Reality Technologies Surround Master - General Technical Questions

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
From the owner's thread:
"I do not understand your statement that "As i've mentioned, i have a decode of a QS album done by this machine.""

Why does the internet impede communication? That statement seems to be clearly describing a QS album played through a DECODER, no encoder needed to needed to do this, it was encoded over 30 years ago. In popular usage a "decode" is a recording of (in this case a QS) album from the '70s played through a hardware or software decoder.

Sorry, I'm frustrated because I have no money and the car needs brakes. :mad:@:
I do want one of these, the price is good and it gets rave reviews. I'm just waiting to hear someone say "I know the placement of sounds on this QS record through [top of the line decoder xyz-1] like the back of my hand and the new decoder places sounds in the same locations".
:)
 
From the owner's thread:
"I do not understand your statement that "As i've mentioned, i have a decode of a QS album done by this machine.""

Why does the internet impede communication? That statement seems to be clearly describing a QS album played through a DECODER, no encoder needed to needed to do this, it was encoded over 30 years ago. In popular usage a "decode" is a recording of (in this case a QS) album from the '70s played through a hardware or software decoder.

Sorry, I'm frustrated because I have no money and the car needs brakes. :mad:@:
I do want one of these, the price is good and it gets rave reviews. I'm just waiting to hear someone say "I know the placement of sounds on this QS record through [top of the line decoder xyz-1] like the back of my hand and the new decoder places sounds in the same locations".
:)
For what I can gather the "non-technical' individuals" that OD is referring too, happen to own every top QS decoder ever made...thus being able to compare them with the involve in audio listening tests, they all seem to conclude/find that the involve seems to perform just as well as the best one's ever made when you play Qs records through their quad systems.
this is good because the older machines are harder to find and go for lots of money ...

and most of us quaddies are not interested /bothered in doing computer conversions ourselves...and only OD appears to have access to his own special script that he loves so much...
also because it means you can enjoy QS lp's in real time without having to try and spend hours using computer scripts..

of course whether the decoder is comparable to computer scripts is what i think OD wants to know...as he considers his computer script to be the standard to judge by...
In listening tests that's still hard to know as there are many variables in audio testing and you need the same equipment (turntable/cartridge/preamp/cables for a proper audio comparison of involve vs computer decoding) otherwise you're wasting your time.. which is why the non-technical' individuals a/b comparisons between QS decoders were good because the standard equipment was the same every time...
I do not know what OD uses for a turntable/cartridge/preamp/cables...


If one is to assume that the non-technical' individuals a/b listening test conclusions are all correct...then to fail the involve on qs decoding, would mean failing every qs decoder ever made on qs decoding.....of course being as good as the top qs decoder ever made on listening tests doesn't mean that it is still as good as a computer script that is presently unobtainable....but personally I'd take second best if it means having real time listening and obtainablity at a reasonable price..vs hours of computer work and oh sorry you can't have it!!.

Hifi magazines like stereophile don't rate top products in the class A section if you can't buy them easily.
 
Fact: Just because you have a QS decoder doesn't mean you actually understand anything. I've spoken to far too many ""quad specalist's" who aretotally clueless to what exacly surround sound is.

Wait for the test results, then i'll be accepting appologies from each and every one of you
 
I agree Christopher - a non-real time solution is for most of us, let alone Joe Public, no solution at all. Even if OD's script is mathematically accurate and is implemented in a functionally perfect, musically transparent, artefact free way (in itself some sort of miracle , but we've no way of ever knowing of course) few of us want (or have the ability) to faff around for hours with computers and software when the mood simply takes us to listen to something. Holding this unobtainable and impractical decoding method up as the self appointed gold standard against which the Involve device is to be judged seems inappropriate.
 
This is the problem with you people here. I have NEVER put my decoding process's up against the unit in question.

You have ALL totally missed the point, which proves to me you don't actually read what is written. You'd rather just attack me.

I say (YET AGAIN) the unit needs to be tested against the sansui QS decoder techincal docs to show whether or not it complies. It does not, in other words, for the cloth eared out there, it does not perform a decode that complies with Sansuis standard.

it fails in the ability of all "true" decoders designed to decode the sytem, in this case QS, and that is (for pete's sake understAND THIS): tO ACCURATELY DISPLAY THE ORIGINAL 4 CHANNEL MASTER IN IMAGE AND POSITIONAL ACCURACY.

From what i've learnt from my time here, none of you seem to be able to actually understnd that, nor can you tell what's right or wrong. Just because you own a car doesn't mean you understand fully how it works.

I've tried to help you lot here, but to be honest, i think i've wasted my time, none of you are worth helping.

And the reason my decoding proccess's are not availablbe... it's for the very same reasons.Why should i give the reults of my hard work freely to a bunch of nobody's who don't appreciate anything?

If you want to hear how transparent the new SQ and QS decodes are, you know where to look, once i've gotten around to actually release them that it.

Again, for those who can't read: I HAVE NOT COMPARED THIS UNIT TO MY WORK.it would be unfair......

On the unit, that is......
 
Having read this thread, the below is the only part that holds some truth. My personal 2 cents,

Tracking affects all SQ and QS decodes regardless of decoding method computer script or otherwise. OD (AKA Richard) is an old timer and does know the science of matrix decoding very well and I personnally would trust his offerings on the science of matrix decoding including his Adobe scripts.

Second, Listening to surround is different from science. Even CD-4 had separation issues and Open Reel as well. The best judge is how well the image is placed and stays in place during decode, and the clarity and transparancy which is where different gear or software comes into practice. There was a huge difference in my QSD-2 Vs the recently aquired QS-01 and major differences between phono cartridges and outputs. Even the weather sometimes believe it or not affected the way the Quad sounded.

Lastly, I agree with Richard. Stereo needs to stay Stereo. If said decoder sells for lets say (I don't see a actual price for the INVOLVE anyplace forgive me) $75 VS a actual Sony or Sansui unit running sometimes over $500 broken then this is a good deal for anyone who wants something to experience matrix decoding with or fake surround from stereo sources (buy you a $10 copy of WYWH and save the $40 for the SACD :). Too bad we need to fight over this.. but discussion and sharing of opinion is always promising in the end otherwise we never would be talking about this.


For what I can gather the "non-technical' individuals" that OD is referring too, happen to own every top QS decoder ever made...thus being able to compare them with the involve in audio listening tests, they all seem to conclude/find that the involve seems to perform just as well as the best one's ever made when you play Qs records through their quad systems.
this is good because the older machines are harder to find and go for lots of money ...

and most of us quaddies are not interested /bothered in doing computer conversions ourselves...and only OD appears to have access to his own special script that he loves so much...
also because it means you can enjoy QS lp's in real time without having to try and spend hours using computer scripts..

of course whether the decoder is comparable to computer scripts is what i think OD wants to know...as he considers his computer script to be the standard to judge by...
In listening tests that's still hard to know as there are many variables in audio testing and you need the same equipment (turntable/cartridge/preamp/cables for a proper audio comparison of involve vs computer decoding) otherwise you're wasting your time.. which is why the non-technical' individuals a/b comparisons between QS decoders were good because the standard equipment was the same every time...
I do not know what OD uses for a turntable/cartridge/preamp/cables...


If one is to assume that the non-technical' individuals a/b listening test conclusions are all correct...then to fail the involve on qs decoding, would mean failing every qs decoder ever made on qs decoding.....of course being as good as the top qs decoder ever made on listening tests doesn't mean that it is still as good as a computer script that is presently unobtainable....but personally I'd take second best if it means having real time listening and obtainablity at a reasonable price..vs hours of computer work and oh sorry you can't have it!!.

Hifi magazines like stereophile don't rate top products in the class A section if you can't buy them easily.
 
Ok man, you got me....I'm sorry.
I apologize for listening to quad recordings and enjoying them on decoders that are clearly inferior to other decoders and methods.

Oh man....confession time.....

I once had a non logic SQ decoder, and did so much listening on there.......I was young, stupid, didn't know any better......

I once even played a few QS records on it, and grooved out to the tunes.....what was I thinking?

I also once owned a QS-1, and played QS records on that....clearly a far inferior decoder, and I believe was released before QS encoding was the norm and was intended for stereo to surround synthesis. Clearly not the right way to play back QS records, oh man what was I thinking....

I once owned a video decoder that has a QS mode on it, that only decoded mono in the back....that is just crazy right there. Must have been drinking too much in those days....

I also used to have non matching speakers in the front and rear, completely messing up the sound field.....


....whew, was good to get that all off my chest.


But seriously, OD...you're a nice guy and all, and do great work.....but what are you looking to accomplish with these posts?
 
AOQ, tell me something. Why do you think i meant you? HUH?

I wasn't going to name names, but to my knowledge you werenot involved in the testing.

The problem in this forum is there are those who know nothing, but have to ruin any attempt to put the correct story about something. Then,like yourself, people take something i say totally out of context.

If you weren't involved, the remark wasn't for you, was it.

Now comeon guys,all i'm interested in is the truth about that unit. It is not a true QS decoder. So, why attack me. Why not re-read what i've written and just ask yourself this:

Why do they continually try to put out of date, incorrect information that actually proves nothing instead of trying to help those here with someproper teats that can be verified.

As an engineer, this unit would have been thrown out they way these guys are acting.

Alli want you guys to know is that it's a sub QS decoder.

Right, i'm pissed off with this now, so sod it............
 
I think you will be hard pressed to find on any thread where Reality offered this unit as a QS Decoder. It is my understanding that their starting point was the Sansui QS design and they made changes for improvement. The SM unit was advertised as a decoder that would produce 4.0, 4.1, and 5.1 from a stereo source. That being said, there are members here that posted positive results using the unit with SQ vinyl. I have no personal knowledge because I moved away from any vinyl many years ago. The point is that it works on SQ for members and it performs brilliant on a stereo source so IMHO it is a win win. There may be debate how perfect it decodes QS but to browbeat and degrade a Company for something they are not claiming is beyond words.
 
I think you will be hard pressed to find on any thread where Reality offered this unit as a QS Decoder. It is my understanding that their starting point was the Sansui QS design and they made changes for improvement. The SM unit was advertised as a decoder that would produce 4.0, 4.1, and 5.1 from a stereo source. That being said, there are members here that posted positive results using the unit with SQ vinyl. I have no personal knowledge because I moved away from any vinyl many years ago. The point is that it works on SQ for members and it performs brilliant on a stereo source so IMHO it is a win win. There may be debate how perfect it decodes QS but to browbeat and degrade a Company for something they are not claiming is beyond words.

Nice to read a sensible post.....
 
I think you will be hard pressed to find on any thread where Reality offered this unit as a QS Decoder. It is my understanding that their starting point was the Sansui QS design and they made changes for improvement. The SM unit was advertised as a decoder that would produce 4.0, 4.1, and 5.1 from a stereo source. That being said, there are members here that posted positive results using the unit with SQ vinyl. I have no personal knowledge because I moved away from any vinyl many years ago. The point is that it works on SQ for members and it performs brilliant on a stereo source so IMHO it is a win win. There may be debate how perfect it decodes QS but to browbeat and degrade a Company for something they are not claiming is beyond words.

Look, it was cleverly sold here as decoding QS. Why can't you people see beyond it? Yes, originally it was said to be a fake surround unit, but they jumped on the @oh it must do qs' threads by those who, i'm afraid, are not knowlegable in this area.

So, it was quietly pushed by two people, both non technical and they said, oh yes, it's great.The whole thing snow balled from there, with my early attempts to get people to stop and think being shouted down.

I don't understand what the problem with people here is, but you should always engage brain before being promised the holy grail.

The unit DOES NOT work on SQ. Another myth that has been allowed to grow out of control.

Look, it's a unit based on QS, that probably does a good job of creating an artificial surround sound. because it was not devoloped to decode QS as per Sansui's spec, the result is 'vaug'.

It is impossible for a system based on QS to decode SQ correctly. As i've said before, you've more chance of a deisael engine running on petrol.

The two matrices are completely different and incompatible.

Not bragging, but that i know!!!!


They have said it decodes QS, and areplanning a sepearate unit to do both. Believe me, without some major alterations, this unit will fail. And i doubt whether the cost in redesigning what they have to make it work would be viable.

Now, please stop, re-read this, and everything else i wroitten, and actual;ly think about it.

I've drop some hints, and the one thing that really gets me is that not one of you have asked a particular question.

Proof (so far) that none of you actually understand
 
I got the SM decoder to investigate its capabilites as a stereo-to-quad synthesizer, having no real interest in the specifics of decoding QS, SQ, et al. I find that I really love the SM's ability to create a holographic 4.0 sound-field from a stereo source - this is why I'm keeping it - and that's why I urge others to get one too. It beats all of its predecessors in that regard - and I own or have owned all of them at one time or another. So I'm here to give Charlie, David and the Involve crew a hugh thanks for their successful efforts in our behalf as quadoids and, hopefully, in their own behalf financially.

I've not yet tried it out in the 5-channel configuation, but with the help of another QQ member will get started on that soon.

My advise: Get one, turn it up and enjoy the music.



,
 
Everyone:

I've "cleaned up" this thread and ask you all to be civil with each other when debating the technicality of the Surround Master. Remember, every member is entitled to their opinion but please treat each other with respect. State your opinion, show your findings, then move on. Try and not drag out arguments as changing people's minds is almost impossible on the internet.

If this thread dissovles into name calling again, I will close it for good.

Thanks
 
Back
Top