Reality Technologies Surround Master - Owners Thread

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
In the vectorcope comparisons, what 'flavors' and settings were used for the competing technologies. E.g., for DPLII, was it the default 'Cinema' mode, or was it 'Music', and if the latter, what were the settings for Center Width, Dimension, Panorama?
 
The Dolby Decoder PRO logic 11 I used was a Car unit
I brought it many years ago
At the time there was no Pro logic 11 in any amps.
I still thing that it the only Dolby outboard unit.(other than the Tube Unit)
It has controls inside I think that as it was Car unit there would be no Cinema
center was, narrow, dimension on, Panorama on
I have trouble getting to it to check as you have to open up the unit
But I remember I set it to give the best
surround I could get
 
I have checked the Decoder it is
a Rockford Fosgate Pro Logic 11


So, is that a fair comparison with the DPLII choices that AVR users (not users in cars) would have at their disposal today?

The default setting for Center Width tends to be 3 (right in the middle of the range, between hard center and phantom center). E.g., to emulate 4-channel you would set it to widest (= phantom center)

Dimension also has a range of settings, not just on/off. More 'dimension' sends more signal to the rear channels.

Panorama 'on' creates strong phantom side images, e.g. between FL and RL.
 
Hi ssully

I will be restrained in my reply as I am far too biased having invested in 4 years of design in the Involve encode/ decode system. Suffice to say what we have achieved is a fully patented process and quite different to all other systems we know of. If you go to our web site ( www.involveaudio.com ) you will see links to unedited customer and reviewer articles - many of them have compared Involve to NEO X, Audyssey Wide, Dolby PL II, Meridian Tri Field, Lexicon Logic 7, circle surround and even discrete. So far the reviews favor the surround master.

If the forum wishes I could assemble all the reviews into one (unedited document) - please confirm.

I think you have raised a very valid question, may I suggest to all those who have purchased the Surround Master and have had time to compare against other systems to answer your question in this forum.

Regards

Chucky



So, is that a fair comparison with what AVR users would have at their disposal today?
 
I set the decoder at 5.1
To adjust it you have to take of the top and turn screws
I have dolby pro 11 in a Rotel pre Amp
But I found that the Fosgate gives a better surround
So I thought that would give the best test
I did not try to tip the test in any way
 
Dear All

I would love to read some more reviews and opinions on how the Surround Master is performing on various formats of material........?

Regards

Chucky
 
Double-Decker Decoders (?)

A question for Chuckie or anyone else with an opinion. Is this a good idea or not? I've got a large listening room, so of course I want to fill it with more speakers. My thought is to use two Involve SM decoders along with an Outlaw ICBM Bass Manager (stereo subs) to create front, side and rear channels for a 6.2 surround system. The front outputs of decoder #1 feed the fronts, the rear output of decoder #1 feeds the input of decoder #2. The front outputs of decoder # 2 then feed the side channels, and the rear outputs of decoder # 2 feed the rear channels.

Any idea of what the resulting soundfield would be like? Someone probably has already experimented with such a set-up before, whether with an Involve SM or some other decoder. I presently have an SM and plan this weekend to try this out with a Sansui VM decoder for decoder # 2. If I like it I may order another SM.
 
Hi jsrstereo

WTF, DUNNO, Now that's just crazy, Don't think it would work, who knows, my head is spinning, you guys must be smoking something, Hmmmm, TRY IT!, HUH?

Note: Rustyandie has had great success in getting better stereo source decodes by using 2 Surround Masters in series, the first in TSS mode and the second in INVOLVE decode mode, I thought he was nuts at first but he has proven me wrong.

Regards

Chucky

Double-Decker Decoders (?)

A question for Chuckie or anyone else with an opinion. Is this a good idea or not? I've got a large listening room, so of course I want to fill it with more speakers. My thought is to use two Involve SM decoders along with an Outlaw ICBM Bass Manager (stereo subs) to create front, side and rear channels for a 6.2 surround system. The front outputs of decoder #1 feed the fronts, the rear output of decoder #1 feeds the input of decoder #2. The front outputs of decoder # 2 then feed the side channels, and the rear outputs of decoder # 2 feed the rear channels.

Any idea of what the resulting soundfield would be like? Someone probably has already experimented with such a set-up before, whether with an Involve SM or some other decoder. I presently have an SM and plan this weekend to try this out with a Sansui VM decoder for decoder # 2. If I like it I may order another SM.
 
I have played with 10 speakers
and 4 15in subs
My system is on
Show us your gear

But the trouble is that you have to turn the
4 speakers that are up high JBL 100s down so as
if you hear them they are to loud
the idea is if you turn them of there is a small
collapse in the soundfield
not a lot of advantage for a lot of work

But I did it?
 
Hi jsrstereo

WTF, DUNNO, Now that's just crazy, Don't think it would work, who knows, my head is spinning, you guys must be smoking something, Hmmmm, TRY IT!, HUH?


Chuckie: I guess my question is whether you think the nature of the stereo aspect of the rear output of the SM is such that it can be decoded by a 2nd decoder into 4 separate signals, thus yielding a 6.x soundfield?

John

PS: I'll let you know what's being smoked in return for a comp SM decoder.
 
Chuckie: I guess my question is whether you think the nature of the stereo aspect of the rear output of the SM is such that it can be decoded by a 2nd decoder into 4 separate signals, thus yielding a 6.x soundfield?
John

John, Chucky may be able to advise but I can’t imagine what on earth this ‘second order’ extraction would actually represent (other than random phase variations) – and of course why stop here, why not feed the ‘second order’ extraction into a third decoder etc., etc.?! I suspect you’d just be extracting what in information theory terms could only be classified as noise!
 
John, Chucky may be able to advise but I can’t imagine what on earth this ‘second order’ extraction would actually represent (other than random phase variations) – and of course why stop here, why not feed the ‘second order’ extraction into a third decoder etc., etc.?! I suspect you’d just be extracting what in information theory terms could only be classified as noise!

Soundfield: your observation pretty much nails the issue for me - whether the 2nd order extraction would yield anything of sufficient quality that a listener would want to hear. As to 3rd and subsequent extractions, it seems that you'd eventually run out of signal to process except noise.
 
Hi jsrstereo

I fully agree with "soundfield"

Regards

Chucky



Hi jsrstereo

WTF, DUNNO, Now that's just crazy, Don't think it would work, who knows, my head is spinning, you guys must be smoking something, Hmmmm, TRY IT!, HUH?


Chuckie: I guess my question is whether you think the nature of the stereo aspect of the rear output of the SM is such that it can be decoded by a 2nd decoder into 4 separate signals, thus yielding a 6.x soundfield?

John

PS: I'll let you know what's being smoked in return for a comp SM decoder.
 
Surround Master 2
Chucky, First of all, I would like to get rid of the “fake surround” attribute which is frequently attached to units such as the S/M. Hafler, when he first demonstrated that there was real information buried in every stereo recording, although only with 3db of separation, was fighting the digital attempt to really and truly create fake surround through digital ambience surround.
I have spent many hours switching between my QSD-1 and my S/M … the difference is not hard to quantify…..The S/M maintains the front sound stage no matter how much I raise the rear channel volume, which is necessary if I want a lot of info in the rear channels! If the info is there, it will appear, very discrete, If not I will find ambience! This is why I said in my initial review that volume control of all channels is essential.
This is an amazing attribute…I cannot duplicate it with any other processor that I own. The front image will usually collapse towards the rear, but not so with the S/M.
The second point is one I have also mentioned here before, i.e. there is a side channel image created that is remarkable. It seems to create a very three dimensional phantom image along both sidewalls, even though this was not supposed to be possible, or at least a very difficult achievement.
I have tried Rustyandi’s suggestion, to run the TSS output from the S/M into my QSD-1…the result was like listening under water…swimming signals…didn’t work for me!…but perhaps I did something wrong!? I have tried it several times, but It ends up the same way every time…swimming signals!
I have run the stereo ouputs from my OPPO 83 se to the S/M, and have played the rear outputs of the S/M instead of the discrete outputs and I can say that I prefer the S/M rear outputs 90% !....more fun and great directionality!..with a great front image......We are all fiddlers…..fiddle and you will have fun.
Dwight
 
Robert, The answer to your question is yes! I send the stereo output to a Russound TMS 10 passive patch box. I then route the stereo signal to various processors. If I’m looking for a lot of action in the rear channels I have to raise the level 5 or 6 notches while keeping the front at 0….the result is usually better than the discrete rears…not always…but it’s been surprising to hear what comes out. I know that there is not a lot of classical music discussion here, but I love classical and motion picture scores….The S/M rear channel extraction improves the musical experience on every 5 channel and 3 channel classical recording I own.
Dwight
 
Hi Dwight, thank you for your answer. Sounds promising. I have not heard any music going through the Surroud Master, so I find it very surprising that a 5.1 -> downmix -> S/M -> 5.1 can be more discrete than the original 5.1 mix. Youhear it, so it is definately true. It shows how good the S/M is apparently.

Iam on the fence for the S/M, but wait until the specs of the Involve pre amp are out, but your experiences with the S/M are good to know before making a decision. Thanks again.
 
Hooked up my Surround Master yesterday (in 5.1 mode). Only had a couple hours to play with it, so listened to a lot of individual songs to get a feel for it. I agree with the general statements of most other folks. Results ranged from Good to Spectacular. Definitely the best surround processor I've heard. At its best some of the mixes sounded like solid discrete mixes. Like others, even when there weren't necessarily discrete sounds, I definitely heard a lot more depth & detail in some material. Here's some specifics:
Something - The Beatles: Lots of detail I hadn't heard before. The flanged guitar part is a lot more prominent throughout.
Voices - Russ Ballard: The opening synth is very cool. All over the place!
If She Knew What She Wants - The Bangles: Very close to discrete vocals with the leads in the Center and the answered group vocals in the rears
Somebody's Baby - Jackson Browne: Exposed a lot more guitar detail
Ten Years Gone - Led Zeppelin: Heard a few more bits & pieces of the Page guitar army that I hadn't heard before
Africa - Toto: Sounded like a pretty good discrete mix (I haven't heard the SACD). Revealed some acoustic guitar I hadn't previously noticed.
If You Leave Me Now - Chicago: Also sounded very close to discrete. Horns up front & acoustic guitars in rears
Calypso - John Denver: Orchestra was pulled to the rears
Fleetwood Mac - Rhiannon: Sounded as if it could have been on the Rumours SACD
Galileo - Indigo Girls: Heard some low background vocals I'd never noticed. Looking up the credits it appears they are Jackson Browne & David Crosby. I'd say they're worthy of bringing up in the mix... :)

Anyway, I'll report back as I play more. Busy tonight, so it will be at least Wed before I can go again! At any rate, Chucky & Co, great product!
 
Back
Top