Penteo surround demo

[JonUrban]

The object of QQ is to discuss all things surround. This guy is not trying to sell us anything. There is no reason to treat him like he is. You can't kill him for being proud of his results. Whether his process succeeds or disappears into the night, there is no reason to beat on the guy.

This is supposed to be a friendly place, ya know?

:-jon

 

[Cai Campbell]

Sorry, I never was much good at filtering my thoughts. I just calls 'em hows I sees 'em. I'll try to keep my mouth shut.

 

[jaybird100]

As an audio professional with customers who often refer to themselves as purists, I have one question that comes from their point of view: if the idea is to preserve the stereo mix when creating a 5.1 environment, why bother? Most of these so-called purists would choose to listen to all of their music through only two speakers, not five. (kinda sad, right?) I like to use the Pro Logic II processor for listening to stereo music. No substitute for a true 5.1 mix, but it will do when no 5.1 or quad version is available.

 

[Quadzilla]

As an audio professional with customers who often refer to themselves as purists, I have one question that comes from their point of view: if the idea is to preserve the stereo mix when creating a 5.1 environment, why bother? Most of these so-called purists would choose to listen to all of their music through only two speakers, not five. (kinda sad, right?) I like to use the Pro Logic II processor for listening to stereo music. No substitute for a true 5.1 mix, but it will do when no 5.1 or quad version is available.

My sentiments exactly. Everybody here has his or her preferred means of synthing surround sound from stereo sources, so why bother? I use a Tate and a QSD-2 ... but that is just MY preference. The prevailing opinion here is that a true discrete surround mix from the multi-tracks is OUR preference, and it seems as though we are being challenged to change our minds without ANYTHING but theory. Clearly, many of us won't change our minds, so I am not sure what the discussion point is ... especially when there is no material to listen to. This is AUDIO, and that is all we have to go by. Theoretical technogy is the realm of the propeller-heads ... and I am proud to say that I am not one of those. Mike.

 

[Cai Campbell]

Okay, I said I was gonna keep my mouth shut but I think Quadzilla and Jaybird have hit on something that I've mentioned before and I think it warrants emphasizing again.

We need a simple test in order to compare the merits of the differing methodologies:

1. Original stereo mix (output of discrete multi-track tapes)
2. Synthesized surround mix (output of Penteo process)
3. True surround mix (output of discrete multi-track tapes)

The test should not be hobbled by comparing to some of the less-than-stellar surround mixes out there. By the same token, the test should not be hobbled by comparing to some of the less-than-stellar stereo mixes out there. Here are some examples of surround mixes that I would like to compare Penteo to that exist as exemplars of both stereo AND surround mixing:

- Rolling Stones: "Sympathy For The Devil" (from SACD maxi-single)
- The Who: "Overture" (from "Tommy" SACD/DVD-A)
- Harry Nilsson: "Jump Into The Fire" (from "Nilsson Schmillson" legacy quad)
- Talking Heads: "Burning Down The House" (from "Speaking In Tongues" DualDisc)
- Temptations: "Papa Was A Rolling Stone" (from "All Directions" legacy quad)

John, you've already shown your willingness to provide demo material of similar content, so how about these songs? I'd love to be able to do this comparison. Who knows, you might actually win me over.

 

[rubbersounds]

Okay, I said I was gonna keep my mouth shut but I think Quadzilla and Jaybird have hit on something that I've mentioned before and I think it warrants emphasizing again.

We need a simple test in order to compare the merits of the differing methodologies:

1. Original stereo mix (output of discrete multi-track tapes)
2. Synthesized surround mix (output of Penteo process)
3. True surround mix (output of discrete multi-track tapes)

The test should not be hobbled by comparing to some of the less-than-stellar surround mixes out there. By the same token, the test should not be hobbled by comparing to some of the less-than-stellar stereo mixes out there. Here are some examples of surround mixes that I would like to compare Penteo to that exist as exemplars of both stereo AND surround mixing:

- Rolling Stones: "Sympathy For The Devil" (from SACD maxi-single)
- The Who: "Overture" (from "Tommy" SACD/DVD-A)
- Harry Nilsson: "Jump Into The Fire" (from "Nilsson Schmillson" legacy quad)
- Talking Heads: "Burning Down The House" (from "Speaking In Tongues" DualDisc)
- Temptations: "Papa Was A Rolling Stone" (from "All Directions" legacy quad)

John, you've already shown your willingness to provide demo material of similar content, so how about these songs? I'd love to be able to do this comparison. Who knows, you might actually win me over.

why just penteo in such a test? To be fair you'd have to include other upmix techniques also.

 

[Cai Campbell]

why just penteo in such a test? To be fair you'd have to include other upmix techniques also.

Well, that would be a different kind of test. The purpose of this test would be to compare the Penteo process against true surround mixes. But I agree that it would be interesting to compare Penteo to other upmix techniques.

 

[EMB]

Okay, I said I was gonna keep my mouth shut

Nah, that's no fun...

Here are some examples of surround mixes that I would like to compare Penteo to that exist as exemplars of both stereo AND surround mixing:

- Rolling Stones: "Sympathy For The Devil" (from SACD maxi-single)
- The Who: "Overture" (from "Tommy" SACD/DVD-A)
- Harry Nilsson: "Jump Into The Fire" (from "Nilsson Schmillson" legacy quad)
- Talking Heads: "Burning Down The House" (from "Speaking In Tongues" DualDisc)
- Temptations: "Papa Was A Rolling Stone" (from "All Directions" legacy quad)

Great examples, all!(See my addition in the Quad Lp & tape forum about the Tempts' album--glad someone remembered it!)

I think many of us are interested in the results. For me, a peeve is all the crappy 5.1 'mixes' that have been made from stereo or Dolby Surround movie or music soundtracks; certainly would be interesting to hear a process that *might* offer something that has 'discret(e)ion,' rather than sounding so fake and forced that it's just about unlistenable, and a waste of time.

ED

 

[Old Quad Guy]

We need a simple test in order to compare the merits of the differing methodologies:

1. Original stereo mix (output of discrete multi-track tapes)
2. Synthesized surround mix (output of Penteo process)
3. True surround mix (output of discrete multi-track tapes)

The test should not be hobbled by comparing to some of the less-than-stellar surround mixes out there. By the same token, the test should not be hobbled by comparing to some of the less-than-stellar stereo mixes out there. Here are some examples of surround mixes that I would like to compare Penteo to that exist as exemplars of both stereo AND surround mixing:

- Rolling Stones: "Sympathy For The Devil" (from SACD maxi-single)
- The Who: "Overture" (from "Tommy" SACD/DVD-A)
- Harry Nilsson: "Jump Into The Fire" (from "Nilsson Schmillson" legacy quad)
- Talking Heads: "Burning Down The House" (from "Speaking In Tongues" DualDisc)
- Temptations: "Papa Was A Rolling Stone" (from "All Directions" legacy quad)

John, you've already shown your willingness to provide demo material of similar content, so how about these songs? I'd love to be able to do this comparison. Who knows, you might actually win me over.

Right. And it should not be done in Dolby Digital format, but with a cleaner resolution, perhaps DVD-A or DTS.

 

[jaybird100]

My sentiments exactly. Everybody here has his or her preferred means of synthing surround sound from stereo sources, so why bother? I use a Tate and a QSD-2 ... but that is just MY preference. The prevailing opinion here is that a true discrete surround mix from the multi-tracks is OUR preference, and it seems as though we are being challenged to change our minds without ANYTHING but theory. Clearly, many of us won't change our minds, so I am not sure what the discussion point is ... especially when there is no material to listen to. This is AUDIO, and that is all we have to go by. Theoretical technogy is the realm of the propeller-heads ... and I am proud to say that I am not one of those. Mike.

I'm not, either. I used to sell high end audio until I got tired of the attitudes of many of the store's clients. I was told by one that a speaker sounded "zizzy". What the hell is that? I asked the customer what he meant, and he said it again. I asked him to define it, and he couldn't. And it bugged me that these guys couldn't listen to the music because they were too busy listening to the system. I now do home theater systems, where I can also show off my passion for surround sound. The purists would cringe!

 

[penteosurround]

My sentiments exactly. Everybody here has his or her preferred means of synthing surround sound from stereo sources, so why bother? I use a Tate and a QSD-2 ... but that is just MY preference. The prevailing opinion here is that a true discrete surround mix from the multi-tracks is OUR preference, and it seems as though we are being challenged to change our minds without ANYTHING but theory. Clearly, many of us won't change our minds, so I am not sure what the discussion point is ... especially when there is no material to listen to. This is AUDIO, and that is all we have to go by. Theoretical technogy is the realm of the propeller-heads ... and I am proud to say that I am not one of those. Mike.

Sorry guys, I haven't been on in a few days.

One of the things that the Penteo process does is to start out with a completely cleanly remastered stereo master. Sure, you can play stereo mixes through DPLII or almost any surround synthesizer out there, but you're assuming that you have a good stereo master (CD) to work from. The problem is that there are so many bad CD-mastering jobs out there that when an analysis is done by a surround-upmix algorithm (like Penteo) that you have unwanted center material (for example) wandering around all over the place.

Take the "Saturday Night Fever" soundtrack album for example. The first three cuts on the album (one of the biggest selling CDs of all time) - the three biggest Bee Gees cuts - are 15 - yes FIFTEEN db down in EQ at 10kHz on the left channel. Obviously there was a problem with the NAB playback EQ on the 2-track deck at the CD mastering session. The rest of the cuts on the album are fine - within 1-2 db. Yes, it's amazing to me that it never got caught in QC, but who would care at the label, because the money never stopped flowing in just because there was a mastering error!

There are so many poor stereo mastering jobs out there that are 3-4 db out of balance and/or 4-8 samples out of azimuth - especially when dealing with working parts (edited sub-mixes), that it's very difficult to get any process doing an upmix to cleanly process it. And if it's off, then the material wanders around the sound field.

As I write this, I've been processing "Seals and Crofts Greatest Hits" this morning. Every time a splice goes through the machine, there is a balance change, which I have to compensate for. And this is all before any surround processing.

Example: My notes from Seals and Crofts "King of Nothing" from the Greatest Hits mastering session (uncredited - probably a bulk mastering job at Warner's done back in the 1980s and hasn't been touched since

AZIMUTH: Perfect (within 1 sample) throughout song.
BALANCE: Samples 0 - 107299 1db low on right channel, corrected
SPLICE at 107299 (1:10:01) between "Noth" and "Ing"
BALANCE AFTER SPLICE 3db low on right channel, corrected
SPLICE AT 3833676 (1:26:28) "King"
BALANCE AFTER SPLICE 1db low on left channel, corrected.

Each of these working parts was done with a slightly different setup on the board; no one ever had to check these this closely before Penteo. Only after these corrections are made can the processing be done.

Often times the azimuth is 4-5 samples out and so even though the balance is correct, there's no way to dissect the center because the matching waveforms can't be found. I have to manually find and correct all these, recorrecting at every splice. That's why each song can take 4-5 hours to process.


-John

 

[Old Quad Guy]

John,
From one Trademark owner to another - shouldn't you consider obtaining a Patent for your process or is Penteo a "services only" type business? I'm trying to keep an open mind and understand what you're trying to do.

On another subject - if I understand you correctly - is that you're processing "Seals and Crofts Greatest Hits" with the blessing of their record company - I take it - to use your process for some sort of release when the Original Quadraphonic masters are still locked away in the vaults? I'm perfectly willing to accept your process side by side with 5.1 mixes and 4.0 mixes, but can't you at least understand the frustration we feel? That we're given a stereo surround mix - as I understand you to say what your process is - when 4.0 mixes are already there in the case of Seals and Crofts?

The record companies discriminate against Quadraphonic/discrete surround in favor of stereo. They're constantly remastering stereo, but not Quadraphonic/discrete surround music.

 

[Bob Romano]

Example: My notes from Seals and Crofts "King of Nothing" from the Greatest Hits mastering session (uncredited - probably a bulk mastering job at Warner's done back in the 1980s and hasn't been touched since

AZIMUTH: Perfect (within 1 sample) throughout song.
BALANCE: Samples 0 - 107299 1db low on right channel, corrected
SPLICE at 107299 (1:10:01) between "Noth" and "Ing"
BALANCE AFTER SPLICE 3db low on right channel, corrected
SPLICE AT 3833676 (1:26:28) "King"
BALANCE AFTER SPLICE 1db low on left channel, corrected.

Each of these working parts was done with a slightly different setup on the board; no one ever had to check these this closely before Penteo. Only after these corrections are made can the processing be done.

Often times the azimuth is 4-5 samples out and so even though the balance is correct, there's no way to dissect the center because the matching waveforms can't be found. I have to manually find and correct all these, recorrecting at every splice. That's why each song can take 4-5 hours to process.
-John

All this tweaking is fine but my initial comment still stands regarding the softness of some of the attacks of percussive sounds. Have you corrected that "problem"?

 

[JonUrban]

However, "King of Nothing" is/was available on a Quad LP, Q8, and Reel, so "somewhere" there is already a REAL surround version of this song.

Shouldn't the time be spent on titles that were not done in quad, like, say, maybe, "Low Spark of High Heeled Boys"???

 

[Quadzilla]

However, "King of Nothing" is/was available on a Quad LP, Q8, and Reel, so "somewhere" there is already a REAL surround version of this song.

Shouldn't the time be spent on titles that were not done in quad, like, say, maybe, "Low Spark of High Heeled Boys"???

VERY NICE JON! ... and you gave Cai and me $hit for dumping on the guy. Maybe it is time to humour Penteo, since he is NEVER going to see our point of view. Mike.

 

[JonUrban]

VERY NICE JON! ... and you gave Cai and me $hit for dumping on the guy. Maybe it is time to humour Penteo, since he is NEVER going to see our point of view. Mike.

I never give anyone "SHIT" (you can say shit here at QQ ), I just want everyone to be respectful and cordial to each other - that's all!

 

[Cai Campbell]

We need a simple test in order to compare the merits of the differing methodologies:

1. Original stereo mix (output of discrete multi-track tapes)
2. Synthesized surround mix (output of Penteo process)
3. True surround mix (output of discrete multi-track tapes)

The test should not be hobbled by comparing to some of the less-than-stellar surround mixes out there. By the same token, the test should not be hobbled by comparing to some of the less-than-stellar stereo mixes out there. Here are some examples of surround mixes that I would like to compare Penteo to that exist as exemplars of both stereo AND surround mixing:

- Rolling Stones: "Sympathy For The Devil" (from SACD maxi-single)
- The Who: "Overture" (from "Tommy" SACD/DVD-A)
- Harry Nilsson: "Jump Into The Fire" (from "Nilsson Schmillson" legacy quad)
- Talking Heads: "Burning Down The House" (from "Speaking In Tongues" DualDisc)
- Temptations: "Papa Was A Rolling Stone" (from "All Directions" legacy quad)

John, you've already shown your willingness to provide demo material of similar content, so how about these songs?

 

[penteosurround]

Sure I have no problem with that. What format do you want the output in? DVD-Audio okay? It might take a couple weeks since I do have stuff to do. The output would be 5.1 channel 88.2/16, since that's a simple math upsample of the original mix with no dithering.

But please don't call it "synthesized". All Penteo does is separate sounds based on their original panorama position. Would you call sounds that go through a crossover network synthesized because they're being separated out into separate woofer and tweeter channels? Penteo is the same thing; it's simply a separation of material based on pan position (instead of frequency, like a crossover network). Nothing is synthetic.

Also, I do want to remind everyone that Penteo is not intended to replace the remixes; it is a format unto itself that is designed to optimize a stereo mix for a 5.1 field.

We need a simple test in order to compare the merits of the differing methodologies:

1. Original stereo mix (output of discrete multi-track tapes)
2. Synthesized surround mix (output of Penteo process)
3. True surround mix (output of discrete multi-track tapes)

The test should not be hobbled by comparing to some of the less-than-stellar surround mixes out there. By the same token, the test should not be hobbled by comparing to some of the less-than-stellar stereo mixes out there. Here are some examples of surround mixes that I would like to compare Penteo to that exist as exemplars of both stereo AND surround mixing:

- Rolling Stones: "Sympathy For The Devil" (from SACD maxi-single)
- The Who: "Overture" (from "Tommy" SACD/DVD-A)
- Harry Nilsson: "Jump Into The Fire" (from "Nilsson Schmillson" legacy quad)
- Talking Heads: "Burning Down The House" (from "Speaking In Tongues" DualDisc)
- Temptations: "Papa Was A Rolling Stone" (from "All Directions" legacy quad)

John, you've already shown your willingness to provide demo material of similar content, so how about these songs?

 

[penteosurround]

John,
From one Trademark owner to another - shouldn't you consider obtaining a Patent for your process or is Penteo a "services only" type business? I'm trying to keep an open mind and understand what you're trying to do.

Penteo is almost impossible to reverse-engineer, so I've been advised that keeping the method and code a trade secret is much preferred to a patent. Since the code is original and proprietary, patenting it would only broadcast the method. And yes, it is a service company for now.

On another subject - if I understand you correctly - is that you're processing "Seals and Crofts Greatest Hits" with the blessing of their record company

For right now the labels aren't interested in anything surround-related, so I'm simply making masters to compile a library of material mostly for HDRadio. As I've said, they asked me to do 1500 cuts, but that's a couple years work, since each cut can take up to 4-5 hours to fix-up and process.

-John

 

[The Quadfather]

Actually I wasn't going to weigh in on this, but the discussion has gotten rather intense. It seems to me that the Penteo process would be very valuable to surround enthusiasts, but could also be damaging depending on how it was used. My concern is that it would be used in place of a true surround mix when it would be possible to create one, or where one already exists. Will the radio stations broadcast the Penteo versions and not the real surround versions where one is availlable? And when there is a good quality quad mix, will that be used instead?

I realize that some songs especially those older ones that were recorded before multitrack recording was widely used will never see the light of day as surround songs except for the use of this or a similar process, and for this, it is extremely valuable. As far as arguements go, as to whether the result is true to the stereo mix, it's not germane, for we are in it for surround, having declared that mere stereo isn't good enough. At least that is the case for me. I just want to make sure this process or similar ones are not used as a replacement for the real thing.

In the Fleetwood Mac album "Rumors" some of the songs were recorded with tracks on the multitrack master that were never used in the stereo mix because they cluttered up the final mix. Well, when the surround disc was released, they used them, and the result was different, and I think better than the stereo version. But that's just my opinion. When I first heard of a mash up, I thought the whole idea was wrong and the results would be disasterous. Until I heard the Beatles disc. This blasphemy is good! Of course, that doesn't mean I don't still want the original material in surround, it just whets my appetite for it. On the Uriah Heep "Gold FromThe Byron Era" disc, I have heard songs in surround that I never expected to hear in surround. They are different versions, and some of them sound a little off key but the surround versions are "filling the shoes" the original versions in my memory.

There is no particular way a recording is supposed to be, when a band performs their hits live, they always play it a little differently. It would be hard not to. I think that the Penteo process could also help surround by exposing more people to it. Kind of like how DTS got surround going again back in the nineties by reintroducing old quad recordings. We owe DTS much gratitude for that. It's a numbers game. The more people into surround, the better chance it will survive. So let it help. But I would be against it if studios adopted this method to produce surround versions of recordings when they have all the tools and techniques availlable to do a true surround version. I suspect that if planning were to be done from the beginning for surround, it would not be quite so costly. Maybe the stereo and the surround version could be mixed simultaneously. I don't know. But where it is possible to do so, it should be a true surround mix. The other concern is that where it is possible to go back and dig up the multitracks of classic songs and redo them in surround, the existance of a Penteoized version might make it economically unviable to do so, because some would opt to stick with the Penteo version.

So, where I am most approving of this process is where it is used exactly where it is being used, on the radio. Then I would hope that the increased demand would produce a true surround version to be sold on a DVD Audio. There is a place for reprocessed stereo, but it must not knock true discrete surround sound off of it's pedestal, but then, I doubt it can.

The Quadfather