Soundfield
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
..... and its 20K cutoff also puts me off
Why? I don't think there's much on your average LP above 15kHz except noise and distortion artefacts!
..... and its 20K cutoff also puts me off
Why? I don't think there's much on your average LP above 15kHz except noise and distortion artefacts!
NOT GONNA GO THERE AGAIN.....ok, yes I will..why do they record in 96K??? ...magick????
I would guess that -12dB bleeding is imperceptible then a little bit of pumping in the rears would be too.
AoQ said in the podcast that he sent the rip to OD. What came of that?
Did talk to Ohverture about any chance of squeezing more numbers out of it and he was negative about it. I will review this again shortly. Meanwhile please remember that it has been conclusively proven that on multiple simultaneous sound sources the human ability to distinguish separation diminishes dramatically - its one of the basic principals that matrix surround is based on. In practicality it does not make matrix inferior to discrete from a real human perception point of view - from numbers YES. I understand this is controversial but all psychoacoustic studies have verified this.
Regards
Chucky
NOT GONNA GO THERE AGAIN.....ok, yes I will..why do they record in 96K??? ...magick????
NOT GONNA GO THERE AGAIN.....ok, yes I will..why do they record in 96K??? ...magick????
I would guess that if -12dB bleeding is imperceptible then a little bit of pumping in the rears would be too.
AoQ said in the podcast that he sent the rip to OD. What came of that?
I understand your explanations about the studies on perception of separation. And that's fine and dandy when dealing with things like test tones or perfect situations. But, what about when you're dealing with mixes that already have a soundfield with the signal blended to multiple channels for the purposes of placement? What I'm getting at, is there may be elements that are panned subtly that already have low separation when measuring a number, and then the encoding and decoding will minimize that even further. I know your studies and results, and numbers you've achieved have left you with the conclusion you've achieved the best compromise, but I do want to point out again, the front center leakage to the rear has been reported numerous times to be audible. I think we are dealing with something here that has proven to be audible.
It also seams that leakage should be easy to target, since it's proven to be out of phase between the 2 back channels.
I haven't heard what targeting this leakage does to the overall presentation, but I understand you feel you've reached the best compromise. Is it perhaps possible to add a separation knob to the SM that allows one the ability to increase the separation to their liking? This could allow one to make their own personal preference to the compromise between separation and presentation. Plus, the best setting probably varies between different recordings. (I suppose for those that feel increasing the separation makes the sound suck, you could label it the suck knob)
That said, I realize that spending time, effort, and resources into a piece of audio equipment for a long obsolete format with a very limited customer base is asking quite a bit. If nothing more can come of this, the Surround Master as it is, is a very worthwhile piece of equipment, and just having this as it is has been great. That you already put this time and effort into this, with so little return, has been great, and I want to make sure you understand that it is very much appreciated, even if we can be critical about these finer details at times.
AoQs Tate samples showed very low levels of bleeding (pumping, yes).Hi Proufo
Yes you would be right except that you will perceive pumping louder than the -12 db and that is the issue- its not a little bit.
Regards
Charlie
I said at the time we agreed to make an SQ version of the SM that we were not going to do a numbers war.
AoQs Tate samples showed very low levels of bleeding (pumping, yes).
Did any of the testers specifically recognized objectionable pumping from the Tate?
Many thanks Wunlow.I did. Specifically "Sweet Emotion". Am not sure if my results were included in the final tally, as I turned mine in late April, which may have been considered late at that time. I tried to tally the results sifting through the 2 1/2 hour quadquast, and don't think mine were, as I preferred the Surround Master for Sweet Emotion for this reason.
Going through the quadcast and getting the results of what A and B were, for my listening results, I preferred the Surround Master half the time, and the Tate the other half. Per the listening test requests, I purposely didn't isolate channels when auditioning the two matrix decoded tracks.
Enter your email address to join: