Just ordered the Involve Surround Master!

[Soundfield]

And I know your question is an honest one. I don't understand it either. I mean, I wish I could hear one of these. Maybe they simply blow away any processing an AVR can do. I have no clue. If they can, then I'd be very curious....

The simple answer is yes, absolutely, as a very happy owner of this remarkable device, I can confirm that the Involve SM is the best and only modern way to accurately decode and hence faithfully reproduce SQ or QS material. If you are interested you only have to take the briefest look at the pages of information on this site devoted to how it works and to realise the satisfaction of its users. I know of no fiddling about ("up-mixing"?) that any AVR might do that can even remotely approximate to proper decoding of these quad formats (and why should they, these formats were obsolete before the designers of "AVR"s were born?!)

 

[fredblue]

Songs in the key of life sounds great on SM

Innervisions & Talking Book are even better imho!

 

[Scott65]

Innervisions & Talking Book are even better imho!

sounds like I might have to acquire those two discs

 

[karlkastner]

AC/DC in Soundmaster sim surround! In the sweet spot, you are part of the rythym section.

 

[himey]

Innervisions & Talking Book are even better imho!

Have you compared the Surround Master to a SpecWeb conversion? Not for truly encoded stuff of course, but for standard stereo like the two you mentioned.

 

[fredblue]

Have you compared the Surround Master to a SpecWeb conversion? Not for truly encoded stuff of course, but for standard stereo like the two you mentioned.

I'm not 100% sure but I don't think so. I have tried both albums thru PLII Music and they give a good surround effect via that method also.

 

[himey]

I'm not 100% sure but I don't think so. I have tried both albums thru PLII Music and they give a good surround effect via that method also.

Sorry but PL II is very inferior to SpecWeb. Not really even close from my experience. Not really a fair comparison doing on the fly upmixing vs SpecWeb however.

 

[Soundfield]

I’ve never been a fan of fake surround however it is generated. If it was recorded and envisaged in stereo I’d rather leave it that way. Even if initially impressed by the whizz-bangery such up-mixing (and what a technically ghastly term that is!) often seems to cause, I’m never really happy knowing that it wasn’t what was actually recorded or intended. But then I’m just a hi-fi dinosaur of course, and as such I certainly can’t be bothered to go to all of the faff of having to create such effects by conversion of files on my computer!

 

[himey]

I’ve never been a fan of fake surround however it is generated. If it was recorded and envisaged in stereo I’d rather leave it that way. Even if initially impressed by the whizz-bangery such up-mixing (and what a technically ghastly term that is!) often seems to cause, I’m never really happy knowing that it wasn’t what was actually recorded or intended. But then I’m just a hi-fi dinosaur of course, and as such I certainly can’t be bothered to go to all of the faff of having to create such effects by conversion of files on my computer!

That was my stance for many years. Playing around with SpecWeb changed my opinion of some upmixing. There has to be at least two factors to make a good upmix. First is the proper genre. Second is a wide stereo recording with "proper" phase.

Only a small percentage of upmixes work well. I am critical and I delete the ones I make that don't sound good. Basically the stars must align perfectly to get the results I am looking for.

 

[timbre4]

I’ve never been a fan of fake surround however it is generated. If it was recorded and envisaged in stereo I’d rather leave it that way. Even if initially impressed by the whizz-bangery such up-mixing (and what a technically ghastly term that is!) often seems to cause, I’m never really happy knowing that it wasn’t what was actually recorded or intended. But then I’m just a hi-fi dinosaur of course, and as such I certainly can’t be bothered to go to all of the faff of having to create such effects by conversion of files on my computer!

I don’t think anyone here suggested Upmixing techniques as a substitute for Accurate decoding. These are two separate things.

The comparison is about methods of synthesis of quad or surround fields, whether on the fly with SM or desktop processing via SPECweb.

Quad synthesis of stereo material has been with us since devices like the Dynaco Quadaptor appeared in 1971.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fredblue]

Sorry but PL II is very inferior to SpecWeb. Not really even close from my experience. Not really a fair comparison doing on the fly upmixing vs SpecWeb however.

no need to be sorry, its all good and i'm always open to new experiences, including this SpecWeb of which you speak

 

[fredblue]

I don’t think anyone here suggested Upmixing techniques as a substitute for Accurate decoding. These are two separate things.

The comparison is about methods of synthesis of quad or surround fields, whether on the fly with SM or desktop processing via SPECweb.

Quad synthesis of stereo material has been with us since devices like the Dynaco Quadaptor appeared in 1971.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this sums up my feelings somewhat.

something's not been mixed in Quad/5.1 what is one to do?
"work like hell and synthesize"..!

whether that is via some software method or some piece of hardware its all only ever going to be some form of manipulation of 2 channels of music into some form
of synthesized multichannel.

in an ideal world, i'd rather the proverbial "everything" were in discrete multichannel but as this is not the case alternatives are sought in those (all too numerous) instances where there is no Quad/5.1 mix available.

 

[fredblue]

That was my stance for many years. Playing around with SpecWeb changed my opinion of some upmixing. There has to be at least two factors to make a good upmix. First is the proper genre. Second is a wide stereo recording with "proper" phase.

Only a small percentage of upmixes work well. I am critical and I delete the ones I make that don't sound good. Basically the stars must align perfectly to get the results I am looking for.

I'm unclear about the "genre" bit of criteria needed to concoct a good faux surround result using the likes of SpecWeb etc., do you mean Rock/Pop material gives more impressive results than Classical music?

fwiw I've noticed wide sounding recordings with noticeable depth to them in Stereo, together with out of phase stuff etc going on, don't seem to be bad things when playing around with PLII or the Surround Master's Involve mode so it's interesting to hear they help SpecWeb do its thing too.

 

[Soundfield]

something's not been mixed in Quad/5.1 what is one to do?
"work like hell and synthesize"..!

One could always just leave well alone!

 

[fredblue]

One could always just leave well alone

to upmix or not to upmix..
each to his own!

 

[himey]

I'm unclear about the "genre" bit of criteria needed to concoct a good faux surround result using the likes of SpecWeb etc., do you mean Rock/Pop material gives more impressive results than Classical music?

fwiw I've noticed wide sounding recordings with noticeable depth to them in Stereo, together with out of phase stuff etc going on, don't seem to be bad things when playing around with PLII or the Surround Master's Involve mode so it's interesting to hear they help SpecWeb do its thing too.

Simple answer is expecting an improvement with a simple three piece band or a singer playing piano is asking too much for an upmix imo. Music from Beck or Bjork works better. More going on and electronic "quirkiness" can be expanded in a pleasing way. Don't forget criteria two, a wide stereo soundstage with proper phase. Their Satanic Majesties Request fits the genre perfectly but the phase issues make it sound bad. Another one that fits both my criteria is Roger Waters Is This The Life We Really Want. Lots going on in the background that gets magically routed to the rears.

A true discrete multichannel mix doesn't have the genre limitation. A good mix can improve any type of music, if done properly of course.

I don't get any improvement using upmixes with standard rock bands. A lot of times the music just doesn't spread out properly. The production in the studio just doesn't lend itself to the treatment. As I mentioned before, the stars really have to align to really make you say, this sounds amazing, but it can happen.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

I don't get any improvement using upmixes with standard rock bands. A lot of times the music just doesn't spread out properly. The production in the studio just doesn't lend itself to the treatment. As I mentioned before, the stars really have to align to really make you say, this sounds amazing, but it can happen.

I found the same thing, up until, I recently experienced Auro-matic. Yes, it’s an up mixer, but one that gets it right.

 

[HomerJAU]

I have a lot of great stereo music that's never been released in MCH. I also have a lot of speakers (7.2) and want to listen to music spread around me using at least 5.1.

I can use my AVR to upmix (currently prefer the DTS X method): Results are consistently pleasing but not as good as the best SpecWeb upmixes
I have used SpecWeb but it's hit and miss, pretty low hit ratio so I don't use it much at all. Some mixes do sound pretty good but I still hear artefacts in the surrounds that drive me nuts on some. Hence hit ratio maybe 1 in 10 and me not using it much anymore.
Surround Master Involve Mode: I'm hoping this may do a better job than my AVR but not heard anything from one yet to compare directly with the two methods above.

 

[himey]

to upmix or not to upmix..
each to his own!

I have recently dragged out a few pieces of gear from the back of my closet and set up a near field stereo system. A very different listening experience but still nice. So much good stuff in stereo that will never be remixed to multichannel that must be heard. Doesn't replace my multichannel but complements it very well.

Audio Alchemy preamp
NAD 7155 for phono preamp duties and AM/FM
Conrad-Johnson MF-80 amp
Hand built two way's with Vifa drivers (two 5 1/4, one inch dome)
B&O Beogram RX turntable

 

[humprof]

I have a lot of great stereo music that's never been released in MCH. I also have a lot of speakers (7.2) and want to listen to music spread around me using at least 5.1.

I can use my AVR to upmix (currently prefer the DTS X method): Results are consistently pleasing but not as good as the best SpecWeb upmixes
I have used SpecWeb but it's hit and miss, pretty low hit ratio so I don't use it much at all. Some mixes do sound pretty good but I still hear artefacts in the surrounds that drive me nuts on some. Hence hit ratio maybe 1 in 10 and me not using it much anymore.
Surround Master Involve Mode: I'm hoping this may do a better job than my AVR but not heard anything from one yet to compare directly with the two methods above.

I don't think upmixing and "leaving well enough alone" are mutually exclusive propositions; as himey says, it depends on the recording. I don't use SpecWeb or own a SurroundMaster, but I've stumbled on a handful of upmixes (mostly by PoRFiN, DKA, EoH, and Holland123) that sound so good I've abandoned the stereo originals. That said: like HomerJAU, when I do listen in stereo, I don't want to waste all those speakers, and I still like to have the music spread around me. For that, the "All-Channel Stereo" mode on my AVR works just fine.