Surround Master - What's Next? EV? DY? UHJ?

[Robert van Diggele]

Quite simply, a highly priced, shoddily designed and poorly implemented piece of equipment is being sold by people who have done little or no devolopment research.

Better to by the real deal, a much better audio experience will the obtained. This of course releates to QS & SQ decoding.

There are reviews in QQ from people who already use the Surround Master, and who are most probably also familiar with your work. What I read is that the SM is doing a very good job, including the QS part , so are these people fooling themselves then?

 

[The Bushmaster]

Aah Geezzz...All this over a piece of hardware that fakes surround sound?

Think I'll stay with my [obsolete] Sony SQD-2020.

 

[oxforddickie]

There are reviews in QQ from people who already use the Surround Master, and who are most probably also familiar with your work. What I read is that the SM is doing a very good job, including the SQ part , so are these people fooling themselves then?

Are you confusing matters? I'm not talking about the units ability to create a fake effect from stereo material. It is a fact the units ability to decode QS is very poor, just track down the transfer of the Jim Croce album that was done. Dreadful.

People thing what they want to think, and i've yet to see any 'considered' reviews of the QS/SQ unit's abilitys, but as it only includes an additional DSP, there';s no way the resulting decode can be accurate.

Plus, what do these people have to compoare it with. Any results put out by it may appear 'impressive' to someone who has no way of comparing it with anything else.

 

[oxforddickie]

Aah Geezzz...All this over a piece of hardware that fakes surround sound?

Think I'll stay with my [obsolete] Sony SQD-2020.

Good idea, just because it's obsolete doesn't mean it's no good

 

[chucky3042]

Hi All

Forgot to note that the surround master actually uses 20 analogue op amps in the processing stage - not the buffering stuff (check out some of the internal photo's I posted in the original thread). Some bits were better done in analogue. Please note that the Surround Master can synthesize surround from stereo but is fundamentally an encode/ decode process that does achieve 35 - 40 dB separation.

Regards

Chucky

 

[Robert van Diggele]

Are you confusing matters? I'm not talking about the units ability to create a fake effect from stereo material. It is a fact the units ability to decode QS is very poor, just track down the transfer of the Jim Croce album that was done. Dreadful.

People thing what they want to think, and i've yet to see any 'considered' reviews of the QS/SQ unit's abilitys, but as it only includes an additional DSP, there';s no way the resulting decode can be accurate.

Plus, what do these people have to compoare it with. Any results put out by it may appear 'impressive' to someone who has no way of comparing it with anything else.

I can be wrong, but I thought that Bob Romano reviewed one of the first models and said that the QS part is also very good.

But I get the feeling that it does not matter how many peope are giving positive reviews, because you are not involved in the final product, is that an accurate feeling?

 

[oxforddickie]

We are discussing the quaility of the decoding, not counting IC's. Stating that means nothing without relating them to what function they perform.

 

[oxforddickie]

Yes he did, he released one decode using the thing and never released another using it. The 'decode' was one of the worst ever done, never heard anything so bad, and any Sansui would beat it hands down. In fact he's now using decodes from one of the top Sansui QS decoders.

I would not even think of being involved in it's review because they really wouldn't like what i would say. As an engineer i would be able to do a full (meaningful) test on it. Plus i'm busy enough as it is.

I doubt they would want me to be able to do that. I'm only interested in 'ACCURATE DECODING', which is what we all want. That leaves the Involve out of the equation (pun intended)

 

[Quadwreck]

Yes he did, he released one decode using the thing and never released another using it. The 'decode' was one of the worst ever done, never heard anything so bad, and any Sansui would beat it hands down. In fact he's now using decodes from one of the top Sansui QS decoders.

I would not even think of being involved in it's review because they really wouldn't like what i would say. As an engineer i would be able to do a full (meaningful) test on it. Plus i'm busy enough as it is.

I doubt they would want me to be able to do that. I'm only interested in 'ACCURATE DECODING', which is what we all want. That leaves the Involve out of the equation (pun intended)

We can discuss theory to death. Anybody can tell others how they should do their craft. Why don't you build your own decoder and sell it, and we the consumers can do our own comparisons?

 

[oxforddickie]

I would, if money wasn't the issue. If you'd like to get an idea of how it would be, try one of my SQ/II or QS/II decodes. that'd the best i can supply at ther moment, but i live in hope of a lottery win lol

 

[jsrstereo]

Well, I feel it's very important to note that the discussion in this thread should be read as being limited to the SM's ability to decode legacy matrix formats. However, for me, its real value is in its ability to create "fake surround" from un-encoded stereo sources. I have some interest, but not very much, in decoding QS, and I could care less about decoding SQ. But I really love its ability to create an immersive, almost holographic soundfield from stereo (depends on the stereo mix, of course) - that's why I have it. I'm not so sure that it necessarily beats Sansui VarioMatrix for quad synthesis from stereo insofar as separation is concerned (again, depends on the stereo mix going into the unit), but I feel that the integrity of the front channels and the overall fidelity of the soundfield created by the SM from stereo is much superior.

So, as a QS/SQ/EV (etc) decoder, I really don't have an opinion, nor do I care so much, but as synthsizer, I say SM=the best.

Just my $.0002 (Oklahoma currency) from a non-tech music lover.

John R

 

[Quadwreck]

I would, if money wasn't the issue. If you'd like to get an idea of how it would be, try one of my SQ/II or QS/II decodes. that'd the best i can supply at ther moment, but i live in hope of a lottery win lol

Whatever you think of the Surround Master, and how you would do it better, we who have purchased the QS model find it the best we have heard, and the SQ model is just now out and you're condemning it before it has even been heard by us or you. Is that any help to anyone? If you can do better, then you should do it. Demonstrate your process to electronics makers and see if they'll manufacture the Oxford Dickie Decoder (ODD), and the marketplace will decide.

 

[oxforddickie]

It may well be, that is, like your disinterest in SQ & QS) of no interest to me, or part of my issue withthe unit and the company

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

I've not heard one of these decoders in use, or played around with one. But, I did listen to the Jim Croce conversion that was released using it. And when comparing the involve decode with a QS-Final script decode of the same album, it was no contest....the script won, hands down.

Of course, that was just one example. I think what would also be interesting would be to put the involve up against the vintage QS decoders that still bring in the big bucks on ebay. I might have to dig through my binder of dts cd-rs and see if I have a decode of that album. I don't know where the involve decoder rates as far as a standalone decoder, but based on what I've heard the scripts beat the stuffing out of it, which is why I questioned if it was even possible to build a hardware decoder that does in real time what the scripts do.

In a perfect world, this thread would have been much calmer, Chucky and Richard would have discussed various decoding methods and formulas over some beers and/or tea (apparently not iced, though), the best decoder ever would have been built, and all parties would have profited......hmmm.....there's got to be an alternate reality somewhere where that's how it went down. But.....how to get there......hmmmmm.....

Ah well, time to play around with some more decoded files.....

 

[oxforddickie]

Because you can't do accurate SQ decoding just in a DSP. I do wish people would read previous postings before posting themselves

 

[oxforddickie]

I've not heard one of these decoders in use, or played around with one. But, I did listen to the Jim Croce conversion that was released using it. And when comparing the involve decode with a QS-Final script decode of the same album, it was no contest....the script won, hands down.

Of course, that was just one example. I think what would also be interesting would be to put the involve up against the vintage QS decoders that still bring in the big bucks on ebay. I might have to dig through my binder of dts cd-rs and see if I have a decode of that album. I don't know where the involve decoder rates as far as a standalone decoder, but based on what I've heard the scripts beat the stuffing out of it, which is why I questioned if it was even possible to build a hardware decoder that does in real time what the scripts do.

In a perfect world, this thread would have been much calmer, Chucky and Richard would have discussed various decoding methods and formulas over some beers and/or tea (apparently not iced, though), the best decoder ever would have been built, and all parties would have profited......hmmm.....there's got to be an alternate reality somewhere where that's how it went down. But.....how to get there......hmmmmm.....

Ah well, time to play around with some more decoded files.....

The problem is, they are not interested!. End, they are right and everyone else is wrong. BUT, if they are so right after bragging they could produce a SQ decoder did they have to come here on QQ asking if anyone knew how to decode it. Bunch of cowboys is the only way to describe them i'm afraid.

I've said all this before.

 

[oxforddickie]

Whatever you think of the Surround Master, and how you would do it better, we who have purchased the QS model find it the best we have heard, and the SQ model is just now out and you're condemning it before it has even been heard by us or you. Is that any help to anyone? If you can do better, then you should do it. Demonstrate your process to electronics makers and see if they'll manufacture the Oxford Dickie Decoder (ODD), and the marketplace will decide.

It's pretty obvious people don't read what's written. I'm not going to keep going over it. You will find the answers here already, and your idea can't work. Manufacturers are not interested in something that won't make mega money.

 

[Q8]

Simple answers i'm afraid:

No, it is digital, but don't let that 'word' confuse you. Again, an understaning of the matrix's is needed.

Pre or Post? Not sure what you mean, but 'During' LOL

No Pictures, no information, no specs. Copyright OD.

So it's some sort of hardware device that is processing the signal during the process, digitally. I'm not sure where analog comes into this then, but maybe I am just confused.

I will admit that I do not understand the equations and the extent of my physics knowledge is an open book test Physics I in high school, reading and watching physics shows on PBS.

I fully agree that I am not mentally equiped to enter into any sort of mathmatical or engineering debate.

Please don't take my words as an 'attack' but I know how important details and proof are to you. You demand the details and proof of the Involve folks, but you don't seem willing to take steps to shed any light on your own process and what exactly makes it correct or superior.

I know you have a lot of impressive examples of your decoding work, but so far what I have seen of the Involve decode looks fairly impressive as well. So there really is no way to properly compare the two processes as technical details of the Involve and the OD process are still partially veiled in secrecy.

I understand why you both have secrets, you guys don't want people to steal your work. Quite franlky neither the OD process or the Involve process can easily be compared by the layman other than listening, scoping and comparing wav files (which can be difficult for someone with no background in audio engineering).


Also I think the Involve process isn't entirely on the DSP chips. Hopefully the Involve people can verify this or correct me if I'm wrong.

I really have no clear reason to believe there is anything wrong with the basic decoding math Involve is using. If there is one, I'm begging, please let me know what it is. As far as the rest of the Involve process, that's just a form of logic. Everyone touts the Tate, but it uses a logic process no one dreampt of in the heart of the SQ era. I don't see how this new version of logic from the Involve people is any differant.

OD, I respect your work and I respect your knowledge, but you really should consider your own words of "put up or shut up"

 

[oxforddickie]

I certainly won't give anyone any information regarding my work, too many thieves around. I also don't ask details that would mean they indulge their secrets, it was just to prove a point to him!

I'm afraid that the rest of your posting would have been answered if you knew more of the inner workings of QS & SQ.

I would explain some of it, but i don't want Involve to gain anything that might be of some use. After all, they know it all anyway LOL

As to putting up or shut up, get Coka Cola here and print their recipe. Then i'll do it!!!!

 

[JonUrban]

Quite simply, a highly priced, shoddily designed and poorly implemented piece of equipment is being sold by people who have done little or no devolopment research.

Better to by the real deal, a much better audio experience will the obtained. This of course releates to QS & SQ decoding.

OD,

Please knock this shit off or be gone. The SM is not "a highly priced, shoddily designed and poorly implemented piece of equipment" and if you don't like it, don't buy one.

I am tired of this smear campaign, and if you now want to leave and call me names again, fine.