INVOLVE SQ - IS COMING

[Overture]

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.

 

[rustyandi]

I will start again with the need for 4 speakers of the same size because if you have bass in the rear or drums through 6 inch speakers in the rear it will sound weak
Now I orded my Audionics unit and paid $75 deposit and waited 3 years to get it, getting letters now and again to ask if I wanted my money back
I paid $300 US for it
Soon after I had the unit I received a letter that there was a update to give the front channels a better image
I had noticed that there was a very narrow centre and this update fixed that
Now the Surround Master SQ
I have had 2 people that have been into surround for a number of years 1 has had the Audionics for over 10 years
The first said as soon as he heard it that it had a better musical sound before he had listened to any separation tests
That maybe because the Tate is about 40 years old
I then played the intro to Chase SQ
The trumpet circles around all the channels he could not pick any difference when switching back and forth
The image was pin point like a laser beam
I will show this and other demo,s on the scope when it is ready
We then went on to play other LPs
The biggest difference that I or Warren could pick is that the S/M has a better front image
I felt that that was what Audionics were trying to do
Also I have found that I have to adjust the Tate
Balance control now and again to get a better centre for vocals
When we played tracks that had all channels going at the same time you could easily pick where every thing was he thought that the S/M was a better unit
The other Richard who has a Tate unit
Liked the the Tate a bit better as he said he has been listening to it for years and got used to the effects
On some tracks he liked the Tate better and on other
He could not tell the difference
He summed it up as an excellent decoder he will buy one because when his Tate goes down it is so close to the Tate he will be happy
I have played with it longer and when I first heard it because the front image was wider I thought that that would not give all channels the separation I wanted
But when I played it for awhile and listened to a large number and types of music switching back from Tate to S/M I am starting to think that the S/M is better
The front image with singers has a smooth centre
I have not noticed any unstable sounds in decoding
I am listening to a proto version now
Charlie is going to take it back to his lair and put it into a box with the QS unit so I will hear the final unit
But for now I would sum up
It is either better
or as good
or just about as good as the TATE
I would say this is is as good as it will get for SQ Quad
Add on Decoders for the next 100 years

Who knows what computers may do
But this is 2 channel in and 4 Channels out as you play the record or CD
I will be very interested what other members think when they get a unit

 

[RSilverman]

Been silently - and eagerly - following this thread. Can't wait for the S&M device to arrive. Also the Surround Master.

 

[Soundfield]

I will start again with the need for 4 speakers of the same size because if you have bass in the rear or drums through 6 inch speakers in the rear it will sound weak

Thanks for your assessment Rustyandi – it is probably more positive than any of us dared hope for and your observations, particularly with regard to imaging and stability are of great interest. The need for identical speakers is often downplayed, but is actually critically important for the creation of a coherent sound space. Since placing my order for the SQSM I’ve set up a dedicated quad listening room based on two pairs of Quad 22L2 (in piano lacquer rosewood, they look rather lovely!) and some Luxman valve amps - I’ve been patiently awaiting the delivery so I can fire it all up. Not long now I hope.

 

[Soundfield]

If "Rustyandi" gives a positive report in the next few days (we gave him 2 versions) we will start shipping next week.
Regards
Chucky

Hi Chucky - When it comes to the packing and despatching (can’t believe we’re actually talking about this stage of things, what an incredible achievement!) will the SQSM unit be physically marked to show which switch position selects which format and / or will there be a revised set of operating instructions? Incidentally, someone (sorry can’t remember who) previously requested that their manual be signed – why not include a signed copy of a team photo for each of us QQ purchasers? – it feels as though we’ve all been a small part of this journey somehow. Cheers.

 

[callmez]

Am I correct in remembering that the new unit will have to be powered down when switching back and forth between Involve/QS and SQ? What's the switchover procedure? I hope to use this a lot, so in an ideal world a smooth switching process would be preferred.

Mark Z

 

[chucky3042]

Hi Soundfiels

Hmmmm, dunno about the photo as I will need to find a photographer that captures my true beauty. So far every photo of me taken so far resembles a giant sized gargoyle - clearly inaccurate. I will see what we can do.

Regards

Chucky

Hi Chucky - When it comes to the packing and despatching (can’t believe we’re actually talking about this stage of things, what an incredible achievement!) will the SQSM unit be physically marked to show which switch position selects which format and / or will there be a revised set of operating instructions? Incidentally, someone (sorry can’t remember who) previously requested that their manual be signed – why not include a signed copy of a team photo for each of us QQ purchasers? – it feels as though we’ve all been a small part of this journey somehow. Cheers.

 

[chucky3042]

Hi Callmez

We will be adding an addendum page to the instructions. Yes when you change modes you need to switch off then on again as this forces a reboot of the software. Our soon to be released (hopefully) "pro" encoder/ decoder will reboot automatically. We really did try to keep the cost low and the performance high on the SM.

Regards

Chucky

Am I correct in remembering that the new unit will have to be powered down when switching back and forth between Involve/QS and SQ? What's the switchover procedure? I hope to use this a lot, so in an ideal world a smooth switching process would be preferred.

Mark Z

 

[Overture]

Been silently - and eagerly - following this thread. Can't wait for the S&M device to arrive. Also the Surround Master.

Well we decided that the SM acronym was slightly more subtle than the "Ear Penetrator 3000"

Besides, that was already taken.

 

[bmoura]

Well we decided that the SM acronym was slightly more subtle than the "Ear Penetrator 3000"

Besides, that was already taken.

I think Surround Master works much better than "S&M" or "Ear Penetrator 3000".... !

 

[Neil Palfreyman]

As you know us Aussies think highly of the Poms. We particularly like you when we kick your arse in the cricket.

Regards

Chucky

Enjoying the Ashes?

 

[chucky3042]

No one like a bad winner.

Enjoying the Ashes?

 

[Neil Palfreyman]

 

[chucky3042]

Lets see, so far the records say

England won 101
Australia won 123

OK our team sucks - at the moment

Enjoying the Ashes?

 

[rustyandi]

I had 2 friends up last night to listen to the SQ unit
They both have an Audio background as have listened
To SQ Full logic decoding for a few years
We tested the S/M SQ switching back a forth from the TATE
SQ they both said that the S/M had a smother sound than the Tate
And the separation was as good and they will be buying the unit when it comes out with both Decoding systems
The decoding was far better the Full Logic system
I have noticed that when playing the S/M SQ that on the scope the image has a Similar look to Ambisonics UHJ
The sound gives a more filling image in the front and
More rounded effect when all channels are being used
But when a solo channel is needed there is a pin point
Image
As for playing stereo thru the S/M SQ unit
I have played a few it seems the play stereo like the
Circle Surround decoder
It does not give rear channel images up to now, but a blend front/back sound and cannot move from L/R to R/R channels
As the QS can
Sometimes the front channels vocal will be of centre
It maybe be best on Classical music when you just want a wide sound
But if you get the double unit you can play all your stereo music twice and mark on each track which decoding suits it best won’t that be fun


Come on Aussie Come On

 

[ChristopherLees]

No one like a bad winner.

as bad as the game presently is, the non enforcement of the follow on gives a very minute slim glimmer of hope to the side batting last...if there is a major england 2nd inn collapse Australia could have a reasonable target of less than 400 or even less than 350 with batting time on day 3 and day 4...

 

[chucky3042]

Hi All

With regard to Rustyandi's observations on the surround decode capability of SQ, I offer these thoughts:

One of the major advantages of a core QS matrix is that the surround or "ambiance" information hidden within standard stereo recordings has a great correlation to it. The SQ matrix just does not resemble any "naturally" encoded ambiance and as such is a poor decoder of stereo and in my humble opinion is one of the major reasons of its eventual failure to unite the music community to a standard- universal surround format. ON the other hand the biggest problem with QS was the image compression of encoded format material when played back on standard stereo equipment.

It is really central to our thoughts that INVOLVE encode offers the best of both the QS and SQ formats with a FULLY stereo compatible encode and a surround decode (we claim ) indistinguishable from discrete. On a different thread of -New Vinyl Based Surround/Quad System (Hypothetical Question) I wrote:


Hi everyone

Well said Quadzilla

This thread is of real interest to me and in many ways is close to the core that is driving our thoughts of the INVOLVE encode/ decode system (yes I am very biased). Being 55 years old puts me fair and square of the Vinyl and cassette appreciation society. I also find it interesting that there is a mini resurgence in these two formats. Privately though I fully appreciate the technical advantages of the CD, I still long for the “good” old days when playing a record was a real art requiring optimal tangential positioning of the tone arm, tracking weight adjustment, record clamps, electrical silence in the house, lid down etc. Gone is the pioneering spirit!

In some ways the problem with CD’s is that a 1 is still a 1 and a 0 is still a 0 and the Nyquist criterion really does apply in spite of all the marketing B…S….

In recent years with the advent of the CD, DVD, SACD, DAT, Blueray and several other transient formats we seem to have forgotten the lessons of the longest surviving and most successful formats STEREO and the cassette. Even today stereo is the most dominant format in the world as it is used for AM, FM radio, TV, FOXTEL, mp3 and is still available as a fall back in most other formats. It offers the great advantage that everyone can use it with even the most basic equipment (even mono) right up to the most exotic systems. Furthermore everyone understands stereo with no fear, I cannot say that of any of the new multi band systems.

When Philips created the cassette in 1961 they were very insistent to not allow any variations to the original format. They even opposed Dolby noise reduction and chrome tapes as it would exclude some users from the cross compatibility of the system. Maybe they went overboard on Dolby and Chrome but the result was a format that lasted say 40 years – and yes it was STEREO. You can grab any old stereo cassette and play it on today’s systems and if you want surround there are a number of good decoders around (hey INVOLVE is best – see the bias).

For any system to succeed and not add to more market confusion it must be fully backwards and forwards compatible to STEREO and not in anyway have any detrimental effects.

I note that there have been several words of support to CD4 discrete but it also fails the test of cross compatibility in that it required special expensive equipment, reduced the play time, would wear out your stylus’s more rapidly, be prone to clicks and dropouts. Does not sound like a winner to me.

In short a future system that would be suitable for vinyl records must

1 be able to be played by all existing stereo equipment with NO audible deterioration or damage to record or stylus
2 the encode must sound identical to the stereo
3 the decode must sound identical (or better than) discrete
4 Must have no pumping, clicking, breathing, whistling sonic artifacts.
5 Be able to synthesize with a high degree of accuracy a surround from non encoded material
6 Preferably get rid of the image skewing center channel (and the wife hates it)
7 Provide a consistent image in all seats of the house with no sweet spot.
8 Be able to be transmitted in low bandwidth media such as AM radio, mp3
9 Must become the new UNIVERSAL music/ cinema recording format to eliminate market confusion and customer isolation (I still don’t have a Blueray player!)
10 Be able to produce 2, 4 and even 5.1 (I hate it) surround.

Guess what kids, I claim INVOLVE (with Total Perspective if you want to get rid of the center channel and sweet spot) does all this. I hope to prove this to the QQ forum over the next few months. Or if you are eager for a demo just visit us in Melbourne Australia – it just DOWN the road a few miles. Meanwhile I am selling my Nakamichi 1000 and 582 cassette decks and have just acquired a Nakamichi ZX 7 – see I am not kidding when I said I like the older formats – still sound better than the 5.1 crap I hear around town.

I hope I have not ruffled too many feathers but hey its 11.20 pm on Saturday night as I type this so be easy on me.

Regards

Charlie
www.involveaudio.com

I still stand by those words - I still do not have a Blueray player and I did get that Nakamichi ZX -7 (Love it -will not sell ever).

More importantly I agree with Christopher lees topic relevant comments and I am sure our American and European surround friends have a considered view! (I suspect they think the Poms and Aussies are both mad and prefer base ball or that deficient game soccer).

Regards

Chucky

I had 2 friends up last night to listen to the SQ unit
They both have an Audio background as have listened
To SQ Full logic decoding for a few years
We tested the S/M SQ switching back a forth from the TATE
SQ they both said that the S/M had a smother sound than the Tate
And the separation was as good and they will be buying the unit when it comes out with both Decoding systems
The decoding was far better the Full Logic system
I have noticed that when playing the S/M SQ that on the scope the image has a Similar look to Ambisonics UHJ
The sound gives a more filling image in the front and
More rounded effect when all channels are being used
But when a solo channel is needed there is a pin point
Image
As for playing stereo thru the S/M SQ unit
I have played a few it seems the play stereo like the
Circle Surround decoder
It does not give rear channel images up to now, but a blend front/back sound and cannot move from L/R to R/R channels
As the QS can
Sometimes the front channels vocal will be of centre
It maybe be best on Classical music when you just want a wide sound
But if you get the double unit you can play all your stereo music twice and mark on each track which decoding suits it best won’t that be fun


Come on Aussie Come On

 

[Neil Palfreyman]

as bad as the game presently is, the non enforcement of the follow on gives a very minute slim glimmer of hope to the side batting last...if there is a major england 2nd inn collapse Australia could have a reasonable target of less than 400 or even less than 350 with batting time on day 3 and day 4...

The non enforcement of the follow on was exactly the right thing to do. Swann ripped them apart yesterday on a good batting wicket but the wicket will be turning by day 4. They will struggle to make 200 in their second innings and a likely target of 400 will be as far away as the moon for this Australian side, who simply cannot bat.

 

[ChristopherLees]

The non enforcement of the follow on was exactly the right thing to do. Swann ripped them apart yesterday on a good batting wicket but the wicket will be turning by day 4. They will struggle to make 200 in their second innings and a likely target of 400 will be as far away as the moon for this Australian side, who simply cannot bat.

By batting a second time and at their present run rate of 1.86 per over for their second innings, they are going to need all 5 days to win it...whereas if they really thought Australia couldn't bat they could be ending it right now in this session....before lunch on day 3...not enforcing the follow on when you're into only day 2 with a lead of over 230 is incredibly pessimistic

anyway i think we're way off topic here...although the English batting is hitting the ball to all corners of the ground

 

[Neil Palfreyman]

I disagree - Cook is a very strategic thinking captain and his decisions, even the odd looking ones, are calculated to achieve the goal of winning the game. Nothing else matters.

wrt to being off topic - yes. Apologies to all for messing up the thread for those wanting un-cluttered updates on Involve's excellent product I would be quite happy for Jon to move the cricket related comments to another thread so we can continue to bait the Ozzies about the appalling performance of their cricket "team" without detracting from the product/technical content.