ok I'll ask: What is the best surround synthesizer?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
13
On-the-fly, not referring to conversions.

Maybe I missed "the" thread, or most surround freaks simply aren't impressed by surround synthesis.
I've been running all mono/stereo sources through surround processing for years and love it - maybe it's just hard for me to understand that's not always the case. A question of priorities perhaps, and most surround fans spend their time with discreet media? Still amazed that people that are new to surround aren't at least curious. You don't have to be in this hobby long to grasp how little is released in a discreet format.

I'd especially like to know about the new gear, I mean are the Tate, Audiosonics, Vario-Matrix, (other?) still the best, I mean really?? Hard to believe but maybe there was no demand (as perceived by manufacturers, anyway) so no development, regardless of tech advancements in the decades since those were released:mad:@:
Anyway, I'm not in the position to test new audio gear (much less the high-end stuff) but have always been curious about this.
 
I've used the (Tate) Audionics Space and Image Composer for years (almost 30!) with excellent results. Last year the unit started acting up so I put it aside and pulled out the Sansui QSD-1 purchased several years previously.

I have trouble listening to the QSD-1 although others proclaim it as the best. I find that it colours the sound, possibly due to the active crossover circuitry added in the signal path. At times it produces the unnatural effect of the same instrument coming from two locations but still with perfect separation, not natural sounding. The decoder in my Sansui QA-7000 is much better sounding (excellent), I think that it is the same as the (single band) QSD-2 but the service manual just shows it as a block without a schematic.

I purchased a Gemini SP-1 (Circle Surround) last year, the unit is intended for professional (music-man) applications but they are available very inexpensively and sound very Tate like, also this particular unit has no centre front output, perfect for traditional Quad!. I've never liked Dolby anything. At some point I will pull this unit out again.

Since 1972 I've always preferred stereo though some sort of surround processor, Dyna-Quad speaker set up, Audionics 106A, SQ decoder (no logic), full logic SQ decoders then the Tate. Even the phase modulated Sansui QS-1 sounds nice on my bedroom system (with closely spaced speakers) but it does little in a larger room.

In most cases I would just as soon listen to mono as to normal stereo!
 
When the Tate was introduced, I managed the #2 volume hi-fi store in the country, which was owned by CBS, the company that INVENTED SQ. We were in a very affluent area near Chicago. We sold NO QUAD whatsoever. Not even on special order, which we were able to do upon request. No one even came in and inquired about Quad. If you were a manufacturer at this time, or in subsequent years, why waste R&D money to produce equipment that was rejected by the marketplace? The laws of supply & demand are what dictates what's manufactured and developed.

Lest anyone might think I'm anti-surround, I've owned surround gear for 40 years. A few years ago when DVD-A and SACD were new, I sold and designed custom a/v systems. Virtually no clients had ay interest in surround audio formats, even though we demonstrated the software constantly. Again in very affluent areas. Yet, nearly every system we sold at that point was 5.1. All everyone seemed to care about was movies. Again, why spend $$$ developing and marketing something virtually no one cares about? Sure, you care and I care, along with most of the folks on QQ.

Most of the "Quad" I've listened to over the years has been synthesized. Yet, I owned a few hundred Quad albums back in the day, and currently own over 1000 Quad/5.1 titles. I'd rather listen to a good discrete mix than synthesis. However, I'd rather listen to synthesized Quad than quasi-Quad of ambience in the rear channels. Over two houses and two cars, I own seven audio systems. Only one of these is 2ch, and it's in my winter car.

So, although I completely agree in theory with everything you say, the realities of the marketplace make me strongly disagree. Most people today could care less about great sound reproduction or music. Computer speakers, mp3 and earbuds are fine for music. And 5.1 is only for movies. Or so the vast majority of the marketplace thinks.

For someone like me who has always cared about both music and surround, it's all so sad. Don't blame the messenger.

...I'd especially like to know about the new gear, I mean are the Tate, Audiosonics, Vario-Matrix, (other?) still the best, I mean really?? Hard to believe but maybe there was no demand (as perceived by manufacturers, anyway) so no development, regardless of tech advancements in the decades since those were released:mad:@:
Anyway, I'm not in the position to test new audio gear (much less the high-end stuff) but have always been curious about this.
 
Last edited:
When the Tate was introduced, I managed the #2 volume hi-fi store in the country, which was owned by CBS, the company that INVENTED SQ. We were in a very affluent area near Chicago. We sold NO QUAD whatsoever. Not even on special order, which we were able to do upon request. No one even came in and inquired about Quad. If you were a manufacturer at this time, or in subsequent years, why waste R&D money to produce equipment that was rejected by the marketplace? The laws of supply & demand are what dictates what's manufactured and developed.

Lest anyone might think I'm anti-surround, I've owned surround gear for 40 years. A few years ago when DVD-A and SACD were new, I sold and designed custom a/v systems. Virtually no clients had ay interest in surround audio formats, even though we demonstrated the software constantly. Again in very affluent areas. Yet, nearly every system we sold at that point was 5.1. All everyone seemed to care about was movies. Again, why spend $$$ developing and marketing something virtually no one cares about? Sure, you care and I care, along with most of the folks on QQ.

Most of the "Quad" I've listened to over the years has been synthesized. Yet, I owned a few hundred Quad albums back in the day, and currently own over 1000 Quad/5.1 titles. I'd rather listen to a good discrete mix than synthesis. However, I'd rather listen to synthesized Quad than quasi-Quad of ambience in the rear channels. Over two houses and two cars, I own seven audio systems. Only one of these is 2ch, and it's in my winter car.

So, although I completely agree in theory with everything you say, the realities of the marketplace make me strongly disagree. Most people today could care less about great sound reproduction or music. Computer speakers, mp3 and earbuds are fine for music. And 5.1 is only for movies. Or so the vast majority of the marketplace thinks.

For someone like me who has always cared about both music and surround, it's all so sad. Don't blame the messenger.

Yes QL all anyone wants today is free, and portable in your ear. I'm convinced it's just us "old" farts who really care anymore. One good reason is avail. funds for equipment, and having always strived for good playback sound. In a way, (perverted) I commend Donald Fagen for accepting it, but!!! they still should have done "condos" in surround. And with his acceptence we are screwed.
 
SPEC. End of story.

Better than any hardware application. Puts the power in your hands, track by track.

You hear people here complaining about not having enough quality surround on here. You never hear me complaining. Why? Because I can create unlimited quality surround.
 
I have trouble listening to the QSD-1 although others proclaim it as the best. I find that it colours the sound, possibly due to the active crossover circuitry added in the signal path. At times it produces the unnatural effect of the same instrument coming from two locations but still with perfect separation, not natural sounding. The decoder in my Sansui QA-7000 is much better sounding (excellent), I think that it is the same as the (single band) QSD-2 but the service manual just shows it as a block without a schematic.
Exact opposite results here. I had a QSD-2 first, 1976-77, and it bothered me to listen to because of all the shifting and moving around it did to things. Unstable image. My QSD-1 solved that. (The QSD-1 is pictured in my avatar). Had a friend with a QRX-9001 receiver that eventually bought a QSD-1 to bypass its single band decoder because of the same issue. I am still using my QSD-1 today, listening to it now as I type. I can switch the QSD-1 in and out of the loop and hear no effect on the sound quality. Been living with this one since 1977 when it replaced the QSD-2. But regardless of like or dislike, they are very expensive being 35 years old nowadays.
 
I also have been using the QSD1
for 35 years and had no trouble about
image except sibilance on vocals
I only have a couple of LPs and CDs that do this
Now the Reality Tec Decoder is doing the same
Job
 
When the Tate was introduced, I managed the #2 volume hi-fi store in the country, which was owned by CBS, the company that INVENTED SQ. We were in a very affluent area near Chicago. We sold NO QUAD whatsoever. Not even on special order, which we were able to do upon request. No one even came in and inquired about Quad. If you were a manufacturer at this time, or in subsequent years, why waste R&D money to produce equipment that was rejected by the marketplace? The laws of supply & demand are what dictates what's manufactured and developed.

Lest anyone might think I'm anti-surround, I've owned surround gear for 40 years. A few years ago when DVD-A and SACD were new, I sold and designed custom a/v systems. Virtually no clients had ay interest in surround audio formats, even though we demonstrated the software constantly. Again in very affluent areas. Yet, nearly every system we sold at that point was 5.1. All everyone seemed to care about was movies. Again, why spend $$$ developing and marketing something virtually no one cares about? Sure, you care and I care, along with most of the folks on QQ.

Most of the "Quad" I've listened to over the years has been synthesized. Yet, I owned a few hundred Quad albums back in the day, and currently own over 1000 Quad/5.1 titles. I'd rather listen to a good discrete mix than synthesis. However, I'd rather listen to synthesized Quad than quasi-Quad of ambience in the rear channels. Over two houses and two cars, I own seven audio systems. Only one of these is 2ch, and it's in my winter car.

So, although I completely agree in theory with everything you say, the realities of the marketplace make me strongly disagree. Most people today could care less about great sound reproduction or music. Computer speakers, mp3 and earbuds are fine for music. And 5.1 is only for movies. Or so the vast majority of the marketplace thinks.

For someone like me who has always cared about both music and surround, it's all so sad. Don't blame the messenger.

I think that by the time of the Tates interest in Quad had waned, most die hard Quad fans already had decent enough equipment and with little software being produced what was the point, many went back to stereo (although I can't understand that myself). Instead of sticking it out the manufactures and retailers all gave up leaving only smaller more specialized companies who lacked the necessary financial backing and sales volume.

When I first saw the advertisement for the Tetra 1 from Fosgate, I immediately sent for the sales brochure and list of dealers. Visiting the nearest dealer 120 miles away as I recall they were unaware of the unit until I showed them the brochure! I think the original Fosgate company went under before the Tetra 1 and 2 were made available anywhere.

Audionics was distributed by Smyth Sound Equipment Limited in Canada. J.B. Smyth offered to sell me a S&IC direct as there were no dealers in my area. I even sent him a certified cheque. Unfortunately the unit was never even imported into Canada, the last I heard was that the imported units would required a heftier power supply in order to gain CSA acceptance. I eventually got one from the late great Michael Robin, and for a much, much better price, that unit was used for over thirty years for music and movies 80-90% stereo synthesis.

I had no interest in the Fosgate Tate II as I already had the S&IC (with the Exar DES chip), also the Fosgate looked cheap and only had a six pole phase shift all pass network the S&IC had an eight pole phase shift network. Fosgate eventually dropped SQ and went for Dolby Surround as that was where the action was.

Synthesizer was a term used by Sansui starting with the QS-1 where the rear channels were phase modulated to synthesize quad. Latter Vario-matrix and Tate decoders synthesize nothing, they just extract what is in the original signal!
 
I have trouble listening to the QSD-1 ... At times it produces the unnatural effect of the same instrument coming from two locations but still with perfect separation, not natural sounding.
Just curious.. was that one still "stock" with the blend resistors intact or was it modified?
 
Just curious.. was that one still "stock" with the blend resistors intact or was it modified?
The blend resistors are removed, and electrolytic coupling caps are replaced by foil types. My main beef is I can hear the difference with it in the signal path, not a horrible difference but a difference non the less.
 
The blend resistors are removed, and electrolytic coupling caps are replaced by foil types. My main beef is I can hear the difference with it in the signal path, not a horrible difference but a difference non the less.
Interesting. Mine's unmodified original stock condition, and I don't hear any oddities with the separation or the sound quality switching it in and out.

More...
I'll agree it sounds a little different in surround mode, not degraded though. I expect that with all the stuff going on in the surround mode. I was out there just now listening really closely in stereo mode (with my 60 year old ears) and with the levels matched up just right I can't tell a difference in or out. I have noticed some smearing or sibilance distortion in surround but normally I can correct that by reducing the input level. Some of the source material especially from CDs can be pretty hot in the high end. Phase accuracy up in the high freq's is important too which is why I've always chosen a CD player with dual D-A converters, keeping the needs of the QSD-1 in mind. Currently running a 1988 vintage Denon DCD-1500II that I picked up for $60, my latest acquisition.
 
Last edited:
Hey thanks for the replies. More or less confirms what I suspected, since a worthy successor would likely have made waves among the diehards (literally hehe). It seems like there's always been some difference of opinion about which vintage unit is preferable. The Tate seemed to be the preferred machine for some time (vs. the Sansuis), but then popular consensus almost seemed to shift? IIRC I saw the term "pumping" used to criticize the Sansui, and something about the Tate coloring the sound or sounding thin? This rules out the cost/rarity prohibitive Audionics S&IC which I suspect is the best. Although I already have a Sansui unit and will likely never attempt an upgrade unless it fails, I am still interested in opinions from those who have been able to do listening tests.

So to clarify one point: do any of you diehards think there is a new piece of gear as good or better than the famous vintage units? Par4ken mentioned the Gemini SP-1. If the modern attempts are so few and far between, maybe they can be mentioned in this thread.
Linda used the term "quasi-quad" in reference to ambience. Ruling out any tricks to essentially duplicate the fronts, has any manufacturer even attempted to seperate disparate elements?
I hear you all when you talk about lack of demand. But when the Home Theatre boom was first underway, I encountered random aquaintances that listened to their music "in surround" as they put it...likely some combination of dolby, echo/delay or channel duplication. I still think it's odd that even during this period, no manufacturer tried to take advantage with some quickly thought up "superior" surround scheme and place a sticker on their box advertising such. Yeah I know, I know...they didn't need to.
 
I don't if you have been following some of the posts
But the thing you are wating for is
Reality Technologies - New surround technology decoder
look it up
 
My wish would be someone like Lucanu would write a real-time script that uses some form of vario-matrix to synth stereo to quad on a pc...think of the possibilities!!!
Mike
 
Hi All,

Perhaps each of the devices discussed above could be the topic of a Sticky Poll, ala the music we review. That way the users of each device could rate them - device by device - on a one to 10 scale. Such a method would allow non-owners to easily evaluate possible purchases. Software could be compared directly against hardware via this method. Any takers? The polls on this forum have been invaluable to me for making purchase decisions on existing surround recordings. Thanks to all who take the time to participate!

Ken
 
Hi All,

Perhaps each of the devices discussed above could be the topic of a Sticky Poll, ala the music we review. That way the users of each device could rate them - device by device - on a one to 10 scale. Such a method would allow non-owners to easily evaluate possible purchases. Software could be compared directly against hardware via this method. Any takers? The polls on this forum have been invaluable to me for making purchase decisions on existing surround recordings. Thanks to all who take the time to participate!

Ken
Good idea, except it might be better to also supply sound samples. That way the results can't be skewed (by people who make dozens of multiple accounts to vote, for instance) because everybody can just hear for themselves if a method or device is any good. Really, all you need is about 10 seconds of audio from a song you know very well. It'll give you more relevant information than a million (biased?) words.
 
So after all these years my QSD-1 is sick. Sounds like one of the band passes, as though the midrange quit in the Rt channel. Only low bass and upper treble. I have no QS records to use with it, always used it in the surround mode. Thinking about replacing with a different surround processor that will do really good Dolby Pro Logic. I use this mode on my living room surround receiver when listening to stereo music and to me synthesizes quad from stereo as well or better than the old QSD-1 did when it was in its prime. Any suggestions for a standalone surround unit with excellent audio characteristics that's maybe a few years obsolete i.e., fairly cheap?
 
So after all these years my QSD-1 is sick. Sounds like one of the band passes, as though the midrange quit in the Rt channel. Only low bass and upper treble. I have no QS records to use with it, always used it in the surround mode. Thinking about replacing with a different surround processor that will do really good Dolby Pro Logic. I use this mode on my living room surround receiver when listening to stereo music and to me synthesizes quad from stereo as well or better than the old QSD-1 did when it was in its prime. Any suggestions for a standalone surround unit with excellent audio characteristics that's maybe a few years obsolete i.e., fairly cheap?

Reality Technologies - New surround technology decoder

It has the same decoding as the QSD 1
3 band and as good on stereo
 
Reality Technologies - New surround technology decoder

It has the same decoding as the QSD 1
3 band and as good on stereo

Thanks looks like I will have to dig through 12 pages, 250+ posts to find more info such as the source for one and their web site with ordering info. I find references to this and other forums when I search it.

Or just recap my QSD-1 and call it done. That's probably what's wrong with it, and/or failed solder connections.
 
Back
Top