.
Last edited:
Had an hour or two to mess around with comparisons between the SM2 and SPECWeb 1.5. I used the track "I Can't Tell You Why" from the Eagles CD (Target CD) "The Long Run" because I remember that particular tune decoded very nicely putting Glen Frey and the backup singers in the rears fairly isolated.
So I ran the track twice through the SM2 into my MOTU first in 4.1, then 5.1. I then ripped the track from the CD onto my PC, just to keep everything equal, then ran it through SPECWeb 1.5 with all of the default settings, once for 4.0, then for 5.1. I did not futz with any EQ or loudness stuff. These are the files as they were recorded in.
One thing about the SM2, or maybe it's just my SM2, but when I switch to 5.1 mode, I have to turn the center channel pot down to 9 O'Clock, as the center signal overdrives the MOTU to the point of clipping. Watching the audio into Vegas popped the red clipping indicators. Not sure what's up with that, but it's easily dealt with thanks to the signal level controls.
Here are the results, in 4 One Minute 6CH .flac files which you can check out if you like. They are of the second verse, where the background vocals are prominent. Those with DAW's can play around with them and look and listen to individual tracks. Those who can only listen can still hear the results and determine what you all think.
These less than one minute sample files are provided for evaluation only. No ownership is implied.
Surround Master 2 - 4.1 Involve Mode: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Samples/TEST_SM2_4-1.flac
Surround Master 2 - 5.1 Involve Mode: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Samples/TEST_SM2_5-1.flac
SPECWeb 1.5 (Defaults) - 4.0 Output: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Samples/TEST_SPEC_4-0.flac
SPECWeb 1.5 (Defaults) - 5.1 Output: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Samples/TEST_SPEC_5-1.flac
View attachment 41379
Maybe I'm missing something basic, but in TEST_SPEC 4-0 (SPECWeb 1.5 (Defaults) - 4.0 Output) why is there apparent content in channel 4 (LFE), rather than a flat line? It looks like 4.1 rather than 4.0.
Hey Jon , can you do one in QS??Really nice test Jon!!!!!!!
Hey Jon , can you do one in QS??
Not sure if there are any titles around that have the discrete and QS encoded tracks together on the same disc. Anyone?
I will talk to DAVE the Bitch as I am sure we have DSOTM in both QS and Involve format.
Good stuff Jon. I will still get Bitch to send some files to you!Heck,
If you want it from LP I'll just to the first minute or so of PF "Money" from the Quadrafile QS test disc. Then compare it to the same section off the BluRay.
I'm on it tomorrow.
Hi Jon
Not taking it as negative. Actually just confirming stuff- I like detailed feedback. Question, when you say you can hear a difference on the sax is louder in the fronts compared to the Tate decode. Is that with respect to the discrete? Also is that listening in the center position with all speakers on or just one speaker at a time?
Regards
Chucky
Listening on my PC/DAW. Soloing the fronts with both sets of files. You guys can do the same thing if you download those two files I attached. They are very short, only a few measures of the song, about 14 seconds each. If you do, just listen to the fronts.
Like I said, when listening to the audio on a room system it sounds fine. Sax in the rear left, where it should be. As you said, the wav screen caps show that the unit is decoding the signal as the forms are virtually identical, but you can't tell from a screen shot what's in those envelopes. You need to use ears, so that's why I included the attached wav files.
Honestly, it's not that big of a deal. I just thought that in all fairness to the membership, I should post what I found. I do not want to come off as some sort of shill or whatever you call that type of person.
We can get any amount of separation you want in the output but at a cost of sonic artifacts and audible switching occurring.
Precisely, I have always agreed that the Tate will produce better numbers than the SM but I don't listen to numbers. Ultimately its all a big compromise. The trick is to ensure all the compromises fall below the threshold of human hearing/ perception. Really happy with Jon's result, it really lines up with what we have found at this end and I understand he had to listen to the individual speakers to confirm his result (That I agree with). In summary SQ is a shit sandwich at the best of times and its a great way to totally hide surround in a stereo package but very hard to extract. Tate did a fantastic job and I suspect Shadow Vector will do better than all (I hope). Having read up the little I know about SV it has done many of the things we do- so yep I think it will be great!!I don't decode SQ records, but one of the features I like about the SM is the absence of sonic artifacts and audible switching when producing surround-sound from stereo material. I have had the pleasure of hearing some quad upmixes from stereo sources using Tate Surround. On occasion, the Tate produces some serious, detectable logic pumping. Even the apple of my eye, Logic7, can suffer from audible switching with certain material...early Beatles for example. While the novelty of extreme separation on this particular material sounds cool initially, over time it becomes annoying when pumping is detectable.
Enter your email address to join: