New Schiit SYN - Analog Surround Sound Processor

[Holdt]

For some people, 'getting as close to "the original" as possible' requires something like quad.
Particularly if one (such as myself) listens mostly to 'live' recordings that were done in some sort of concert situation, whether it be at a stadium, a concert hall, a Gasthaus (also called Gasthof, Landhaus, or Pension) or just outdoors somewhere.

I don't know a lot about it, but doesn't the recording contain "spatial cues" in it self so when played back on a correct setup stereo system the "three dimensional effect" is still there?

I mean a proper recorded concert album sound 3D to me on my two speakers so much that when I hear the crowd "hissing" when my eyes are closed it sounds like the sound is 360 °.

On the same system I also have proper center imaging as well so the one doesn't exclude the other.

 

[EJ3]

I don't know a lot about it, but doesn't the recording contain "spatial cues" in it self so when played back on a correct setup stereo system the "three dimensional effect" is still there?

I mean a proper recorded concert album sound 3D to me on my two speakers so much that when I hear the crowd "hissing" when my eyes are closed it sounds like the sound is 360 °.

On the same system I also have proper center imaging as well so the one doesn't exclude the other.

In an ideal world & room, you would be correct. But: IMHO the room reflections in our much smaller homes overpower that, as well as completely miss the delay of the venue, which, is 'fixed' by being over ridden by the more direct sound of the rear speaker of a quad system (in my case a 4.2 system). Since I have 3 systems, I can choose which seems to sound better to me (with my particularly compromised hearing.
Each to their own!

 

[kemmler3D]

For some people, 'getting as close to "the original" as possible' requires something like quad.
Particularly if one (such as myself) listens mostly to 'live' recordings that were done in some sort of concert situation, whether it be at a stadium, a concert hall, a Gasthaus (also called Gasthof, Landhaus, or Pension) or just outdoors somewhere.

I acknowledge that, but I'd also argue that a mid-side processor implemented without involving the artist or mixing engineer is more of a novelty than a step toward realistic live sound. It relies on the assumption that "rear" information will be more different across channels and "front" information will have more in common, but depending on how the recording is made, this assumption might be very wrong, and therefore sound very wrong.

 

[mhardy6647]

I acknowledge that, but I'd also argue that a mid-side processor implemented without involving the artist or mixing engineer is more of a novelty than a step toward realistic live sound. It relies on the assumption that "rear" information will be more different across channels and "front" information will have more in common, but depending on how the recording is made, this assumption might be very wrong, and therefore sound very wrong.

... and pretty soon we're on the slippery slope towards Googlephonics.
Steve Martin, of course, was way ahead of us.

 

[EJ3]

I acknowledge that, but I'd also argue that a mid-side processor implemented without involving the artist or mixing engineer is more of a novelty than a step toward realistic live sound. It relies on the assumption that "rear" information will be more different across channels and "front" information will have more in common, but depending on how the recording is made, this assumption might be very wrong, and therefore sound very wrong.

There are various implementations of this stuff, for various reasons. As you say, it can sound terrible. So can plain old stereo. And mono. Sometimes nothing can make it sound 'right'. That is a chance that one takes every time one tries to play anything that has been recorded. It also happens when attending live events (including un-amplified ones).
Well, however it works out (I have 3 various systems to play with various parameters) & attend many, many "live" events all over the musical spectrum. For me, one of the most important things is at least having a way to do .2 (or more) BASS.
And that is true for almost anything that I have heard that has been recorded "live". A single bass module ALWAYS sounds just "wrong" to me.

 

[sthomper]

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.

doenst the product allow for simple un-schitty processing for tracks that the schiity processing wont benefit? ie, a avolume control of each mode - main, center or surround? are there recordings where the volume and tweaking of the syn might be delightful? i have carefully increased my tv volume in-between my stereo speakers on some youtube music tracks...fool in the rain by LZ stands out - as i achieved a better central vocal sound and higher soundstage in concert with dual polk subs and bookshelves. i a and b-ed several times and lost nothing. the syn allows for unmolested 2 channel where it fits and can enhance with width...if desired. my endtable where my gear sits wont allow too many more large AVRs from ebay.

 

[sthomper]

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?

View attachment 278810

if its a niche product they expect niche sales?