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

[bmoura]

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

I think you're on the right track here. Another key point is that the major cost to issue Surround Sound material in any format is the 5.1 mix or remix costs vs. just doing the Stereo mix.

 

[Scottmoose]

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?

Half right actually. Going by a fallible memory, the use of lasers originated when people were fooling around trying to use them to scan LPs -hense the infamous and stupendously expensive laser-turntable. I'm none too convinced about that idea myself, but there you have it. And that was pretty much the start of compact disc, and the notion of recordings in digital themselves, not just processing from analogue into digital, then back into analogue again. This applied only to stereo vinyl though -I wouldn't like to think of the difficulties involved in scanning CD-4. I'd agree in the final analysis though -though matrixing from, or encoding matrixed info onto CD is pleasent, and it can work rather well, it isn't a patch on SACD / DVD-A. A discrete 4.0 from it, as was originally intended might give them a run for their digits though.

 

[John Kotches]

...

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.

Scott

Scott,

I hate to be overly particular, and I'm sorry I am pulling this statement out of context. See the part I flagged as bold in your original post? Not true. There is no downmix provision whatsover in DST (the compression algorithm for SA-CD). If an SA-CD disc has stereo and surround, they are discrete tracks.

DVD-Audio (via MLP) has the potential for downmixing based on coefficients in the metadata. In general (ignoring the output of Silverline and affiliated labels) the mixes provided are discrete for stereo and multi-channel.

Regards,

 

[Scottmoose]

Scott,

I hate to be overly particular, and I'm sorry I am pulling this statement out of context. See the part I flagged as bold in your original post? Not true. There is no downmix provision whatsover in DST (the compression algorithm for SA-CD). If an SA-CD disc has stereo and surround, they are discrete tracks.

DVD-Audio (via MLP) has the potential for downmixing based on coefficients in the metadata. In general (ignoring the output of Silverline and affiliated labels) the mixes provided are discrete for stereo and multi-channel.

Regards,

I stand corrected on that count -obviously I wasn't having a good day! My apologies. I was refering with my usual lack of clarity to the ability of many players to divert information into whichever speakers the end user wishes them to (usually with a few pre-set options); for e.g. send centre information from a multi-channel mix to front left & right, send all information to front left & right (an unusual feature my player has, though results are patchy -not as good as dedicated 2.0 obviously) etc.

 

[neil wilkes]

Can I also add that since PGC control became available in DVD-Audio, there is actually no need to use downmixing there either.
I can simply embed a stereo stream with the MC one, and the end users system will play whatever is the appropriate one according to their system.
Obviously, if they choose they can access the stereo version instead.

 

[Obbop]

Life must be sooo much simpler for Phil Spector.... what with his advocating that "return to mono" thing of his.

 

[The Quadfather]

The CD is the daughter of CD-4?
This is true. I remember reading about this in the early eighties. The original idea was to make a turntable that uses a laser to overcome the deficiencies of the Shibata stylus, which at the time was rather crude. Since then the line contact stylus has replaced Shibata for CD-4 reproduction. However, some laser turntables were developed, then someone got the idea, why not make a medium that was meant for a laser rather than a stylus? Digital encoding was being pioneered at the time and it was decided to add that. The Laserdisc was also developed out of this idea, but it was primarily analogue. Since the idea sprang from a desire to play quadradiscs accurately, they wrote into the specs a system for recording four channels, by having four sets of data multiplexed in instead of two. However, quad had a foot in the grave and it was never implemented. No one ever built a redbook quad player to my knowledge. There are currently being made very expensive laser LP turntables and they work exceedingly well. I have a DTS copy of Dark Side of the Moon that was taken from one, and processed through a Tate. Then converted to DTS, it sounds much better than my SQ copy through my own Tate. No pops and clicks at all. I understand that the turntable in question has the frequency response for CD-4, so it might work. It's ungodly expensive though. Way out of my reach. Guess I'll just stick to the old Marantz.

The Quadfather

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?[/QUOTE]

 

[neil wilkes]

Life must be sooo much simpler for Phil Spector.... what with his advocating that "return to mono" thing of his.

 

[Scottmoose]

Whatever makes people happy I suppose... I mean, I know mono can be quite good for some things (provided you've got a Quad electrostatic with sub and supertweeter handy) but we may now be entering some form of twilight zone!

 

[bizmopeen]

Life must be sooo much simpler for Phil Spector.... what with his advocating that "return to mono" thing of his.

Heck, I'm gonna make a stand and print me up some "Return to Quad" buttons. That'll get people talking!

 

[petermwilson]

Hi,
I read "Stereophile's" article re (SRS) and I asked myself, Hasen't this been around for a while and mostly on processing equipment not recordings themselves. It would seem to be a backword step catering to those who do not have any DPL or DTS neo in their reciever.

If someone is not ready to invest in recordings and equipment that play music with discrete sound separation like dvd-a or sacd they might want to get a Yamaha reciever which apparently offers a plethora of dsp modes so why bother (unless its discrete) put it on the recording.

The (SRS) algorythm seems very familiar in concept to one that I make great use of DolbyHeadphone which is also processor based.

Anyway, I guess (unless I completely misunderstand this SRS on the recording itself concept) it if its not a waste its generally redundant.

Peter m.

 

[bmoura]

Hi,
I read "Stereophile's" article re (SRS) and I asked myself, Hasen't this been around for a while and mostly on processing equipment not recordings themselves. It would seem to be a backword step catering to those who do not have any DPL or DTS neo in their reciever.

If someone is not ready to invest in recordings and equipment that play music with discrete sound separation like dvd-a or sacd they might want to get a Yamaha reciever which apparently offers a plethora of dsp modes so why bother (unless its discrete) put it on the recording.

The (SRS) algorythm seems very familiar in concept to one that I make great use of DolbyHeadphone which is also processor based.

Anyway, I guess (unless I completely misunderstand this SRS on the recording itself concept) it if its not a waste its generally redundant.

Peter m.

Yes, SRS has been around for awhile as has Dolby Surround and a few others that use matrix surround.

I think this is a great example of a company sending out a press release and getting coverage of an existing product as if it were something new.

 

[bizmopeen]

I think this is a great example of a company sending out a press release and getting coverage of an existing product as if it were something new.

Maybe the DVD-A and SACD people should try that... Couldn't hurt...

 

[Mark Anderson]

I certainly can see the need for this. I am encouraged to see A new Circle Surround
CD to add to the Circle Surround Discography (http://members.cox.net/surround/circle/cirindex.htm).
I have not seen anything mentioned about a new encoded release since Rocktron sold
to SRS labs. The need exists since the CD format is still in use and is the majority,
and the costs of releasing DVD-Audio or SACD are still beyond most production
budgets.
Yeah, I would prefer discreet, but any surround is better than no surround at all.
I agree that this should be clearly listed on the packaging, but would that confuse the public, since most do not have a Circle Surround decoder?
I have a CS decoder in a Kenwood receiver, and I prefer it while enhancing stereo to surround over Dolby Prologic II.
Playing CS encoded discs thru DPII sounds fine to me, no complaints.

 

[petermwilson]

Hi Mark,
The statement that any surround is better than no surround at all is a totally different discussion and one that can get quite lively.

I certainly support HIREZ music but I see no point in manufacturing mltich RedBooks regardless of which DSP mode is being used. If I remember correctly Logic 7 is another Martixed mode with a strong following. I've heard that it makes many 2ch sources sound much better but I don't think anyone is recording mltich Logic 7 discs.

Peter m.

 

[bmoura]

I certainly can see the need for this. I am encouraged to see A new Circle Surround
CD to add to the Circle Surround Discography (http://members.cox.net/surround/circle/cirindex.htm).
I have not seen anything mentioned about a new encoded release since Rocktron sold
to SRS labs. The need exists since the CD format is still in use and is the majority,
and the costs of releasing DVD-Audio or SACD are still beyond most production
budgets.
Yeah, I would prefer discreet, but any surround is better than no surround at all.
I agree that this should be clearly listed on the packaging, but would that confuse the public, since most do not have a Circle Surround decoder?
I have a CS decoder in a Kenwood receiver, and I prefer it while enhancing stereo to surround over Dolby Prologic II.
Playing CS encoded discs thru DPII sounds fine to me, no complaints.

Actually I've been told by some of the record label folks that the major cost for the labels is the 5.1 Surround Mix, not the costs of DVD-A or SACD release.

That is why some of the hi rez DVD-A and SACD titles end up as 2 Channel vs. 5.1 Channel discs.

 

[QUADradial]

Record label folks NEVER lie about costs...

 

[Kal Rubinson]

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.

IIRC, there were several DMP releases in Circle Surround which were nicely decoded with DPLII on the Fosgate FAP-V1.

Kal

 

[neil wilkes]

Actually I've been told by some of the record label folks that the major cost for the labels is the 5.1 Surround Mix, not the costs of DVD-A or SACD release.

That is why some of the hi rez DVD-A and SACD titles end up as 2 Channel vs. 5.1 Channel discs.

Sounds about right to me.
Costs to do discrete remixes are high - also on a lot of the back catalogue stuff the multitracks very likely jusy don't exist anymore either.
Sad, but considering all the tapes that went into landfill sites when EMI moved from Barlby Road in London, I quite believe it.

Still, I am not really convinced that there is any need for matrixed stuff to be sold as either new or an advance. To my mind it is a step backwards.
Besides, ProLogic still does a fine job of matrixed stuff, and it can also be easily written to CD.
As can both DTS and Dolby Digital too. And they are genuine discrete formats, not a fudged matrix version.