INVOLVE NEEDS YOU!! - HELP

[chucky3042]

INVOLVE NEEDS YOUR HELP- REWARD OFFERED!!​

As most of our QQ friends would know we at Involve are passionate about matrix stereo based surround sound and we are actively working on providing recording studio plugins so recording “engineers” can explore stereo compatible surround sound with their artists. We already have developed hardware bases encoders, decoders, full surround sound systems.



We need/ We offer

We want to use the technique of 6 degrees of separation to link to other manufacturers/ recording labels/ movie labels and sales marketing channels to both get Involve encode as the “new stereo” and our products made under license by other manufacturers.

We offer to any QQ member who can help us establish a finalized deal with any such organization 4% of the resultant revenue. If it’s just a “tip off” that leads to a deal and we do all the hard yards we offer 2%. This applies to IP or Product sales.

As we license our recording format for free a separate deal will be made on that shortly (got to think about what fair).

As a comparative measure SRS was sold to DTS for around USD$115 Million, their IP was OK /not world beating but more they had market presence. The basics that made Atmos possible was acquired by Dolby by the purchase of Lake technologies from Australia in the early naughties for around USD$17 Million



Marketing our Intellectual property/ products

We currently have 4 granted patents in the USA and several other countries covering topics of encode/ decode of surround sound and one patent describing our SST (Sweet Spot Technology) for removing the center channel. We have approached many consumer electronics brand names (CE’s) and basically none answer emails/ letters/ phone calls/ smoke signals or Morse code. Typically we find that the only “way in” is to have a friend ……who knows a “mate” ……….who knows the lift driver of someone up the management tree.





We produce products for 2 reasons:

• Helps pay the bills
• It advertises our IP to attract a sale to major consumer (CE’s). This is in accordance with the advice from the ex IP adviser from Dolby- direct IP sales is a thing of the past

We have presented to a major Korean manufacture (starting with a S) who loved Involve decode but eventually stated that “it too good” in that it would startle their consumers and so they retained their own inhouse decoder that produced a pleasant muddle (very Korean – they tend to be insular). Similar story to Dolby where you get a culture of their engineers getting threatened by external technologies that suggest object based audio is not the future.

So currently we have 4 product area’s

• The Surround Master
• Involve studio encoder (and soon software plugin- to be free issue to studio’s)
• The Y4 surround system (just being redeveloped for the next 3 months)
• The reference Electrostatic hybrid speaker (in production in a month or so – funds permitting)

Where then does Involve fit is the question. Another failed format?

The answer is no, we are and will never be a failed format. This is because we are in fact the universal format. i.e. STEREO only an enhanced version with NO DOWNSIDE.

The key is all the past format failures was compatibility and they were not compatible either with each other or with the mainstream formats. Unless they had the marketing clout of Sony or were a major advancement which could not be denied e.g. CDs then they failed because they were on their own and not compatible.

We are compatible with everything and everyone. Even Dolby ATMOS recordings have the stereo track available so the recording is universally available and not just listenable to those who have the Atmos decoding system. In my opinion Dolby Atmos will fail for the same reasons many of its predecessors failed – it’s not compatible with anything and its clunky, expensive, and does not offer enough to the bulk of the market sufficient upside to become ubiquitous.

Involve is Stereo with built in 5.1 even though we prefer 4.1 in our own equipment offerings. We are not a new format in the sense we are stereo – we are an enhanced stereo more like 4K TV is enhanced vision. This is to say all the old film/video/TV etc will play on the TV and you don’t have to change anything or switch anything over to watch it. Imagine if 4K TV could not play old movies – it would be a failure. Its success is primarily due to its compatibility and the fact the TV will give you the best picture it can all or at least most of the time.

From a major manufacturer’s standpoint Involve is a new format and they have learnt, over time, this is a problem. However, if we can get across the fact that they NEVER loose and we are the compatible new format with only upside then the resistance to adopting Involve will be significantly decreased.

We need to get this across to Sony and all other brands.



General Background

Way back in the grim dark days of 2009, I worked out that surround sound was getting way to over complicated and confusing with a myriad of cross formats with many incompatible and not backwards compatible (history repeating). Since then we have added Dolby Atmos, DTS X and now DTS X virtual. The common trend has been if 5.1 channels does not work then the solution must be ADD MORE CHANNELS!!



Receiver front panels are virtually clones with a battle of the logo’s of compatible formats displayed[CvD1] and the rear panels are so complicated that you need a PhD in nuclear brain surgery just to operate the menu system (60 year old discrimination!). And now for $500 you can get a “receiver” that compatible to just about all these formats that no one uses due to confusion eg:

https://hometheaterreview.com/pioneer-vsx-933-72-channel-network-av-receiver-reviewed/

Sure, it’s got everything but frankly it still sounds crap to this not so little black duck.

Our aim/ philosophy

• That surround sound can be well contained within a stereo carrier and then decoded out to full 360 degree surround just as well as a discrete system to the human ear.

• The entire low level path of audio and recorded media should be standardized to 2 channel or Involve Stereo. Around 90% of recorded music and video is in fact transmitted by stereo now eg, CD, Youtube, Ipod, Netflix, TV, radio, Spotify, Apple music, tidal, pandora, vinyl records, cassettes (I like them!)

• The center channel has major issues with distorting the frontal image under or over the TV and is an unnecessary complication. We developed and have international granted patents on SST (Sweet Spot Technology) that gets rid of the sweet spot and maintains a consistent image all around the listening area.

• The combination of Involve encode/ decode, SST and planar speakers have produced a virtually even SPL all around the listening area- even when sitting close to one speaker. The use of more than 4 speakers is not needed.

• Whilst height is a popular fad it can be easily simulated by simply elevating the rear speakers and a small amount of HRTF……4 speakers rule! Or use dual Involve encode and 8 speakers (works great -we have done it).

BUT DISCRETE IS AUTOMATICALLY SUPERIOR TO A MATRIX SYSTEM?



This is where I get controversial.

Technically in terms of pure numbers – yes but in terms of human perception no. In fact, we have found in several trials of human test monkeys that there usually is a slight preference to Involve encode/ decode to the same performance presented by discrete- on an instant blind A/ B comparison basis. This slight preference to our matrix is because

• People do not perceive the steering we do
• We extract additional surround that the discreet method missed- this is because the recording “engineers” are time restricted and cannot always create a true environment, more likely just the usual pings and pongs of a movie presentation.

Please note that nobody to our knowledge in QQ have done a full instant A/ B test of Involve encode/ decode vs the discreet source. I note there have been zero complaints as to the surround fidelity of the recent Suzanne Ciani recording – THAT WAS ENCODED IN INTELLIGENT INVOLVE FORMAT not as was stated by the youtube reviewer RM or QS.


Here is a bunch of tests we did a few years ago:

Involve vs Discreet

Room setting.

Author: David Alexandrou

Internal use only.



Quick intro:​

Involve audio is a 4/5 to 2 encode/decode matrix that can also decode surround from existing 2 channel sources.

System comparison:​

Discreet audio vs. Involve Audio

Set-up:​

Clip used: Money – Dark Side of the Moon 4 channel DVD-audio

Speakers: RTA (Involve) Electrostatic Total Perspective speakers

Presentation: Audio only



Speaker width to listener ratio 1:1

Note: Central Imaging is traditionally considered difficult in this configuration.

Test Subjects: 11

Format:​

Subject was played the audio, switching between the discreet and Involve versions of the audio. The systems were only identified as either No. 1 or No. 2.

The subject was then asked to comment on various qualities of the sound, paying attention to

Any discernible differences between the two systems

Audio Quality

Surround quality.



The subject was then asked if they had a preference to any of the systems in particular, and asked to give reasons for their answer.



Preferences



Subjects were asked if they had a preference for either system. The results were as follows:



Involve: 5

No Preference: 4

Discreet: 2

Observable qualitative results:​

In each case where Involve was picked as the preference, the results point to either an increase in the sound richness or fullness, and better distinction of surround sound elements.

The subjects who preferred discreet had a different reason to each other.

Conclusions​

The test data as it stands indicates strongly that Involve matrix decoding is as good as or better than discreet surround sound.



So how can a matrix system actually perform better yet is technically inferior??

The answer is very complicated but human hearing is really good but not in the areas that most reviewers test. In truth we get confused quite easily and, in some respects can only focus on one event at a time. We are all from an evolution point of view “frightened little bunnies”. We focus and react to the first sound arrival and virtually ignore the second sound. This is shown in the HAAS precedence curve below:

HAAS CURVE

You will note that the first sound dominates perception of the second sound arrival even if the second sound is 12 dB louder than the first sound. Please note that with most voice/ music/ events sound is typically dominated moment to moment by a dominant event such as a pin dropping or a guitar plucking.

Also, psychological tests have shown that we really get confused on simultaneous tones particularly at close or related frequencies, meaning even though the individual 4 channels are separated by say 100 dB the listener may not be able to perceive direction! So much for the marketing hype on discreet separation.

Our tests have also demonstrated that no additional separation is perceived by the listener beyond 12 dB separation. I know this is a hard pill to swallow for all those chasing big numbers but its true. Having said that we exceed this in all occasions.

When you add up all the above, it goes a long way into explaining why even a basic matrix decoder without steering ”logic” can actually sound quite good, better than the expected 3 – 6 dB numbers would suggest.

The big trick is the steering “logic” that works out and isolates the dominant event and “places” it in the right location without pumping or smearing effects. All sounds are not equal in “weight” when you start to compare dominance. For example, a 3 kHz tone at 1 V will sound way louder than a bass or high treble tone at 10 V. In addition, we need when comparing directional dominance to group the harmonics into bands so that the instrument stays as a whole to prevent smearing. Hence the importance of our tri band separate processing.

Above all the above comes the issue of how to place the sound without the human perceiving the “mechanical” action of the placement, careful consideration needs to be made of multiple band related attack and decay time constants.

The importance of the above is that the most predictive and useful separation number for a matrix is how it separates instantly say in 20 ms time slices. Our own Intelligent Involve encode/ decode achieves around 34 -44 dB separation in all directions on this instantaneous basis but on steady tone may be lower in some area but never lower that 12 dB (it’s a magic number). Instantaneously our matrix resembles QS but on steady tone the matrix constants MAY vary according to the surround/ stereo content. All on a tri band encode basis.

Encoder set to QS - INVOLVE decode

outputs

I O	Left Rear	Left Front	Right Front	Right Rear
Left Rear	0​	-35.4​	-36.5​	-40​
Left Front	-37.7​	0​	-43.1​	-35.4​
Right Front	-34.0​	-38.4​	0​	-36.5​
Right Rear	-37.7​	-34.0​	-38.0​	0​

INPUTS

AVERAGE SEPARATION -37.2 dB

Encoder set to INVOLVE - INVOLVE decode



outputs

I O	Left Rear	Left Front	Right Front	Right Rear
Left Rear	0​	-43.1​	-43.1​	-48.0​
Left Front	-12.0​	-1.0​	-23.1​	-26.0​
Right Front	-28.0​	-23.1​	-1.0​	-12.0​
Right Rear	-38.4​	-34.0​	-40.0​	0​
	​	​	​	​

INPUTS

AVERAGE SEPARATION -30.9 dB

Note the lower separation numbers (greater than 20 ms duration) of 12 dB are front to back, not left to right.

The advantage of all this results in the encoded stereo signal being dynamically full separation 40 dB and absolute short duration minimum of 12 dB. Translation it is 100% indistinguishable from plane old vanilla stereo. In comparison the standard QS stereo encode will be image compressed to 6 dB – one of the big reasons QS failed to be accepted as a recording standard.

For full test results refer:

Involve audio DSP implementation test results. Tested May 2009 (steady tone on QS input)

Surround Master Involve Proper - QS Decode?

Surround Master Involve Proper - QS Decode? Part 2 Four Channel Continuous Sinusoidal Signals Decode Test

(This last test compares Involve vs the Sansui QSD-1 ON SEPARATE MIXED SIGNAL INPUT CONTINUOUS TONE)


[CvD1]

 

[chucky3042]

Really strange how the world turns. This week I spoke at length to Austrade (bunch of Australian government trade assistance types) who basically assured us that we were wasting our time trying to get into the big boys and it was better going for the little companies. They offered to assist us in our marketing approach at a cheap $275 per hour.

Turned out a South Korean company starting with S has recontacted us..........watch this space. Also a small Dutch company starting with P has also talking to us. Who knows. I really want our logo on big boy brands and then simple surround for all!!

 

[beerking]

Let's hope S n P add an I !! to their names.

 

[chucky3042]

Dear All

Further to our mission to promote stereo to surround via matrix techniques, the other half of our mission is the creation of a natural sound field within a room that is not position sensitive where the listener can sit anywhere and get the same sound stage positioning of all performers. In addition the levels should remain constant regardless of how close you are to the speaker. Dolby and other "solved" this issue with the center channel and now the use of a myriad of speakers in the object oriented Atmos thing.

So several years ago we created what we then called "Total Perspective" now renames to SST (Sweet Spot technology) that gets rid of the sweet spot and achieves the goal of a unified sound-field with consistent imaging in all positions in a room - with just 4 speakers!!! In short for the listener it achieves what the media claims of Atmos does but actually does not deliver. All compatible with good old 2 channels sources.

So for the first time .............I have attached our patent on SST

and note the Haas curve:

What it all mean?

Well we hear the first sound arrival and it dominates the second sound arrival even if the second arrival is 11 db louder! Putting this all together look at the funny speakers in the top diagram. The center panels are fired first and the outer ones are fires say 1.5 or so milliseconds later, the left panel is attenuated by 12 db and so the listener will not hear it. To a listener on the right he will hear both left and right speakers sound arriving at the same time- so the apparent sound direction is from the middle (see arrow) and visa versa on the left side listener. In short the center vocalist stays in the middle. The speaker panels need to be very directional (say electrostatic) and we enhance the polar pattern for more blockage with the separator panel as shown by the funny Y shape of the panel (see the rotating GIF)

The technique really works and the bigger the speaker the more pronounced the effect. We actually have done it with cone speakers as demonstrated to QQ own member "Dwight" . For members who have not heard Dwights interview with us a few years ago here it is.......remember SST was called Total Perspective back then

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1iOi9xA1bRTUfOCsUYKp5ViTR95UvwmDi

Now I will let you in on some internal Involve emails where Bitch, Chris and I discuss this Atmos thing in the light of out SST + Involve decode. I think you may find it illuminating. This whole package is what we really are promoting.



Atmos and other myths- thoughts of a simpleton

Inbox

x

Charlie Chilla <[email protected]>

9 Jul 2019, 13:41 (7 days ago)

to Dawson, David, Lindsay, Christopher, tony, Maximilian, John, Kevin

Dear Surroundies

A goodish summary:
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/dolby-atmos-explained,news-26573.html

Call me an idiot but..........................

As far as my puny clapped out 61 year old brain can understand the evolution of the Atmos myth comes from the basic problem that if you sit off center stuff defined at a point within a room will wander all over the place to what ever side you are sitting in. The brute force solution is to place the actual guitar or clicky thing in the exact position in the room where it belongs and leave it there. So no matter where you sit in the room all will point to the exact same point in space.

Great dumb idea!!

Only issue is that in theory you need an infinite number of speakers decorated around the room and the wife wont like it. Aside from that you either have an infinite number of discrete digital channels driving each speaker OR you need to extrapolate the exact content of each channel with ideally no crosstalk or nasty pumping sounds.......basically an infinite number of our center channel separator software modules we use.

In a classic Dolby manner they are repeating history of using a band-aid as they did when they promoted the rotten center channel. If it does not surround, just add more channels.

Stand back and have a look at the real problem.

All is well if the user sits in the sweet spot- he can pinpoint in space all objects. The problem is if you move off center you cannot position the surround field around the room! Now let me think, I thought we had a real solution to the fundamental problem of sweet spot elimination. Its called SST (Total perspective!!!!)

Call me an idiot but it really does come down to stereo and the funky thing we do with SST. All users have remarked that they feel IN THE SCENE with our stuff.

This really frustrates me. Really dunno how to tackle it.

I say INVOLVE +SST = ATMOS less the myriad of speakers

Loving drool

Christopher Coller

10 Jul 2019, 08:30 (6 days ago)

to me, Dawson, David, Lindsay, tony, Maximilian, John, Kevin

Question as a possible response/competitor to Atmos.

Is Involve able to set the location of the speakers? So could we theoretically have users input their speaker locations (however many there are) and then set the Involve decode to suit each user's particular setup? So that way, when movies are mastered in Involve, all they do is set individual sound locations in a 360° sound field, as opposed to those individual sounds being given levels in each of the 4 speakers.

So essentially, we do Atmos, but across stereo, that might be a more effective marketing push. Plus, we also do that for older recordings not done in Involve Decode.

regards,

Charlie Chilla <[email protected]>

10 Jul 2019, 11:28 (6 days ago)

to Christopher, Dawson, David, Lindsay, tony, Maximilian, John, Kevin

Dear All

Chris's question really is at the core of the confusion I think. Again you need to get back to the fundamental philosophy of Atmos and that is you need to create an infinite number of speakers in a room separately driven by discrete sources and you deliberately steer or place instruments or objects to those mapped positions. In domestic Atmos typically you need between 6 and 9 speakers but in the end (not at the end of the day) this mapping is purely positional dependent on the available speaker placing in the room or theater. Its got little to do with the actual performance- more how the performance is delivered to the room.

Lets reduce the problem to just plain stereo. This has the same issue, stereo images great creating precise object placement in front of the central listener as if the objects are placed in those positions but if the listener moves left or right all the positioning is typically lost and lumped to the side the listener sits. You could successfully argue that you need an infinite number of speakers up front and then pin the object to the desired frontal speaker. This is kinda what Dolby did with the center channel. It was deemed that the main vocalist needs to be center positioned for all the listeners in the room , not just the the person sitting in the sweet spot. So in many ways the center channel is the most basic start of the concept of Atmos but entirely focused on one "instrument", the main vocalist.

Given it is an impracticability to create an infinite number of channels Atmos defers to a user defined number of channels/ speakers and typically synthesises the signal going to these positions based on the desired placement mapping. One of the core problems with this is that at its most basic level- separating the center channel from the stereo Left - Right signals is mathematically impossible. This is because you have 2 inputs variable that need to produce 3 output variables- it does not compute Will Robinson! So how do we/ Dolby and others separate the center channel, truth its a beat up process that makes guesses based on dominant signal magnitude. We have done probably the best job of doing so, but is a real compromise between absolute separation and nasty artifacts such as breathing, pumping and farting sounds. The same applies with every speaker decorated around the room. Now apply the same extraction/ placement algorithm to all positions around the room and the result is a potential shit sandwich that an audiophile would lose sleep over.

So getting back to Chris's point, can we create pseudo object positions around the room - the answer is why? The end aim is really not about object placement, it really is about creating a consistent sound environment to all listeners in the room. This really is what SST does, but even more when used with planar speakers such as ours, the sound intensity is constant in all positions in the room. This is what Atmos as supplied to customers today cannot do as they use conventional point source cones- if you sit close to a particular object (speaker) it will get disproportionately loud dominating the other. This just does not happen with our Y4 system.

When Dawson attended a very large Atmos style system at Technicolor in France, he remarked to me that speaker level intensity causing positional dominance was a real problem. Intrinsic to SST is the need for beamy speaker.....planar. This really solves this problem.

So my broad answer to Chris is yes we could mathematically allocate positions for sounds by an upmixing process but that is not the target. The target is creating a constant image environment for all listeners with the speakers placed in each of the 4 corners of a room - the best spot. We can simply simulate height with a tweak in the software and placing the rear speakers up high.

Result

Involve/ SST= 4 speakers

Atmos = 6 .....20 speakers

BITCH..........................Where am I wrong??


If I am right, how do we spread/ promote this???

I luv yous all

David Alexandrou

10 Jul 2019, 11:45 (6 days ago)

to me, Christopher, Dawson, Lindsay, tony, Maximilian, John, Kevin

Atmos isn't really solving the problem of sitting anywhere in a room - that's still down to the individual "Atmos" playback systems, which aren't made by Dolby. Atmos might have more potential from a production and positional perspective, but it's really not about fixing the sweet spot - it doesn't set out to solve the problem of seating, just give more flexibility to the producers and engineers making the audio tracks for said movies. Theoretically, an atmos reproduction using Sweet Spot technology would be glorious.

The advantage of Atmos to the movie industry is about changing the production and reconstruction chain from being track / channel based to being location based within an environment. Instead of an engineer having to create new mixes for the cinema, for Imax, for Bluray, for broadcast, they just create a theoretically perfect positional audio soundtrack, and then Atmos can spit out a mix on the fly that will suit whatever speaker setup the listener has. That's the point of object oriented, because then it's simple to move a sound to match the speaker instead of trying to bend sound around like we do with Involve, and requiring everyone to have a four channel setup. They essentially went to the raw power equation rather than solve the spatial equations, because we now have that amount of computing power available. Involve would be a better solution if we could get consumers to standardise, but that's pushing shit uphill.

THIS DOES NOTHING ABOUT THE SWEET SPOT AND IS NOT A COMPETITOR TO THAT. Even if they think they are, they're not. At most we could say that Involve does a better job of recreating a surround environment from a stereo track, but we are talking about a format that has one consistent 4 channel setup that is required for anyone. Atmos is a system designed to be flexible enough to work to some degree in any system setup, which means they can have a single audio description with all the sound files, and Atmos will make it fit to whatever your setup is instead of requiring you to have their setup. This does not make them better than Involve, and it doesn't actually compete with Sweet Spot in any way because, as you say, that approach requires infinite speakers.

A simpler 8-channel Atmos system with Sweet Spot would be theoretically the perfect combination, maybe with an Involve encode then decode, to enhance the ambient sound stage. For movies particularly.

For music, the Involve decode is superior because music recording is extremely unlikely to ever use Atmos. The music industry doesn't want it, and the popular music formats wouldn't be compatible. I still think this is our happy hunting ground for Involve itself.

Blah
~Bitch

Charlie Chilla <[email protected]>

10 Jul 2019, 12:15 (6 days ago)

to David, Christopher, Dawson, Lindsay, tony, Maximilian, John, Kevin

Yeah Yeah

Blah Blah, I actually get it but remember Atmos came out of our Sydney mate of Lake Technologies who were in fact working with wave field systhesis, involving a guzzillian points in space.

Where I really do lose the plot is not at the recording studio where I can accept the recording "engineer" would find it easier to define a object based environment. My issue is at the consumer end as to the need to place say 8 or whatever speakers around the room. Surely all we need is the downmixed to STEREO atmos track but post encoded in INVOLVE STEREO.

please explain!

David Alexandrou

10 Jul 2019, 12:22 (6 days ago)

to me, Christopher, Dawson, Lindsay, tony, Maximilian, John, Kevin

No, I agree at the consumer end we could kick ass, but I still think an 8 speaker setup would be the ideal. Think about how good ambisonics sounded when they output for our speaker configuration in sweet spot.

Failing that, four channel would be a great compromise, and yes, an Atmos soundtrack post-encoded into Involve stereo would be an excellent home version, and sweet spot would be a great overall industry-wide revolution. Who in Dolby would I have to fuck to get that kind of attention, I wonder?

~Bitch

Charlie Chilla <[email protected]>

10 Jul 2019, 12:26 (6 days ago)

to David, Christopher, Dawson, Lindsay, tony, Maximilian, John, Kevin

Bless you Bitch, we are as one , joined horribly at the pelvis

Charlie Chilla <[email protected]>

12 Jul 2019, 12:45 (4 days ago)

to David, Christopher, Dawson, Lindsay, tony, Maximilian, John, Kevin

Observe my point, all the consumer press basically talks about the improved 3D surround experience Atmos offers, not about the record end where it is useful.

https://www.trustedreviews.com/opinion/dolby-atmos-2942509

https://www.techradar.com/best/best-dolby-atmos-speaker-guide

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-...-sound-guide-different-formats-explained/?amp

 

[Lynn Olson]

What gets lost in all the home theater noise is the cinema experience doesn’t reliably create phantom images, for the simple reason that nearly all the seats in the theater are off-center. Thus, more speakers are always better, because physical speakers CAN be localized by any location in the theater, regardless of location. It’s the reason that theaters have had a Center speaker for dialog, going back to the 1950’s, and 5 speakers behind the screen isn’t that uncommon. It fills in the gaps.

The “immersive” experience in a small to large domestic living room is something completely different, and takes advantage of phantom images and controlled listening locations. This was noticed in the earliest days of stereo sound ... that 2 speaker playback sounds far better than it should, thanks to phantoms, and that 3-speaker stereo doesn’t always sound better or more immersive .. it sounds more “centered” for dialog, but not much else.

So the cinema and domestic experience are fundamentally different, due to the size of the listening space, different requirements for cinema playback, and a profoundly different spatial impression in a living room with music playback. There’s overlap in the crude sense that 5.1 sound is the market standard for HDTV and 4K, but music isn’t necessarily best served by 5.1 playback. In fact, very few music recordings are released in that format, despite the ubiquity of 5.1 home theater systems. 5.1, 7.1, and Atmos are home theater ghettos, reserved for soundtracks, with fidelity, much less immersion, a very distant third compared to cost and convenience.

Where modern matrix systems come in is providing a bridge between the two isolated worlds of audio, a much better solution than the very outdated Dolby Pro-Logic II, which was no great shakes 25 years ago, never mind now. Home theater systems, as funky as they are, could offer much better musical satisfaction than they do now. Some of the popularity of the soundbars is because an expensive (and quickly obsolete) receiver + 5.1 speakers is rightly seen as a giant hassle to set up and not all that good for 2-channel music playback. The complex and expensive 5.1 system is really only good for one thing ... movie playback, and the much greater hassle of Atmos, involving room modification at great expense, limits the market to the projector-screen crowd with dedicated movie rooms.

The sticking point are the receiver manufacturers, who are locked into long-term contracts with Dolby, DTS, and Audyssey. It’s significant that the much superior Dirac Live auto-EQ system is only offered by very small specialist manufacturers such as NAD and Cambridge Audio, and is ignored by the Denon/Marantz/Onkyo behemoths, who appear to be locked into contracts with the Big Three, and are not willing to move.

I’m not sure what the solution is, although it would seem like an attractive money-making proposition for the record companies, with a more obvious selling point than high-resolution, which few can hear, and fewer will pay for. Maybe a record company allied with a specialist receiver manufacturer ... and, unlike Atmos, a modern digital-matrix system offers 100% up/down compatibility with the existing 2-channel catalog, and no crazy requirement for ceiling speakers.

But I admit this is a tough sell. Look at all the difficulties of the MQA promoters, which is a clever intelligent compression system to compatibly squeeze 192/24 into a 48/24 transmission channel, using data coded into the least significant bits to program the DAC on the fly. It is attacked on both sides, by die-hard defenders of the Red Book CD standard (Perfect Sound forever), and by high-rez purists. Neither camp agree with each other, but they both attack MQA. Matrix systems have the same PR problem, with the discrete camp attacking, while ignoring the immense back catalog of existing 2-channel music.

 

[Lynn Olson]

I think it's instructive to look at both MQA and Dirac Live to see how the "little guys" are doing in the greater audio markets. Both have superior technology that do interesting things, but have been ignored or outright attacked by the industry pundits. The only way they have survived has been by building alliances with other industry players ... TIDAL in the case of MQA, and miniDSP (Taiwan) and a small group of UK manufacturers for Dirac Live. The A/V magazines, mainstream high-end magazines, and the Japanese consortiums have no use for either technology; they've gone for the licensing packages that are promoted by the movie-industry leaders (Dolby et al).

It's reached the point that even mid-priced receivers carry the additional power amps required for Atmos support, which degrades the quality of the remaining 5.1 channels that 90% of the customers are going to actually use. What receivers need is a simple bypass switch that mutes the internal power amps and a set of pre-outs that have 2V rms output without gross distortion (this allows audiophile-grade power amps to be easily added to the system). Do they offer even that? Nope.

The consumer is forced into buying unwanted Atmos technology if they want a modern receiver with the latest features. Can they bypass the internal amps? Not unless they spring for a very expensive pre-pro, which costs the same as a top-of-the-line all-in-one receiver (with Atmos).

Dolby appears to be in the driver's seat. If Dolby says XYZ tech is going to be the industry standard, it will, whether people want it or not. The economies of scale require that receivers be made in China or Vietnam, and the Dolby/DTS/Audyssey technology packages are only offered to large-scale manufacturers who can buy the mandatory chipsets in large quantities.

Unless the consumer chases down small UK manufacturers like NAD ... which then turn out to have software compatibility gremlins .. they have a choice between the Japanese behemoths, $10,000 or higher small-run US manufacturers, or a soundbar. That's it.

The 2-channel market is far more diverse for the simple reason that no proprietary licensed technology is required. No HDMI, with its $10,000 annual licensing fee and special chipset. No Dolby. No DTS. No Audyssey. None of that crap. The vendor is free to use any DAC, any FPGA, any programming, and any analog tech they like, from tubes to bipolar transistors to FETs and MOSFETs. This is very different than the lockstep technology of the home theater market, where a product cannot be sold without HDMI, Dolby, or DTS licensed technology and licensed, closed-source chipsets.

 

[gene_stl]

MQA seems to me, to be very similar to the things you are decrying here. It requires enccoding and"proprietary licensed" decoders and is a solution looking for a problem. (bandwidth is almost free these days) I didn't like Dolby when they put it on cassette recorders (mostly didn't like nor ever permanently, own a "hi-fi" cassette recorder) and I will never ever buy anything, hardware nor software that carries an MQA logo.

It has seemed to me since I first learned of it and read of the controversies associated with it, that it is mainly a schema to skim money away from consumers. If you don't have the decoder you drop back to a lower quality. There are people more interested in the topic than I who can't agree on whether it is lossless or not.

I mostly take my opinion on the topic from Dr. AIX Mark Waldrep.

The two channel world also has problems much greater than MQA. Since an entire two channel audio system can be assembled at extreme quality but very low price (and corresponding profitability) the two channel world has fallen into the clutches of the snake oil guys and it will be extremely difficult
to recover it. They are busy peddling cable trestles, speaker spikes , turntable weights over priced cables etc etc etc. And generally non big box pricing is predatory.

 

[chucky3042]

What gets lost in all the home theater noise is the cinema experience doesn’t reliably create phantom images, for the simple reason that nearly all the seats in the theater are off-center. Thus, more speakers are always better, because physical speakers CAN be localized by any location in the theater, regardless of location. It’s the reason that theaters have had a Center speaker for dialog, going back to the 1950’s, and 5 speakers behind the screen isn’t that uncommon. It fills in the gaps.

The “immersive” experience in a small to large domestic living room is something completely different, and takes advantage of phantom images and controlled listening locations. This was noticed in the earliest days of stereo sound ... that 2 speaker playback sounds far better than it should, thanks to phantoms, and that 3-speaker stereo doesn’t always sound better or more immersive .. it sounds more “centered” for dialog, but not much else.

So the cinema and domestic experience are fundamentally different, due to the size of the listening space, different requirements for cinema playback, and a profoundly different spatial impression in a living room with music playback. There’s overlap in the crude sense that 5.1 sound is the market standard for HDTV and 4K, but music isn’t necessarily best served by 5.1 playback. In fact, very few music recordings are released in that format, despite the ubiquity of 5.1 home theater systems. 5.1, 7.1, and Atmos are home theater ghettos, reserved for soundtracks, with fidelity, much less immersion, a very distant third compared to cost and convenience.

Where modern matrix systems come in is providing a bridge between the two isolated worlds of audio, a much better solution than the very outdated Dolby Pro-Logic II, which was no great shakes 25 years ago, never mind now. Home theater systems, as funky as they are, could offer much better musical satisfaction than they do now. Some of the popularity of the soundbars is because an expensive (and quickly obsolete) receiver + 5.1 speakers is rightly seen as a giant hassle to set up and not all that good for 2-channel music playback. The complex and expensive 5.1 system is really only good for one thing ... movie playback, and the much greater hassle of Atmos, involving room modification at great expense, limits the market to the projector-screen crowd with dedicated movie rooms.

The sticking point are the receiver manufacturers, who are locked into long-term contracts with Dolby, DTS, and Audyssey. It’s significant that the much superior Dirac Live auto-EQ system is only offered by very small specialist manufacturers such as NAD and Cambridge Audio, and is ignored by the Denon/Marantz/Onkyo behemoths, who appear to be locked into contracts with the Big Three, and are not willing to move.

I’m not sure what the solution is, although it would seem like an attractive money-making proposition for the record companies, with a more obvious selling point than high-resolution, which few can hear, and fewer will pay for. Maybe a record company allied with a specialist receiver manufacturer ... and, unlike Atmos, a modern digital-matrix system offers 100% up/down compatibility with the existing 2-channel catalog, and no crazy requirement for ceiling speakers.

But I admit this is a tough sell. Look at all the difficulties of the MQA promoters, which is a clever intelligent compression system to compatibly squeeze 192/24 into a 48/24 transmission channel, using data coded into the least significant bits to program the DAC on the fly. It is attacked on both sides, by die-hard defenders of the Red Book CD standard (Perfect Sound forever), and by high-rez purists. Neither camp agree with each other, but they both attack MQA. Matrix systems have the same PR problem, with the discrete camp attacking, while ignoring the immense back catalog of existing 2-channel music.

Hi Lynn

Great comment!
In regard to the imperative to have a multitude of speakers to effectively create multiple sound positions so that you can sit anywhere.......Have you explored our SST (Sweet Spot Technology)? We have patented it, the effect is to stabilise the stereo image or sound stage for all listener in the room with just the standard stereo frontal speakers?

Regards

Chucky

 

[gene_stl]

I feel like I should clarify, that I don't inherently object to licensed proprietary encoder decoder schemes, IFF they actually do something, like say
the Involve system, which I hope to purchase in the future.

 

[Lynn Olson]

Whether you love or hate MQA or Dirac Live (and both are proprietary), they are examples of little guys that don’t get no respect in the mainstream of 2 channel or multichannel audio. Chucky, our gracious host, is in the same position. He ain’t Dolby. He ain’t a high-circulation audiophile or A/V website or magazine. The Involve encode/decode system is a marvelous bridge between the isolated worlds of 2 channel and multichannel audio ... but the challenge is rising above deeply entrenched prejudices in both worlds.

* The audiophiles, who drive the 2 channel market (whether you agree or not), consider multichannel to be lo-fi home theater trash, only a small step above soundbars and Bluetooth speakers (which is where the real market is).

* The A/V guys look up to $10,000 projection rigs and dedicated theater rooms with Atmos in the ceiling. 2 channel music playback is certainly possible in an A/V room (with a darkened screen), but it’s not really what A/V rooms are for. They are small movie theaters, and optimized for modern movies with soundtracks ranging from Dolby Digital (generic streaming content) to Atmos (from max quality sources). People do not spend the big bucks on these kinds of systems to listen to upmixed 2 channel content .. it’s an afterthought, not the primary purpose of the system. It’s a movie theater.

Multichannel music playback, in a modern 95% digital context, is a niche of a niche, and well outside the two previous business models. More seriously, it is held in contempt by *both* segments of the audio market, and breaking through the psychological resistance is a non-trivial exercise. It was difficult enough for quad to get a foothold 45 years ago, and despite the existence of tens of millions of A/V systems, when people listen to Spotify or Tidal, as often as not, it’s listened to in straight 2 channel or stale Dolby Pro-Logic (because that’s the default receiver setting).

It would be awesome if the Involve technology would be licensed by Dolby and become a worldwide standard on most receivers going forward. But ... that’s a long shot. Maybe as feature offered by one of the US niche manufacturers? Possibly. Or maybe as a studio technology to enhance the sound of commercial recordings in a 100% compatible way?

 

[MidiMagic]

A properly designed surround system should have these properties:

1. It should work for any seat in the house
2. It should work no matter which way the listener is facing
3. It should solve the side image problem

Soundbars and other synthesizing systems that create a "surround" image with only two speakers go totally flat if the person turns his head sideways to the speakers.

I built such a system in an auditorium in 1971. It used the original Dynaco diamond.

The original Dolby Surround also mostly has these properties.

Discrete does not have these properties no matter how "discreet" (get a dictionary).

What I do not understand is why the new systems do not work as well as these did.

 

[mlrocker]

so What about independent labels, what's it cost for them to start putting out their products with Involve Stereo?

 

[chucky3042]

so What about independent labels, what's it cost for them to start putting out their products with Involve Stereo?

License + chips say around $15 as the rest of the tech will already be in their equipment

 

[ssully]

Modern AVRs rarely offer Dolby Pro Logic at all anymore....it's now the Dolby Surround Upmixer , which purports to be a different technology (primarily, it seems, to allow upmixing to Atmos configurations). For upmixing 2 channel music, in my room(s), listening in plain old 5.1 (or 5.2) it works, but hasn't been as good (or configurable) as plain old DPL II was.

MQA is nonsense, an extension of the 'hi rez' flooby Bob Stuart has been pushing for *decades* (going all the way back to his controversial, and very thinly documented re: audibility, white paper/JAES article on the need for high resolution audio at the consumer end) . MQA has been as well debunked as a proprietary system can be, despite actually attaining (at least for awhile) rather impressive market partners for a 'small time' outfit. And despite being touted by the usual 'leet audio suspects ((Stereophile, TAS).....

I've heard enough disappointing surround remixes, and enough enjoyable upmixes via the 'very outdated' DPL II', to not treat remixes as holy grail, and not be put off at all by the idea of upmixing 2 channel. But it seems rather curmudgeonly to keep dismissing the multichannel remix market here, of all places. (And FWIW, Stereophile to its credit employs multichannel champion Kal Rubinson, showing respect rather than contempt for these 'niche' releases)

 

[jaybird100]

What about the autosound industry? Imagine Involve technology, applied to listening in the car... it would be amazing!

 

[chucky3042]

What about the autosound industry? Imagine Involve technology, applied to listening in the car... it would be amazing!

Hi Jaybird 100
Yep several people have done that including our Chris and the results are great. We actually sent a prototype auto unit to the USA and no reports yet as to what they have done (I think its caught up in the mess left after our USA distributor died).

One issue is that it does take years from getting the nod from a car maker to install some tech till it finally hits the market and you get some royalties. The retrofit market is very dispersed and difficult to connect with for a small company located down in the arse end of the world.

It really does come down to connections and we are a bit shabby in that department. There is a bit of a buzz happening in some corners of the pro recording world via MIT in the USA with various groups standardising and training on the Involve encoder, particilarly in the gaming world, so there is some hope.

 

[jaybird100]

Hi Jaybird 100
Yep several people have done that including our Chris and the results are great. We actually sent a prototype auto unit to the USA and no reports yet as to what they have done (I think its caught up in the mess left after our USA distributor died).

One issue is that it does take years from getting the nod from a car maker to install some tech till it finally hits the market and you get some royalties. The retrofit market is very dispersed and difficult to connect with for a small company located down in the arse end of the world.

It really does come down to connections and we are a bit shabby in that department. There is a bit of a buzz happening in some corners of the pro recording world via MIT in the USA with various groups standardising and training on the Involve encoder, particilarly in the gaming world, so there is some hope.

Have any aftermarket car stereo manufacturers shown interest in including Involve circuitry in their head units? Even the factory-installed auto sound systems could be interested in this. My 2016 Honda HR-V has a great sounding system, but it would be even better with surround.

 

[chucky3042]

Have any aftermarket car stereo manufacturers shown interest in including Involve circuitry in their head units? Even the factory-installed auto sound systems could be interested in this. My 2016 Honda HR-V has a great sounding system, but it would be even better with surround.

Up, but it is on our marketing to do list. In short our budget is so tight that we do not have anyone on it at the moment but i fully agree

 

[furui_suterioo]

I just tested the Involve decoder in my car today for the first time, it is definitely impressive. I played stereo as well as QS encoded material, it works perfectly.

 

[chucky3042]

Issue in cars is hum and noise related to grounding. We incorporated isolation transformers in our demo unit