calculated the duty and VAT? From what I understood from the customs and excise website, there is a way for that stuff to be paid before it arrives. I'm assuming they've stopped replying to emails for the year, maybe.
At any rate I'll give them a call in the new year.

Speaking of which, Happy New Year everyone

 

[Soundfield]

Hey there,

Well I would think that as far as getting the SQ update wouldn't incur any additional because as you say, it's a "repair".
Can you send me a link to where you calculated the duty and VAT? From what I understood from the customs and excise website, there is a way for that stuff to be paid before it arrives. I'm assuming they've stopped replying to emails for the year, maybe.
At any rate I'll give them a call in the new year.

Speaking of which, Happy New Year everyone

I've spent some time trawling through HMRC's rather convoluted website and could only find the following reference to prepayment of duty -

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channels...CE_CL_000014&propertyType=document#P162_14235

which reads:
"3.4 Prepayment of import VAT on goods purchased over the internet or by mail order
HMRC has special arrangements that allow some overseas traders to charge, collect and pay over to us the import VAT for goods purchased by mail order, that would normally be chargeable at the time the goods are imported. These arrangements operate under Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) signed with certain overseas customs and postal authorities. The countries that have an MoU with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) are: the Channel Islands, Hong Kong, Singapore and New Zealand. Overseas traders wanting to use this procedure must be authorised to do so by their authorities."

I guess there may also be special arrangements with Australia, but I could find no reference to any. (good luck with any attempt to get an answer from HMRC by the way - they are notorious for their 'customer service'!)

The calculator I used is not itself actually part of the HMRC site, but one of several on the web and this one
can be found at-

http://www.dutycalculator.com/new-import-duty-and-tax-calculation/

Happy New Year to you all!

 

[inkubuzz]

Anyone has listened to Metallica yet through the involve decoder? Im thinking Master of Puppets or And judtice for all

 

[Q8]

Anyone has listened to Metallica yet through the involve decoder? Im thinking Master of Puppets or And judtice for all

Or as I like to say, "real Metallica"

 

[Varian]

Hi,
What is Reality Technologies? Can you make Stereo CD's and Music on a Ipod in to Quadraphonic Sound? So I have a cd player and Ipod and would like to make the music on them in to Quadraphonic Sound for recoding on to a reel to reel Quadraphonic tape player. What kind of computer software I would need? Is Reality Technologies a computer software? What the name of the computer software? Where would I get the computer software? Where can I get Reality Technologies? How much does the computer software cost? How much does Reality Technologies cost? Email Me Back.

Thanks,
Varian