Post production people have switched to newer tech such as Dolby Atmos. It's generally capable of far more consistently convincing 3D positioning of SFX "Objects" than what was possible with 90's tech like QSound or Roland RSS. It's supported by a lot of new games, and there's a version compatible with any set of headphones available at the Microsoft and Xbox stores. Check it out sometime. It's worth noting that it's usually not used for music though, for a variety of reasons.
Whats your opinion on EAX Windows PC audio/sound technology? Im uploading some old Codemasters games which feature EAX and Rapture 3D audio. Audio tech in Windows games seems dead now.
All I know is that Capcom used it in a lot of their arcade games from the 90s. remember the QSound logo on the screen of many of my favorite arcade games
Great video. I think the QSound thing was a marketing strategy, more for the eyes than the ears. A way for Capcom to show onscreen CPS2 was better than CPS1 even if the hardware was not that different at the end. And yes, it basically makes 0 difference in an arcade environment, back in the day.
I always assumed it was just some audio codec optimized for cartridge-based arcade boards and that it went away because of optical media and hard drives having space for uncompressed audio, never knew that it was actually about surround sound nor that it had been used outside of arcade games. Very instructive video.
Qsound needs a comeback for sure! They were mostly famous for the games they worked on for audio but we need it again for future games, They need to up their game!
Well I guess they should stick with arcade games, I mean seeing Qsound doing modern games would be really awesome and have higher quality surround sound audio.@@onaretrotip
Thanks for the great video. There is a misconception among Japanese arcade game enthusiasts that a special decoder (QX-1) is required to play Q sound. Many people overseas have the same misconception, so I hope this video will increase the number of people with the correct knowledge.
As far as movies are concerned, QSound seems to have been used only on some video releases and soundtracks. In movie theaters there already were physical surround speakers, making QSound superfluous. Aside from that, the QSound process would chaotically interact with the matrix encoding used to embed surround into stereo optical soundtracks, making the two processes incompatible.
Eurythmics in the 1980s used Qsound to record their albums, as well as French composer Eric Serra used it on his 1990 score for Nikita (aka La Femme Nikita).
@@onaretrotip The liner notes of the albums mate. Look for the cds yourself. I forgot which Eurythmics album it was, but I had all but the very first and very last albums. I think it was Touch.
I wish I could remember which issue it was, but I recall a small news piece in _Game_ _Players_ _Magazine_ that said a company was working to bring QSound to the NES -- it would have worked by placing two speakers in a gamepad, since the QSound "effect" only works in close proximity to the user.
Any good stereo speaker setup will sound great. Personally I'm using an old school Technics/Marantz setup in my game room, with modern speakers (Dali Zensor 3).
Cool video Pete, remember hitting that sweet spot sitting in front of my TV a few times bitd and it sounded like I had more then just the 2 speakers in the room
I remember qsound capcom standing out pretty loud in a noisy arcade, that was until killer instince came out! Lol. Even in a huge building you could tell where and if they had a KI there.
I ripped both the original version and the QSound version of Madonna's 'Holiday' into Audacity for an A/B comparison. You can see the difference between the two tracks in a spectrogram, but more importantly: you very clearly hear the difference. Compared to the QSound version, the original one sounds anemic. I also tried the same track in Spotify to see if the effects hold up. By and large the QSound mix survives the lossy compression applied by Spotify, although the uncompressed CD version clearly outshines it. The 'Immaculate Collection' CD simply sounds stellar thanks to its high dynamic range (DR 13) and the QSound mix. I truly wish they would bring back QSound. It will never be as immersive as multi-speaker setups, but it does a damn fine job on a regular stereo system.
QSound...ah, yes, another veteran of the holophonic wars of the 1980s and 90s. In this case, its main competitor was the single-ended Hughes SRS system. And they worked...uhhh, OK, I guess. What these were trying to do is to come up with a consumer-level substitute for a system invented by Hugo Zuccarelli known simply as "holophonics". This was a proprietal binaural technique developed around 1980 which used the Haas effect (ie: how we perceive left and right in sound) to cause sounds to appear INSIDE the head, as if you were positioned where the sound was created. Roger Waters used it on "The Final Cut", as did the post-Throbbing Gristle project Psychic TV on their "Dreams Less Sweet" album. While you could use it on the recorded side of a release, Zuccarelli's system was only truly effective in headphones and carefully-balanced stereo speaker arrangements. The QSound system and SRS are listener-based. These use a weird phenomenon peculiar to the Haas effect, but they use phasing tricks to widen the apparent stage. Again, if you're not in the right spot, it's sloppy...and also, anyone with a couple of years of engineering work knows you can do much the same thing without the proprietary process AND arrive at a better result. Then there's BASE...or the Bedini Aural Spatial Enhancer. BASE is also single-ended, but the process is back on the recording side again. Orbital made quite a bit of use of BASE to deepen and widen their tracks, and the results are subtle but very obvious. This, to me, is the only 3D audio thing that both works AND is under the artists' control. It's worth noting that this was cloned by Behringer a long time ago; their EDISON unit is a copy of the BASE stereo encoder, more or less. After that point was where the action shifted to digital methods. But these invariably take the 3D control away from the artist. This is why I use an EDISON for live imaging, and in the studio... I do those time-tested phasing tricks I started learning and expanding on back in the 1980s. By hand (and ear). And then, if someone wants to make my work sound like crap via Atmos, etc...that's on them. I at least did MY job correctly.
@@BeefyMon Yeah...but that's just throwing perfectly good money at tech that'll probably be obsolete in five years. Reminds me too much of Digidesign/Avid shoving new hardware at their clients that, if they wanted to remain "cutting edge", they had to junk previously workable hardware to stay ahead of "the curve", or some similar marketing nonsense. And that's the at-the-core issue here. Dolby Atmos just doesn't seem like something designed to be around for the long-haul. Adopting new tech has always been a crapshoot of that sort; sure, anyone can go to the hassle and expense to adapt their studio for Atmos, but will the average consumer buy into it? Case in point: early stereo and a company out of Connecticut, Cook Laboratories. While the development of lateral stereo vinyl is sort of known, almost NOBODY knows about Cook's better audio results. See, standard 45°/45° lateral stereo requires certain compromises. And you had to keep that in mind if you were going to get consumers onboard. You already had confusion at that time over what "curve" was being used for mastering, as this was prior to the standardization of the RIAA curve for vinyl mastering and playback. But what about Cook's aurally-superior stereo? Well, while the RIAA discs sounded good, Cook used the OTHER flavor of disc mastering, the "vertical" cut. But since you couldn't cut stereo in vertical, Cook's solution was to use a dual-cartridge rig mounted on this bizarre-looking tonearm with a two-pronged "fork". Likewise, Cook's LPs had to conform to this physical arrangement, with two separate tracks spaced the same distance apart on the vinyl for playback of the left and right channels. Sure, vertical cutting made sense...and it was well-known at that time that you got better audio from its superior "ballistics", which is why broadcasters stuck with vertical lathes up into the 1960s for in-house "dubs". And this made the old, weird Cook Labs stuff sound awesome! So everyone went out and bought...well, 2-channel lateral. It was cheaper, far less fussy, and didn't look quite so insane. Audiophiles actually managed to keep Cook's format alive at least into the early 1960s, but for every Cook Laboratories deck that was sold, THOUSANDS of the decks that used the Westrex lateral stereo tech would fly off the shelves. And similar to all of Dolby's IP, Cook's format required licensing fees that made record labels of the time required to pay an IP royalty on each disc cut by them in Cook Laboratories' format. Western Electric required no such monetary effort to use their 45°/45° system, nor did the RIAA when it finally came time to standardize what stereo on vinyl was going to be. And that "engineering compromise" defined the stereo LP but also gave consumers a format that THEY understood and record companies, audio firms and the like then had a cost-effective and UNfiddly solution to the "stereo problem". And the marketplace voted with their feet and money. So Dolby Labs has their "immersive" format, MQA has theirs, there's also the "high def" CD war between two differing formats there, then higher up the food chain you have consumer playback for 1-bit high speed codecs, etc etc. So it just looks like yet another Format War™ to me, and I simply don't have capital laying around to buy into some NEU! (props to Klaus Dinger there) proprietary whatever. Nor do consumers. So why would I buy into that? Not only does it add a new layer of functions onto the consumer, it presumes that consumers across the demographic boards can properly set up a multichannel "sound projection" setup in a virtually-infinite variety of listening spaces. Note here, also...this same issue popped up first with quad back at the beginning of the 1970s and was one of the nagging issues with consumer-grade multichannel sound that helped to kill quad by the end of the decade. So unless buying an Atmos system includes conducting seances to bring Ray Dolby back to position and calibrate it, I'm gonna pass.
There’s different stereo cues the brain uses to position sounds in front and behind, above and below, or near and far. Beyond panning, that is what Qsound and HRTF are trying to replicate in stereo. Something like Atmos is mostly bruteforcing things by adding actual height speakers, as 5.1 surround did before it vs stereo surround.
Absolutely. The panning was just the most basic aspect of it to explain. I also read that it's very hard to do all of it accurately because ear shape is a factor, and obv differs from person to person.
Fun and informative video, i loved it! My own personal impressions of Q Sound were always that it was a bunch of technological do hickeys, that were really just the digital version of throwing your voice. I remember the Capcom cabs sounded amazing from about ten feet in front, but when I got up against the screen, they just pushed all that sound into my eyeballs! 😣🤣 Again, fantastic video, thanks for this!
Great video. I actually researched this topic about a year ago as I love reading and watching about present and past audio technology. Can you do a video on Midways DCM (Digital Compression System) or Creatives EAX (history of EAX)?
@@onaretrotip no worries but great video and your top tier like the 1mil subscriber content creators. Very excellent story telling and narration and editing. Top notch. 👍🏾
The science behind this idea is called psychoacoustics. A stereo source will always have certain limitations, but it is impressive what can be done to create a 3D sound profile with delays, filters, and amplitude.
Other albums with qsound are Sting best of, paula abdul, madonna immaculate collection, pink floyd and few others. I have madfonna cd and it sounds great
@@Watcher4111 Yes, as I said in the video, Immaculate Collection was the first to use it. There's a full list of albums on their site (link in description).
Creative used Sensaura. Phillips used qsound. Creative had more versatility and supported hrtf, and combined all their tech with CMSS3D. Going over 4 speakers disabled some of the effects for whatever reason. Today, you can use HeSuVi as a free alternative.
so I have a laptop that only has 2 speakers (really annoying since this thing cost me 3000 bucks and my old laptop from 2014 had 4 speakers build into it) can I experience QSound on it? are there demos on youtube? would retroarch emulate it?
@@onaretrotip it really depends on which laptop model, right? like i said my older acer had 4 build in speakers and they advertised it and the sound quality was and still is amazing. my way more expensive modern HP laptop has shitty speakers and every laptop review i have watched simply ignores speaker build quality. they are like: oh it is a laptop what do you expect? a laptop does not have to have bad speakers. this is unacceptable.
@@onaretrotip Well now I've seen the video. But reading more about it, I found that some people claim you need the Capcom Q-sound amplifier to enjoy true q-sound.
Not gonna lie Onaretrotip, because I was half asleep when I first saw my subscribe box, I saw Q Sound and just instantly thought that GuileWinQuote put out two videos in one day since he uses the Qsound Jingle in his intros and was a bit confused when the person speaking suddenly had an accent XD
@@onaretrotip I don't know where your from, so I didn't want to just assume you were british or something so I aired on the side of caution with saying an accent. GuileWinQuote is a mid tier youtuber for the Fighting Game Community who pushes for giving all fighting games a chance, even the bad ones and highlights unique ones, all with his intro doing the Qsound thing, hence the mistake made
You can think what you want, but back in the day, after Quadraphonic had failed, and before Dolby surround… AND with only two speakers, it was pretty f’n impressive. Yes, it required an ideal setup and listening position… but if you’re thinking it’s snake oil, then I’m thinking you’ve never heard it.
@@BeefyMon I distinctly remember Roger Waters' "Amused To Death" album having the QSound logo and some instructions on setting the phase of your speakers the same. You were supposed to hear a dog at the start of the album barking "in the yard next door". No matter what I tried I couldn't hear it. And that was in 1991 when I still had young ears. Some stereo mixes of albums (and movies and television series) sound very special ("spacial") if they're mixed by a talented person. No need for incomprehensible mumbo jumbo. I have a masters degree in science: I don't believe in hearing anything more than stereo (i.e. sound coming from left or right) from 2 speakers. In nature: that's something else. What I see is that nine out of ten times the people that advocate this sort of stuff (don't get me started on "Dolby Surround": making surround from stereo) very, very, very obviously didn't take physics and math in high school. They use science in a weird way that is often just plain wrong. And it's impossible to explain that they're wrong because they don't know physics.
Qsound is the best spatial audio stereo technology ever created it is really amazing and it simply works! It's a shame nobody uses it anymore.
It is indeed! 😢
Post production people have switched to newer tech such as Dolby Atmos. It's generally capable of far more consistently convincing 3D positioning of SFX "Objects" than what was possible with 90's tech like QSound or Roland RSS. It's supported by a lot of new games, and there's a version compatible with any set of headphones available at the Microsoft and Xbox stores. Check it out sometime. It's worth noting that it's usually not used for music though, for a variety of reasons.
@@RomantiqueTp yeah but dolby atmos needs a ton pf speakers decoders and stuff... Q Sound sounds amazing with just 2 speakers and no decoder.
I'm not totally informed on Atmos, but I don't think it is doing any of the time delay or filtering that Qsound does, does it?
Whats your opinion on EAX Windows PC audio/sound technology?
Im uploading some old Codemasters games which feature EAX and Rapture 3D audio. Audio tech in Windows games seems dead now.
All I know is that Capcom used it in a lot of their arcade games from the 90s. remember the QSound logo on the screen of many of my favorite arcade games
Absolutely!
I didn't realize I wanted a video on this topic, haha. Great job!
Nor did I until I wondered what it actually was a few weeks ago 😂
Great video. I think the QSound thing was a marketing strategy, more for the eyes than the ears. A way for Capcom to show onscreen CPS2 was better than CPS1 even if the hardware was not that different at the end. And yes, it basically makes 0 difference in an arcade environment, back in the day.
Absolutely agree.
Assuming you could hear it over the chaos of an arcade, I wonder how well maintained the the speakers were on those cabinets.
Prob would be okay I'd imagine, but not the best quality.
I have the Immaculate Collection on vinyl since I was a teenager and never noticed that, thanks!
Me too! It's been fun listening to it again after knowing all this.
I always thought the treble was too high on QSound audio.
Fair.
Maybe that is the fault of the DACs used or just the mixing engineers. There is no reason this tech should be inherently more shrill
Legendary technology for legendary Capcom games
💪
I always assumed it was just some audio codec optimized for cartridge-based arcade boards and that it went away because of optical media and hard drives having space for uncompressed audio, never knew that it was actually about surround sound nor that it had been used outside of arcade games. Very instructive video.
Yeah, quite an interesting history. I also assumed it was just an arcade thing. Thanks!
Qsound needs a comeback for sure! They were mostly famous for the games they worked on for audio but we need it again for future games, They need to up their game!
Tech has been surpassed now, so there are better options these days.
Well I guess they should stick with arcade games, I mean seeing Qsound doing modern games would be really awesome and have higher quality surround sound audio.@@onaretrotip
Thanks for the great video.
There is a misconception among Japanese arcade game enthusiasts that a special decoder (QX-1) is required to play Q sound.
Many people overseas have the same misconception, so I hope this video will increase the number of people with the correct knowledge.
Thank you very much!
Thanks for the history I didn't even know I wanted to hear about a splash screen I've seen thousands of times .cheers!
Ha, I didn't know either. Thank you.
For years I wondered what it actually was. Thanks for the explainer
My pleasure!
Thanks for explaining this to us mate, I still really Understand it but glad to see you went down the rabbit hole 😂
LOL Cheers mate.
Great job on this video! I had no idea that it was used outside of video games.
Thank you. Me neither!
QSound is for and for most hardware sound system used in CPS2 system. I actully had QSound soundcard in my first PC
Yeah, they do a lot of hardware outside of arcades (soundcards, etc).
As far as movies are concerned, QSound seems to have been used only on some video releases and soundtracks. In movie theaters there already were physical surround speakers, making QSound superfluous. Aside from that, the QSound process would chaotically interact with the matrix encoding used to embed surround into stereo optical soundtracks, making the two processes incompatible.
Yeah, doesn't make sense for cinema does it.
Eurythmics in the 1980s used Qsound to record their albums, as well as French composer Eric Serra used it on his 1990 score for Nikita (aka La Femme Nikita).
Oh really? Source?
@@onaretrotip The liner notes of the albums mate. Look for the cds yourself. I forgot which Eurythmics album it was, but I had all but the very first and very last albums. I think it was Touch.
@@jameslaidler2152 Will have a look for them, cheers.
This is so interesting and informative, and explained so well. Great video! 😊🙏
Ah, thank you so much :)
I wish I could remember which issue it was, but I recall a small news piece in _Game_ _Players_ _Magazine_ that said a company was working to bring QSound to the NES -- it would have worked by placing two speakers in a gamepad, since the QSound "effect" only works in close proximity to the user.
Interesting!
I'm buying and searching speakers to recreate this quality of sound.
Turning my room into my personal arcade
Any good stereo speaker setup will sound great. Personally I'm using an old school Technics/Marantz setup in my game room, with modern speakers (Dali Zensor 3).
Cool video Pete, remember hitting that sweet spot sitting in front of my TV a few times bitd and it sounded like I had more then just the 2 speakers in the room
Thanks mate. Cool technology for sure.
I remember qsound capcom standing out pretty loud in a noisy arcade, that was until killer instince came out! Lol. Even in a huge building you could tell where and if they had a KI there.
Yeah, some cabs just stand out so much, even in a busy arcade.
I ripped both the original version and the QSound version of Madonna's 'Holiday' into Audacity for an A/B comparison. You can see the difference between the two tracks in a spectrogram, but more importantly: you very clearly hear the difference. Compared to the QSound version, the original one sounds anemic. I also tried the same track in Spotify to see if the effects hold up. By and large the QSound mix survives the lossy compression applied by Spotify, although the uncompressed CD version clearly outshines it. The 'Immaculate Collection' CD simply sounds stellar thanks to its high dynamic range (DR 13) and the QSound mix. I truly wish they would bring back QSound. It will never be as immersive as multi-speaker setups, but it does a damn fine job on a regular stereo system.
Yes, you can absolutely tell the difference. After/during making this I was listening to the QSound versions a lot.
QSound...ah, yes, another veteran of the holophonic wars of the 1980s and 90s.
In this case, its main competitor was the single-ended Hughes SRS system. And they worked...uhhh, OK, I guess.
What these were trying to do is to come up with a consumer-level substitute for a system invented by Hugo Zuccarelli known simply as "holophonics". This was a proprietal binaural technique developed around 1980 which used the Haas effect (ie: how we perceive left and right in sound) to cause sounds to appear INSIDE the head, as if you were positioned where the sound was created. Roger Waters used it on "The Final Cut", as did the post-Throbbing Gristle project Psychic TV on their "Dreams Less Sweet" album. While you could use it on the recorded side of a release, Zuccarelli's system was only truly effective in headphones and carefully-balanced stereo speaker arrangements.
The QSound system and SRS are listener-based. These use a weird phenomenon peculiar to the Haas effect, but they use phasing tricks to widen the apparent stage. Again, if you're not in the right spot, it's sloppy...and also, anyone with a couple of years of engineering work knows you can do much the same thing without the proprietary process AND arrive at a better result.
Then there's BASE...or the Bedini Aural Spatial Enhancer. BASE is also single-ended, but the process is back on the recording side again. Orbital made quite a bit of use of BASE to deepen and widen their tracks, and the results are subtle but very obvious. This, to me, is the only 3D audio thing that both works AND is under the artists' control. It's worth noting that this was cloned by Behringer a long time ago; their EDISON unit is a copy of the BASE stereo encoder, more or less.
After that point was where the action shifted to digital methods. But these invariably take the 3D control away from the artist. This is why I use an EDISON for live imaging, and in the studio... I do those time-tested phasing tricks I started learning and expanding on back in the 1980s. By hand (and ear). And then, if someone wants to make my work sound like crap via Atmos, etc...that's on them. I at least did MY job correctly.
😎👍
@@daccrowell4776 or you could provide your own Atmos mix and show those someones that you can outcrap them.
@@BeefyMon Yeah...but that's just throwing perfectly good money at tech that'll probably be obsolete in five years. Reminds me too much of Digidesign/Avid shoving new hardware at their clients that, if they wanted to remain "cutting edge", they had to junk previously workable hardware to stay ahead of "the curve", or some similar marketing nonsense.
And that's the at-the-core issue here. Dolby Atmos just doesn't seem like something designed to be around for the long-haul. Adopting new tech has always been a crapshoot of that sort; sure, anyone can go to the hassle and expense to adapt their studio for Atmos, but will the average consumer buy into it?
Case in point: early stereo and a company out of Connecticut, Cook Laboratories. While the development of lateral stereo vinyl is sort of known, almost NOBODY knows about Cook's better audio results.
See, standard 45°/45° lateral stereo requires certain compromises. And you had to keep that in mind if you were going to get consumers onboard. You already had confusion at that time over what "curve" was being used for mastering, as this was prior to the standardization of the RIAA curve for vinyl mastering and playback.
But what about Cook's aurally-superior stereo? Well, while the RIAA discs sounded good, Cook used the OTHER flavor of disc mastering, the "vertical" cut. But since you couldn't cut stereo in vertical, Cook's solution was to use a dual-cartridge rig mounted on this bizarre-looking tonearm with a two-pronged "fork". Likewise, Cook's LPs had to conform to this physical arrangement, with two separate tracks spaced the same distance apart on the vinyl for playback of the left and right channels.
Sure, vertical cutting made sense...and it was well-known at that time that you got better audio from its superior "ballistics", which is why broadcasters stuck with vertical lathes up into the 1960s for in-house "dubs". And this made the old, weird Cook Labs stuff sound awesome!
So everyone went out and bought...well, 2-channel lateral. It was cheaper, far less fussy, and didn't look quite so insane. Audiophiles actually managed to keep Cook's format alive at least into the early 1960s, but for every Cook Laboratories deck that was sold, THOUSANDS of the decks that used the Westrex lateral stereo tech would fly off the shelves. And similar to all of Dolby's IP, Cook's format required licensing fees that made record labels of the time required to pay an IP royalty on each disc cut by them in Cook Laboratories' format. Western Electric required no such monetary effort to use their 45°/45° system, nor did the RIAA when it finally came time to standardize what stereo on vinyl was going to be. And that "engineering compromise" defined the stereo LP but also gave consumers a format that THEY understood and record companies, audio firms and the like then had a cost-effective and UNfiddly solution to the "stereo problem". And the marketplace voted with their feet and money.
So Dolby Labs has their "immersive" format, MQA has theirs, there's also the "high def" CD war between two differing formats there, then higher up the food chain you have consumer playback for 1-bit high speed codecs, etc etc. So it just looks like yet another Format War™ to me, and I simply don't have capital laying around to buy into some NEU! (props to Klaus Dinger there) proprietary whatever. Nor do consumers.
So why would I buy into that? Not only does it add a new layer of functions onto the consumer, it presumes that consumers across the demographic boards can properly set up a multichannel "sound projection" setup in a virtually-infinite variety of listening spaces. Note here, also...this same issue popped up first with quad back at the beginning of the 1970s and was one of the nagging issues with consumer-grade multichannel sound that helped to kill quad by the end of the decade. So unless buying an Atmos system includes conducting seances to bring Ray Dolby back to position and calibrate it, I'm gonna pass.
@@daccrowell4776 … and then Apple adopted it.
The video I didn't know I wanted. Thanks!
Haha my thoughts exactly. Didn't realise I needed this until I started looking into it and found no videos explaining it.
There’s different stereo cues the brain uses to position sounds in front and behind, above and below, or near and far. Beyond panning, that is what Qsound and HRTF are trying to replicate in stereo.
Something like Atmos is mostly bruteforcing things by adding actual height speakers, as 5.1 surround did before it vs stereo surround.
Absolutely. The panning was just the most basic aspect of it to explain. I also read that it's very hard to do all of it accurately because ear shape is a factor, and obv differs from person to person.
Fun and informative video, i loved it! My own personal impressions of Q Sound were always that it was a bunch of technological do hickeys, that were really just the digital version of throwing your voice. I remember the Capcom cabs sounded amazing from about ten feet in front, but when I got up against the screen, they just pushed all that sound into my eyeballs! 😣🤣
Again, fantastic video, thanks for this!
Haha, yeah you really have to be in the right spot. Thanks!
Interesting stuff…..I’ve seen the Qsound logo so many times but I only really used to notice it on 3DO version of Street Fighter🤷♂️
What the...??????? 😵
Great video. I actually researched this topic about a year ago as I love reading and watching about present and past audio technology.
Can you do a video on Midways DCM (Digital Compression System) or Creatives EAX (history of EAX)?
Thanks! Not looking to look into any more I'm afraid. I was just curious about QSound.
@@onaretrotip no worries but great video and your top tier like the 1mil subscriber content creators. Very excellent story telling and narration and editing. Top notch. 👍🏾
@@Gman2002 Thank you so much. very kind! 😭
The science behind this idea is called psychoacoustics.
A stereo source will always have certain limitations, but it is impressive what can be done to create a 3D sound profile with delays, filters, and amplitude.
Psychoacoustics - I like that.
Roger Waters Amused to Death has really amazing qsound tracks too. Highly recommended.
Ooooh, will have a listen. Thank you!
@@onaretrotip listen to the 1st track and also to "Too Much Rope". Amazing effects, if you have a good pair of speakers it's Atmos level awesomeness.
Other albums with qsound are Sting best of, paula abdul, madonna immaculate collection, pink floyd and few others. I have madfonna cd and it sounds great
@@Watcher4111 Yes, as I said in the video, Immaculate Collection was the first to use it. There's a full list of albums on their site (link in description).
I have madonna immaculate collection in qsound. Sounds great
I've been loving listening to it again after having read about QSound.
Both Capcom and Creative are the only companies I know that utilized QSound technologies.
Yeah, I was surprised to see companies like Bullfrog and Psygnosis on the list.
Creative used Sensaura. Phillips used qsound. Creative had more versatility and supported hrtf, and combined all their tech with CMSS3D. Going over 4 speakers disabled some of the effects for whatever reason.
Today, you can use HeSuVi as a free alternative.
Capcom is where I know this word from
Same!
so I have a laptop that only has 2 speakers (really annoying since this thing cost me 3000 bucks and my old laptop from 2014 had 4 speakers build into it) can I experience QSound on it? are there demos on youtube? would retroarch emulate it?
I mean, it's designed for two speakers, but I would be surprised if a laptop had optimally placed speakers for it.
@@onaretrotip it really depends on which laptop model, right? like i said my older acer had 4 build in speakers and they advertised it and the sound quality was and still is amazing. my way more expensive modern HP laptop has shitty speakers and every laptop review i have watched simply ignores speaker build quality. they are like: oh it is a laptop what do you expect? a laptop does not have to have bad speakers. this is unacceptable.
@@jeffhauser8031Not really. I don't think I've ever seen a laptop with forward facing speakers (because that's where the screen is).
Thanks for the vid!
Thanks!
The sound always gave me the creeps lol
LOL
How could an album be mixed in q-sound? I thought q-sound needed a certain q-sound amplifier
If you watch the video, you'll see that that is not the case.
@@onaretrotip Well now I've seen the video. But reading more about it, I found that some people claim you need the Capcom Q-sound amplifier to enjoy true q-sound.
I see. No, not the case. Any stereo speaker setup correctly positioned will do.
One thing it does in addition to panning is slightly delaying the audio to one of the ears, which greatly helps in emulating the surround effect.
Did I not explain that and show a visual representation?
Very interesting and well researched. Well done.
Thanks a lot!
Not gonna lie Onaretrotip, because I was half asleep when I first saw my subscribe box, I saw Q Sound and just instantly thought that GuileWinQuote put out two videos in one day since he uses the Qsound Jingle in his intros and was a bit confused when the person speaking suddenly had an accent XD
same 😂😂
Not aware of the channel, but that's funny. (But everyone has an accent LOL)
@@onaretrotip I don't know where your from, so I didn't want to just assume you were british or something so I aired on the side of caution with saying an accent.
GuileWinQuote is a mid tier youtuber for the Fighting Game Community who pushes for giving all fighting games a chance, even the bad ones and highlights unique ones, all with his intro doing the Qsound thing, hence the mistake made
@@Gojiro7 LOL Yeah, I'm British.
@@onaretrotip noted for the future
So whets Qsound? 😂 5 speakers! I think I only ever had one or half of one back then lol Wonder what it would sound like today.
Wonder what what would sound like?
@@onaretrotip Q sound lool
Dont understand why phones and tablets do not use this,works great for that type of thing.
Phones and tablets rarely have two speakers positioned separately, and are so small that the sound would be coming from roughly one direction anyway.
@onaretrotip Hi,all my tablets are stereo and i tried the qsound demos on them from youtube......sounds sooo much better with qsound:)
I think its snake oil.
As far as arcades go, it pretty much is, but the technology itself is real.
You can think what you want, but back in the day, after Quadraphonic had failed, and before Dolby surround… AND with only two speakers, it was pretty f’n impressive. Yes, it required an ideal setup and listening position… but if you’re thinking it’s snake oil, then I’m thinking you’ve never heard it.
@@BeefyMon I distinctly remember Roger Waters' "Amused To Death" album having the QSound logo and some instructions on setting the phase of your speakers the same. You were supposed to hear a dog at the start of the album barking "in the yard next door". No matter what I tried I couldn't hear it. And that was in 1991 when I still had young ears. Some stereo mixes of albums (and movies and television series) sound very special ("spacial") if they're mixed by a talented person. No need for incomprehensible mumbo jumbo.
I have a masters degree in science: I don't believe in hearing anything more than stereo (i.e. sound coming from left or right) from 2 speakers. In nature: that's something else. What I see is that nine out of ten times the people that advocate this sort of stuff (don't get me started on "Dolby Surround": making surround from stereo) very, very, very obviously didn't take physics and math in high school. They use science in a weird way that is often just plain wrong. And it's impossible to explain that they're wrong because they don't know physics.
@@meneerjansen00 your mind is made up then?