Surround Master v2: Thoughts and Impressions

[J. PUPSTER]

Just received a few hours ago, so I'm still getting used to the finer adjustments, but:
I put this one on, and it's blowin' me away. If you like funky instrumental rock music this one's going to be a must!
I believe from what I've heard so far, the SMv2 may benefit from a clean modern recording/mastering, which this one has IMO. What's amazing is the DR on this is only about an 8, but sounds fabulous to me.
***Thought it important to edit this in: Concerning the last couple lines above, to be fair I've just started using the SMv2, and much more listening to various: styles, formats, production, recordings, and mastering is needed, before any blanket statements should be considered!***
I'm feeding the SMv2 with my Denon DVD-3910.
I'm using 4.0, with the main volume at 12 o'clock and the 4 outputs at about 1 o'clock.
Yes, it basically takes a huge dump all over any DPL type processing.
As I hear more music, it's also apparent that small changes in the 4 output levels can make significant difference in the mix/enjoyment. Also, it does seem to handle bass much better than many of the DPL types out there; much tighter/more focused. But it does depend on each recording.
The album is Rock Candy Funk Party's - Grooove Is King, (and it's ok to skip Mr. Funkadamus if you want- sorry Reverend)

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Tonight while running the SMv2, I checked the temperatures of the outside of my unit with a Laser Thermometer. Other items in the room were registering around 75-77 deg. F. After an hour, (to allow regular operating temp.) the SMv2 was registering 100 deg. F. on the top of the unit.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Soundfield]

After an hour, (to allow regular operating temp.) the SMv2 was registering 100 deg. F. on the top of the unit.

100 F is 37.7 in real temperature!

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Just received a few hours ago, so I'm still getting used to the finer adjustments, but:
I put this one on, and it's blowin' me away. If you like funky instrumental rock music this one's going to be a must!
I believe from what I've heard so far, the SMv2 may benefit from a clean modern recording/mastering, which this one has IMO. What's amazing is the DR on this is only about an 8, but sounds fabulous to me.
***Thought it important to edit this in: Concerning the last couple lines above, to be fair I've just started using the SMv2, and much more listening to various: styles, formats, production, recordings, and mastering is needed, before any blanket statements should be considered!***
I'm feeding the SMv2 with my Denon DVD-3910.
I'm using 4.0, with the main volume at 12 o'clock and the 4 outputs at about 1 o'clock.
Yes, it basically takes a huge dump all over any DPL type processing.
As I hear more music, it's also apparent that small changes in the 4 output levels can make significant difference in the mix/enjoyment. Also, it does seem to handle bass much better than many of the DPL types out there; much tighter/more focused. But it does depend on each recording.
The album is Rock Candy Funk Party's - Grooove Is King, (and it's ok to skip Mr. Funkadamus if you want- sorry Reverend)

View attachment 40972

I'm glad you mentioned the improvement on bass as I've noticed this as well. As I've mentioned before I have 4 large floor standing speakers with 12" woofs that Infinity crosses over at 80Hz and a sub-woof with 2, 12 drivers. With all that what could the SM v2 do for it? The bass is both deep and very percussive you can really feel the punch. I think that all this home theater stuff with bass management goes wrong sometimes. I mean the SM v2 outputs full range each ch and adds a sub-woof ch at 50 Hz. How simple is that and it works wonderful.

Everything I have listened to so far sounds incredible so clean & detailed and the surround decoding is better than DPL II could ever be. I haven't played anything yet that noticebly shows off the value of the tri-band decoding but of course I will certainly share if I find a good exampple.

 

[rustyandi]

I have just had the S/M 2 on for 3 hours and mine is just warm?

 

[zabble]

.

It arrived just in time for the weekend. I am psyched, especially because I sold off my original Surround Master several months ago and have been without ever since.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ar surround]

A technical question for @chucky3042 or @Overture:

There are instances where the Surround Master V2 will take a stereo (not SQ or QS) recording and place panned instruments/vocals in, for example, both the the LF and LR channels. There are also instances where it will isolate a panned signal in only the LF channel. Occasionally, it will place a signal virtually discretely in a rear channel. Being cursed with an engineer's mind, I am curious as to how the SM determines which signals get duplicated in the F and R channels and which get isolated. Is it the degree of hard panning? Phasing? Magic sauce?

Also, I find that I really like the Involve 5(.1) mode. (Key point: I have a very large 3-way center speaker with drivers that match the fronts and surrounds.) I have the center channel volume set at ten o'clock. On my system, Involve 5(.1) really locks in a center channel soloist yet still provides a seamless front sound stage. I find using the Involve 5(.1) mode very handy on recordings where phase anomalies throw off the balance of the front sound stage. Also, I can adjust the center channel volume to my taste using the processor's remote without moving my butt from the couch. It was a really good call to include the 5(.1) option although I know that many prefer the 4(.1) mode.

 

[chucky3042]

Really a tough question to answer but the main clues it uses is phase, RMS energy content, magnitude dominance and assessing these parameters considering its "weight" in terms of the Fletcher Munsen hearing sensitivity curve. If there is zero out of phase content the object will be firmly a frontal thing, the instantaneous magnitudes of left and right are constantly being compared against the sum let/right signal phase content. Our phase detectors are super sensitive and very linear. These adjusted numbers are then put into either the SQ or QS matrix's Then the next big trick after you have picked the component signal is how to place it seamlessly so that it does not sound like a switch - also attempting to take the object as a whole without smearing bits of it across the room. This is where multiple band related dual slope time constants and tri band come into action.

Took me 2 years to figure out how to do it all.

 

[chucky3042]

Really a tough question to answer but the main clues it uses is phase, RMS energy content, magnitude dominance and assessing these parameters considering its "weight" in terms of the Fletcher Munsen hearing sensitivity curve. If there is zero out of phase content the object will be firmly a frontal thing, the instantaneous magnitudes of left and right are constantly being compared against the sum let/right signal phase content. Our phase detectors are super sensitive and very linear. These adjusted numbers are then put into either the SQ or QS matrix's Then the next big trick after you have picked the component signal is how to place it seamlessly so that it does not sound like a switch - also attempting to take the object as a whole without smearing bits of it across the room. This is where multiple band related dual slope time constants and tri band come into action.

Took me 2 years to figure out how to do it all.

Oh in regard to the center channel, it is mathematically impossible to separate the center from Left and Right, in the end you need to kludge a solution based on vector magnitudes. The separation if turned up too much sounds messy and discontinious. It really is a compromise between grainy sound and separation.....all separators including Atmos suffer from this issue. We never chase numbers, we apt for seamless sound first.

 

[beerking]

Really a tough question to answer but the main clues it uses is phase, RMS energy content, magnitude dominance and assessing these parameters considering its "weight" in terms of the Fletcher Munsen hearing sensitivity curve. If there is zero out of phase content the object will be firmly a frontal thing, the instantaneous magnitudes of left and right are constantly being compared against the sum let/right signal phase content. Our phase detectors are super sensitive and very linear. These adjusted numbers are then put into either the SQ or QS matrix's Then the next big trick after you have picked the component signal is how to place it seamlessly so that it does not sound like a switch - also attempting to take the object as a whole without smearing bits of it across the room. This is where multiple band related dual slope time constants and tri band come into action.

Took me 2 years to figure out how to do it all.

Lets hope the boffins at S n P get their heads in tune for that sales pitch!!

But seriously that 2 years was not wasted Charles.
If you have any trouble persuading the naysayers in looking further into your product, send the Q team round.

It even got me looking at the new Bose Audio glasses wondering if something could be done with those, to give an Involve surround effect?
https://www.bose.co.uk/en_gb/index....I_&gclid=CMXAsICXsuMCFRBUGwodtPgJsQ&gclsrc=ds
Damn there goes that patent!!

These ones:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07PB1C...olid=2UH5WGIAPEB2A&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

 

[beerking]

A technical question for @chucky3042 or @Overture:

There are instances where the Surround Master V2 will take a stereo (not SQ or QS) recording and place panned instruments/vocals in, for example, both the the LF and LR channels. There are also instances where it will isolate a panned signal in only the LF channel. Occasionally, it will place a signal virtually discretely in a rear channel. Being cursed with an engineer's mind, I am curious as to how the SM determines which signals get duplicated in the F and R channels and which get isolated. Is it the degree of hard panning? Phasing? Magic sauce?

Also, I find that I really like the Involve 5(.1) mode. (Key point: I have a very large 3-way center speaker with drivers that match the fronts and surrounds.) I have the center channel volume set at ten o'clock. On my system, Involve 5(.1) really locks in a center channel soloist yet still provides a seamless front sound stage. I find using the Involve 5(.1) mode very handy on recordings where phase anomalies throw off the balance of the front sound stage. Also, I can adjust the center channel volume to my taste using the processor's remote without moving my butt from the couch. It was a really good call to include the 5(.1) option although I know that many prefer the 4(.1) mode.

You are not alone in liking the 5.1 option.
I started with the 4.1 but have since gravitated towards the sound produced by the 5.1 mode
I find it fuller and more pleasing to my ears.
I know sacrilege fellow quadies but no doubt I'll be hopping between both options.

 

[chucky3042]

You are not alone in liking the 5.1 option.
I started with the 4.1 but have since gravitated towards the sound produced by the 5.1 mode
I find it fuller and more pleasing to my ears.
I know sacrilege fellow quadies but no doubt I'll be hopping between both options.

You will burn in hell for ever for those remarks!!! Repent and return to 4 channels immediately.

 

[beerking]

Quick question

Do SHM CD's make any difference in the overall surround effect, in using the SM2?

I have just played this one:
https://www.discogs.com/Ben-Sidran-Puttin-In-Time-On-Planet-Earth-/release/10162385
And to my ears it has a marked improvement in separation on standard CD's ...so good, that if you didn't know it was being processed through the SM2, you would think it's a top drawer surround release...it's superb.

 

[beerking]

To answer my own question I have just listened to another Japanese manufactured CD (not a SHM version)

Same artist Ben Sidran

This one:
https://www.discogs.com/Ben-Sidran-I-Lead-A-Life/release/8171328
The mix is wonderful through the SM2
So I am guessing there is no difference.
But I'm prepared to stand corrected!!

 

[DuncanS]

I have always thought SHM stood for Sh*t Hot Marketing!

 

[beerking]

I have always thought SHM stood for Sh*t Hot Marketing!

Looking at the blurb, that states how superior the SHM is to a standard CD, in wonderful grammatic diagrams (in Japanese mind!!)...you can see how desperate they were to flog another medium.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

To answer my own question I have just listened to another Japanese manufactured CD (not a SHM version)

Same artist Ben Sidran

This one:
https://www.discogs.com/Ben-Sidran-I-Lead-A-Life/release/8171328
The mix is wonderful through the SM2
So I am guessing there is no difference.
But I'm prepared to stand corrected!!

It's my firm opinion the SM reaction has more to do with original studio production/mics, mixing and mastering. I recently did a test of the Pretenders' album "Get Close" (which I love) between an early CD and the HDtracks version at 96/24. I was able to burn the HDtracks (which has good DR also) onto a DVD-R so that my Denon DVD-3910 could play it, because I don't trust the sound coming through my Sound Blaster card. The HDtracks version had what I'd call a frosty/crispy sound on the higher end; the CD was smoother and cleaner, with better separation; and was far more listenable.
From what I've heard from the various Japanese CDs and SACDs with or without SHM; I also believe it has more to do with mastering than anything else.

 

[beerking]

It's my firm opinion the SM reaction has more to do with original studio production/mics, mixing and mastering. I recently did a test of the Pretenders' album "Get Close" (which I love) between an early CD and the HDtracks version at 96/24. I was able to burn the HDtracks (which has good DR also) onto a DVD-R so that my Denon DVD-3910 could play it, because I don't trust the sound coming through my Sound Blaster card. The HDtracks version had what I'd call a frosty/crispy sound on the higher end; the CD was smoother and cleaner, with better separation; and was far more listenable.
From what I've heard from the various Japanese CDs and SACDs with or without SHM; I also believe it has more to do with mastering than anything else.

I couldn't agree more pups.
From my minimal experiments, it is clear that the final mastering has the final say in the quality we get to hear.
Although this beauty really is opening up so many more reasons to play my stereo collection that has been left collecting dust for far toooo long.
It is the dogs bollox!!

 

[Sonik Wiz]

It's my firm opinion the SM reaction has more to do with original studio production/mics, mixing and mastering. I recently did a test of the Pretenders' album "Get Close" (which I love) between an early CD and the HDtracks version at 96/24. I was able to burn the HDtracks (which has good DR also) onto a DVD-R so that my Denon DVD-3910 could play it, because I don't trust the sound coming through my Sound Blaster card. The HDtracks version had what I'd call a frosty/crispy sound on the higher end; the CD was smoother and cleaner, with better separation; and was far more listenable.
From what I've heard from the various Japanese CDs and SACDs with or without SHM; I also believe it has more to do with mastering than anything else.

I buy a bit of stuff from Yes! Asia & CD Japan but I'd never spend money on SHM. They have an explanation of SHM in English & I'd put it right up there with the Tice Digital Audio Clock.

I agree things can sound different between an older CD release or newer high res download. There should be otherwise there's no reason for high res! Which one prefers could certainly be different between them. I like to check some of the tracks in AA 3 Spectrum Analysis & see if there is a brick wall cut off at 22 Khz or if it extends higher as it should with a real 96/24 copy. So far all I have DL'ed from HD Tracks have true 96. I DL'ed the entire Door's catalog from them & I much prefer it to the original CD's. Which remonds me.... time to Jim and group play through the Surround Master.

 

[chucky3042]

In general the actual "quality" of the recording does not matter with the SM , its more about the microphone placements and the tricks the recording "engineers" do in the studio