QS "decoded" Quadio Stereo compared to Quadio Quad

[kfbkfb]

With the Rhino Quadios containing both the restored quad and restored stereo mixes of the albums, I was wondering if anyone has compared [QS] fake surround sound from the stereo mix (maybe created with an SM) to the discrete quad mix?


Kirk Bayne

 

[kfbkfb]

As it happens, my discrete surround sound listening was limited to movie soundtracks (DD & DTS [up to] 5.1) until the new Quadios.

Most of my music listening is in fake surround sound (DPL 2 music) from stereo except my DV MCH SACDs which I listen to as a Dolby Surround downmix decoded into triphonic sound with DPL, all this due to an older AV receiver in my basement system.

I enjoy listening to fake surround sound (as my default listening situation), but if that's not your thing...


Kirk Bayne

 

[key_wiz]

I barely have time to listen to all the surround mixes I own. Actually, I don’t. I have probably 20-30 discs I’ve purchased still sitting unplayed. Not to mention all the surround mixes available in streaming I have in my queue.

No way I’ll ever have the time or desire to do this!

 

[ar surround]

Like many others, it would be nice to try it if I had the time. But there is still a bunch of unwrapped DV quads sitting on the shelf.

(I actually do prefer APP Eye In The Sky upmixed with the SM to the 5.1.)

 

[par4ken]

Most of us who already owned any of these titles on vinyl or CD would have already listed to them in so-called fake surround. QS Surround and Tate Stereo Enhance are not "fake" IMHO! Both simply stretch the stereo image across multiple speakers, nothing is faked!

A more useful exercise would be to make a quad encode from the discrete version. Easily done with the involve encoder or through an audio editing program like Audition or Audacity. You could easily encode in DY, EV-4, RM, QS etc.

 

[jimfisheye]

If you have an example where a mastering job was so botched or an original quad mix was so botched that random phasey upmix tinkering sounded better... shots fired! (I've probably heard examples like that before.)

Or if I misread and the idea was to compare a recent discrete mastering with the result from an encoded-decoded copy... If you're saying an example of encoded/decoded sounded better - shots fired again! (Probably heard examples of that too.)

I wonder with some of the interest in altering recordings with upmixing or random results from running stereo mixes through upmix engines if there are corners of misunderstanding where it isn't realized that discrete surround mixes are intentionally dialed in? I've had people ask me before "what kind of effect you use to make the stereo mix surround". Not realizing that it was intentional mixing to more than two speakers. Show them the joystick and give an example and now they think I'm inventing something new because they've never seen or heard anything like this before. Or I put on a surround album and have to explain that I didn't alter it into this. I bought it this way.

 

[par4ken]

This is really turning into a "what's the point" thread.
Apart from missing out the best of the matrix systems, SQ, using the available best of the decoders, which the last was 'The Tate', will be a watered down listeneng experience.

It does appear this forum specalises in 'pointless exercises', which i've said before.

Yes little point in encoding anything when the discrete version is available. That being said, some might want an encode for some specialised purpose such as playback on non-discrete equipment, headphone listening, automobile use etc.

if Kirk wants to compare the "fake" surround to the discrete that's fine, please report your findings. There are a few case where the surround mix was IMHO so bad that I much prefer enhanced (I don't say fake) stereo. Roxy Music comes to mind.

America from the last batch of Quadio's the track Tin Man is almost entirely front channel only, just a few background (vocals I think) popping up on occasion. Such a mix might sound better via "fake" stereo.

 

[Electric Moo]

What might sound better than a faux-QS decode of a stereo mix, is something like the old Sansui synthesized surround hardware. Does anyone still make something like that?

 

[Electric Moo]

I re-read above & OP stated he uses fake surround already. Had a look at my newer AVR & it has a bunch of simulated surround options under "movie", "music", and "game" headers: PLII, Neo, Jazz Club, Rock Arena, etc. So probably different amounts of reverb & degrees of surround mix.

The Pro Logic II doesn't sound as good to me as the Involve, on regular stereo material. Which are both derived from QS.

 

[LB-V]

The Pro Logic II doesn't sound as good to me as the Involve,

Agree 110% on that one. On my rig, there's no comparison between Involve and Pro Logic II. But the QSD-1, Tate II and Composer will give the Surround Master a run for the money!

This isn't directed to you in anyway, but just an opportunity to again express my opinion that to call it "fake" surround carries with it a terrible connotation and disrespect for Stereo 2 Surround (S2S) equipment and listening.

 

[kfbkfb]

I don't know why DPL 2 music would reduce the volume of the treble (I haven't noticed this before), but on one stereo source it did.

(I'm watching 20 hours of Stargate SG-1 a week through late this month, then I'll try the stereo sections on my 3 Quadios played through DPL 2 music)


Kirk Bayne

 

[Sonik Wiz]

What might sound better than a faux-QS decode of a stereo mix, is something like the old Sansui synthesized surround hardware. Does anyone still make something like that?

Unfortunately, no. I agree with others the Involve decoder sounds much cleaner & detailed than DPL II Music. In that mode it can be adjusted to do a very good job of decoding QS test tones, easy to evaluate by hearing or measurement. But like the Involve this is still just QS/RM decoding. I'd say one of the reasons the Involve SM gets such high praise for playing stereo on the forum is because people are comparing it to DPL II or some other MFG'er proprietary S2S method. Most of those do not have a way to compare it to the Sansui 270 deg wrap around mode which in most cases will be superior to stereo playback on the SM.

It's a pretty simple thing to do a DIY circuit that controls in phase/opposite phase blending to the stereo input chs to control the Involve soundfield decoding. Even simpler if you just want to do opposite phase blending to get the wrap around effect.

Most people are loath to pick up a soldering gun today so I've posted elsewhere about how to do this on the PC using AA 3 or other audio editors. Of course this is not as simple as just turning a knob like on the Sansui or Tate units. But it does give one the chance to adjust to perfection just the right amount of soundfield control, for a whole album or song to song.