keith@uunet.UU.NET (Keith McIntyre) (01/31/91)
There has been some discussion on the newsgroups lately about Q sound and how it actually sounds. One person (who wishes to remain anonymous) bought the Immaculate Collection by Madonna. Three people listened to the CD on their systems. Their reviews follow. The question is, how can the observed sound be so radically different? Is Q sound what it is cracked up to be? Person number 1 heard the CD second and has a system consisting of Wharfdale E30 speakers, Denon 325 receiver, and a Sony 550 CD player. His observations are as follows: Occasional sound effects pop out from the soundstage about a foot or so to the front. In the "Live to Tell" song, which has electronic swoosh sounds moving back and forth from left to right a couple of times, the sound was easily going about 8-10 feet to the right of the right speaker, and maybe four feet to the left of the left speaker (there's a couch on that side). There seemed to be more depth to the soundstage (though, not to the lyrics...). On "Lucky Star" the soundstage was reminiscent of being in the front rows at a club like the Roxy, where the stage is about six feet in front of you, and about forty feet wide (not that I had a forty foot wide soundstage at home). I became a Q-sound convert. In summary, Q-sound is a gas, and there are also maybe three Madonna songs that I actually like (but don't tell anyone). Person number 2 heard the CD first and has a system consisting of Apogee Caliper Signature speakers, Aragon 4004 Mk II power amp, and a Rotel RCD 855 CD player. His comments are as follows: Anyway, my experience is that the soundstage was really wide, probably 6 feet beyond the outside edges of the speakers, but not too deep. The image is fairly "focused" but the voice is terrible (Madonna's is shrill and the recording adds much EQ). On certain tracks, it extends around me both sides. On one particular track, it's like surround sound, with the ocean sounding like it was behind me. Person number 3 heard the CD last and has a system consisting of Martin Logan Sequel II speakers, Threshold s/300 amplifier, and a Sony CDP-111 CD player. His comments are as follows: I sat there and waited for incredible sound effects. I played through parts of every song on the CD and nothing happened. There was some imaging to the left and right of the speakers, but nothing extreme and maybe only slightly more than what a normal rock or pop CD has. I never did hear any surround sound effects. The song with the heartbeats and the ocean(?) just sounded like a bunch of electronic hiss. This CD set the record for flat two dimensional soundstages. I didn't think it was possible for bipolar speakers to give only a half foot of depth on the soundstage. This CD did that. In fact at times the sound was actually lying right on the speaker membranes. Also the CD made my system sound like a disco system - an amazing transformation (degradation?). About the only neat thing in the whole CD was some synthesizer bass in the 30-35Hz range. It shook the wall a little bit. I also didn't realize Madonna had such a lousy voice. Must be the clothes she wears.
ttak@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) (02/01/91)
In article <9250@uwm.edu> ccicpg!keith@uunet.UU.NET (Keith McIntyre) writes: >There has been some discussion on the newsgroups lately about Q >sound and how it actually sounds. >The question is, how can the observed sound be so radically >different? Is Q sound what it is cracked up to be? >Person number 3 heard the CD last and has a system consisting of >Martin Logan Sequel II speakers, Threshold s/300 amplifier, and a >Sony CDP-111 CD player. His comments are as follows: > I sat there and waited for incredible sound effects. I played > through parts of every song on the CD and nothing happened. There > was some imaging to the left and right of the speakers, but nothing > extreme and maybe only slightly more than what a normal rock or > pop CD has. > This CD set the record for flat two dimensional > soundstages. I didn't think it was possible for bipolar speakers > to give only a half foot of depth on the soundstage. This CD did > that. In fact at times the sound was actually lying right on the > speaker membranes. I recently purchased the new Sting album, on LP. This is Q-Sound encoded. My system used for playback is : Dual CS5000/Shure V-15 IV/Custom Dyna PAS-3x Dyna ST-70/Magnepan MG=Ic's. My experiences are almost identical to Person Number 3. Basically, my equipment allowed me to hear through the electronic ruse of Q-sound and listen to very flat, dynamically squashed, pan-potted tracks superimposed on weird-out-of-phase effects. Reversing absolute polarity did *NOT* help. In my opinion : the is one of the most unflatteringly *unmusical* releases that a talented artist could be saddled with. I shudder to think what Classical recording will be like under Q-Sound. Colleagues (non-audiophile) when hearing my reaction justly felt that my dissatisfaction was due to having inferior equipment - see that 30 year old amp really *doesn't* sound any good, and let alone LP's! On a really good $50000 stereo it should sound great! 8-) Tim Takahashi ttak@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
ted@dgbt.doc.ca (Ted Grusec DGBT/DBR) (02/05/91)
I think it's quite safe to assume there never will be any "classical" recordings done with Qsound. Qsound is a gimmick which may or not be successful with commercials and garbage music. I suspect it will go the way of the "hula hoop" and other like momentary cultural oddities. Qsound is a development by Archer Communications, a company in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. It purports to produce "3 dimensional sound" from the normal stereo pair of speakers. It had a public test on a Coke commercial which was broadcast during some major televised sports event about a year ago. Apparently, major film people and audio record producers have shown interest in the technology, and some pop records are being produced now with Qsound encoding. It requires nothing additional by way of equipment at the consumer end. The normal two-channel stereo equipment is supposed to give you the perception. Archer Communications has stirred up a lot of stock market activity. While the whole thing is, technically, a "secret", it is going through patent procedures now and in the course of this, various details have emerged. These were reported in the November 1990 issue (vol.13, no.11) of STEREOPHILE, in the "Update" section - an article on "Canada/UK" by Barry Fox, beginning on page 64. This would be the reference article to send interested people to. Fox reports that Polygram, a Phillips subsidiary and one of the three largest record companies, is "... the first record company in the world to use the new Qsound system...". The technique creates an "exaggerated stereo effect", and listeners vaguely report that it makes music `"sound louder"'. Polygrams committment, relative to its output is tiny, some 20 records over the next 18 months. The idea is related to other techniques used at various times all the way back to the 1970's, which take advantage of the fact that the perception of spatial direction is frequency dependent. To a golden ear, the effects of these various techniques is quite "phasey" and the various implementations (e.g. "Hafler" or "Dynaquad" in the 70's) have never gone caught on. Fox describes the Qsound process in some detail. To summarize briefly, amplitude and phase are varied differentially along the frequency continuum. And so, Fox says that "the effect is thus purely artificial, and arbitrary". Pure trial and error, apparently, are used to find a sought-for position in space for given instruments. If I can state my personal opinions now, the key thing here is the "artificiality" that Fox talks about. Qsound has little to do with the way sounds occur in nature, or in the concert hall. So, if it the technique has any future at all, it will be in specialty use of sound, such as in TV or radio commercials, or in movie special effects, or in pop music gimmicks. And, of course, even there, it is still quite unknown whether it will be successful, i.e. accepted, or even "properly" perceived, by listeners. Qsound is one of very many attempts to produce "startling" auditory effects. I have heard a digital tape using another technique, "holographic" sound, which is generically similar to Qsound in its effects. Once you have been initially impressed by unexpected spatial attributes (in this case, a children's fairy tale broadcast), two things happened for me. One, on second hearing it was irritating, and, two, the "so what" response. And I don't want to hear it again, thanks. This is NOT serious audio.