Modern Stealth Surround Albums

[kap'n krunch]

I know this has probably been discussed to death but I wanted to start a thread regarding MODERN releases that decode ...hmmm... let's say ... a BIT TOO PERFECT in DPLII or other systems...
Now, I know from people inside the Industry that artists DO mix their Stereo using these methods-although they do not specify which ones, same way that a lot of commercials are done too so that they catch the eye/ear of the viewer....
So, I was listening to Taytay's remake of "1989" and it was PRET TTYYY obvious it was mixed in Stealth, especially when I compared it to the original one....I might add it was a lot of fun to listen to....BTW, I thought she would radically change the songs but, alas , they are basically carbon copies of the original one, except for her voice which has matured, but hey...ANY Taytay is good...(am a secret huge fan since she smiled at me at Preservation Hall last year...my wife knows!)

 

[Francis Drake]

Sorry for this post, but the above has confused me some.
I'm gathering that your saying that a number of modern releases have been "secretly" encoded using a secret/unmentionable/nonexistant system to be played back by any old method of playback to achieve something that bears no releation to anything known?

Well, i do feel your attempting to create a mountain out of an ant-hill.

I'd like to put another way of the cause of random surround effects from normal stereo mixed music.
Random phase effects can be cause by a variety of instruments, along with differing microphone techniques. Then there are the side effects caused by using such time/phase effects as phase/chorus etc.
Include the posibility of instruments, microphones etc, being out of phase, especially when grouped with others that are phased normally, whether being accidental or deliberate.

It's more than likely that the above are nearer the truth than that suggested above.

At least that's my view........

 

[kap'n krunch]

Sorry for this post, but the above has confused me some.
I'm gathering that your saying that a number of modern releases have been "secretly" encoded using a secret/unmentionable/nonexistant system to be played back by any old method of playback to achieve something that bears no releation to anything known?

Well, i do feel your attempting to create a mountain out of an ant-hill.

I'd like to put another way of the cause of random surround effects from normal stereo mixed music.
Random phase effects can be cause by a variety of instruments, along with differing microphone techniques. Then there are the side effects caused by using such time/phase effects as phase/chorus etc.
Include the posibility of instruments, microphones etc, being out of phase, especially when grouped with others that are phased normally, whether being accidental or deliberate.

It's more than likely that the above are nearer the truth than that suggested above.

At least that's my view........

I am totally aware of that (I have even used that trick to mix my music while monitoring it in DPLII) but these are SO obvious, as opposed to stuff like ELO's "A new world record" and Synergy's "Cords"-the latter is really intense in DPLII but you can tell that it's out of phase stuff as opposed to really discrete stuff like on the "1989" remake that I HAD to mention it, as I mentioned, the original one has a few things out of phase but it's nearly as discrete as the new version.

 

[rustyandi]

Sorry for this post, but the above has confused me some.
I'm gathering that your saying that a number of modern releases have been "secretly" encoded using a secret/unmentionable/nonexistant system to be played back by any old method of playback to achieve something that bears no releation to anything known?

Well, i do feel your attempting to create a mountain out of an ant-hill.

I'd like to put another way of the cause of random surround effects from normal stereo mixed music.
Random phase effects can be cause by a variety of instruments, along with differing microphone techniques. Then there are the side effects caused by using such time/phase effects as phase/chorus etc.
Include the posibility of instruments, microphones etc, being out of phase, especially when grouped with others that are phased normally, whether being accidental or deliberate.

It's more than likely that the above are nearer the truth than that suggested above.

At least that's my view........

You hit the nail on the head
ron

 

[Sonik Wiz]

I know this has probably been discussed to death but I wanted to start a thread regarding MODERN releases that decode ...hmmm... let's say ... a BIT TOO PERFECT in DPLII or other systems...
Now, I know from people inside the Industry that artists DO mix their Stereo using these methods-although they do not specify which ones, same way that a lot of commercials are done too so that they catch the eye/ear of the viewer....
So, I was listening to Taytay's remake of "1989" and it was PRET TTYYY obvious it was mixed in Stealth, especially when I compared it to the original one....I might add it was a lot of fun to listen to....BTW, I thought she would radically change the songs but, alas , they are basically carbon copies of the original one, except for her voice which has matured, but hey...ANY Taytay is good...(am a secret huge fan since she smiled at me at Preservation Hall last year...my wife knows!)

Yup the topic has been beat to death particularly in the Queen II thread that you started much the same. But your assertions that modern recordings are deliberately being stealth encoded in surround is pretty vague. Who are these people "inside the industry" you are referring to? And why don't they specify which ones? More substantial evidence to back up your claims is needed, not just because a new TS recording sounds better in DPL II than the old one.

I don't own any Taylor Swift albums much less different versions of the same one. But I would be surprised if there wasn't an audible difference because everything except Taylor Swift's voice is different. New recording venue probably with different mics, different special effects, different engineers & producers most likely too.

It's not logical that an artist is going to the trouble & studio expense of doing a surround encode on a stereo album and not promote it as such in a special way. If you want new music (and old) encoded for surround the word is ATMOS.

I must agree with @Francis Drake that the surround improvement on the new release is just a lucky chance that the newer recording method simply comes closer to simulating a QS/RM format.

But BTW, I do remember the pics you posted of her at Preservation Hall. What a really cool experience!

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Now let me see if I understand kapn's thread....

Ok I got it... @kap'n krunch is now a "swifty" .

 

[Francis Drake]

Now let me see if I understand kapn's thread....

Ok I got it... @kap'n krunch is now a "swifty" .

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Swifty Matrix surround encoding.

 

[barfle]

I admit I haven’t done the work with “modern” recordings, but back when my surround setup was nothing more than a Tate II, I often played stereo material (vinyl, CD, FM radio) through the decoder, and was often pleased with the results. Actually, I think I always played my material through the Tate, in the hope that it would enhance the listening. Of course, the SQ records worked as advertised, but stuff with lots of ambient sound in the recording always had decent rear sound.

I’m also aware that most, if not all, of the single-inventory SQ recordings that have been released on CD retain their SQ encoding and should decode as the LPs did.

So, after all that, I suppose the next step is to identify those recordings that, although they do not claim to be encoded, nonetheless decode nicely. So let’s see some lists!

 

[Sonik Wiz]

So, after all that, I suppose the next step is to identify those recordings that, although they do not claim to be encoded, nonetheless decode nicely. So let’s see some lists!

There is already a thread dedicated to this but it doesn't seem very active:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...reo-recordings-that-sound-great-in-quad.1789/
My experience in general is newer multi-track recordings with wide separation, panning & sound FX present the best if your looking for bounceaphonic surround. One of my first encounters with this was Klaatu the band. The first three albums are killer. Then soon Thomas Dolby followed and OMD, The Orb, ABC all sounded as good as purposely encoded. But of course they weren't.

 

[MidiMagic]

Yup the topic has been beat to death particularly in the Queen II thread. But your assertions that modern recordings are deliberately being stealth encoded in surround is pretty vague. Who are these people "inside the industry" you are referring to? And why don't they specify which ones? More substantial evidence to back up your claims is needed, not just because a new TS recording sounds better in DPL II than the old one.

It's not logical that an artist is going to the trouble & studio expense of doing a surround encode on a stereo album and not promote it as such in a special way. If you want new music (and old) encoded for surround the word is ATMOS.

I would NOT want ATMOS because I want it on an LP or a CD. In both cases, matrix is the only choice, and QS or DS are the matrix systems most likely to be decodable by the listener.

And most of the TV I watch is in DS.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

I would NOT want ATMOS because I want it on an LP or a CD. In both cases, matrix is the only choice, and QS or DS are the matrix systems most likely to be decodable by the listener.

And most of the TV I watch is in DS.

I think you fail to grasp the general intent of my post and the ATMOS comment in specific.

It is painfully well known on the forum your disdain for any technology newer than say, mid 80's. My comment about ATMOS was not directed towards YOU but a suggestion to the Kap'n if he wants modern music in surround, without guessing if it really is, it is happening in the ATMOS format.

I don't have ATMOS either & probably never will. But I don't waste any keystrokes trying to convince others whats wrong with it. If they have embraced it and enjoying it, more power to 'em!

 

[Francis Drake]

Swifty Matrix surround encoding.

Ah right.... um, Swifty Matrix... Nope, never heard of it. Never mind, thanks for the answer

 

[Francis Drake]

There is already a thread dedicated to this but it doesn't seem very active:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...reo-recordings-that-sound-great-in-quad.1789/
My experience in general is newer multi-track recordings with wide separation, panning & sound FX present the best if your looking for bounceaphonic surround. One of my first encounters with this was Klaatu the band. The first three albums are killer. Then soon Thomas Dolby followed and OMD, The Orb, ABC all sounded as good as purposely encoded. But of course they weren't.

Ah, Klaatu, NOW your talking

 

[barfle]

There is already a thread dedicated to this but it doesn't seem very active:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...reo-recordings-that-sound-great-in-quad.1789/
My experience in general is newer multi-track recordings with wide separation, panning & sound FX present the best if your looking for bounceaphonic surround. One of my first encounters with this was Klaatu the band. The first three albums are killer. Then soon Thomas Dolby followed and OMD, The Orb, ABC all sounded as good as purposely encoded. But of course they weren't.

I have a handful of "wind in the trees" type of LPs that don't claim to be quad, but with all the randomness of that sound, it can't help but have a lot of back channels through matrix decoders. But the others sound intriguing.

 

[kfbkfb]

(deleted, didn't really fit the topic)


Kirk Bayne

 

[MidiMagic]

I think you fail to grasp the general intent of my post and the ATMOS comment in specific.

It is painfully well known on the forum your disdain for any technology newer than say, mid 80's. My comment about ATMOS was not directed towards YOU but a suggestion to the Kap'n if he wants modern music in surround, without guessing if it really is, it is happening in the ATMOS format.

I don't have ATMOS either & probably never will. But I don't waste any keystrokes trying to convince others whats wrong with it. If they have embraced it and enjoying it, more power to 'em!

I do not dislike Atmos itself. And how old the technology is does not matter. I dislike five things:

- The cogging effect in most discrete and many matrix systems. I like DS and PLI because they eliminate it. With all of the other systems, I have to turn my head to hear the panning of side sounds correctly. Facing forward, I hear the sound jump from speaker to speaker as it pans (those little puddles of sound).

- The lack of a single STANDARD for recording surround sound. I actually had that in the 1990s with DS. Every surround recording you bought was recorded the same way.

- Deprecation of older systems so people who have newer equipment can't correctly play the old recordings they already have. I have thousands of recordings in DS. They want you to buy a new copy of the recording to hear it on their new systems.

- The inability to put new surround recordings on LPs and CDs (which worked in the 1990s).

- The need of a lot of money to play and buy new surround recordings.

Actually, I am working on a way to be able to listen to ATMOS and other discrete systems and hear the side panning correctly without the cogging. If I get it to work, my objection to discrete recordings is gone.

 

[LB-V]

But BTW, I do remember the pics you posted of her at Preservation Hall. What a really cool experience!

Agree there! Once in a lifetime. A bit envious I am!

it was PRET TTYYY obvious it was mixed in Stealth,

I don't think it was Swifty Stealth, and agree that stealth is not what's going on, rather just technological changes or circumstances...BUT Swift's Reputation album really ROCKS via the Sansui QSD-1....and I bet the same via the Surround Master, I just haven't tried cause it sounds awesome with the Sansui. It's incredible the "discreteness" capable with the S2S and the surround field accomplished from stereo.

 

[JediJoker]

The cogging effect in most discrete and many matrix systems. I like DS and PLI because they eliminate it. With all of the other systems, I have to turn my head to hear the panning of side sounds correctly. Facing forward, I hear the sound jump from speaker to speaker as it pans (those little puddles of sound).

That's a failure of setup. If you have all your speakers matched, equidistant to the MLP, arranged in a true circle (or hemisphere), and placed at the correct angles, there will be no "cogging." If the perfect setup isn't possible, DSP room correction goes a long way toward making it sound as if it were.

As for the premise of this thread, it's ridiculous. Mixing engineers are not going out of their way to mix in multichannel and matrix encode the result to produce a stereo mix. What you describe, @kap'n krunch, are happy accidents.

 

[MidiMagic]

That's a failure of setup. If you have all your speakers matched, equidistant to the MLP, arranged in a true circle (or hemisphere), and placed at the correct angles, there will be no "cogging." If the perfect setup isn't possible, DSP room correction goes a long way toward making it sound as if it were.

As for the premise of this thread, it's ridiculous. Mixing engineers are not going out of their way to mix in multichannel and matrix encode the result to produce a stereo mix. What you describe, @kap'n krunch, are happy accidents.

What if you do not have side speakers? Their entire purpose of side speakers as I see it is it to prevent the cogging. And they have to be in exactly the right position to work. If all of the speakers on each side are mounted on the same wall, the side ones are closer to the listener. Unless there is a way to delay their sound, cogging is there.

I have many DVDs that let you choose between 5.1 discrete and Dolby Surround. Since I do not have a discrete player, I use Dolby Surround. Yes, they DO mix for both discrete and matrix. And most of my surround CDs (including the ones I mix) are Dolby Surround.

Many movies were mixed for both 5.1 and Dolby Surround because most theaters still had Dolby Surround while a few had 70mm. This was done for years.

When I make a surround mix, it is purely matrix. There is no 4-track discrete version.