New Vinyl Based Surround/Quad System (Hypothetical Question)

[chucky3042]

Hi everyone

Well said Quadzilla

This thread is of real interest to me and in many ways is close to the core that is driving our thoughts of the INVOLVE encode/ decode system (yes I am very biased). Being 54 years old puts me fair and square of the Vinyl and cassette appreciation society. I also find it interesting that there is a mini resurgence in these two formats. Privately though I fully appreciate the technical advantages of the CD, I still long for the “good” old days when playing a record was a real art requiring optimal tangential positioning of the tone arm, tracking weight adjustment, record clamps, electrical silence in the house, lid down etc. Gone is the pioneering spirit!

In some ways the problem with CD’s is that a 1 is still a 1 and a 0 is still a 0 and the Nyquist criterion really does apply in spite of all the marketing B…S….

In recent years with the advent of the CD, DVD, SACD, DAT, Blueray and several other transient formats we seem to have forgotten the lessons of the longest surviving and most successful formats STEREO and the cassette. Even today stereo is the most dominant format in the world as it is used for AM, FM radio, TV, FOXTEL, mp3 and is still available as a fall back in most other formats. It offers the great advantage that everyone can use it with even the most basic equipment (even mono) right up to the most exotic systems. Furthermore everyone understands stereo with no fear, I cannot say that of any of the new multi band systems.

When Philips created the cassette in 1961 they were very insistent to not allow any variations to the original format. They even opposed Dolby noise reduction and chrome tapes as it would exclude some users from the cross compatibility of the system. Maybe they went overboard on Dolby and Chrome but the result was a format that lasted say 40 years – and yes it was STEREO. You can grab any old stereo cassette and play it on today’s systems and if you want surround there are a number of good decoders around (hey INVOLVE is best – see the bias).

For any system to succeed and not add to more market confusion it must be fully backwards and forwards compatible to STEREO and not in anyway have any detrimental effects.

I note that there have been several words of support to CD4 discrete but it also fails the test of cross compatibility in that it required special expensive equipment, reduced the play time, would wear out your stylus’s more rapidly, be prone to clicks and dropouts. Does not sound like a winner to me.

In short a future system that would be suitable for vinyl records must

1 be able to be played by all existing stereo equipment with NO audible deterioration or damage to record or stylus
2 the encode must sound identical to the stereo
3 the decode must sound identical (or better than) discrete
4 Must have no pumping, clicking, breathing, whistling sonic artefacts.
5 Be able to synthesise with a high degree of accuracy a surround from non encoded material
6 Preferably get rid of the image skewing center channel (and the wife hates it)
7 Provide a consistent image in all seats of the house with no sweet spot.
8 Be able to be transmitted in low bandwidth media such as AM radio, mp3
9 Must become the new UNIVERSAL music/ cinema recording format to eliminate market confusion and customer isolation (I still don’t have a Blueray player!)
10 Be able to produce 2, 4 and even 5.1 (I hate it) surround.

Guess what kids, I claim INVOLVE (with Total Perspective if you want to get rid of the center channel and sweet spot) does all this. I hope to prove this to the QQ forum over the next few months. Or if you are eager for a demo just visit us in Melbourne Australia – it just DOWN the road a few miles. Meanwhile I am selling my Nakamichi 1000 and 582 cassette decks and have just acquired a Nakamichi ZX 7 – see I am not kidding when I said I like the older formats – still sound better than the 5.1 crap I hear around town.

I hope I have not ruffled too many feathers but hey its 11.20 pm on Saturday night as I type this so be easy on me.

Regards

Charlie
www.involveaudio.com

Let's not discount that record labels will NEVER do things in a logical and straightforward way. History has shown that whenever there is an opportunity for an old-fashioned format war ... and keep in mind that it pretty much started with quad ... that they will get dirty and nasty and kill it all. Before the VHS - Beta, the SACD - DVD-Audio, and the HD DVD - Blu-ray battles, equipment manufacturers and record labels have proven that they just never learn ... and that they never listen to consumers.

 

[chucky3042]

Hi All

My last comment appears to have given this thread the "kiss of death". Come on, I am actually interested in other views. Lets hear more!

Regards

Charlie

 

[jaybird100]

I think you have some good ideas, Charlie, but how are you going to transmit surround sound on AM radio, for example, when AM stereo failed so badly? As for MP3, I have put QS-encoded recordings onto my trusty iPod, and have played them back with great results through Dolby PL II music mode. QS offered most of the attributes you pointed out, and to see something brought back would have to be based on a matrix. CD-4 is way too fussy, and, as you pointed out, the records would wear more rapidly than stereo or matrixed records. A more advanced logic steering system would be needed, but would be fairly easy to implement. (Where's Sansui when you need them?)

 

[chucky3042]

Hi Jaybird

My views are biased (please see my thread -Reality Technologies - New surround technology). QS style recording was able to transmit surround perfectly on AM RADIO, its compatibility with MONO was a problem as the rear channels would cancel and so be absent from the MONO mixdown. INVOLVE format partially bypasses this problem.

I really do not think this is a huge issue as most MONO listeners are not too interested in ambient information. But yes this is a weakness.

regards

charlie

I think you have some good ideas, Charlie, but how are you going to transmit surround sound on AM radio, for example, when AM stereo failed so badly? As for MP3, I have put QS-encoded recordings onto my trusty iPod, and have played them back with great results through Dolby PL II music mode. QS offered most of the attributes you pointed out, and to see something brought back would have to be based on a matrix. CD-4 is way too fussy, and, as you pointed out, the records would wear more rapidly than stereo or matrixed records. A more advanced logic steering system would be needed, but would be fairly easy to implement. (Where's Sansui when you need them?)

 

[jaybird100]

QS would probably be subject to sound cancellation of center rear information when played in mono, same as SQ. But since most AM stations are programming talk shows, it probably wouldn't matter. QS would be my system of choice, too; better separation than SQ, better mono compatibility, and no need to worry about wearing the groove down excessively when playing on a stereo system. And you can broadcast them with no special equipment.

 

[chucky3042]

Hi Jaybird

I largely agree with your statement with the exception of the problem of transmitting QS or recording it to Vinyl is that the frontal image is obviously compressed when played back on stereo equipment and as such it does not comply with point 2 of my wish list. INVOLVE (it's an adaptive QS) format complies with this and all other points.

Regards

Charlie

QS would probably be subject to sound cancellation of center rear information when played in mono, same as SQ. But since most AM stations are programming talk shows, it probably wouldn't matter. QS would be my system of choice, too; better separation than SQ, better mono compatibility, and no need to worry about wearing the groove down excessively when playing on a stereo system. And you can broadcast them with no special equipment.