QQ Official Test of the Involve Audio Surround Master SM-465

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
17,681
Location
Connecticut
Greetings all.

I received my (bought and paid for by me) Surround Master decoder, and I eagerly hooked it up really quickly to my PC via my MOTU 828mk3 to do a quick test. I will add to this thread as time permits, but here are the quick and down-and-dirty results of a very quick run through.

Surround Master 1.jpg

Surround Master 2.jpg

(Please note that I will delete any arguing, back-talk, or non-contructive posts in this thread. This thread is MINE! :phones ")

So, first off, out of the box it's a pretty simple hookup. It comes with enough RCA cables to connect the INPUT to the box, and to connect 6 channel outputs. For my first test, I stuck with 4 Channels.

I used the turntable/cartridge that sits by my PC. It's old and not very well maintained, but it works. It's a Sansui SR-838 with a Shure M24 cartridge. That feeds an old Denon AVR-4806. I took a stereo output from the Denon directly into the SM-465. The outputs of the SM-465 were sent right to the MOTU and into my PC. The audio was recorded with Sony Vegas 11.

So far, I have used one LP, the Ovation Vector 4 "Introducing Ovation Records Quadraphonic Sound" from 1974, OVQS/4000. This is considered one of the best QS test albums from that era. Mind you, this is an old LP and it hasn't been out in years! :)

So, all fired up, I played and recorded the entire first side. The results were pretty amazing to the ear, a little bit less via the wav file, but impressive non the less for a matrix decoder.

When you're dealing with any matrix system, there is always the inherant factor of the original encoding process. How good was it and how much better could it be 40 years later. With a tape, you're pretty much guaranteed a discrete product. Not so with a matrix encode. But that's another issue for other folks to debate.

So, here's a few peeks at the wav files, since I can't let you hear the results. Remember, these jpgs are untouched, as recorded, and what you see is what you get.

First off, very impressive, was Track 9, the last track on the Lp. Here is the description of that track from the LP: A "1kHz test tone is placed at CENTER FRONT, DEAD CENTER, and CENTER REAR for the purpose of aligning your system."

You can see by the wav files that you pretty much get what they say you're going to get. Sure, there's a little bleed through, but not much, and to the listener, you don't hear it without sticking your ear up to the inactive speaker. Yes, it's not discrete like tape, so if that's what you expected, SORRY!

Vector 4 Playback 0001-900.jpg


The second example to look at is from Track 6, which is called "Sound in Motion". From the LP: "A dramatic illustration of sound spinning, dashing and floating around, in front, behind and over the listener."

Here you can see the audio wav forms are clearly defined as they move from channel to channel. Again, if you want total isolation, it's not going to happen, but it's damn good and to the ear, it's easy to tell where the sound is coming from, and it's from the proper speaker.

Vector 4 Playback 0002-900.jpg


I will do more testing, but on first try, I say this is a winner. Remember, the box and the booklet and the unit do not claim or display a QS logo, so know that going in. If you're interested in a nice little surround box that does a really good job on QS, this box is for you.

So far, I'm happy! :)
 
I know you are a busy guy, but if you own one of the better Sansui units, would you be able to post the wavs of the same portions of the tracks for that unit? That way we could see how it stacks up to the same decode through a 70's decoder!
 
I know you are a busy guy, but if you own one of the better Sansui units, would you be able to post the wavs of the same portions of the tracks for that unit? That way we could see how it stacks up to the same decode through a 70's decoder!

Well, to be perfectly honest, I do have a Sansui QRX-999, but the thing is pretty beat. I had it rebuilt by *someone* and while it initially worked fine, it deteriorated to the point of it needed to be rebuilt again, and I'm not about to spend that kind of money again.

I may try it this weekend, as I would like to see the results myself.
 
I know you are a busy guy, but if you own one of the better Sansui units, would you be able to post the wavs of the same portions of the tracks for that unit? That way we could see how it stacks up to the same decode through a 70's decoder!

This seems like a good idea because enough people feel that the Involve sounds good, but the question is, does it sound as good or better than one of the best QS decoders from the quad era? If it sounds as good or better, great! If it sounds good, but sounds better through a vintage QS decoder, then that would be disappointing to people.
 
Thanks, Jon! That is a great report.
Do you have, or does there exist, a QS test record with a "left front, right front, right rear, left rear" type of check for each speaker? I have one on like that on a CD-4 test record and just wondering if a similar test record was made for SQ. To see the visual of that would be great.
 
that is on the Lp also it is the best testing LP
and is on a Enoch Light project 3 test LP QS
I have said this all along
Look at what I am playing the LPs with my system is on the site
and have been using for 40 years
I am not a tec. but I know what I see and Hear
I only brought the unit to notice as I thought there may be
people that could not get a QSD1
I did not expect to be accused as a fool and a crook
ron
 
Thanks, Jon! That is a great report.
Do you have, or does there exist, a QS test record with a "left front, right front, right rear, left rear" type of check for each speaker? I have one on like that on a CD-4 test record and just wondering if a similar test record was made for SQ. To see the visual of that would be great.

Here are both QS and SQ test tones via direct downloads. I think these were made by the Old Quad Guy.
http://www.quadraphonic.info/SQandQS/
 
that is on the Lp also it is the best testing LP
and is on a Enoch Light project 3 test LP QS
I have said this all along
Look at what I am playing the LPs with my system is on the site
and have been using for 40 years
I am not a tec. but I know what I see and Hear
I only brought the unit to notice as I thought there may be
people that could not get a QSD1
I did not expect to be accused as a fool and a crook
ron

I believe you completely. I just didn't see a clear explanation that it placed sounds correctly, likely my fault. With so much talk about this, some stuff gets overlooked by me. I cannot get excited about buying a QSD-1 for even as low as $750, if you and others like the SM as well. The SM has huge potential. I'm sold. Also, Ron, you are the only person I know of besides me who has played The Flame LP through any decoder, and the Beach Boys stuff, for just this I respect you greatly!
 
There will be a
demo on the Scope of
DY tracks Buffy St Marie Angel
flight of bumble bee
not to bad for DY they sound more surround than you would think
 
When I get home today, I will run the 'Quadrophile' QS test disc through the Surround Master and post the wav files. Also, I think I still have the Project 3 QS test disc. More to come!
 
Have you done any casual listening with it yet? Do you have any impressions of that?
 
Next test!

Just got home, fired it all up, and ran the UK "Quadraphile" QS Side through the decoder. Again, the decoder performed quite well. What you see in the wav file below is the track the sends sounds "around" the listening area. I have commented on the wav file to indicate where each sound is coming from.

You will notice that it starts out with each channel by itself. You will also see that there IS some audio signal in the "other 3 channels" when a single channel is solo at the start. This may or may not be what Oxfordickie has been trying to get everyone to understand. This may not be a perfect QS decoder, as those channels are not silent, but you can see by the wav form when looked at entirely that it's pretty damn good!

To the ear, as I said earlier, the majority of the audio is delievered to the proper channel, and when the tones are "Center Left", "Center Back", etc, that's where they are. Please keep in mind that after the initial 20 seconds of the wav file when each channel is solo'd, the signals swirl, so some movement between channels is expected.

Take a look:

Quadraphile.jpg


I am also posting a 6 channel wav file, uncompressed of the above audio. It will be the audio that generated the wav file above, exactly. Remember, I did not do any click, pop, tick, NR, or amplitude adjusting to this audio. It's right off my turntable as described in Post #1.

This wav file will need to be played in software that will accept a 6 channel wav file. The Center and Sub are obviously empty.

To download this file, right click and 'Save As'............

www.quadraphonicquad.com\miscstuff\Quadrafile_QS_Decode.wav

So, there you go! :)
 
Have you done any casual listening with it yet? Do you have any impressions of that?

Up next, after I try a regular non-test QS LP. Still have the thing on my PC, so no casual audio system listening yet!
 
Here is another wav comparison for you to look at. You really can't tell much, other than the decoded QS file is fairly similar to the Q8.

What we have is a section of the track "My Old School" from Steely Dan's "Countdown to Ecstacy" LP and Q8. The top wav file is from the Q8. The lower file is from the LP decoded with the SM-465. You can see that the Q8 is very discrete in that there is no crosstalk and no audio when there should be no audio. The QS decode is very close, but not as clear cut between the channels when viewed as a wav file. However, again, to the ear, it's very close.

Also remember that the Q8 wav file was done by me a while ago, was cleaned up, tweaked, and readied for listening, while the LP wav is right off the turntable into the SM-465 with nothing done to it. However, you can see the peaks on the Q8 are more defined than the LP decode. Is this because of the decoder or is it just the nature of the matrix encode?

Anyway, here's the wav file. Honestly, the decode sounds really really good to the ear. :phones

MyOldSchool.jpg
 
Thanks Jon
These screen shots give a good indication of what is possible with the gadget and a good first impression. It looks like you could drive the gain a bit on channel 5 and that may bring it closer to the Q8? No matter, it looks good. Plus given the fact that you note that it sounds really good is also a good indicator
 
Thanks Jon
These screen shots give a good indication of what is possible with the gadget and a good first impression. It looks like you could drive the gain a bit on channel 5 and that may bring it closer to the Q8? No matter, it looks good. Plus given the fact that you note that it sounds really good is also a good indicator

Yes. I could have an adjustment on Channel 5 on my MOTU off. I will check that. However, I did not want to compromise the wav screen cap, so I did not boost the volume via Sound Forge.

However, the wav forms are a bit better defined on the Q8. This is easier to see when you have the actual file open in a wav editor. Again, it could be my old turntable and cartridge are not the best of units to use for this test, so take that into consideration please.
 
Thanks Jon! Thats looking mighty close so far as a visual. I'm sure someone with a more keen eye for waveform differences could pick the test apart even more. But if the question is "Is it moving the right stuff to the right location?" It seems to be doing that decently. Maybe not perfectly. Time and further testing will tell. Some chanel bleed is to be expected, but it really doesn't look like dramatic channel bleed.
 
Hi Jon

Actually the separation results you have obtained are way below what we experience here. Typically we get somewhere around 35 dB all around. Front rear separation is highly dependent on the phase relationships of the source Left and Right signals, if there are any phase discrepancies in your turntables cartridge these numbers could reduce quite markedly. Perhaps a known CD source would be good to check.

Regards

Chucky
 
Hi Jon

Actually the separation results you have obtained are way below what we experience here. Typically we get somewhere around 35 dB all around. Front rear separation is highly dependent on the phase relationships of the source Left and Right signals, if there are any phase discrepancies in your turntables cartridge these numbers could reduce quite markedly. Perhaps a known CD source would be good to check.

Regards

Chucky

Good point. I have been using LPs. I believe I have another cartridge somewhere. The Shure M24H is a CD-4 cartridge and it's 30 years old! :)

Not sure if I have a QS encoded CD to try.
 
Back
Top