- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 267
Hello all.
Firstly, to clarify what I said earlier about separation, since it was apparently ambiguous.
I put encoded signals into each of the positions and measured the separation to the other channels.
I used the 1Khz tone encode - I didn't use the straight-right and straight-left tones as there was some question as to the accuracy of the encode.
So the tested points were FL, C, FR, RL, RC, RR. - result was measured in the four decoded outputs.
I pasted a screen-grab from excel since it wouldn't format a pasted table for me properly. I've bolded and italicised the diagonal separation numbers. I know the numbers look symmetrical and ideal, I did the actual measurements on a CRO, which I guess means you should allow for a small amount of reading error, but considering the accuracy of the processor, it makes sense that it would be identical if the equations and so on are correct.
.
Secondly, and it humbles me to say this, but OxfordDickie was right about one thing he pointed out to us quite early in the process, which was that using 45 degree shifts in order to create a more symmetrical image and for more sensitive steering turned out to be the wrong path. It worked, but as Ron will report a bit later (If he doesn't beat me to this post) it just didn't sound right. (The numbers looked great though)
Having said that, we were always going to try anything we could find to improve the system - we're not the types to ignore something because someone else said so, especially in this area which seems to have so much contention about it, but then we prefer to understand what we're doing at the end of it all.
As to the numbers above, there was no merit in doing L/R steering at the back, this has never been a numbers chase, and it didn't enhance the decode in any way, if anything it breaks up the stability of the rear stereo image.
I'll leave the last week of listening appraisal by Rustyandi and the people he brought in to listen, up to his report. Stay tuned for that.
What else....oh yes, vectorscopes. We haven't done any formally - I can say from observation at RustiandI's place that we largely look the same as the Tate decode in that respect. However in some instances we're steering in more that one direction simultaneously which leads to some scope visuals not looking as sharp / clean directionally, or loops, that's only because we aren't pulling all the audio in one direction. We can do some side by side VS shots of perhaps the Rock On decode by David Essex, that one in particular looks rather cute on the scope.
So all in all, combined with RustiAndI's forthcoming report, we're just about ready to wipe its nose and kick it on out to you. We're going to get the test unit back from Ron so that I can verify the software version that was preferred, and I'll do a last comb through the numbers and have a last listen.
Thanks to everyone for the support on this particular journey, it has been educational for sure.
Oh, as a last thing here is what my development environment looks like. (The surround listening lab is elsewhere, and the lights don't work very well)
Feel free to ask questions - I'll post more updates in the wrap/pack/send stage.
Firstly, to clarify what I said earlier about separation, since it was apparently ambiguous.
I put encoded signals into each of the positions and measured the separation to the other channels.
I used the 1Khz tone encode - I didn't use the straight-right and straight-left tones as there was some question as to the accuracy of the encode.
So the tested points were FL, C, FR, RL, RC, RR. - result was measured in the four decoded outputs.
I pasted a screen-grab from excel since it wouldn't format a pasted table for me properly. I've bolded and italicised the diagonal separation numbers. I know the numbers look symmetrical and ideal, I did the actual measurements on a CRO, which I guess means you should allow for a small amount of reading error, but considering the accuracy of the processor, it makes sense that it would be identical if the equations and so on are correct.
.
Secondly, and it humbles me to say this, but OxfordDickie was right about one thing he pointed out to us quite early in the process, which was that using 45 degree shifts in order to create a more symmetrical image and for more sensitive steering turned out to be the wrong path. It worked, but as Ron will report a bit later (If he doesn't beat me to this post) it just didn't sound right. (The numbers looked great though)
Having said that, we were always going to try anything we could find to improve the system - we're not the types to ignore something because someone else said so, especially in this area which seems to have so much contention about it, but then we prefer to understand what we're doing at the end of it all.
As to the numbers above, there was no merit in doing L/R steering at the back, this has never been a numbers chase, and it didn't enhance the decode in any way, if anything it breaks up the stability of the rear stereo image.
I'll leave the last week of listening appraisal by Rustyandi and the people he brought in to listen, up to his report. Stay tuned for that.
What else....oh yes, vectorscopes. We haven't done any formally - I can say from observation at RustiandI's place that we largely look the same as the Tate decode in that respect. However in some instances we're steering in more that one direction simultaneously which leads to some scope visuals not looking as sharp / clean directionally, or loops, that's only because we aren't pulling all the audio in one direction. We can do some side by side VS shots of perhaps the Rock On decode by David Essex, that one in particular looks rather cute on the scope.
So all in all, combined with RustiAndI's forthcoming report, we're just about ready to wipe its nose and kick it on out to you. We're going to get the test unit back from Ron so that I can verify the software version that was preferred, and I'll do a last comb through the numbers and have a last listen.
Thanks to everyone for the support on this particular journey, it has been educational for sure.
Oh, as a last thing here is what my development environment looks like. (The surround listening lab is elsewhere, and the lights don't work very well)
Feel free to ask questions - I'll post more updates in the wrap/pack/send stage.
Attachments
Last edited: