[John Casler]

I am reminded of the question:

How can you help a blind man see?

Obviously if one cannot see (or hear) a sound they are not even aware it is there.

It is quite common for any one of us to comment that adding this or that component allowed you to hear things you never heard before.

This happened to me recently in a very startling way, and I thought I might challenge those who have the Q-sound recorded CD of "Amused to Death", from Roger Waters, to see if their systems were "resolving" the incredible detail that I just uncovered/discoverd.

First my improvements:

1) I added a BPT L-9 power cord to plug my amp directly into the wall outlet.  Now I did already have the L-9 but it was too short and I had to plug it into a BP1 which I had bybees put into, and the bybees softened the high end too much.

2) I installed an AudioQuest NRG-1 power cord on my Denon DVD2200

3) I installed a pair of AudioQuest DiamondBack analog interconnects between my DVD player and my Preamp.

The improvement in two areas was remarkable and just what I wanted.

1.. Female voices "finally" have lost their hard edge at higher volumes.  While they are still somewhat agressive they are now a bit more silky and lifelike.

2..My highs are to die for.  They are very close to the ideal that I imagined.

But anyhow, here is the "CHALLENGE"

Listen to the first 20 seconds of the first cut "The Ballad of Bill Hubbard" and tell me what you hear.

I have had that CD for years and somehow missed a few things.

The amazing thing is that now the things I missed are as "plain as day", but I never heard them before.  Granted I don't blast this portion, but at my standard listening level these sounds were not resolved.

Now obviously you can crank it up and hear them although as I said, I have had it pretty loud and missed them.  It is a rather soft passage to begin with and it also demonstrates Q sound well since these sounds will come from other places rather than the speakers.

Hope a few of you have this CD and have a chance to let me know what you hear.  WHo knows there may be even more!!

Please listen at "normal" levels first and see what your system "resolves" and then feel free to crank it and see if anything else appears.

Let me know.

[nathanm]

Crickets chirping, then two dogs bark off to the right. One dog is further off in the distance.

[bally]

Agree with Natham,crickets then dog ,then another dog further in the distance.
Cheers
Bally

[MaxCast]

The babbeling brook.

[John Casler]

Well

It looks like Nathanm, Bally and Maxcast have "very" resolving system, with Maxcast's system even more resolving than mine, since I hear no "babbling brook".

I'll have to try a louder level today after the upstairs neighbors get out of bed.

I have to say that played at regular volume levels, (75 db or so for the body of the cut) that I hadn't really heard the crickets clearly.  I heard noise and sound but not anything as distinct as what I'm hearing now.

After the improvements I mentioned above, they are very clear and distinct, to the point of actually standing out quite clearly.  It is as if they basically weren't there before.  Now they are really part of the soundstage.

And as Nathanm pointed out, on this Q-sound cd, the dogs, when they bark, are pretty much directly off on your right hand side, well outside the boundaries of the right main speaker.

And it is definatley two dogs with one being farther away, or facing away, as stated.

Now Maxcast, how loud do you have to have your rig to hear the Babbling Brook?

While I certainly know that "resolving power" is a total system property, I actully subscribed the ability more to the speakers, cd player and preamp and amp.

This experiment shows that Power conditioners, power cords, interconnects and speaker cables, contribute too.

It seems that it is probably related to:

1) letting more quality "non affected" signal through

2) and reduction of sonic hash/noise floor to allow the system to "resolve" greater detail.

Thanks guys for listening and confirming

I anyone has any other "system resolving" candidate cuts that are rather common let me know.

[rosconey]

huh if i get close to my  speaker i think i hear the water-cool
what else you guys got while i wait for the dryer repair man-between 9am and 1 pm, worse than cable-lol

[MaxCast]

It's actually the north eddy in Sunrise Creek that flows along St. Mary's trail down to the CO river in Grand Junction, CO.

System:  Scott Nixon TubeDAC>IRD Purist>Stratos>SM6.9.  I'm pretty sure it is the IRD...this thing is awsome.  Can't listen right now, will check in tonight.  Oh yeah, wired with regular 'ol silver IC's and Waynes fine M-80 speakers wires.

[John Casler]

Well if I turn it up a bit, I hear what Maxcast is talking about.  It is actually the first sound you hear and it is defineatly water running, either in a brook or raining.

Then the crickets all around.

At regular listening levels with my old set up, it was just barely perceptable and actually was barely distinguishable from master tape hiss and or "mike air".

So maybe this is the scene for Bill Hubbard.  

He is wounded lying  in trench by a stream (or in the rain) with crickets chirping.  All he has is a radio (or he is hallucinating) and he hears the broadcast that emanates from stage left.

Anyhow, I'm pleased I discoverd that the "connections" and connectors have a much greater effect on sonic resolution, than I had previously thought.

Cleaning up the signal and reducing 'electrical" impurities, seems to give a "much" clearer sonic picture, even at lower listening levels.

[John Casler]

huh if i get close to my  speaker i think i hear the water-cool
what else you guys got while i wait for the dryer repair man-between 9am and 1 pm, worse than cable-lol

Well if you run it backwards, it sounds like the USC Marching band playing "Legend of a Mind" ("Timothy Leary's Dead" from In Search of the Lost Chord) and the dogs barking "says" "Ringo is an ugly girl"!!!

     

[doug s.]

i haven't listened to this cut in a long while, so i don't even remember what all there is besides the crickets & the dogs, but i *do* know i was completely amazed by the dog barking about 10 degrees *behind* me, off towards the right side.  a relative of mine was even *more* amazed, when he realized my ambient surround system was not even on at the time!     i'll have to give another listen, as i have different monitors presently, & add'l isolation transformers in the system...

doug s.

[nathanm]

He is wounded lying in trench by a stream (or in the rain) with crickets chirping. All he has is a radio (or he is hallucinating) and he hears the broadcast that emanates from stage left.

So Bill's listening to a radio broadcast of his friend Alf Razell describe his own death many years after the fact, and even before he died!?  Sounds like an X-Files episode, or maybe 12 Monkeys!  Heh!  Pretty good radio sound for 1917 too I'd imagine!

I am not so sure Q-Sound produces a "wider more NATURAL sound field" as they say in the liner, though.  Wider yes, but natural?  No.  Phase inversion of midrange frequencies between two speakers isn't exactly something that occurs in nature, but it sounds cool.  I wouldn't call it "high fidelity" though.

I wouldn't think you'd need super cool gear to hear the crickets, just a low enough acoustic noise floor in your room and\or turn up the volume!

Mmmm, well the water running might be tape hiss.  It's extremely low level noise of some sort, mostly integrated with the crickets sound.

[doug s.]

well, i went & put on the cd, & i certainly hear the brook now - w/the wolume cranked up.  crickets/dogs were always readily discernable, even at wolume levels set for normal, for the rest of the cd.  but, i don't hear the brook 'til *after* the crickets - they accompany the barking dogs, & sound to be coming from about the same place...

doug s.

[John Casler]

well, i went & put on the cd, & i certainly hear the brook now - w/the wolume cranked up.  crickets/dogs were always readily discernable, even at wolume levels set for normal, for the rest of the cd.  but, i don't hear the brook 'til *after* the crickets - they accompany the barking dogs, & sound to be coming from about the same place...

doug s.

If I play the cut at a volume level that will produce a maximum peak (during the loudest portions of the cut) of 85db, I hear the crickets and the brook just about the same time (first a cricket chirp then the bubbling)

Although I had heard the brook before, at lower listening levels it sounds like "mike air" or rough tape hiss, but MaxCast is "spot on", it is a brook or running water of some type.

The radio portion I was talking about was the "hawker" talking to the gal about buying something for her daughter.

I gathered the Alf Razell portion was the narration and not part of the broadcast.  But who knows with Waters.  I mean there are wilcats growling and all sorts of strange sound effects, later in the cut.

For that matter, since the cover art is a Chimp/ape, in a cage, watching TV.  (might explain the wildcat growl) The Ballad of Bill Hubbard might "just be" a TV show the freakin Chimp tuned too after the "Hawker".

I think that might make more sense.

Anyway, sorry about the poor Hubbard fellow, but we are resolving greater detail tonight

[azryan]

Can't say the SPL but I'd call it modest, certainly not loud. Quiet enough that later tracks w/ big percussion don't blow me away like they do when played LOUD.

Crickets -clear as day. And in all four 'channels'.

Honestly John, trying not to offend, but I can't imagine someone not hearing those cricket sounds?

Maybe there's a 'real world' flaw in being able to lower the output of that last octave tweeter? As in... maybe it's dropped too much below 'flat'? Might drop the noise floor in many so-so or poor recording but killing recorded details?

"-And as Nathanm pointed out, on this Q-sound cd, the dogs, when they bark, are pretty much directly off on your right hand side, well outside the boundaries of the right main speaker."

It shouldn't just be 'pretty much off to your side' and 'well outside the speakers'... It should actually sound like it's coming slightly 'behind' you.

As if it seems to have nothing to do w/ your front speakers.

Since I've got my actual rear surrounds right there, several people I've played 'Amused' for insists I must have those surrounds on and doing some DSP... or they think something's wrong w/ my system 'cuz they've never heard that effect before. hehe

Anyway... then a dogs bark in the Right rear. Then a Shopping Channel-like conversation in the Left rear.
'Rear' meaning -seeming to come from ~110 degrees.

BTW... this is Waters trying to show how we just watch all these horrible things on TV like it's entertainment. This was mostly about the Gulf War, but has become probably more relevent now during and after Gulf War the sequel and the glut of 'reality' tv shows.

Then Beck's guitar starts dead center in front with subtle reverb echo in all four 'quasi-surround' corners along w/ the sythnesizer (sp?).

Then a dog barking in the distance dead Front center.

There's a wild cat type 'growl' in both the Right front and Right rear at the same time. Like dual mono. That's kind of a weird effect. Probably not exactly supose to be like that?

Drums begin up front and the old solider begins to tell his story in the Left rear.

Too me the weird thing is this 'babbling brook' mentioned here??

Listening again cranked up loud I still don't know what people are hearing? I don't hear it, but I heard everything else listed here very easily. Can someone tell me 'seconds window' when you hear it? Like :32-:47 seconds in or whatever?

I'm thinking it might just be a noise floor sound that's part of the overlayed tracks? Like maybe the soldier's vocals. Cranked loud there seems to be a hint of a noise that comes in when he speaks, but it's still VERY noise free when cranked real loud??

For cool Q-sound stuff on this disc, track 2 is cool at the begining where the monkey's all go mental briefly in all four 'channels'. Sounds like discrete 'quad sound', and about 1min. in there's a door that opens starting in the Rear left, then Front left, then Front Right.
Very cool if you can recreate that effect.

My Newforms 645's did pretty well at this, and my GR Alphas nail it perfectly. The only other speakers that were close were the RM-40's, but I'm sure lots of other speakers can do it if set-up just right and aren't getting room effects.

Sick IMO that all CD's aren't in Q-Sound. Done right (like Amused to Death is ), and sitting dead center (the only spot where Q-Sound works)... who needs a 5.1 format war and discs that play out far beyond what any of us can hear?

There's some of this effect in non-Q-sound discs like Tool's Undertow, NIN The Fragile... but who knows if those were just phase errors in the recording and not intentional? Cool either way though. hehe

BTW... I use the Outlaw pre/pro and also the $175 Pio 563 univ. player both of which sound identical IMO, and neither of which anyone would call world class. Cheap, stock power cords too. Outlaw's (cheap, very good quality IMO) cables (analog and optical). eARTwo dig. amp and GR Research Alphas.

[John Casler]

Honestly John, trying not to offend, but I can't imagine someone not hearing those cricket sounds?

AZ,

I don't mean to offend either, but you might want to read closer, I didn't say I didn't hear crickets, I said they became "much" more distinct and prominent.

My posting was to find out how prominently others heard them.  
Since my new system changes, they now sound "very" prominent and real.

I also said while I heard the backround noise, I didn't identify it as a "babbling brook", but rain, "mike air" or tape hiss... Sheesh!  

Maybe there's a 'real world' flaw in being able to lower the output of that last octave tweeter? As in... maybe it's dropped too much below 'flat'? Might drop the noise floor in many so-so or poor recording but killing recorded details?

Interesting how you never cease "sniping" at the RM40s

It should actually sound like it's coming slightly 'behind' you.

The location of the dogs barking, as well as other sounds, will vary depending on your room and speaker set up.   Since the localization depends on a phase relationship which is affected by speaker/listening position set up geometry, and room interaction.

This can place it anywhere outside the front speakers, all the way to the rear as Doug mentioned.

Too me the weird thing is this 'babbling brook' mentioned here??

Try it on some headphones which might be the best way for you to hear it.

At higher volumes, it is very "there".  

Listening again cranked up loud I still don't know what people are hearing? I don't hear it, but I heard everything else listed here very easily. Can someone tell me 'seconds window' when you hear it? Like :32-:47 seconds in or whatever?

It starts at the very begining of the first track, (track1, 0:03) It primarily runs along with the cricket chirps, but is most prominent in the begining before the discussion about "purchasing the 6 mm pearls"

Once you know about it, it is impossible to miss, unless you have the volume turned down low.

This is kind of what this thread was about:  Resolving power of systems and what can make them better.  If one is hearing or not hearing things others are hearing, even when they are pointed out, it might be due to an inability of a system to resolve specific sounds.

Hearing detail is one of those goals of top systems.

[azryan]

John,
Man!?!, ever since you totally 'got me wrong' in that old VMPS post, you KEEP getting me wrong. @#%#!
And I specifically posted TO YOU in that old thread 'cuz I didn't want you to keep that wrong idea of what I posted. But you ignored me. Fine. ok.

Even so, I sorta tried to defend you in a recent post where you were told to balance your surround system to .2db even though no DVD players can do that. No thanks from you? Ok.. fine, but you've STILL got a chip on your shoulder about me? That's sad, and now annoying 'cuz it's lead you to post so many wrong things here...

Ok then... I'll 'let you have it'...

You said, "-I don't mean to offend either, but you might want to read closer, I didn't say I didn't hear crickets, I said they became "much" more distinct and prominent."

Uh.. NO you didn't!?

You said -"I have to say that played at regular volume levels, (75 db or so for the body of the cut) that I hadn't really heard the crickets clearly.-"

Ok... there it sounds like you're saying you heard them but not very clearly, but you added -"then I heard noise and sound but not anything as distinct as what I'm hearing now."

Sure sounds like you DIDN'T hear 'crickets', but just some noise that you only NOW know to be crickets.

You ALSO said BEFORE that "-The amazing thing is that now the things I missed are as "plain as day", but I never heard them before."

"-never heard them before." huh???

So if you weren't meaning the cricket sounds then you meant the dogs barking??I find that even harder to believe...
OR you've yet to reveal the 'mystery sound' you "never heard before" in the first 20 seconds in that first track that you specifically asked everyone to listen to in your first post?

C'Mon. Just face it....

You were clearly saying you never heard the crickets as crickets (but mistook it for noise at the most), but not in those 'exact words' and (understandably) you didn't like me beiung so suprsed about it -so you're gonna pretend I read what you wrote wrong??

That's some weakass interpretation of what you actually wrote.

You wrote-
"-My posting was to find out how prominently others heard them.-"

Uh... again.. NO it wasn't.

It was asking what, if anything, people could hear in that track. NOT 'how prominently they heard any specific thing' -since you didn't say what people should be listening for in the first place.

Damn, I don't want to attack you but since you're acting like I'm wrong here you force my hand.

Obviously you never heard the crickets before and you wanted to see if other people ever heard it.

I submit it's VERY easy to hear those crickets IMO, and was HONESTLY kinda shocked you never heard it. I've had the disc for almost 10 years and even on crappy old systems I heard it. Meaning I think it's not got a whole lot to do w/ ultime detail resolution like you seem to have found it to be.
Maybe that insults you. Sorry, but it's the truth IMH(onest)O.

But then I remember you were shocked I heard the clear tape hiss in Private Investigations way back. Things were cool with us then, but I was shocked you didn't notice that, but didn't have any reason to point that out.

I didn't want to slam you here, but since you aren't acting cool like you used to well... 'too bad'. We can go back to cool if you want though.

We are both talking about a killer (and important) album (recording and music) that anyone who thinks they love Pink Floyd should own -but probably doesn't.

It was you who got pissed at me and wagged your little emoticon finger at me for a plain joke I made.

"-I also said while I heard the backround noise, I didn't identify it as a "babbling brook", but rain, "mike air" or tape hiss... Sheesh!"

So? You didn't hear that 'brook' till AFTER Max posted that it was there.

"-Interesting how you never cease "sniping" at the RM40s"

That's so lame. I didn't say ANYTHING bad about the RM-40's!?
Hell, I didn't even SAY RM-40's in the passage you quoted there!
For no logical reason actually I was thinking you were listening to the 626's.

Hell, I later mentioned I heard the 40's do the Q-Sound surround effect the 2nd best of any speaker I've ever heard. Wow.
I better not 'rip' on those speakers any harsher or this 'VMPS dealer' might get more pissed?

You must be kidding?

I suggested maybe YOU had/have the top octave tweeter turned down too low and it's not flat.

This is a REAL suggestion 'cuz IMO those crickets should be obvious to hear and that might dull them. And would fit w/ you being suprised at me hearing the high noise floor on that Dire Strait's track.  

It's not the (very good) speaker's fault if YOU did that. Nice of you to pass that blame off on the speaker and then blame me for something I didn't say.

Do I have to find how many times I posted on this forum alone that the RM-40's would be my 2nd choice speaker over pretty much ever affordable speaker out there? Damn, that's another  pretty harsh shot at VMPS 'eh???

I said "-It should actually sound like it's coming slightly 'behind' you."

Again... you don't like that I mentioned a flaw in your system to you -why? 'cuz you must have the most 'correct' system or something? So you reply...

"-The location of the dogs barking, as well as other sounds, will vary depending on your room and speaker set up.-"

Yeah, and I'm saying yours sounds a little off.

I'm talking about compared to a set-up w/ low room effect.damage, correct phase and dead center listening position which is where you have to be to hear any Q-Sound effects. Am I talking about mine? I don't have to be. I can be talking about ANYone's system tht gets this 100% right.

If you want to believe these sounds are NOT supose to be coming from phantom surrounds that's fine, but don't try to act like I'm wrong and 'everybody's system's different' garbage.

It doesn't make it 'correct' wherever it sounds like it's coming from in anybody's room. It's meant to create a surround effect, and does in other people's systems than yours.

Amused 'had been' my main Ref. disc for many years. I've heard it on many systems, and the better the system, the more the true surround effect showed up. So-so systems and the sound expands outside the speakers, but not an actual 'surround' behind you effect.
Poor systems and it's hardly there at all.

It sounds to me like your system gets VERY close to this, but not quite.

Jeez, I thought you were interested in improving you sound?
I was telling you a REAL goal for Q-Sound that you seem yet to acheive. Forget it then. I don't care.
It's a cool effect though to actually look over your shoulder at the sound, and I bet any money you'll try to hear that even though you act like I'm being a jerk for saying it should sound that way.

I asked -
"-To me the weird thing is this 'babbling brook' mentioned here??"

And you suggest "-Try it on some headphones which might be the best way for you to hear it."

Thanks. I don't use headphones though. You KNOW I use GR Alphas, and they should be plenty resolving.

Do I act like you just took a shot at those speakers like you wrongly claimed I did to the RM-40's?
No.
I'll just take it as a little passive agressive cheap shot -from a guy who didn't hear this 'brook' sound himself till right after he was told about it. (see, I can do passive agressive too. heh).

"-It starts at the very begining of the first track, (track1, 0:03) It primarily runs along with the cricket chirps, but is most prominent in the begining before the discussion about "purchasing the 6 mm pearls"

Thanks. I'll try that very begining again.

"-Once you know about it, it is impossible to miss, unless you have the volume turned down low."

Uh huh.

"-This is kind of what this thread was about: Resolving power of systems and what can make them better. If one is hearing or not hearing things others are hearing, even when they are pointed out, it might be due to an inability of a system to resolve specific sounds.
Hearing detail is one of those goals of top systems."

No kiddin'? But you seemed not to have heard these details like seemingly everyone else who posted had heard them. Are you trying to boast about your resolving system of... what speakers do you use again? I forget, you so rarely mention them.

I don't think you need to instruct us (or just me?) on what goals of an audio system are.

You proclaim "-It looks like Nathanm, Bally and Maxcast have "very" resolving system,-"

Very -being in quotes 'cuz you wouldn't want anyone to think your system's not highly resolving too right?

"-with Maxcast's system even more resolving than mine, since I hear no "babbling brook"."

Ah... but now that you can hear it after he told you about it and you changed nothing about your system in between those time... your system 'became' as resolving as his? Of course not.

Listen... I'm gonna go try that Amused track again.. and you can decide if you still want to take everything I post 'wrong' (of couse I totally understand you taking this post poorly as I made it clear I'm ticked off by your attitude to my posts, and ain't being mnice in this post).

If you do, then I'll intentionally post harshly back at you like in this post, because you're being unfair to me and well... I'm vengeful. hehe

[John Casler]

Whew!

Do you feel better now?

An audiophile and shrink rolled into one.

Just skimmed your post but easily saw it is not worth responding to.

Plus I wouldn't want to suffer the wrath of your stinging comments, creative interpretations, and incredible logic.

As well, you of course, know what I am thinking, and what I mean, no matter what I write.

That's incredible.

So why write it?

[nathanm]

Yikes, much ado about nothing...

No offense guys, but this is ridiculous.  But I would have to agree with what Azryan said about being able to hear these things on any 'ol system.

This is kind of what this thread was about: Resolving power of systems and what can make them better. If one is hearing or not hearing things others are hearing, even when they are pointed out, it might be due to an inability of a system to resolve specific sounds.

Or maybe it might be due to a listener being raised in a big city and, having never heard crickets, had no idea what that sound was?  But seriously, I'd say it has little to do with "resolving power" and more to do with ambient noise of your room and the volume level of the stereo.  Geez, you could hear the ' crickets on a Radio Shack system.  They're just low level, they're not recorded with cryptic techniques that can only be decoded by multi-thousand dollar gear fer cripes sakes!  

No offense but...this preoccupation with 20 seconds of a sound effect is an amusing  example of the absurdity of audiophiles in general.  This is a matter individual listening habits and concentration, not gear.  If you want to get technical I think there's more to be said about what factors are affecting people's perception of the sound source in the phase inversion tricks.  On mine I don't hear sounds coming from behind me, but rather hard left and right in that telltale phasey manner.  This is most likely a combination of factors such as the speakers alignment with each other, the reverb of the room, and the millimetric positioning of my head in relation to the speakers.  Also, a person's interpretation of direction could be subjective as well.

Anyway, Roger Waters albums are full of that stuff.  He loves to layer in lots of low level sound effects and whatnot in his music.  If anything they are a good test of dynamic range.  Can you set your volume loud enough to hear this alleged "babbling brook" and still not clip or compress the explosion on track 7 (I think)?  Personally I think Floyd's "The Final Cut" is a much better album which is more or less the same type of music as Amused To Death.  Plenty of library\aircraft carrier dynamics going on there too for ya'll to nerd out on!

[John Casler]

Yikes, much ado about nothing...

No offense guys, but this is ridiculous.  But I would have to agree with what Azryan said about being able to hear these things on any 'ol system.

Or maybe it might be due to a listener being raised in a big city and, having never heard crickets, had no idea what that sound was?  But seriously, I'd say it has little to do with "resolving power" and more to do with ambient noise of your room and the volume level of the stereo.  Geez, you could hear the ' crickets ...

Hi Nathanm,

And I agree, but nowhere did I say that I "didn't" hear the crickets or that they were the "sonic revelation".   I have to admit that they now could almost drown out the dogs.

And, in fact, I am a country boy and have slept "many a night" with the sounds of them so loud you almost can't sleep.

What I was waiting for, in essense, was for someone to say that their system allowed them to hear the difference between the crickets and the locusts.

Yes, we not only have crickets on this 20 seconds but we have locusts.

While a cricket makes a "creak, creak" type sound the locust makes a longer smoother high pitched vibrating sound like a high pitched vibration, which then slows and then speeds back up again.

The locust sound is underneath the sound of the crickets, and now rather clear on my system but those from Radio Shack, might not resolve them.

This is the particular sound that I had never heard on "my" system before, which prompted me to pose the question.

So after making the small changes to my system, I was able (for the first time) hear that it was not just crickets, but symphony of crickets and "locusts"

I would hope that at some point I'll be able to distingush between the 1st chair and 2nd chair, but now I cannot

Obviously I didn't want to "spill the beans" too early since I wanted to see who might identify it on their systems.  And I trust now that I have pointed it out, others will be able to hear it too. (or maybe they already have but don't know what a locust sounds like)

Such was the point about "uncovering" new sounds, that previously weren't heard (at least to me on my system)


And a clairification about Q-Sound.  

My explaination of how one might hear the "placement" or localization of the sounds, was given to me by a fellow who I knew years ago, by the name of Danny Lowe.  I think he said he was the inventor and patent holder of Q-Sound at that time.

Your observed side localization is what he explained to me is most common and what most will hear, but I did try to say that it could be anywhere outside the outside boundaries of the speakers.

While Danny never claimed any rear (as in behind you) localization I cannot say that they might not be sensed in the right set up, or room.

I just didn't want people reading the thread to think if the sound didn't come from behind them their system wasn't set up correctly.

To bad it had to get sidetracked a bit, since I have come across a few more CDs and tracks, that might be fun to "scrutinize".

[MaxCast]

I find that I can place sounds by concentration ie, The horse coach, if concentrating, can come from behind left to behind right.  The Ferarri car easily passes in the back.  However, if you open your eyes and look at your speakers they both are more of a front pan.

Anyone else have a Q-surround CD's worth a listen.  I suppose I should go the their web site and look at a list.