Reality Teck Involve Decoder - proper QS decoding? - test results

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I'm really confused by that message (that's not actually here). I've tried downloading it with no problem, if your still having issues i'll try Hotfile as you suggested

Isee you removed the content because you felt it wasn't correct, but unable to download the file is really not good, so surely is fine
 
I'm unable to download and test the file at the time being (my problem, not a problem with the file). I was a little confused about the possible issue. Do you think the sound field is completely off or is it just muddy and not as discrete as it could be? Further tests and a formal reply to all this from the Reality people would be nice. Also some wav comparisons and explinations would help illustrate this.

Also, do you think it's currently possible to have a decode as good as a script with a real-time device using dsp's?

The reality people definately did claim that this could decode QS by the book. I asked them that specific question. Maybe they would be open to making improvements in the QS decoding for the QS/SQ box.

But in reality, there are a large number of people, like me, that want this to be the best QS/SQ decoder at a reasonable price. I know the original aim of the device was for creating soundfeilds from any source. But a lot of people really do want an accurate decoder. Especially when you get to the SQ people.

Th
 
Yea, am uploading it to Hotfile as i type, should be there in about 45 mins.

Ok, the issue with the Involve decoder in Qs mode, with a QS source is a very diffused soundfield. Unfortunately it doesn't decode 'by the book', or it would be good. There is a good decoder here, just not implemented very well. To be honest i've never heard such a poorly difused soundfield from a QS decoder before, but i do know where they have gone wrong.

As i've mentioned before on the missing post, there are two files. One called original, which is just that. The first track from Romanotrax's release was lifted and re-encoded. As simple as that.

The second, is the same file, but modified to a certain extent to overcome the lack of the correct decode. The difference is so obvious. the second file has pretty well defined images, and the piano is where it should be.

Anyway, i'll post the link asap
 
OK. I won't be able to compare until later. Do I understand this was using 4-channel re-encoded to QS? If so, why not use the original QS encoded material?
 
No

The original 2 files i sent you a week or two ago were accurate test tones and a track taken from a Q4 and encoded using my QS encoder.

The reason for that was so that there was a control verion of the track for comparisons.

This set of two files is to show you the issues the Involve decoder has when decoding QS encoded material. it is ildefined and indistinct. There are other issues, but the major one i'm bringing to your attention is the inability of the unit to correctly decode QS to the Sansui standard.

The first is the original decode done by Romanotrax using your Involve decoder in QS mode, and the second fileis the same track 'repaired' by myself. This shows what the decoder is capable of.

My 'repair' is one of the process's that the decoder fails to do, that being to ensure a correct decode, and therby giving a detailed, stable and focused decode.
 
Yea, am uploading it to Hotfile as i type, should be there in about 45 mins.

Ok, the issue with the Involve decoder in Qs mode, with a QS source is a very diffused soundfield. Unfortunately it doesn't decode 'by the book', or it would be good. There is a good decoder here, just not implemented very well. To be honest i've never heard such a poorly difused soundfield from a QS decoder before, but i do know where they have gone wrong.

As i've mentioned before on the missing post, there are two files. One called original, which is just that. The first track from Romanotrax's release was lifted and re-encoded. As simple as that.

The second, is the same file, but modified to a certain extent to overcome the lack of the correct decode. The difference is so obvious. the second file has pretty well defined images, and the piano is where it should be.

Anyway, i'll post the link asap


Are you still willing to assist the reality people get a better decode (assuming that they would accept that type of help)?
 
Well, firstlyi'm getting bored with this. My original reason fordoing this (as i've said at least twice before) was to get this decoder to accuraetly decode QS

That is the first thing they need to do. They shouldn't even worry about SQ until that is right, because (as i said)SQ is not decodble using the QS model.

So, a dual decoder that accuraetly decodes both is going to be quite an engineering feat.

But, we need a unit than can do these two systems, and i will do what i can, depending on a few points, including their testing process's, which are flakey at the moment.

Does that help?
 
Chucky will be downloading this file, and they will be looking at the issue i've raised. There are others, but this is a major one that needs to be sorted before anything else.
 
Well, firstlyi'm getting bored with this. My original reason fordoing this (as i've said at least twice before) was to get this decoder to accuraetly decode QS

That is the first thing they need to do. They shouldn't even worry about SQ until that is right, because (as i said)SQ is not decodble using the QS model.

So, a dual decoder that accuraetly decodes both is going to be quite an engineering feat.

But, we need a unit than can do these two systems, and i will do what i can, depending on a few points, including their testing process's, which are flakey at the moment.

Does that help?

Yes, it does help. I agree that the QS needs to be perfected before SQ can be added. While it does sound like quite the engineering feat, they claimed that they could do it and I hope they plan to make good on thier claims. If this thing can be corrected to decode QS properly it would be great. If it can later be set up with both QS and SQ modes that decode both correctly, that would make it undisputably the best hardware matrix decoder ever made. It would also finally make accurate hardware decoding available to people like me, who quite frankly cannot afford a Sansui QSD and a Tate.

I do appricitate that you are trying to help this thing along in QS decoding abbilities.
 
Well, thanks for that, it's all i want to do. As i said, a unit that can do both better than the 70's units is well over due.

This may be the only chance we have!
 
No

The original 2 files i sent you a week or two ago were accurate test tones and a track taken from a Q4 and encoded using my QS encoder.

The reason for that was so that there was a control verion of the track for comparisons.

This set of two files is to show you the issues the Involve decoder has when decoding QS encoded material. it is ildefined and indistinct. There are other issues, but the major one i'm bringing to your attention is the inability of the unit to correctly decode QS to the Sansui standard.

The first is the original decode done by Romanotrax using your Involve decoder in QS mode, and the second fileis the same track 'repaired' by myself. This shows what the decoder is capable of.

My 'repair' is one of the process's that the decoder fails to do, that being to ensure a correct decode, and therby giving a detailed, stable and focused decode.

I'm just a four eared bystander, not with Involve. So it is not the decoder-to-decoder comparison I was hoping for, but not intended for me anyway. Still interesting!

-John S.
 
I'm just a four eared bystander, not with Involve. So it is not the decoder-to-decoder comparison I was hoping for, but not intended for me anyway. Still interesting!

-John S.
For a decoder to decoder comparison, you need Romanatrix to do the same conversion using the computer script or his sansui decoder for that...preferably using both
 
you need Romanatrix to do the same conversion using the computer script or his sansui decoder for that...preferably using both

Why, i do not understand where your coming from.

This has nothing to do with Romanotrax, or his equipment.

Please refrain from commenting in this thread

Jon, Please remove the ability of this person to comment in this thread
 
you need Romanatrix to do the same conversion using the computer script or his sansui decoder for that...preferably using both

Assuming Romanotrax is an example of someone with that equipment (I would guess others could do it also), that's exactly what I was hoping for. Apples to apples (to apples)! Thanks Christopher, like a lot of internet conversations, either I was misunderstood, or my intent was not shared by others, and that's OK too. They're not on my payroll, and I don't have the means to do it.
:)
 
Assuming Romanotrax is an example of someone with that equipment (I would guess others could do it also), that's exactly what I was hoping for. Apples to apples (to apples)! Thanks Christopher, like a lot of internet conversations, either I was misunderstood, or my intent was not shared by others, and that's OK too. They're not on my payroll, and I don't have the means to do it.
:)
that's ok...many people here already can compare with the computer script...they only need the same QS lp of one of OD's QS or Romanatrix QS script conversions ...and a/b through their system using Rt and sansui decoders and in some cases they have the reel tape Q4 or Q8 to compare against...but it's better if the same hifi is used with the script as well as the decoders if you want to a/b the script against the decoder....what gets me about this whole thing is that Romanatrix did that and couldn't tell a difference between the script and decoder...yet we have OD with an insistance that there is a huge diifference...discounting the fact that OD might have a financial interest in the script being best as he did a poll recently on who would be interested in having private quadraphonic conversions done by him and his script method, we really do need to see how good the decoder is...I'm not against what OD is trying to do, I'm just not into taking shortcuts with the testing, because I like conclusions that are not drawn using a really,really long bow...
 
that's ok...many people here already can compare with the computer script...they only need the same QS lp of one of OD's QS or Romanatrix QS script conversions ...and a/b through their system using Rt and sansui decoders and in some cases they have the reel tape Q4 or Q8 to compare against...but it it's better if the same hifi is used with the script as well as the decoders if you want to a/b the script against the decoder....what gets me about this whole thing is that Romanatrix did that and couldn't tell a difference between the script and decoder...yet we have OD with an insistance that there is a huge diifference...discounting the fact that OD might have a financial interest in the script being best as he did a poll recently on who would be interested in having private quadraphonic conversions done by him and his script method, we really do need to see how good the decoder is...I'm not against what OD is trying to do, I just like conclusions that are not drawn using a really long bow.

Ok, what we have here is a complete misunderstanding of the issue that 'i've brought up.

So, we can move this on, please do tell me:

What has a computer script to do with the issue discovered with the Involve decoder?

What has Rpmanotrax's Hi-Fi equipment to do with the issue discovered with the Involve decoder?

And i refuse your claim i have any financial interested in my decoding process's (the use of the word script no longer is a good description of process's that have been in devolopment for some time. There's only so much that can be done with a script run in Audition)

You are obviously a visiter to the blog or you wouldn't have know about the poll i added. it was only a poll, and to be honest, what i do with my inventions are of no business of yours, or anyone else.

So that i can further understand quite where your coming from, please answer the two questions, as i believe there are some misunderstands that need clearing up
 
I will agree with OD that the point of this thread is to report and discuss his particular findings with the Surround Master decode.

However, the A/B testing of this unit against the Sansui units and the scripts may be useful in people wanting to see the differences in the decode. Also wave form picture may also help illustrate this.

But most importantly, this thread seems to be dedicated to OD reporting and discussing his particular findings. Not general testing inquiries for the Surround Master. These inquiries may be better off in the owners thread or a new thread dedicated to the subject.

When you see that you are frustrating someone, it may be time to take a step back and not continue to badger them.

Lets say as a hypothetical, that OD is completely wrong, and that this thread is purely a malicious attack to falsely debunk the Surround Master. Everyone that has read these threads knows that you disagree with his oppinions. Everyone also knows why you disagree with him. No one is stopping you from creating a thread expressing that you think OD's tests are inaccurate. No one is stopping you from giving a review of this particular test on this thread. What does anyone gain by continuing an argument with someone that clearly isn't going to change thier mind on the subject and only makes them angry? Thats just fighting and arguing. Not discussing.

No matter who is right or wrong, when you find that a discussion can only degrade into an argument, it is time to take a step back and not comment further. If you believe someone is abusing the rules of the forum, seek an administrator.
 
Back
Top