So over the weekend, I gave My little Heathkit Stereo-4 (EV-4) decoder it's first real workout. I finally got one of the Heathkit 4 Channel Sound Project 3 demo EP 's that came with those originally. I also have the Enoch Light 4 Channel Sound EV-4 LP. This prompted me to finally do a full shakedown on this thing.
I'll start with my results with synthesizing quad from stereo LP's. It does very good. Better than non-logic QS decoders. Sometimes it sounds a little rough around the edges, but over all, you can't beat the quad synthesizing at the price range these originally sold for and the low cost they tend to be even today when they show up.
I also tried a couple SQ records through it. The result was somewhat decent separation, but it really just sounds wrong/wonky. Still more impressive than a lot of SQ decoders, but while it separates, it sounds really lopsided. Not something you would probably enjoy listening to long term. While stereo records are hit and miss, and SQ always separates, stereo records when they synthesize, have a much more pleasing sound, like something synthesized through a QS decoder.
On that line of thought, Electro Voice and Heathkit also made a Universal Stereo-4 decoder. This was supposed to be compatible with SQ. I saw an auction for an unbuilt Heathkit Universal decoder once, but it went much higher than what I wanted to spend at the time. I wish I had, cause I was going to use new caps and resistors and maybe even wiring. I could have made it pretty cool. Someone in a past discussion seemed to believe that the universal decoder did neither EV-4 or SQ well so having an EV-4 decoder, and SQ decoders, I have never felt the need to actively hunt a Universal Stereo-4 decoder down.
Now as for decoding the Heathkit Introducing 4 Channel Sound EV-4 demo record and my Enoch Light EV-4 record. In one word, amazing. Almost so good that you ask yourself, why was QS and SQ able to so easily squeeze their way in and push this system out (yes, I know, money and music biz politics)? Maybe other EV-4 records don't sound as good as these two project 3 records? All I know, is that I am shocked that I want to use terms like "discrete" and "like tape" to describe the performance of one of the earliest matrix decoders. The separation and channel placement is miles above "Full Logic" SQ decoders I have heard. It's smooth and there is no pumping, because it just separates right the first time without aid of logic. The action of decoding is usually very smooth. It handles both the Ping-Pongy effects well but decodes the subtleties in the mix very well too. It could handle 360 pans although both of those records only use them very sparingly except for a couple tracks.
Am I crazy or am I missing something or was QS and to a greater extent SQ, a step backwards from this? With all their expensive circuitry, they didn't seem to perform as well as this did till much later and with equipment that was way pricier.
I suggest that you demo an actual EV-4 record on an actual EV-4 Decoder (not the universal one, I can't speak for that one).
I'll start with my results with synthesizing quad from stereo LP's. It does very good. Better than non-logic QS decoders. Sometimes it sounds a little rough around the edges, but over all, you can't beat the quad synthesizing at the price range these originally sold for and the low cost they tend to be even today when they show up.
I also tried a couple SQ records through it. The result was somewhat decent separation, but it really just sounds wrong/wonky. Still more impressive than a lot of SQ decoders, but while it separates, it sounds really lopsided. Not something you would probably enjoy listening to long term. While stereo records are hit and miss, and SQ always separates, stereo records when they synthesize, have a much more pleasing sound, like something synthesized through a QS decoder.
On that line of thought, Electro Voice and Heathkit also made a Universal Stereo-4 decoder. This was supposed to be compatible with SQ. I saw an auction for an unbuilt Heathkit Universal decoder once, but it went much higher than what I wanted to spend at the time. I wish I had, cause I was going to use new caps and resistors and maybe even wiring. I could have made it pretty cool. Someone in a past discussion seemed to believe that the universal decoder did neither EV-4 or SQ well so having an EV-4 decoder, and SQ decoders, I have never felt the need to actively hunt a Universal Stereo-4 decoder down.
Now as for decoding the Heathkit Introducing 4 Channel Sound EV-4 demo record and my Enoch Light EV-4 record. In one word, amazing. Almost so good that you ask yourself, why was QS and SQ able to so easily squeeze their way in and push this system out (yes, I know, money and music biz politics)? Maybe other EV-4 records don't sound as good as these two project 3 records? All I know, is that I am shocked that I want to use terms like "discrete" and "like tape" to describe the performance of one of the earliest matrix decoders. The separation and channel placement is miles above "Full Logic" SQ decoders I have heard. It's smooth and there is no pumping, because it just separates right the first time without aid of logic. The action of decoding is usually very smooth. It handles both the Ping-Pongy effects well but decodes the subtleties in the mix very well too. It could handle 360 pans although both of those records only use them very sparingly except for a couple tracks.
Am I crazy or am I missing something or was QS and to a greater extent SQ, a step backwards from this? With all their expensive circuitry, they didn't seem to perform as well as this did till much later and with equipment that was way pricier.
I suggest that you demo an actual EV-4 record on an actual EV-4 Decoder (not the universal one, I can't speak for that one).