• QuadraphonicQuad welcomes you and encourages your participation! Treat all members with respect. Please keep all discussions civil, even when you have a strong opinion on a particular topic.

    Do not offer for free, offer for sale, offer for trade, or request copies or files of copyrighted material - no matter how rare or unavailable to the public they might be. We do not condone the illegal sharing of music. There are many places on the internet where you can participate in such transactions, but QuadraphonicQuad is not one of them. We are here to encourage and support new multichannel releases from those companies that still provide them and as such the distribution of illegal copies of recordings is counter-productive to that effort. Any posts of this sort will be deleted without notification.

    Please try to avoid discussions that pit one format against another. Hint for new users: make liberal use of the search facilities here at QuadraphonicQuad. Our message base is an incredibly rich resource of detailed information on virtually all topics pertaining to surround-sound. You will be surprised at what you can find with a little digging!

Preparing Suzanne Ciani SACD Music Files For Digital Distribution

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Fourplay

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
1,296
Location
Denver
A while back I was asked by an engineer friend to post a poll about Suzanne Ciani music. You can see that discussion here:


Not sure if a total of only 26 votes had any impact on the decision, but in any case it does not look like physical media is forthcoming. I am posting the response email here with some questions:

"Thank you very much for helping me with the Suzanne Ciani research. After all that, I could not convince her to make physical media. But she was want to put out her quad and ambisonic shows digitally. I have not worked much with quad or surround for digital distribution, some questions:

1. Is anybody streaming quad? Tidal? iTunes? Amazon? Google?

2. If she were to make files available, would the format be a 4 channel interleaved file with the order: FL, FR, RL, RR? (I did this and Audirvana said it was a 3.1 channel format.)

3. What about creating a 5.0 interleaved file where the center channel has silence? It seems that players like jRiver and Audirvana properly recognize that."

My questions:

4. So in summary, can we at QQ make a recommendation for these, and perhaps all, digital download surround releases in terms of the correct technical specification?

5. Can you please include comments on the container format - best each for lossless and compressed options?

6. And, are there yet any surround audio streaming options? Maybe we should invent one.
 

DuncanS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
4,866
Location
UK
  1. The Quad files must have a silent Centre (& maybe a silent LFE) added or a lot of AV Amps won't play them correctly, regardless of the source.
  2. I would encode the PCM as 24-bit flac files for ease of preparation and they're universal (though maybe not for Apple stuff).
  3. For compressed again added silent channel(s) and in DTS at 96KHz/24-bit
 

bmoura

Super Moderator
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
9,519
Location
Redwood City, CA
If the music for the Suzanne Ciani SACDs was recorded in Analog, DSD or DXD, then the albums would be eligible for sale at NativeDSD Music.
They sell DSD and DXD music downloads in both Stereo and Multichannel formats.

That could be put together very easily.

Joining NativeDSD Music as a Label
Please write to info@nativedsd.com to get information about selling DSD music through the NativeDSD Music platform.
 

Sonik Wiz

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,220
Location
Kansas City
A while back I was asked by an engineer friend to post a poll about Suzanne Ciani music. You can see that discussion here:


Not sure if a total of only 26 votes had any impact on the decision, but in any case it does not look like physical media is forthcoming. I am posting the response email here with some questions:

"Thank you very much for helping me with the Suzanne Ciani research. After all that, I could not convince her to make physical media. But she was want to put out her quad and ambisonic shows digitally. I have not worked much with quad or surround for digital distribution, some questions:

1. Is anybody streaming quad? Tidal? iTunes? Amazon? Google?

2. If she were to make files available, would the format be a 4 channel interleaved file with the order: FL, FR, RL, RR? (I did this and Audirvana said it was a 3.1 channel format.)

3. What about creating a 5.0 interleaved file where the center channel has silence? It seems that players like jRiver and Audirvana properly recognize that."

My questions:

4. So in summary, can we at QQ make a recommendation for these, and perhaps all, digital download surround releases in terms of the correct technical specification?

5. Can you please include comments on the container format - best each for lossless and compressed options?

6. And, are there yet any surround audio streaming options? Maybe we should invent one.
Again I would suggest using Involve encode as Suzanne has already done. This gives you the ability to stream in any conventional manner as 2 ch stereo. Playable on about anything & superb surround when decoded by QS/Involve gear.
 

François

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
295
Location
France
Again I would suggest using Involve encode as Suzanne has already done. This gives you the ability to stream in any conventional manner as 2 ch stereo. Playable on about anything & superb surround when decoded by QS/Involve gear.
Not everyone has that type of decoding gear. I’m pretty sure far less than the people than can play 5.1 FLAC files.
 

Fourplay

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
1,296
Location
Denver
Again I would suggest using Involve encode as Suzanne has already done. This gives you the ability to stream in any conventional manner as 2 ch stereo. Playable on about anything & superb surround when decoded by QS/Involve gear.
I liked your post, although I personally would not prefer an encode/decode model. Some discrete reproduction format is my preference - and if not disc based, then a burnable iso file for DSD encoded files or flac files are best for me. I have purchased other burnable iso files and this has worked well for me.
 

Sonik Wiz

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,220
Location
Kansas City
Not everyone has that type of decoding gear. I’m pretty sure far less than the people than can play 5.1 FLAC files.
I have no way to assume the usage of either of these formats. I do know that both legacy QS gear, Involve Surround Master & 5.1 FLAC are all very popular here on the forum. And using an Involve encode also would give very good results on DPL II and other newer such play back formats. I bet it would sound great on SpecWeb as well! All of these are niche formats that will always be out numbvered by stereo devices. And doing it in Involve Smart encode makes compatible for all those millions & millions playback devices.
 

Sonik Wiz

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,220
Location
Kansas City
I liked your post, although I personally would not prefer an encode/decode model. Some discrete reproduction format is my preference - and if not disc based, then a burnable iso file for DSD encoded files or flac files are best for me. I have purchased other burnable iso files and this has worked well for me.
I agree I would prefer discrete as well. FWIW I have no audio preferance for DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray Pure Audio. All these formats sounds excellent. But it looks like hard media isn't going to be released so if it ends up being surround DSD down load I will have to pass it by. DSD is a rabbit hole I won't be going down. And firmware updated to my Oppo 105 made playing iso files not possible.

And did I mention doing an Involve encode makes it accessible to the worldwide stereo audience? Although as Francois mentioned a 5.1 FLAC file is very nice idea too if you are happy with a niche market.
 
Last edited:

chucky3042

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
1,467
Hi All

I first want to declare by interest/ bias, I am the director of Involve and the chief technical ape and as such I am an unreliable self interested witness to this discussion with a declared financial interest!!

Now trying to put my impartial QQ hat on:
Of the things that drove me to my electrostatic/ quad surroundy passion was my initial enthusiasm of making my first quad Dolby pl1 style steup in the mid 80's (after my Hafler Dynaco phase in the 70's) and then finding out that it "sucked balls"! In the end I went back to good ol stereo for another 20 years. Every time I listened to 5.1 I was very dissatisfied and distracted BY THE DAM CENTER CHANNEL!!!!!!!

I also observe that ignoring all the media hype still the most dominant and universal format today is still stereo. Its broadcast on TV, radio, on MP3, it really is everywhere. The public actually understand stereo and in an old survey by Philips they found that 60% of surround systems purchased the customers did not put the rear speakers in the rear- either putting them in the front or not connecting them.

Way back in 2013 in my first contribution to this wonderful forum I wrote the following poop, I think it is still correct:


I think we can all agree that the ultimate aim for surround sound is to place the listener (all the listeners) in the original sonic environment that the recording was intended to be. How we achieve this generates debate and can provide fertile ground for confusion and misdirection

In the mid 1970’s the first mass market attempts were made with a myriad of not very compatible systems such as SQ, QS, RM, CD4 etc. Aside from the poor cross compatibility between the systems that created market confusion all systems only worked for one position within the listening room. For all other positions the center and rear image would wander left or right dependent on where the listener sat. In addition all systems had sonic problems of either poor separation, surging, pumping or other sounds. In addition to all this partners (wives and girlfriends) would not like the center channel as it was often not compatible with the décor of the room.

As a result market continued to be dominated by stereo which at least provided a good quality sound (in the sweet spot).

Surround really begun to proliferate in the market around the mid 1980’s when Dolby did two great things. They provided a center channel that assisted in maintaining a center image for those in the room that were not in the sweet spot. Most importantly they provided a strong safe and secure market name on which major consumer electronic companies standardized.

Since then there has been little innovation and only slight improvement. However consumers, commentator’s audiophiles and sound companies have all noted, and many have commented on the many shortcomings of current surround technology. These include poor decoding of stereo sources, lack of a smooth continuous frontal image, center image under or above the screen and a poor or lack of rear image.

Today the market is primed for additional technical advances in that it is looking for a true 3D (including height) system. Current 2D systems do not provided this in spite of the marketing peoples attempts to hoodwink consumers!.

The main solution to-date for improving surround sound offered by the industry seems to be the addition of more and more channels such as 7.1, 9.1, 11.1, 22.2 and up! Apart from not solving the problem of consistent imaging in all seats very few homes would cope with more than 5.1 speakers. The result has not been the great commercial success such systems had hoped for. More recently we have seen the promotion of wave field synthesis techniques that can solve the consistent imaging problem and produce 3D sound but at the expense of between 60 and 900 individually controlled and driven speakers! In this writers opinion this will never fly commercially. Even in commercial Cinemas there will be an insufficient return on investment to install and maintain these expensive and necessarily complex systems.

It is our view that the world today requires a system which will meet the following specifications

1. Produce a full circular surround sound without preference for location, whether it be front, back or sides.
2. Produce this sound without surging, or pumping or adding any artifacts.
3. Be capable of producing this from current recordings i.e stereo recordings.
4. Enable all listeners in a room to hear surround sound and thus eliminate the “sweet spot”.
5. Remain compatible with the stereo or surround sound equipment in place today.
6. Produce a full 3D sound including height.
7. Achieve all the above with a minimum of speakers and no more than 5.1


I think the above is still true. On tests we and others have concluded no one can tell the difference to a recording that was made in discreet compared to a recording made in Involve encode/ decode and contained in a STEREO medium (see ye olde Involve test attached - it really was unbiased!).

In my really unbiased review of Suzanne's Quadraphonic limited release album recorded in Involve I said:

In my case I was really enthralled by what I heard and I found myself "doing a Suzanne" by rotating my body sideways and 180 degrees listening at the degree of separation with absolutely zero smearing/ pumping/ farting sounds and more importantly a rock solid image all around. What really got me was that even on the more complex-ed passages with multiple simultaneous sounds happening in similar frequency bands full discrete separation was fully maintained with no image shift. Also I was very impressed with the front /rear bass separation techniques she used. Another interesting feature was music mixed with what sounded like pink noise causing zero decode problems. It should be noted that Suzanne really showed zero directional bias in her composition but focused in creating a true acoustic space.

Both me and Rusty both agreed that if we were told it was a discrete recording we would have fully believed it. Yeah yeah, I know I am biased but I can honestly say I was having a very serious listening session and trying to hear any defects and I could not - Dutchman's Honor.

I really think Suzanne has shown the way of the future in recording, I just hope some of the younger generation catch on, instead of the crud churned out on radio today.


Myself and my chum Rusty (we argue about everything!) are both very critical listeners spoilt by very high end systems - for the above test the setup was:

His set up consists of a Technics SL 1200 turntable with a $15,000 Koertzu Black cartridge, the dual mono block amps are designed by Dimitry Kramarev and the preamp is also designed by the same guy but basing it on a modified Acoustic Research Tube design. The front speakers are Infinity RS 4.5 ribbons (costing a house) and his rears are my design Nakamichi Dragon electrostatics (really sound like the infinities). And yes he has a Surround Master V1 used mainly for movies. So in short - not so shabby. We have spent many a night lubricated listening to music way too loud when the wives are away.

The real clue here is Rusty is a total stereo guy - and even he could not detect imperfections!

My overall point is that the future of surround is "back to the future" to the only common, universally compatible format that is understood by Joe and Jill average and can be readily transmitted by anything and then compressed by say MP3 (yuck) and stored in minimal space on your phone. STEREO

At the moment the most faithful encode / decode is Involve (and who knows maybe shadow vector- have not tried it yet but could be great). Even puny Dolby pl2 can do a good ish job of decoding Involve stereo encode - there are no losers. Involve encode does not sound image compressed like the old QS , it really is indistinguishable from the source stereo

So NO ONE IS A LOSER.

Stereo / Involve encode is the only logical path and we have a crew of software weenies in US currently 80% complete in the writing of a recording studio software based universal plugin so everyone can record in Involve FOR FREE!!!!!!!!

Sorry about my rant

Regards

Chucky
 

Attachments

Last edited:

jaybird100

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
1,117
Location
Pembroke Pines, FL
Hi All

I first want to declare by interest/ bias, I am the director of Involve and the chief technical ape and as such I am an unreliable self interested witness to this discussion with a declared financial interest!!

Now trying to put my impartial QQ hat on:
Of the things that drove me to my electrostatic/ quad surroundy passion was my initial enthusiasm of making my first quad Dolby pl1 style steup in the mid 80's (after my Hafler Dynaco phase in the 70's) and then finding out that it "sucked balls"! In the end I went back to good ol stereo for another 20 years. Every time I listened to 5.1 I was very dissatisfied and distracted BY THE DAM CENTER CHANNEL!!!!!!!

I also observe that ignoring all the media hype still the most dominant and universal format today is still stereo. Its broadcast on TV, radio, on MP3, it really is everywhere. The public actually understand stereo and in an old survey by Philips they found that 60% of surround systems purchased the customers did not put the rear speakers in the rear- either putting them in the front or not connecting them.

Way back in 2013 in my first contribution to this wonderful forum I wrote the following poop, I think it is still correct:


I think we can all agree that the ultimate aim for surround sound is to place the listener (all the listeners) in the original sonic environment that the recording was intended to be. How we achieve this generates debate and can provide fertile ground for confusion and misdirection

In the mid 1970’s the first mass market attempts were made with a myriad of not very compatible systems such as SQ, QS, RM, CD4 etc. Aside from the poor cross compatibility between the systems that created market confusion all systems only worked for one position within the listening room. For all other positions the center and rear image would wander left or right dependent on where the listener sat. In addition all systems had sonic problems of either poor separation, surging, pumping or other sounds. In addition to all this partners (wives and girlfriends) would not like the center channel as it was often not compatible with the décor of the room.

As a result market continued to be dominated by stereo which at least provided a good quality sound (in the sweet spot).

Surround really begun to proliferate in the market around the mid 1980’s when Dolby did two great things. They provided a center channel that assisted in maintaining a center image for those in the room that were not in the sweet spot. Most importantly they provided a strong safe and secure market name on which major consumer electronic companies standardized.

Since then there has been little innovation and only slight improvement. However consumers, commentator’s audiophiles and sound companies have all noted, and many have commented on the many shortcomings of current surround technology. These include poor decoding of stereo sources, lack of a smooth continuous frontal image, center image under or above the screen and a poor or lack of rear image.

Today the market is primed for additional technical advances in that it is looking for a true 3D (including height) system. Current 2D systems do not provided this in spite of the marketing peoples attempts to hoodwink consumers!.

The main solution to-date for improving surround sound offered by the industry seems to be the addition of more and more channels such as 7.1, 9.1, 11.1, 22.2 and up! Apart from not solving the problem of consistent imaging in all seats very few homes would cope with more than 5.1 speakers. The result has not been the great commercial success such systems had hoped for. More recently we have seen the promotion of wave field synthesis techniques that can solve the consistent imaging problem and produce 3D sound but at the expense of between 60 and 900 individually controlled and driven speakers! In this writers opinion this will never fly commercially. Even in commercial Cinemas there will be an insufficient return on investment to install and maintain these expensive and necessarily complex systems.

It is our view that the world today requires a system which will meet the following specifications

1. Produce a full circular surround sound without preference for location, whether it be front, back or sides.
2. Produce this sound without surging, or pumping or adding any artifacts.
3. Be capable of producing this from current recordings i.e stereo recordings.
4. Enable all listeners in a room to hear surround sound and thus eliminate the “sweet spot”.
5. Remain compatible with the stereo or surround sound equipment in place today.
6. Produce a full 3D sound including height.
7. Achieve all the above with a minimum of speakers and no more than 5.1


I think the above is still true. On tests we and others have concluded no one can tell the difference to a recording that was made in discreet compared to a recording made in Involve encode/ decode and contained in a STEREO medium (see ye olde Involve test attached - it really was unbiased!).

In my really unbiased review of Suzanne's Quadraphonic limited release album recorded in Involve I said:

In my case I was really enthralled by what I heard and I found myself "doing a Suzanne" by rotating my body sideways and 180 degrees listening at the degree of separation with absolutely zero smearing/ pumping/ farting sounds and more importantly a rock solid image all around. What really got me was that even on the more complex-ed passages with multiple simultaneous sounds happening in similar frequency bands full discrete separation was fully maintained with no image shift. Also I was very impressed with the front /rear bass separation techniques she used. Another interesting feature was music mixed with what sounded like pink noise causing zero decode problems. It should be noted that Suzanne really showed zero directional bias in her composition but focused in creating a true acoustic space.

Both me and Rusty both agreed that if we were told it was a discrete recording we would have fully believed it. Yeah yeah, I know I am biased but I can honestly say I was having a very serious listening session and trying to hear any defects and I could not - Dutchman's Honor.

I really think Suzanne has shown the way of the future in recording, I just hope some of the younger generation catch on, instead of the crud churned out on radio today.


Myself and my chum Rusty (we argue about everything!) are both very critical listeners spoilt by very high end systems - for the above test the setup was:

His set up consists of a Technics SL 1200 turntable with a $15,000 Koertzu Black cartridge, the dual mono block amps are designed by Dimitry Kramarev and the preamp is also designed by the same guy but basing it on a modified Acoustic Research Tube design. The front speakers are Infinity RS 4.5 ribbons (costing a house) and his rears are my design Nakamichi Dragon electrostatics (really sound like the infinities). And yes he has a Surround Master V1 used mainly for movies. So in short - not so shabby. We have spent many a night lubricated listening to music way too loud when the wives are away.

The real clue here is Rusty is a total stereo guy - and even he could not detect imperfections!

My overall point is that the future of surround is "back to the future" to the only common, universally compatible format that is understood by Joe and Jill average and can be readily transmitted by anything and then compressed by say MP3 (yuck) and stored in minimal space on your phone. STEREO

At the moment the most faithful encode / decode is Involve (and who knows maybe shadow vector- have not tried it yet but could be great). Even puny Dolby pl2 can do a good ish job of decoding Involve stereo encode - there are no losers. Involve encode does not sound image compressed like the old QS , it really is indistinguishable from the source stereo

So NO ONE IS A LOSER.

Stereo / Involve encode is the only logical path and we have a crew of software weenies in US currently 80% complete in the writing of a recording studio software based universal plugin so everyone can record in Involve FOR FREE!!!!!!!!

Sorry about my rant

Regards

Chucky
So have any record companies, big league or independent, shown any interest in Involve surround encoding for any of their future releases? I could see Involve-encoded CD's, and even SACD's, on the stereo layer. From what I've heard, the Involve encoding scheme delivers without the disadvantages of the legacy matrix systems, and produces a better quadraphonic soundfield when decoded. I've heard some discrete recordings, passed through the Evaluation encoder, that sound awesome in quad, and they sound terrific when played in stereo without decoding, Where was this when we needed it, some 50 years ago?
 

chucky3042

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
1,467
So have any record companies, big league or independent, shown any interest in Involve surround encoding for any of their future releases? I could see Involve-encoded CD's, and even SACD's, on the stereo layer. From what I've heard, the Involve encoding scheme delivers without the disadvantages of the legacy matrix systems, and produces a better quadraphonic soundfield when decoded. I've heard some discrete recordings, passed through the Evaluation encoder, that sound awesome in quad, and they sound terrific when played in stereo without decoding, Where was this when we needed it, some 50 years ago?
So far no big ones, just a few home studio types. We will shout it out to the world when our software plugin is available
 

Fourplay

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
1,296
Location
Denver
Hi All

I first want to declare by interest/ bias, I am the director of Involve and the chief technical ape and as such I am an unreliable self interested witness to this discussion with a declared financial interest!!

Now trying to put my impartial QQ hat on:
Of the things that drove me to my electrostatic/ quad surroundy passion was my initial enthusiasm of making my first quad Dolby pl1 style steup in the mid 80's (after my Hafler Dynaco phase in the 70's) and then finding out that it "sucked balls"! In the end I went back to good ol stereo for another 20 years. Every time I listened to 5.1 I was very dissatisfied and distracted BY THE DAM CENTER CHANNEL!!!!!!!

I also observe that ignoring all the media hype still the most dominant and universal format today is still stereo. Its broadcast on TV, radio, on MP3, it really is everywhere. The public actually understand stereo and in an old survey by Philips they found that 60% of surround systems purchased the customers did not put the rear speakers in the rear- either putting them in the front or not connecting them.

Way back in 2013 in my first contribution to this wonderful forum I wrote the following poop, I think it is still correct:


I think we can all agree that the ultimate aim for surround sound is to place the listener (all the listeners) in the original sonic environment that the recording was intended to be. How we achieve this generates debate and can provide fertile ground for confusion and misdirection

In the mid 1970’s the first mass market attempts were made with a myriad of not very compatible systems such as SQ, QS, RM, CD4 etc. Aside from the poor cross compatibility between the systems that created market confusion all systems only worked for one position within the listening room. For all other positions the center and rear image would wander left or right dependent on where the listener sat. In addition all systems had sonic problems of either poor separation, surging, pumping or other sounds. In addition to all this partners (wives and girlfriends) would not like the center channel as it was often not compatible with the décor of the room.

As a result market continued to be dominated by stereo which at least provided a good quality sound (in the sweet spot).

Surround really begun to proliferate in the market around the mid 1980’s when Dolby did two great things. They provided a center channel that assisted in maintaining a center image for those in the room that were not in the sweet spot. Most importantly they provided a strong safe and secure market name on which major consumer electronic companies standardized.

Since then there has been little innovation and only slight improvement. However consumers, commentator’s audiophiles and sound companies have all noted, and many have commented on the many shortcomings of current surround technology. These include poor decoding of stereo sources, lack of a smooth continuous frontal image, center image under or above the screen and a poor or lack of rear image.

Today the market is primed for additional technical advances in that it is looking for a true 3D (including height) system. Current 2D systems do not provided this in spite of the marketing peoples attempts to hoodwink consumers!.

The main solution to-date for improving surround sound offered by the industry seems to be the addition of more and more channels such as 7.1, 9.1, 11.1, 22.2 and up! Apart from not solving the problem of consistent imaging in all seats very few homes would cope with more than 5.1 speakers. The result has not been the great commercial success such systems had hoped for. More recently we have seen the promotion of wave field synthesis techniques that can solve the consistent imaging problem and produce 3D sound but at the expense of between 60 and 900 individually controlled and driven speakers! In this writers opinion this will never fly commercially. Even in commercial Cinemas there will be an insufficient return on investment to install and maintain these expensive and necessarily complex systems.

It is our view that the world today requires a system which will meet the following specifications

1. Produce a full circular surround sound without preference for location, whether it be front, back or sides.
2. Produce this sound without surging, or pumping or adding any artifacts.
3. Be capable of producing this from current recordings i.e stereo recordings.
4. Enable all listeners in a room to hear surround sound and thus eliminate the “sweet spot”.
5. Remain compatible with the stereo or surround sound equipment in place today.
6. Produce a full 3D sound including height.
7. Achieve all the above with a minimum of speakers and no more than 5.1


I think the above is still true. On tests we and others have concluded no one can tell the difference to a recording that was made in discreet compared to a recording made in Involve encode/ decode and contained in a STEREO medium (see ye olde Involve test attached - it really was unbiased!).

In my really unbiased review of Suzanne's Quadraphonic limited release album recorded in Involve I said:

In my case I was really enthralled by what I heard and I found myself "doing a Suzanne" by rotating my body sideways and 180 degrees listening at the degree of separation with absolutely zero smearing/ pumping/ farting sounds and more importantly a rock solid image all around. What really got me was that even on the more complex-ed passages with multiple simultaneous sounds happening in similar frequency bands full discrete separation was fully maintained with no image shift. Also I was very impressed with the front /rear bass separation techniques she used. Another interesting feature was music mixed with what sounded like pink noise causing zero decode problems. It should be noted that Suzanne really showed zero directional bias in her composition but focused in creating a true acoustic space.

Both me and Rusty both agreed that if we were told it was a discrete recording we would have fully believed it. Yeah yeah, I know I am biased but I can honestly say I was having a very serious listening session and trying to hear any defects and I could not - Dutchman's Honor.

I really think Suzanne has shown the way of the future in recording, I just hope some of the younger generation catch on, instead of the crud churned out on radio today.


Myself and my chum Rusty (we argue about everything!) are both very critical listeners spoilt by very high end systems - for the above test the setup was:

His set up consists of a Technics SL 1200 turntable with a $15,000 Koertzu Black cartridge, the dual mono block amps are designed by Dimitry Kramarev and the preamp is also designed by the same guy but basing it on a modified Acoustic Research Tube design. The front speakers are Infinity RS 4.5 ribbons (costing a house) and his rears are my design Nakamichi Dragon electrostatics (really sound like the infinities). And yes he has a Surround Master V1 used mainly for movies. So in short - not so shabby. We have spent many a night lubricated listening to music way too loud when the wives are away.

The real clue here is Rusty is a total stereo guy - and even he could not detect imperfections!

My overall point is that the future of surround is "back to the future" to the only common, universally compatible format that is understood by Joe and Jill average and can be readily transmitted by anything and then compressed by say MP3 (yuck) and stored in minimal space on your phone. STEREO

At the moment the most faithful encode / decode is Involve (and who knows maybe shadow vector- have not tried it yet but could be great). Even puny Dolby pl2 can do a good ish job of decoding Involve stereo encode - there are no losers. Involve encode does not sound image compressed like the old QS , it really is indistinguishable from the source stereo

So NO ONE IS A LOSER.

Stereo / Involve encode is the only logical path and we have a crew of software weenies in US currently 80% complete in the writing of a recording studio software based universal plugin so everyone can record in Involve FOR FREE!!!!!!!!

Sorry about my rant

Regards

Chucky
Thanks for the long reply. I really appreciate your perspective. I wish I was in a position to do the same test you provided as a PDF in your post, BUT, as much as I like DSOTM, the most discrete version is also not as good in fidelity as a good stereo copy. Therefore I would love to try/hear the results of the same test using some of the Chicago Quadio box, where the material between stereo and quad should be better balanced in sound quality, and the discrete quad versions are quite discrete indeed (as they are on DSOTM).

I noticed at least one Colorado member has bought the new Involve unit. Perhaps when Covid dies down we could do a test session here in Colorado?

Thanks for your input Chucky!
 

chucky3042

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
1,467
Thanks for the long reply. I really appreciate your perspective. I wish I was in a position to do the same test you provided as a PDF in your post, BUT, as much as I like DSOTM, the most discrete version is also not as good in fidelity as a good stereo copy. Therefore I would love to try/hear the results of the same test using some of the Chicago Quadio box, where the material between stereo and quad should be better balanced in sound quality, and the discrete quad versions are quite discrete indeed (as they are on DSOTM).

I noticed at least one Colorado member has bought the new Involve unit. Perhaps when Covid dies down we could do a test session here in Colorado?

Thanks for your input Chucky!
Yes there were many versions of DSOTM and the only really good one was the one the David Parsons "leaked" to the internet, that was our reference.
 

PodCat

Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
964
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
Again I would suggest using Involve encode as Suzanne has already done. This gives you the ability to stream in any conventional manner as 2 ch stereo. Playable on about anything & superb surround when decoded by QS/Involve gear.
I don’t have that gear and wouldn’t have the slightest interest in getting it. This is 2020. We have viable, discrete, streamable formats.
 

Sonik Wiz

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,220
Location
Kansas City
I don’t have that gear and wouldn’t have the slightest interest in getting it. This is 2020. We have viable, discrete, streamable formats.
Yup your right it is 2020. And we do have quite an exciting choice of high quality 2ch or more digital formats to choose from. I embrace & enjoy most of them. Which digital format for an artist to choose from must be looked at from the method of delivery. As I said in the Fourplay's earlier Cianni SACD thread I think the hybrid SACD with discrete surround & Involve encode for the stereo layer would be the perfect combo. When it changes to streaming only the Involve system gives excellent surround as well as 2 ch stereo for the widest listening (and purchasing) audience.
Although some are still stuck using old Yamaha receiver's with DPL II for stereo upmixing, quite a number of QQ'ers & elsewhere have moved up to the much higher performance Surround Master. Which is also a very nice 21st century product.

Edit: Additionaly the 1/2 doz questions asked by Fourplay's engineer friend are all answered or essentially made non-issues when the Involve encode is used. Cuz ya know it can be handled & distributed as stereo format. Easy peasy.
 
Last edited:
2
Top