SQ Shadow Vector Soundfield Mapping

[malcolmlear]

The great thing about shadow vector is the perfect maintainace of constant power for all sound sources no matter primary or secondary. In other words, any sound source on the input will emerge on the output channels, remixed but at the exact same power. In your example the spread of source A would indeed be more precise in one band and less in another, however the position on both is maintained.

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...tereo-enhancement-cbs-labs.29763/#post-539507

Any hope of adding this CBS Labs SQ "stereo-to-quad-enhancement-system" (both 180 and 270 modes) to the Shadow Vector decoder to give yet another option for creating fake surround sound from stereo?


Kirk Bayne

 

[stevendive]

It decodes the 2 channel BHJ accuratly, as per published data and that should include all sound channels. Like all 2 channel matrix systems BHJ can be described using the Scheiber Sphere which theorically includes n number of decode channels. Decoding 4 channels equally spaced around the sphere would decode all sound sources with correct location (providing encoding was done correctly).

Interesting. Are its resulting 4 loudspeaker channels outputs the same as from a regular ambisonic BHJ decoder set for a square layout?

 

[Soundfield]

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...tereo-enhancement-cbs-labs.29763/#post-539507

Any hope of adding this CBS Labs SQ "stereo-to-quad-enhancement-system" (both 180 and 270 modes) to the Shadow Vector decoder to give yet another option for creating fake surround sound from stereo?


Kirk Bayne

I'm guessing that Malcolm's Omega mode is a superior method of obtaining 270 deg synthesis. He described it thus: "Omega: (stereo wrap) This implements the classic stereo wrap around the room. However this doesn't rely on adding negative cross-talk and pushing it through a QS/RM decode, this like all modes uses shadow vector, thus retaining stable images and a constant power decode.

 

[steelydave]

This may be a premature (or unwanted) idea given that you haven't even got to the point of selling hardware yet, but I would just like to throw the suggestion out there of doing a software (VST) plugin version of this.

For every person out there who has the money or inclination to buy a new matrix quad hardware decoder in 2024, I'd say there are 10 (or maybe 100) who would prefer a software version, either for financial or setup reasons, from those of us who do digital conversions to those of us who don't have amps with the inputs or the cash in our wallets.

The other benefit of a software version is that it affords the possibility of an infinite number of virtual knobs, sliders or other methods to tweak the output, whereas a hardware version is limited by practical design and financial considerations. Just for example, I know of a few people who still prefer the Tate over the Surround Master simply because the SM designers decided on a certain number of dB of front/rear separation (which is objectively lower than the Tate) that sounded the best to them, but maybe not the best to others. With a hardware box you're stuck with their decision, but a software plugin would afford you the possibility of adding options to tweak these various parameters and effectively have their cake baked the way they like it, and eat it too.

 

[JediJoker]

This may be a premature (or unwanted) idea given that you haven't even got to the point of selling hardware yet, but I would just like to throw the suggestion out there of doing a software (VST) plugin version of this.

For every person out there who has the money or inclination to buy a new matrix quad hardware decoder in 2024, I'd say there are 10 (or maybe 100) who would prefer a software version, either for financial or setup reasons, from those of us who do digital conversions to those of us who don't have amps with the inputs or the cash in our wallets.

The other benefit of a software version is that it affords the possibility of an infinite number of virtual knobs, sliders or other methods to tweak the output, whereas a hardware version is limited by practical design and financial considerations. Just for example, I know of a few people who still prefer the Tate over the Surround Master simply because the SM designers decided on a certain number of dB of front/rear separation (which is objectively lower than the Tate) that sounded the best to them, but maybe not the best to others. With a hardware box you're stuck with their decision, but a software plugin would afford you the possibility of adding options to tweak these various parameters and effectively have their cake baked the way they like it, and eat it too.

I, for one, would jump at the chance to own a well-designed, modern matrix-decoding software product!

 

[jaybird100]

Limiting the Shadow Vector decoder to only SQ might put some people off from buying one. I'd want to see it also able to decode QS and Dolby Surround, too. Considering the investment it's likely to be, it needs to have full matrix capability. It would also have to really outperform the Surround Master, by a very wide margin, before I'd even think of investing in one.

 

[Soundfield]

Limiting the Shadow Vector decoder to only SQ might put some people off from buying one. I'd want to see it also able to decode QS and Dolby Surround, too. Considering the investment it's likely to be, it needs to have full matrix capability. It would also have to really outperform the Surround Master, by a very wide margin, before I'd even think of investing in one.

It is not limited to SQ. Malcolm has already explained, in a previous post, that the decoder will offer the following formats:
1. EV-4
2. DY
3. QS
4. SQ
5. BMX
6. H
7. BHJ
8. PL (Pro Logic II)
9. Omega (stereo wrap)