New Schiit SYN - Analog Surround Sound Processor

[mhardy6647]

On topic -- I feel compelled to mention something that the old hands here know, but y'all youngsters might not know.
The "trick" being exploited here is to recover out of phase information "between" the stereo channels. There's nothing fake about this information -- it's embedded (so to speak) in the two-channel master. It's inaudible unless it's 'extracted', which is a trivial task. It is the difference of the L and R channel signals.

See, e.g.., page 218 of https://worldradiohistory.com/UK/Everyday-Electronics/70s/Everyday-Electronics-1975-04.pdf for a discussion of unearthing the "ambience" information in a two-channel recording.

Now, here's the problem. A minimially mic'd, carefully recorded, mixed and mastered recording (e.g., a symphony orchestra recorded "live" in a concert hall without using too many microphones or tracks to mix to get to a stereo master) will have quite "real" spatial information embedded in the two-channel mix. Such recordings should produce a "convincing" spatial... umm... "image" when subjected to ambience recovery.
The real world of "modern" (say, late 1960s onward) recordings is that very few are thus made. Virtually all "pop" recordings since those days (and, sadly, many recordings of "serious" music, too) are "multi-track mono", with instruments and vocals recorded separately (often in very "dead" acoustic enviroments) and then mixed together into (e.g.) a two-track "stereo" (remember that "stereo" derives from the Greek for solid) master. There is no spatial information from the recording venue. Any "ambience" in the final mix is artifactual and thus it will be what it will be if subjected to ambience extraction a la Hafler. Thus @Holdt's "weird sounds [and] weird levels".

To my way of thinking, this "feature" of modern recording tactics just makes Schiit's development (and marketing!) of their little box even more bizarrely tone-deaf. As I love to say, I think this is Schiit's way of making a little fun (maybe a lot) of its customers. "You want multichannel? OK, we'll give you multichannel! Heh-heh-heh...". Just as their SOL made fun of the vinylista.

Sort of the Frank Zappa school of countercultural marketing. "Hateful, repugnant, and a waste of money" was his description of one of the Mothers' early albums (probably We're Only in it for the Money -- his Sgt. Pepper's parody).

To yank this screed back on-topic Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearst Club Band will probably sound really odd through a Dynaco Dynaquad 'decoder' -- or the Schiity SYN.

 

[garbulky]

How many people will need a desktop surround processor when the typical setup is something like this?
View attachment 276754

No ones gonna have that. Schiits real problem is that this unit does not interface with bluetooth earbuds! Also what's stopping them from just simulating their effect in software and just have it as an app?

 

[garbulky]

It seems to be suggesting that it can output in stereo channels and still give you the benefit of surround sound?

 

[telemike]

I'd rather have the old Carver Sonic Holography

 

[Deleted member 48726]

On topic -- I feel compelled to mention something that the old hands here know, but y'all youngsters might not know.
The "trick" being exploited here is to recover out of phase information "between" the stereo channels. There's nothing fake about this information -- it's embedded (so to speak) in the two-channel master. It's inaudible unless it's 'extracted', which is a trivial task. It is the difference of the L and R channel signals.

See, e.g.., page 218 of https://worldradiohistory.com/UK/Everyday-Electronics/70s/Everyday-Electronics-1975-04.pdf for a discussion of unearthing the "ambience" information in a two-channel recording.

Now, here's the problem. A minimially mic'd, carefully recorded, mixed and mastered recording (e.g., a symphony orchestra recorded "live" in a concert hall without using too many microphones or tracks to mix to get to a stereo master) will have quite "real" spatial information embedded in the two-channel mix. Such recordings should produce a "convincing" spatial... umm... "image" when subjected to ambience recovery.
The real world of "modern" (say, late 1960s onward) recordings is that very few are thus made. Virtually all "pop" recordings since those days (and, sadly, many recordings of "serious" music, too) are "multi-track mono", with instruments and vocals recorded separately (often in very "dead" acoustic enviroments) and then mixed together into (e.g.) a two-track "stereo" (remember that "stereo" derives from the Greek for solid) master. There is no spatial information from the recording venue. Any "ambience" in the final mix is artifactual and thus it will be what it will be if subjected to ambience extraction a la Hafler. Thus @Holdt's "weird sounds [and] weird levels".

To my way of thinking, this "feature" of modern recording tactics just makes Schiit's development (and marketing!) of their little box even more bizarrely tone-deaf. As I love to say, I think this is Schiit's way of making a little fun (maybe a lot) of its customers. "You want multichannel? OK, we'll give you multichannel! Heh-heh-heh...". Just as their SOL made fun of the vinylista.

Sort of the Frank Zappa school of countercultural marketing. "Hateful, repugnant, and a waste of money" was his description of one of the Mothers' early albums (probably We're Only in it for the Money -- his Sgt. Pepper's parody).

To yank this screed back on-topic Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearst Club Band will probably sound really odd through a Dynaco Dynaquad 'decoder' -- or the Schiity SYN.

Yeah. So exactly of 0 (zero) use the last many decades. That makes the SYN a gimmicky cashgrab. A lure. A test of waters.

Oh well. I shouldn't be riled up, there's plenty of that in the HiFi market.

OH! Almost forgot. How in the world do they get away with putting this cheap schiit in the box. I mean, it looks exactly like the cheap remotes that comes with cheap LED lights for children from alibaba.. -Can the disposable nature of the product be more obvious?

 

[krabapple]

Tube amps do not alter sound in a way is perceptually significant except at extremes.
People buy tube amps because they like the way they look and they respect the ethic of the people who make them. These people do not want to look at an AVR.

There a plenty who are convinced they bought a tube amp for its *sound*.

 

[krabapple]

Well your examples, as I understand, are multichannel by design and needs proper decoding.

I'm talking about stereo 2.0 upmix to more than 2 channels. Which is horse manure as far as I'm concerned because I've never heard it done correctly. Always with some weird sounds and weird volume differences between sounds.

And yes, the SYN seems like a quick way to cash in. But that's on me..

You complained that something you expected to be 'on the stage' was sent to surround channels. Which to you is not 'correct'.

That can, and does , often happen, obviously intentionally, on dedicated surround remixes too.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

You complained that something you expected to be 'on the stage' was sent to surround channels. Which to you is not 'correct'.

That can, and does , often happen, obviously intentionally, on dedicated surround remixes too.

Not anything I can recall I watched when I had surround sound. Concerts and musical events etc.
If I hear drums from behind when watching a concert dvd it's not correct recorded.

 

[krabapple]

Not anything I can recall I watched when I had surround sound. Concerts and musical events etc.
If I hear drums from behind when watching a concert dvd it's not correct recorded.

It seems you have little experience of 'official' surround remixes, ranging from 1970s quad releases to today's Atmos, then.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

It seems you have little experience of 'official' surround remixes, ranging from 1970s quad releases to today's Atmos, then.

Okay then.

 

[mhardy6647]

There a plenty who are convinced they bought a tube amp for its *sound*.

You know -- this thread is giving me the urge to build an amplifier populated by gorgeous vacuum tubes* with their filaments lit -- and a good quality Class D amplifier under the hood.

Sighted A-B testing would be fascinating to document.
Tube rolling would be even more fascinating.

__________________
* The best thing is that the tubes could be bad -- as long as they're evacuated and the filaments (or heaters if the cathodes are indirectly heated) are intact.

 

[Cbdb2]

Well, I mean... you might be surprised.



I use that (5.1) Yamaha as a preamp for this SE 2A3 amplifier sometimes.



Only for two-channel stereo -- or mono, though.
And it (the Yamaha, that is) was a dump find (i.e., zero-cost).

But -- yeah -- if I wanted to extract the out of phase "ambience" in a normal two-channel recording, I'd use the Hafler circuit and save a lot of $.
Especially since I already have a Dynaco QD-1 (as shown earlier).

That pro logic button does the same thing as this new decoder.
Another way to do this decoding. Send a mono (L+R) signal to the center. Take The positive output of left amp to the +in of the surrounds and the positive out of the right amp to the - of the surround speakers.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

That pro logic button does the same thing as this new decoder.
Another way to do this decoding. Send a mono (L+R) signal to the center. Take The positive output of left amp to the +in of the surrounds and the positive out of the right amp to the - of the surround speakers.

It's not a "new decoder". It's "Surround Set Free".

 

[Tim Link]

Its the orignal Dolby surround matrix (it was analog). 50 year old tech you can recreate with a analog mixer. L+R to the center, L-R to both surrounds. And many AVRs still do this. Whoopie.

Which AVRs do this? What is the mode called?

 

[mhardy6647]

Which AVRs do this? What is the mode called?

Dolby ProLogic is similar to the old ambience recovery approach, and is, I believe(!?!), even more similar to QS matrix quadraphonic (although, again, as I understand it, somewhat lower performance than QS because the rear surround in ProLogic is -- so to speak -- monophonic). I am sure there are folks here who know way more about this stuff than I. To date, I've never been very interested in multichannel audio. To me, it's a gimmick -- when it comes to the reproduction of music.

 

[Wiesenmacher]

I'm kind of confused.

If you wanted to mess around with surround sound, which is better?

A standard AVR with relatively noisy DAC and surround channel amplifiers, but true 5.1 surround mix?

or

A Syn sourced by a transparent DAC hooked up to few decent measuring class D amps, but center and surround channels created through matrix logic?

 

[mhardy6647]

Discrete four channel is always an option.



Only two being used in the case photographed above, though, in full disclosure.

 

[krabapple]

I'm kind of confused.

If you wanted to mess around with surround sound, which is better?

A standard AVR with relatively noisy DAC and surround channel amplifiers,

LOL. Another golden ear heard from.

but true 5.1 surround mix?

Well, 'upmix' , actually. Because 'true' 5.1 surround mixes also exist.

or

A Syn sourced by a transparent DAC hooked up to few decent measuring class D amps, but center and surround channels created through matrix logic?

The former? Because Dolby upmixing is rather more sophisticated than the old Hafler circuit?

And SYN's 'transparent DAC' is for D/A ...after which the upmixing is 'noisy' old analog......

 

[Wiesenmacher]

LOL. Another golden ear heard from.

I certainly don't have a golden ear. I'm extremely comfortable saying measurements dont matter. Makes discussing audio much easier.

The former? Because Dolby upmixing is rather more sophisticated than the old Hafler circuit?

And SYN's 'transparent DAC' is for D/A ...after which the upmixing is 'noisy' old analog......

Good to know. I wasn't sure if the Dolby logic added any noisy artifacts as well. I assume you wouldn't even need a golden ear to tell the difference between the two upmixes?

 

[Tim Link]

Dolby ProLogic is similar to the old ambience recovery approach, and is, I believe(!?!), even more similar to QS matrix quadraphonic (although, again, as I understand it, somewhat lower performance than QS because the rear surround in ProLogic is -- so to speak -- monophonic). I am sure there are folks here who know way more about this stuff than I. To date, I've never been very interested in multichannel audio. To me, it's a gimmick -- when it comes to the reproduction of music.

I know pro logic does some more sophisticated steering. It manages to get the center panned vocals out of the side channels and into the center, while none of the side signals are in the center. A standard matrix like the Syn is using which only adds or subtracts channels to or from each other with maybe some EQ and balance parameters tweaked definitely cannot do that.