Sansui QR-4500 purchase

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I worked for Dick Schaak before I went to Pacific. I also sold to Team, Schaak and Sound World. I still have cassette dubs of their commercials, including some side-splitting outtakes from Pacific. Yes, it was Sound World in Apache Mall.

What was this thread about again?

Linda
I wonder if there is a time limit for hijacking?

As far as a center channel, I have never understood the need for one since I have never had a problem understanding dialog in a movie with my quad system. None at all.

I believe a center channel was originally proposed and implemented because of the tendency in early stereo days of having two speaker systems spaced wide apart in corners, no? Then I could see the possibility of "phantom center" maybe not working sufficiently.

I will relate my first quad experience and it was more conventional compared to Linda's ingenius approach.

My then girlfriend and I (we later married) hitched a ride over here to Rochester (we lived in Austin at the time) during the day (and during school - my advanced math teacher used to let me skip on a Friday afternoon sometimes as long as I kept my grades up) sometime in early 1971 and we ended up at Apache Mall. The stereo store would have been one of three. Sound World, Schaak Electronics, or Team Electronics. I'm pretty sure it was Sound World and they actually had a pretty nice quad setup with 4 Advents and some pretty good electronics and actually in the sound room instead of out on the floor.

Anyway, when I sat in the middle of those 4 speakers and they played some RTR tapes they had, that was it. From then on, "quadraphonic" was a magical word to me.

Doug
 
I wonder if there is a time limit for hijacking?

As far as a center channel, I have never understood the need for one since I have never had a problem understanding dialog in a movie with my quad system. None at all.

I believe a center channel was originally proposed and implemented because of the tendency in early stereo days of having two speaker systems spaced wide apart in corners, no? Then I could see the possibility of "phantom center" maybe not working sufficiently.

Doug

The center channel was part of Bell Labs original experiments with stereo in the 30's and was always recognized as required for good stereo sound reproduction. It is needed for multiple reasons - viewers who are not placed 'dead center' between the speakers will perceive any center placed sounds as pulled to the speaker nearest them - as are all in-phase phantom sounds between the speakers. Also, due to head shadowing, etc... center placed phantoms have a lower-midrange response dip caused by destructive interference between our left ear picking up sounds from the right speaker and vise-versa. This causes Center Front phantom images to sound recessed and to have ragged frequency response - others hear it as a soundstage elevation - in other words, with 2 channel playback, as an in-phase sound pans from Left to Right, it seems to rise in height as it moves from the left speaker, peak in height at the phantom center, and lower back down to the right speaker. A center speaker fixes these problems since there is now an actual speaker there - and it fixes the problems even with matrix derived Center Front if the phase/vector cancellation process has been implemented correctly (and not all are). Phantom images that are to either side of center are also more accurately placed than they would be with just 2 speakers; increasing the number of real sources always increases the soundstage accuracy due to improved wave-front reconstruction of the originally recorded sound. And original recording with 3 or more channels and played back as the same number of channels increases the spatial "sampling rate" creating even more accuracy. (I'm not advocating adding speakers by simple linear additions of channels - that destroys imaging due to crosstalk) So, if a source is recorded/mixed for 3 (or more) channel reproduction, then reproducing source with the correct number of speakers will always improve the fidelity to the original.

Also, some people can't 'hear' phantom imaging and thus never learn to hear stereo properly. Hearing in-phase, equal level sounds as coming from dead center between two speakers is a learned skill (one we aren't aware we are learning) - and one that most people don't have any trouble doing. But, just as some people never learned to see 3D movies correctly - despite having normal 3D vision - some people never learn to hear 3 dimensional sound or can't be taught. Adding speakers removes this difficulty. Numerous psychoacoustic tests and studies have proven that 2 channels in front of us is simply not enough for truly high-fidelity reproduction or reconstruction of a correctly mic'd soundstage. 3 speakers/channels in front are good - 5 speakers/channels Cinerama-style is better - but 5 will never happen. Instead, more discrete channels have been added to be reproduced behind us, which is stupid. Our hearing is the least accurate from behind us and additional speaker feeds derived with true crosstalk cancellation decoders (not gain-riding logic like Circle Surround) easily match our ability to hear and localize them correctly since we can really only hear one direction/dominant signal at a time, especially from behind us. In other words, additional discrete surround channels are 'wasted' when used for surrounds because our hearing can't process the difference between a matrix decoded with a phase/vector cancellation decoder and discrete reproduction.

A center speaker is needed too if you have your quad speakers in the 'square' layout where Left/Right front form a 90 degree angle between you and them. Stereo imaging only 'works' over angles of 60 degrees or less - any wider spacing of the speakers leaves a 'hole' in the middle because a phantom image simply can't be formed there without a derived speaker feed. I have heard some 'audiophile' quad systems where the person had their speakers in a perfect square and they were in the middle of that square, meaning the L/R front speakers were 45 degrees to either side, forming the dreaded 90 degree angle - there was no center front imaging at all - voices sounded disembodied with no clear position and the soundstage was fuzzy and indistinct - yet they had never noticed it. I could only assume that they were one of those people that couldn't hear phantom imaging.
 
I worked for Dick Schaak before I went to Pacific. I also sold to Team, Schaak and Sound World. I still have cassette dubs of their commercials, including some side-splitting outtakes from Pacific. Yes, it was Sound World in Apache Mall.

What was this thread about again?

Linda

Actually, I done didn't word part of that there post of mine too good. :D

There were all three of those chains in Apache Mall at one time. I'm not so sure they were all there in 1971 but I think so.

What I meant to say was that I think it was Sound World (of those three there) where I first heard quad. Mainly because they had the biggest store with a dedicated sound room.

The Schaak and Team stores were relatively smaller.

I remember buying some things at Schaak like a replacement stylus for my Empire 2000 E/III.

Also, I think it's really cool that you were right in on the action then, Linda. I guess, even though I have always loved music and the systems that reproduce it, I realized I was never really a salesman.

I did have a short stint as one here at Mountain Electronics in the eighties but it was short enough that I didn't get a chance to develop any real sales abilities before the store closed. I did sell a few systems and other stuff.

Back on topic: I'm pretty sure Sound World would have sold the QR-4500.

Doug
 
I find it odd that everyone has been talking about the QR & QRX-?001 series, but no mention of the second gen QRX-?500 series.
I am MORE than happy with my QRX-6500. The second gen decoder is a VAST improvement. With 4 VS series Cerwin Vegas I have
trouble coming up with the guts to turn it up past 4, and with feeding it with my DSOTM SQ cut, it's astounding.
 
Love that avatar! I've seen that visual somewhere before... Hmm! Back in the day, we had a couple Quad demo systems similar to what you're running. Sansui with 4 Cerwin Vega 217R's, floor standing w/ 15" woofers. Prior to that, I managed a store where we had a Marantz with 4 Altec Voice-of-the-Theaters. The SPL's were ear-shattering.

There are a few QQ members that are running similar setups. Quadgirl is running a recently refurbished QRX-9001 with 4 Klipsch. LOUD!

My main system today is rated at over 1400 Real RMS watts. I'll bet your system will play louder than mine.

Eagle, my recommendation is either to buy your neighbors earplugs or invite them over for a beer. Do they like Pink Floyd?

Linda

I find it odd that everyone has been talking about the QR & QRX-?001 series, but no mention of the second gen QRX-?500 series.
I am MORE than happy with my QRX-6500. The second gen decoder is a VAST improvement. With 4 VS series Cerwin Vegas I have
trouble coming up with the guts to turn it up past 4, and with feeding it with my DSOTM SQ cut, it's astounding.
 
I envy you Linda, but I could NEVER have worked in a HIFI store in that era. I'm sure I would have had to sign over my paycheck every week...
I remember in the early '80's I wanted a JVC PC-5 so bad, but couldn't afford one. I have since learned that Sansui also made a couple portable
mini systems. (mid to late '80's, around the time the logo went green) The hunt begins...

The system my father had when I was in high school was an HH Scott Receiver, BSR TT, Realistc Optimus 4's & 8-Track recorder.
I then added a Technics cassette.
 
I find it odd that everyone has been talking about the QR & QRX-?001 series, but no mention of the second gen QRX-?500 series.
I am MORE than happy with my QRX-6500. The second gen decoder is a VAST improvement. With 4 VS series Cerwin Vegas I have
trouble coming up with the guts to turn it up past 4, and with feeding it with my DSOTM SQ cut, it's astounding.

I also own a QRX-6500 - which was the very first consumer Sansui to feature the Vario-Matrix. Although I love the receiver, its basic performance and flexibility, I don't care for the QS Vario-Matrix decoder at all. It's only the simple Front/Back Type-B QS Vario-Matrix that gives full Cf to Cb separation and about 13db of side to side separation, but Lf to Lb and Rf to Rb only have 6 or 7db of separation between them. To me, it's just not enough to produce a good quad effect and makes the sound seem too closed in. The SQ "Phase Matrix" position on the 6500 is a good deal better than CBS' own Front/Back Logic designs, but not as good as most Full-Logic decoders. It's a shame Sansui didn't produce a Type-A version of the Vario-Matrix for SQ - but I think they wanted to make QS always sound better than SQ.

One interesting thing about Sansui QS receivers and decoders - I have a Radio Electronics article from 1974 or so that has in-depth comparisons of QS, SQ and CD-4 and they state that, except for Sansui receivers and decoders, they've never come across a QS or RM decoder with accurate decoding that followed the QS and RM standards or even produced results similar to each other.
 
Disclord, I have yet to obtain a 4 channel discrete source, but am on the lookout.
It will be interesting to see the difference. You must admit, these are better than the QR series.

A friend of mine claims to have an old RTR machine buried in their attic (possibly Akai),
but has yet to dig it out for me. (it's mine for the taking)
I just hope it turns out to be 4 channel.
 
Disclord, I have yet to obtain a 4 channel discrete source, but am on the lookout.
It will be interesting to see the difference. You must admit, these are better than the QR series.

A friend of mine claims to have an old RTR machine buried in their attic (possibly Akai),
but has yet to dig it out for me. (it's mine for the taking)
I just hope it turns out to be 4 channel.

Oh, don't get me wrong, the QRX-6500 is an EXCELLENT receiver - and compared to the QR series, which had no logic enhancement whatsoever, it's an excellent QS decoder. But, the Type-A Vario-Matrix is much better, although not really needed anymore since the advent of PC based QS decoding - I've been blown away by Oxforddickie's PC decoding of QS - it sounds totally discrete. If you are just getting into quad, collecting quad conversions on DVD and DTS CD is a much better way of going about it than looking for open-reel tapes, CD-4 demodulators or a Fosgate Tate decoder, etc... Check out Oxforddickie's blog.
 
I will check it out tonight, thanks.

I've never had the chance to hear a discrete system, honestly.

Just the same, I won't be turning down a FREE RTR, 4 channel or not.
lol

As far as DVD, I guess you need an ext decoder to split to 4 channel, then to
my discrete inputs?
 
I will check it out tonight, thanks.

I've never had the chance to hear a discrete system, honestly.

Just the same, I won't be turning down a FREE RTR, 4 channel or not.
lol

As far as DVD, I guess you need an ext decoder to split to 4 channel, then to
my discrete inputs?

If you have a DVD or Blu-ray player that has direct multi-channel (RCA) outputs it will have a built-in decoder and you can connect the Lf/Rf/Rb/Lb outputs directly into the 6500's discrete 4-channel inputs. Then, in the DVD players speaker set up menu, you turn off the Center and Sub speakers so they are blended into the front outputs correctly. Most conversions of quad material to DVD don't have a center or sub coded to worry about, but you'd set the DVD player up that way just in case they do.

You will be blown away by the discrete DVD conversions that are available. I listen to them more than anything else now.
 
Thanks again, DL.
I will check my players when I get home, but as I remember, mine are all 2 channel down mixed only
plus with optical & digital (orange RCA).
 
Hello my friends;
I was the happy owner of a 1972 Sansui quad receiver I'd purchased in Japan while in the Navy. It was stolen from me about a year after I returned to the states in Memphis Tn.. I've always remembered the warm sound and quality quad separation.
I have been given the opportunity locally to purchase a QR-4500 for a hundred dollars. The older gentleman who owns the receiver states it is in good condition. I've been an electronic technician for 30 years and although I am not wealthy at the moment I would love to hear that sound again. I have a question;
Does the QE-4500 have the third discrete circuit, for better seperation? or is it an older version of the QRX-5500? What was the quality or placement in the line up of this receiver?
Thank you for all your suggestions and advice..............................Chris

==
Sorry you got ripped off, Chris.
Eagle72 Location: PA, USA sez, in part, on the bottom:
"My volume knob going to 10 is useless.
My neighbors call the cops at anything past 3.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sansui QRX-6500 / Sansui RA-500"

This reasoning is exactly why in 1972 (Navy, on Guam) that I bought the QR4500 instead of the higher power QR6500 Quadraphonic
Receiver/Amplifier. Two Sansui SP2500 speakers on the front channels, and two Pioneer CX05 "round" speaker columns for the rear channels with
that as the main A speakers, and I didn't have to worry about the future kids blowing the speakers or their eardrums. After raising two
families, it still is my preferred system in the bachelor den.
The B side was the test side, trying all the latest and greatest, by my ears worked best with the A side original speakers that I chose.
Rock classic, jazz, soundtracks or whatever, it all sounds great.
My power levels, I quit at 5, prefer 4, still excellent at 2-3 with the original speakers selected.
Oh, yeah, I have a new Pioneer w/Dolby 5.1 + and five speakers in the living room hooked to the video, but prefer "old quad" for these old
ears. Never did get the need for a center speaker in the 5.1 system, because it was only for me. The separate Bass was fun, but the old Quad
still can boom better than anything I could find for 5.1 version.

I vote that you go for the QR4500, no big deal for an ET with 30+ years. Every couple of years, I have to clean those slider pots with a good sprayer/lub because I was on Guam, and lived near the beach in Rota Spain and San Diego CA, my only regret is its minor toll on these pots. And they are STILL original. The QRX series might be fun, if one happens along. OMG this setup is 40 years old next week, har!

rpryan
 
I have an Akai RTR type Quad/Stereo, actually a Reel to Reel Deck, in the original box. It needs the Quad amp to work, will not drive speakers as a deck.
Ask your friend if his RTD has an 8-track in the side, as that worked fine for unidirectional quad recording, or bidirectional stereo, until I grew bored with 8 tracks.
A friend, actually a RatShack Assistant Manager, bought the last case of 8-track cartridges in the RS system, good luck finding blank 8-track carts, though.
 
Hey all, time for an update...
DL was quite right, I since purchased a used Pioneer Elite DVD-A/SACD player, hooked to a TV to set Center & Sub to OFF
then wired discrete to my QRX-6500. On my 5.1 Zeppelin Disc, Whole Lotta Love is amazing...

& I have yet to lay eyes on the RTR, it's still buried


Does anyone know if cs7 ever got/restored a rig?
 
Last edited:
Update II:

Scored a Quad R2R (no, it's not the attic unit)

Dokorder 8140

Dokorder--8140.jpg
 
20130124_160249.jpg20130124_160210.jpg20130124_160203.jpg

Hello,

For sale is a Sansui QR-4500. It is in great condition, just a few minor scratches on the wood casing. It is in working condition. As far as I know, all systems are a go! I received this receiver from my father who is a collector and I have no need for it. I hope enthusiasts will enjoy this as much as he did. Please, feel free to email any questions and I will do my best to answer them fully. I am unsure as to how much these go for. Online says anywhere from $100-150 average. I am asking $75 and buyer pays for shipping.

Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top