[stereophile.com] CD Surround Sound - SRS Circle Surround - new format

[BrownRB]

5.1 surround on regular CD, frommStereophile mag:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/062804SRS/

CD Surround Sound
By Stereophile Staff

June 28, 2004 — Will surround sound rejuvenate the music industry? That's the position many record label execs took when adding the capability to DVD-Audio and SACD years ago. But while they wait for the high-rez formats to catch on, SRS Labs has decided to add multichannel audio to the conventional compact disc.

SRS recently announced that Lava Records' artist Uncle Kracker has chosen the company's Circle Surround (CS) multichannel encoding technology for a disc that will be released this week called Seventy Two & Sunny. According to SRS, CS provides the capability to encode up to 6.1 channels of audio for transmission or storage over standard two-channel carriers such as CD and stereo broadcasts.

"CDs encoded with the patented Circle Surround technology can be played back on any regular CD player," says SRS, "unlike competing technologies that specifically require DVD-Audio or other special playback equipment." The company says the process is compatible with all types of CD players and A/V receivers or preamps and with all playback environments, including mono, stereo, and other matrix surround systems. SRS adds, "One Circle Surround mix satisfies all playback environments."

For listeners with a two-channel stereo system or who are using headphones, CS delivers "enhanced stereo," explains SRS. "For those home theater installations or automotive systems with a 5.1 surround-sound system, Circle Surround-encoded CDs are decoded into full surround sound, with the output quality subject to the limitations of the specific decoder."

The company suggests that for the optimum surround playback from the format, a Circle Surround II-equipped receiver or preamp be used. SRS says that CS decoders are included in products from Marantz, Kenwood, Theta Digital, and Accuphase, as well as the software DVD player from Orion Studios.

When the material is broadcast over television or radio, compressed for distribution online, or stored digitally on standard media such as CDs, DVD-Rs, or personal music juke boxes, SRS says, it still retains the surround-sound information. "This means radio stations that broadcast songs from Seventy Two & Sunny will in fact be broadcasting the music in surround sound without having to use any additional equipment or special processing."

Lava Records' Andrew Karp adds, "The ability to offer 5.1 surround sound on regular CDs gives us a powerful competitive advantage and allows us to offer far more value to our customers. Working with the Circle Surround format is simple and cost effective, and since it is completely compatible with any surround-sound receiver, we look forward to working with it again for future releases."

 

[bear]

5.1 surround on regular CD, frommStereophile mag:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/062804SRS/

CD Surround Sound
By Stereophile Staff

Lava Records' Andrew Karp adds, "The ability to offer 5.1 surround sound on regular CDs gives us a powerful competitive advantage and allows us to offer far more value to our customers. Working with the Circle Surround format is simple and cost effective, and since it is completely compatible with any surround-sound receiver, we look forward to working with it again for future releases."

I wonder how it will decode using DPLII ? My new Sony receiver has that, along with others, and I love how it decodes everything. I'm not buying a new receiver.

Barry

 

[JonUrban]

It's a step, but to me a side step. If it ain't discrete, what's the point. See QS and SQ.

 

[BrownRB]

It's a step, but to me a side step. If it ain't discrete, what's the point. See QS and SQ.

But will it...perish the thought...beat out SACD and DVD-A for surround popularity?

 

[Quadzilla]

It's a step, but to me a side step. If it ain't discrete, what's the point. See QS and SQ.

Actually, I think that more surround sound releases can only help the cause ... even if they are not discrete. Remember that it was Telarc who released a LOT of Circle Surround CDs (although they were not easily identified), and now they are amongst the leaders in MC SACD support. Who is to say that CS isn't the best alternative. I would rather have Circle Surround releases than a lot of NOTHING released on SACD and DVD-Audio. I have used a separate CS decoder, and now one that is built-in to my Marantz 6.1 receiver, and it is an excellent format. While it is NOT quite up to the Hi-rez digital MC performance, done well (as opposed to Silverlined) it will be welcome in my home. I haven't got a clue about Uncle Cracker, but I am going to check this one out. Cheers, Mike.

 

[sspsandy]

Encoding cds in Dolby Prologic II is a good idea as well. I suspect that certain artists, like Linkin Park, are already doing this, listen to Meteora through a Prologic II decoder and it has a lot of surround going on. I find the matrix encoded formats to be very flexible regardless of what type of decoder is used.

 

[fdrennen]

With the installed base of pro logic receivers available, it would seem to me to be logical to encode CD's with any matrix process. With all the matrix quad material in the can I think that the industry would market that material as such. However they spent so much money discrediting analog formats, and quad that they are embarrassed by any association with "obsolete technology"

Peace
Forrest Drennen
http://our.homewithgod.com/fdrennen/churchresume.htm

 

[JonUrban]

I would just be worried that these alternative "matrix'd" technologies might overtake and kill the discrete stuff. At this point, the labels may be keen on dumping support for either SACD or DVD-A, since they aren't making money on them.

Also, with a matrix'd disc, there is only one recording on it, thus the publishers can't get paid twice. Another reason to adopt this format.

But, as you state, it's better than nothing, but there are some caveats to go with it...........IMHO.

:-jon

 

[ss9001]

I would just be worried that these alternative "matrix'd" technologies might overtake and kill the discrete stuff. At this point, the labels may be keen on dumping support for either SACD or DVD-A, since they aren't making money on them.:-jon

IMO, these are a "distraction" from what the recording industry should be doing to promote the growth of hi-rez MC formats, including standardizing formats.

I own a couple ProLogic encoded Tomita CD's. And they are no great shakes. No better and actually not as fullfilling a soundfield as QS synth on a stereo LP/CD. With PLIIx, it would be better, but not as good as what exists now, if only the industry, and more importantly retailers, will get off their duff and promote/market it. When was the last time anyone saw ads or a Sony commercial promoting SACD or DVD-A?

We already have state-of-the-art recording technologies. No need for going backwards.

But, I could see a dual-disc format being very useful and successful with PLIIx on one side and the discrete stuff on the other. That way people can get a taste of surround sound and perhaps get motivated to go the next step and buy a player for DVD-A/SACD while building their libraries. If its a step in that direction, then I would say bring it on. I'm just concerned that if this catches, then DVD-A and SACD will go nowhere in the mass market and will be replaced with only Dolby-ized versions.

 

[Guy Robinson]

I went to Walmart and checked this out. All I could see on the case was "Enhanced CD" so I didn't get it because I figured that there were probably 2 versions of the disc. Not sure if this is correct but if it isn't shouldn't they mention somewhere that there is CRS 5.1 encoding on the disc as well?

 

[ClarkNovak]

Feh. SRS is trying hard, and you have to give them points for that. But when all's said and done, I have to agree with the comment above -

** If it ain't DISCRETE, what's the point? **

Why take a step backward? Universal is releasing lots of new discs - Nora Jones, Sting, Elvis Costello - on hybrid multichannel SACDs, and they don't cost one dollar more than the regular stereo CDs. And these guys want you to buy their matrixed thing? Again I ask, why go backward? We shouldn't accept this attempt by SRS to foist yet another lame matrixed format on us.

Also keep in mind that Advanced Resolution DVD-A and SACD are sampled at a MUCH higher rate. Regular CDs at 44.1 can't hold a candle to them, so in addition to a matrixed MC mix, SRS also wants you to have one that's sampled at a rate that's already been superseded by many magnitudes.

IMHO, the Circle Surround stuff is stone knives and bearskins. Why let ourselves get sucked into a technological backwater? We have heard the future, and it is discrete!

Clark

 

[Scottmoose]

Feh. SRS is trying hard, and you have to give them points for that. But when all's said and done, I have to agree with the comment above -

** If it ain't DISCRETE, what's the point? **

Why take a step backward? Universal is releasing lots of new discs - Nora Jones, Sting, Elvis Costello - on hybrid multichannel SACDs, and they don't cost one dollar more than the regular stereo CDs. And these guys want you to buy their matrixed thing? Again I ask, why go backward? We shouldn't accept this attempt by SRS to foist yet another lame matrixed format on us.

Also keep in mind that Advanced Resolution DVD-A and SACD are sampled at a MUCH higher rate. Regular CDs at 44.1 can't hold a candle to them, so in addition to a matrixed MC mix, SRS also wants you to have one that's sampled at a rate that's already been superseded by many magnitudes.

IMHO, the Circle Surround stuff is stone knives and bearskins. Why let ourselves get sucked into a technological backwater? We have heard the future, and it is discrete!

Clark

I'm still astounded that the industry missed a trick and never utilised the 4.0 potential of CD. They sound good (be honest now, they do. Not brilliant, but far from bad, providing someone took a little care over the production), and are cheap. They could've then done a simple downmix into 2.0 for those with standard CD players, a la SACD players downmix multi-channel into 2.0 for those without the extra speakers. Not rocket science is it.
Too late now though. Pity
Scott

 

[neil wilkes]

But the whole point is that it's not new in any way.
We can already put discrete MC onto a CD by encoding to DTS-WAV or DD-WAV, so I simply do not understand the "need" for yet another matrixed system.

It stinks of yet another company either too tight to pay licensing royalties, or another one wanting to try & jump on the bandwagon.

Personally, I prefer discrete. Much cleaner & clearer due to the independant centre channel. Much fuller due to the independant surrounds too.
Matrixed?
Why?

 

[Scottmoose]

But the whole point is that it's not new in any way.
We can already put discrete MC onto a CD by encoding to DTS-WAV or DD-WAV, so I simply do not understand the "need" for yet another matrixed system.

It stinks of yet another company either too tight to pay licensing royalties, or another one wanting to try & jump on the bandwagon.

Personally, I prefer discrete. Much cleaner & clearer due to the independant centre channel. Much fuller due to the independant surrounds too.
Matrixed?
Why?

Very true. With modern technology and formats, I can see no reason, or need for having a matrix system (especially as those we already have are excellent) except for synthing from stereo or from early matrixed recordings. Matrixing recordings was only done in the first place because the mass market carrier of the time was vinyl, and it was (initially) impossible to get discrete 4 channel from it -at least until CD4 came along, with its own set of problems. THis makes no sense -why encode, when it decodes stereo well enough. That was what it was really designed for, like DPLII et al, and until now, they've been honest about their role in life, which is more than the original matrix formats were, sound good or no.
Trying to be positive, any surround is better than none, but I hope this won't lead to even more market confusion -it's bad enough as it is! CD; HDCD; CD Remastered using DSD; XRCD; DTS CD; SBM; Dolby Surround; DVD-A; SACD; now CS encoded... have I missed any? Probably.
That's why I'm surprised that the simple, uncompressed, discrete 4 channel potential built into the redbook CD format from the off was never used. A decent enough format (which CD is) with 4 nice discrete channels. Another might have been. Backto the drawing board again!

 

[Q-Eight]

It's the 70's all over again!! All these competing formats and not a decent one among 'em.

I read somewhere a while back that the compact disc was invented due to somebody trying to find a reliable way to playback a CD-4 LP. Is there any truth behind that?

 

[BananaSlug]

I assume that the producers have to make a 4 or 5 channel mix before encoding the signal to cs - so, wouldn't it make it more likely that the recod companies would use this existing mix and also issue it on dvd-a/sacd? Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic... but hopefully some good could come out of this.

 

[Cai Campbell]

It's the 70's all over again!! All these competing formats and not a decent one among 'em.

I read somewhere a while back that the compact disc was invented due to somebody trying to find a reliable way to playback a CD-4 LP. Is there any truth behind that?

Um, I doubt it, since you can't play a CD-4 LP on a compact disc player.

 

[sspsandy]

I for one like the matrix format. If you have a decent decoder, like a Tate, a Variomatrix, a Fosgate Model 4, or Prologic II, it is a super versatile processor. While primarily for synthing from stereo, they eat up any surround encoded material, the results are way cooler than most stereo sources. DVDs that have Dolby Digital also have the 2 channel layer encoded in Dolby Surround, it's part of the specifications that were adopted. I've noticed that the Hi Rez stereo tracks on DVD-As are encoded. Since I utilize a Dolby Prologic II processor in my car to get 5 channels, any encoding of normally stereo material is a bonus. Also, since I only have 4 outdoor speakers on my deck, I run all the 5.1 discs in 2 channel mode through the Tate, so the more they are encoded the better as far as I'm concerned. As to whether SACD or DVD-A ever catch on with the masses, or remain strictly audiophile formats is likely going to depend on simplicity, i.e. plug and play. Getting a decent Hi Rez capability requires a certain understanding of rocket science as far as the average consumer goes. You could have bought the right 5.1 receiver and multi player, and assuming you're able to connect them properly and set up the correct input/output mode, you are still faced with a bewildering array of menu choices before you can actually play the correct hi rez 5.1 track. What Joe Sixpack need is a box that you can pop the disc into, select a switch that says 5.1 surround, and away we go. Anything too much more complicated than that and you are into your audiophile market.

 

[bmoura]

It's the 70's all over again!! All these competing formats and not a decent one among 'em.

I read somewhere a while back that the compact disc was invented due to somebody trying to find a reliable way to playback a CD-4 LP. Is there any truth behind that?

Well, the CD format does include the ability to issue a disc with 4 discrete channels. As far as I know, no one ever tried issuing titles in that format.

But that's quite a bit different than the technology behind the CD-4 system.

 

[solaris]

Look the reason most people don't get into Multi Channel audio is not the player, It's the amp and speakers needed. SACD or DVD-A players can be found for a good price, but a good 5.1 amp and speakers(SUB) are the pricey part. I have two friends who have the pioneer 563a but only a stereo amp to run it to. So a cheaper way to decode surround will not help much at all. If your going to use CS II or DP II a DVD is a better source and if you have a 5.1 system your going to have a DVD player. So a surround CD is not going to change anything. I love it when a CD does decode into a great surround but I still want a SACD or DVD-A first, a DTS second, A CS II or DP II DVD third and a CS II or DP II CD last.

I've had surround CD's, I've known surround CD's, and let me tell you, surround CD's are no SACD or DVD-A