1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
- Apr 9, 2012
Yes this is why I spent so much time looking for a good hole to split the bands to maximize the benefits of doing so, yet minimising any downsides of smear. I think we have been successful. The issue is most music is not one instrument/ vocalist in one position and a single band decoder will always struggle. Another factor is the magnitude of the signal basically is inversely proportional to frequency and to ensure equal "weighing" of the signals direction you must take that into account along with the Fletcher Munson human hearing loudness perception. Meaning even though a bass note at say 50 Hz has a way bigger amplitude than a 3 kHz tone chances are the sound will be steered by the lower magnitude 3 kHz tone. Again multiband give you more flexibility on that issue.Chucky, It's too bad that the tests weren't done with a properly functioning and adjusted QSD-1. However I know that the Involve produces higher separation values in any case. As you said music does not consist of simultaneous continuous tones, which is in part is why I prefer single band decoding. By my logic If a channel or track is supposed to be in one location but due to tri-band processing it's split by frequency between several output channels, the sound image will be smeared. I've heard this happen with the QSD-1. Also I reason that if more frequency bands are employed any shifting or smearing should be more gradual, thus less noticeable. I often think of attempts to create stereo from mono by feeding the bass to one speaker and the treble to another, not the best method.