(1972) Matrix encoded CD-4 (proposal)

[gvl_guy]

I posted a comment over in RadioDiscussions.com about checking the Mono Downmix
of new Stereo recordings (due to Smartphone/"Alexa" Mono listening), they didn't think
it was that important.


Kirk Bayne

If you think about it, if you're listening to your music over a little speaker, the mix probably doesn't matter.

 

[jaybird100]

We now all listen to music in mono by saying, "Alexa, play xxxxx on Spotify."

Wurly, there's your reason. It all comes down to convenience. I, myself, prefer the older means of audio reproduction, but I've foregone tape in favor of CD's. Cassettes and 8-tracks can be devoured by hungry players, while that doesn't happen, at least that much, with CD's. And vinyl is still very much a part of my listening.

 

[gvl_guy]

If you think about it, if you're listening to your music over a little speaker, the mix probably doesn't matter.

Actually, I need to correct that. I've posted this before but....
I ran a suburban NYC FM radio station. I brought in my personal QS copy of Steely Dan with Do It Again and put it on cart to play on air. An executive from Arista Records in Manhattan used to listen to us on his mono clock radio on his desk. He called me one day to find out what version of Do It Again we were playing. The vocal was gone!

 

[Wagonmaster_91]

I think some of The Mamas and The Papas songs were recorded with the vocals purposely out of phase to spread them out in the stereo soundfield ("Monday Monday" comes to mind), but when played in mono the vocals are cancelled out.

 

[MidiMagic]

I agree. I went to try to buy some old-style components and they don't sell them anymore.

Note that many of those old brands we knew were bought by Asian companies when the original companies went out of business. They are not the same companies.

 

[MidiMagic]

So, you're saying that, if only the manufacturers would have concentrated on selling those expensive reel-to-reel machines, quad would have been a success. Right.

Doug

I am saying that we probably would not have had quad then. There would have been more home studio equipment (where the real demand was). We would have either used the Dynaco diamond or waited until Dolby Surround appeared in Star Wars.

My complaint back then was the same one I have now. There are too many incompatible systems, upgrades, and changes.

 

[MidiMagic]

Answering 2 items:

A shorter wavelength (playback) laser would allow a wider bandwidth on CDs.
(IIRC, Louis Dorren stated that the Vinyl LP can store frequencies up to 90kHz)



I have an HD radio, 1190 AM used HD (HD was in 1180 and 1200 frequencies),
at night, 50kW 1200 AM WOAI in Texas interfered with the upper sideband.
One FM HD station rebroadcasts an AM talk radio station but sets the data
rate too low resulting an "underwater/burbling" sound.

I have listened to a few of the FM HD signals thru my Dolby Surround system,
generally FM Stereo content doesn't have much surround content though.


Kirk Bayne

A shorter wavelength laser CD is a DVD or a Blu-Ray.

I hear Dolby Surround all the time when I watch TV. Many programs are in surround sound and the commercials are also in surround sound. I send the analog outputs of the cable box into my Pro Logic II decoder.

I also mostly gave up tape. Most of the tapes I collected over the years have disintegrated. Only the TDK ones survived. I am using mainly CDs, DVDs, and records.

 

[par4ken]

I am saying that we probably would not have had quad then. There would have been more home studio equipment (where the real demand was). We would have either used the Dynaco diamond or waited until Dolby Surround appeared in Star Wars.

My complaint back then was the same one I have now. There are too many incompatible systems, upgrades, and changes.

I don't understand your fondness for Dolby surround or even PL2, none sound any good on music!

 

[Doug G.]

I am saying that we probably would not have had quad then. There would have been more home studio equipment (where the real demand was). We would have either used the Dynaco diamond or waited until Dolby Surround appeared in Star Wars.

My complaint back then was the same one I have now. There are too many incompatible systems, upgrades, and changes.

OK, thanks for 'splaining.

Doug

 

[jaybird100]

I think some of The Mamas and The Papas songs were recorded with the vocals purposely out of phase to spread them out in the stereo soundfield ("Monday Monday" comes to mind), but when played in mono the vocals are cancelled out.

I've played The Mamas and The Papas (one of my favorite groups) through the Surround Master... it sounds nearly discrete. If you have their "16 Greatest Hits" CD. try it.

 

[MidiMagic]

I don't understand your fondness for Dolby surround or even PL2, none sound any good on music!

They are the only ones that provide a seamless surround field. These solve the side imaging problem. The others do not.

They sound good to me. The original Dolby Surround has a limited bandwidth on the back, but not PL and PL2. And I like to listen to classical with hall ambience.

I do not like discrete because (as one writer proclaimed) the sound gathers into "puddles around the speakers" with nothing between.

I also have QS, SQ, EV-4 EV-U, and both Dynaco systems.

 

[jaybird100]

They are the only ones that provide a seamless surround field. These solve the side imaging problem. The others do not.

They sound good to me. The original Dolby Surround has a limited bandwidth on the back, but not PL and PL2. And I like to listen to classical with hall ambience.

I do not like discrete because (as one writer proclaimed) the sound gathers into "puddles around the speakers" with nothing between.

I also have QS, SQ, EV-4 EV-U, and both Dynaco systems.

You're right that the original Dolby Surround had restricted bandwidth in the rear, but so did the first generation Pro Logic. Pro Logic II removed that restriction, along with restoring separation across the rear speakers. The first Pro Logic also introduced the dedicated center channel.

 

[Soundfield]

The first Pro Logic also introduced the dedicated center channel.

Another good reason to hate it!

 

[jaybird100]

Another good reason to hate it!

Agreed!

 

[Doug G.]

I am saying that we probably would not have had quad then. There would have been more home studio equipment (where the real demand was). We would have either used the Dynaco diamond or waited until Dolby Surround appeared in Star Wars.

My complaint back then was the same one I have now. There are too many incompatible systems, upgrades, and changes.

In my opinion, it's worse, now.

Doug

 

[kfbkfb]

Have been watching (actually recording w/VHS HiFi VCR) several of the Dolby Surround
encoded TV shows on Comet TV produced in the mid-1990s to mid-2000s (Andromeda,
Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Outer Limits). Placing sounds specifically in the Surround
channel is only done a few times/episode.


Kirk Bayne