A Disaster - Stereo better than Fake Surround?

[kfbkfb]

I've recently been playing a few of my old VHS Hi-Fi stereo music videos w/Hafler/DynaQuad fake surround, my copy of:
https://www.discogs.com/release/3799638-Janet-Jackson-Control-The-Videoshas a muffled sounding Hi-Fi soundtrack [linear audio track sounds ok] (I got the tape in 1986 but didn't get a Hi-Fi VCR until 1987, so no chance of an exchange).

The muffled sound quality greatly limits the surround effect, so much so that listening in stereo is preferred.


Anyone else found any stereo content that sounds better in stereo instead of being processed through devices to create fake surround sound (no logic matrix decoder, variable matrix logic decoder, perhaps some upmixing software)?


Kirk Bayne

 

[jimfisheye]

100% of the time for me.

 

[coolerking101]

I agree with Jimfisheye. I find most upmixed/processor created surround to be inferior to the Stereo mix. It is for this very reason that I went out and bought the BACCH4Mac. I know there are many here who disagree and enjoy upmixed/processor created surround, so I'm sure they can chime in.

 

[kfbkfb]

In recent years, I prefer the minimalist approach to creating fake surround - the Hafler method (line level or speakers level) creates 1 surround channel without altering the stereo.


Kirk Bayne

 

[stoopid]

Anyone else found any stereo content that sounds better in stereo instead of being processed through devices to create fake surround sound (no logic matrix decoder, variable matrix logic decoder, perhaps some upmixing software)?

99% of my 2 channel music gets played through 2 speakers (or 2.1 which my HT receiver creates for me based on my crossover settings). Some stereo mixes improve with the added fake soundstage, but almost as many do not, so I can't be bothered.

 

[Electric Moo]

I generally adhere to:

Stereo mixes through a stereo system

Multichannel mixes through a multichannel system

Although there are many cool surprises you can get. Tangerine Dream's "Zeit" sounds awesome through the Surroundmaster.

 

[jimfisheye]

I'm sure there are isolated cases of success. Even if I can't think of a good example right now. I mean success where someone really managed to separate something intentionally to the nth degree with no artifacts.

Or you might hit on something good on the surface but the ultimate fidelity is still reduced at best. You can turn up a stereo mix and hear a lot sometimes especially if it's left more natural and not loudness slammed. That lower level detail gets mutilated by the science tricks if you go too far. This is all when you are aiming for a specific result with an upmix.

Then there's the twiddle the knob devices and plugins. If/when it sounds right, it is right. Can't very well tell someone that the thing they just made sound awesome to themself sucks! I guess I'm compelled to suggest turning up the original unmolested stereo and see if you don't hear more. I'm putting a lot of weight on wanting to hear a mix as the musicians and engineer intended.

Treating a mix as a raw source to create a final work from is what mastering is all about to begin with. Extending that to upmixing can make sense. If it works out anyway. The consumer creating random alterations? Don't people already accuse audiophiles of "playing our expensive system using music" rather than listening to the music itself?

 

[barfle]

IMNSHO, play what you like the way you like. I often prefer sound coming at me from all directions, but there are times when it just ain’t right.

Back when my quad serup was a stereo plus Sony SQD1000 plus a second amp and speakers, I almost always ran everything through the decoder, and I usually liked the effect, even though it wasn’t necessarily the “artist’s intent.”

I don’t necessarily find that “discrete” instrument and voice placement is pleasing, either. Some of that Phil Spector “wall of sound” effect is just what it ought to sound like, even if it’s actually mono.

So, as in so much in life, “It depends.”

 

[Aging quadie]

It depends on the year of recording. Material recorded before 1968 on three- and four-track machines generally have extreme stereo mixes that rarely benefit from quad processing. The earliest stereo releases of small ensembles overemphasize the center channel, often throwing the music off-balance. In those cases, the surround process distracts from the music itself. I often prefer listening to mono mixes from the late fifties and early sixties, sometimes via the "fat mono" mode in a Hughes SRS processor.

 

[kfbkfb]

aside: (article about the Hughes SRS device)

https://books.google.com/books?id=_...&resnum=7&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kirk Bayne

 

[par4ken]

I NEVER EVER play stereo as plain old stereo (unless I have to i.e. no decoder available). I have never found a single case of stereo sounding better when not enhanced by the S&IC! Sansui QS Surround produces a very similar effect. I state it once again (and yes I am preaching) it is like listening to stereo through a magnifying glass! You can hear details in the mix that go largely unnoticed in plain old two speaker stereo! Placing the back speakers more to the sides, rather than behind works very well with stereo enhanced in this manner.

Involve too does a good job of enhancement but really could benefit from an added surround mode. Dolby is terrible! Vintage decoders vary greatly in their derived surround effect. People listening via poor decoders is the whole reason for this thread! The general premise is rubbish!

As for less is more, I always liked the sound of the original Audionics SQ decoder. It used no form of logic enhancement at all. It used a six pole filter at a time when four pole was common. I found a Connaught SQ decoder for sale awhile ago. It is the same as the Audionics 106C, only black instead of silver and it is flipped upside down. Connaught actually built those early decoders for Audionics. I've recently been giving it a spin via the speakers place around my workbench.

I purchased it mainly for nostalgia reasons. It helps me to remember just what things sounded like in the mid seventies. For stereo the stereo stays upfront, a mix of phase shifted sound emanates from the rear. The effect is very pleasing and nothing is taken away from the stereo. The sound field is perfectly balanced, I would refer to the overall effect as surround sound. It does a much better job than the Sansui QS-1, with it's "phase modulation" circuit.

Oddly the switch setting labeled Ambience is just double stereo. There too I much prefer double stereo to just plain stereo. The blend switch applies only 30% blend to the SQ decoded rear outputs, nothing to the fronts. A much better choice than the more common 40%. I never used blend myself, it reduces the width of the sound field. And mono sounds best played through multiple speakers!

Getting off topic the Audionics/Connaught decoder sounds OK on SQ. Sitting in the sweet spot there is no trouble discerning where the sounds are supposed to be coming from, just that sound field is randomly filled in between. It doesn't wow people but still sounds very pleasant. The biggest surprise it just how good QS sounds played through it. Often better than via the proper decoder. I was listening to some QS encoded Calvin Keys and Doug Carn "Black Jazz" through it recently.

 

[Aging quadie]

aside: (article about the Hughes SRS device)

https://books.google.com/books?id=_...&resnum=7&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kirk Bayne

Thank you for posting this! Len Feldman was an early champion of surround systems for the home; I treasured his insightful pieces in numerous audiophile publications. And thank you for informing forum readers about the Hughes AK-100 SRS Sound Retrieval System -- a miraculous processor that deserves to be known and appreciated in the 21st century.