alaric smith
Active Member
I wonder if I can come up with enough room for that system. How many dimensions would the sitting room be in? Would I really need a base channel?
INVOLVE SQ - IS HERE
- Thread starter chucky3042
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,704
Hmmm
Under string theory we have up to 11 dimensions to worry about. I think given size we would need a pretty good subwoofer in each. Still don't want a center channel in any of them.
Regards
Chucky
Under string theory we have up to 11 dimensions to worry about. I think given size we would need a pretty good subwoofer in each. Still don't want a center channel in any of them.
Regards
Chucky
alaric smith
Active Member
4 for each dimension or 8 or 16? If you are in another dimension does the falling tree still make a noise?
Chucky, while you're at it, please add channels with supersymmetry in the new software version
and quantum entanglement to simplify hookup - no cables!
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,704
Just think, Stereo could suck in all 11 dimensions.
This isn't quantum mechanics or string theory but....
I spent some time doing a "permanent" installation with much better cables the volume loss/difference in the rear channels seems less with the fat cables...maybe no surprise there.
Chuck, I still don't have the time this week to do proper voltage readings. got back from a trip to corporate & now getting ready to go away for a few days of R&R with the wife. but I will get around to it.
I'll give you this encouraging updated impression. Just plopped in a CD of an old Quincy Jones album, Walking in Space. the CD synthesizes to quad really well with the Sansui and....also with Involve mode!
very enveloping and good instrument positioning front to rear. I don't know if the cables helped (some over-priced Monster Cable M900's) but hey, they're better than the normal gear supplied cables. we all know those just are to get you started but what I heard seemed pretty similar to the Sansui in separation and immersion. So that's a pretty good sign.
I won't have time to do proper SQ & more QS comparisons until next week. I didn't really delve into SQ LP much the 1st go-round, just compared how cricket chirps swirled around on a Santana LP but I've got some more really good LP's to try with vocals.
I think I'll still be interested in the vinyl DSP swap but let me get back to you.
I spent some time doing a "permanent" installation with much better cables
the volume loss/difference in the rear channels seems less with the fat cables...maybe no surprise there. Chuck, I still don't have the time this week to do proper voltage readings. got back from a trip to corporate & now getting ready to go away for a few days of R&R with the wife. but I will get around to it.
I'll give you this encouraging updated impression. Just plopped in a CD of an old Quincy Jones album, Walking in Space. the CD synthesizes to quad really well with the Sansui and....also with Involve mode!
very enveloping and good instrument positioning front to rear. I don't know if the cables helped (some over-priced Monster Cable M900's) but hey, they're better than the normal gear supplied cables. we all know those just are to get you started
but what I heard seemed pretty similar to the Sansui in separation and immersion. So that's a pretty good sign.I won't have time to do proper SQ & more QS comparisons until next week. I didn't really delve into SQ LP much the 1st go-round, just compared how cricket chirps swirled around on a Santana LP
but I've got some more really good LP's to try with vocals.I think I'll still be interested in the vinyl DSP swap but let me get back to you.
Last edited:
alaric smith
Active Member
Won't quantum entanglement mean that you get spurious crosstalk? Will Santana III have John Lennon singing the backing track? Will Barry White be in the midrange?
If we used black energy, it would save on the utilities bills, though. I could afford to run my tube amps more often. I have always thought that the Super Collider was just a base driver for a Disaster Area gig.
If we used black energy, it would save on the utilities bills, though. I could afford to run my tube amps more often. I have always thought that the Super Collider was just a base driver for a Disaster Area gig.
I have one of the earlier Audionics Space and Image Composers. It has a crosstalk cancelling circuit that might help with the cartridge problems. Since we have the schematics for the Audionics unit, that circuit might not be difficult to duplicate. It wasn't part of the proprietary stuff. A quick look at the prints indicate that the corrected audio is availlable on the 2 channel record outs on the Audionics unit. This gives you level, balance , and null controls to condition the signals. It seems that these could be used to pre process the vinyl signal before sending it to the Involve SQ unit. If you were using it in the 4 channel mode, you could use the Audionics discrete input to reinsert the decoded channels in to the system. That would make a direct comparison between the Tate and the SM unit easy, and allow the inclusion of the new decoder without dumping the old. If you preferred the Tate, you now have a QS button on it. Yeah, I just might pop for one of these.
The Quadfather
The Quadfather
I remember that - the "Axial Tilt" adjustment on the Audionics. It did make things better on playback. A great idea!
Chucky,
I was hoping you'd make a comment about my cartridge. It's seperation is rated at 30db. So if what you guys found as the problem is lack of cartridge seperation, and I have 30db, how can that be the problem? I just think that something else here is the problem.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,704
Hi
Here is the problem. When decoding from a ideal SQ encode (script or direct from an encoder) we get say 35 dB separation. On the CD (via recorded off vinyl ) we got a leakage in one direction (front to rear). The source of the crosstalk in our instance could be with the cartridge used when it was dubbed to CD OR in the recording process of the CBS test disc. All I can say is when we looked at the waveforms coming out of the test disc they were far from ideal and as I have mentioned elsewhere one of the major failings of SQ is that it is super critical of left/ right levels. All that 35 dB front back information is all coded up in 3 dB of left / right difference. If an imbalance or leakage exists SQ will not decode well.
I note we are getting different responses from different buyers, all the early responses were very positive and I think we now have 2 users that are unhappy with the decode of SQ. All I am saying is that on paper your cartridge sound great. Perhaps an imbalance might exist elsewhere - dunno.
I am not trying to weasel out of this and I have committed to look closely into broadening out our tolerances shortly as time permits. Unfortunately as we say in Australia - we are buzzing around like blue arsed flies at the moment. Remember every adjustment or broadening of tolerances come at a cost and that cost in this instance is pumping artifacts. The system at the moment works well on good source material.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
Regards
Chucky
Here is the problem. When decoding from a ideal SQ encode (script or direct from an encoder) we get say 35 dB separation. On the CD (via recorded off vinyl ) we got a leakage in one direction (front to rear). The source of the crosstalk in our instance could be with the cartridge used when it was dubbed to CD OR in the recording process of the CBS test disc. All I can say is when we looked at the waveforms coming out of the test disc they were far from ideal and as I have mentioned elsewhere one of the major failings of SQ is that it is super critical of left/ right levels. All that 35 dB front back information is all coded up in 3 dB of left / right difference. If an imbalance or leakage exists SQ will not decode well.
I note we are getting different responses from different buyers, all the early responses were very positive and I think we now have 2 users that are unhappy with the decode of SQ. All I am saying is that on paper your cartridge sound great. Perhaps an imbalance might exist elsewhere - dunno.
I am not trying to weasel out of this and I have committed to look closely into broadening out our tolerances shortly as time permits. Unfortunately as we say in Australia - we are buzzing around like blue arsed flies at the moment. Remember every adjustment or broadening of tolerances come at a cost and that cost in this instance is pumping artifacts. The system at the moment works well on good source material.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
Regards
Chucky
alaric smith
Active Member
I know that there has been a lot written on here recently about front/rear bleeds, etc., and that this issue is (seems) to have been sourced and has been/will be addressed. However, I would like to add my thoughts - I have never had the joy of owning a Tate or any of the full logic kit. My quad stuff has been driven through a Sony SQA-200 pre-amp and a Yamaha DSP1 on the (non-Dolby) surround mode (it can do Dolby 4 channel surround but has its own version, too - don't ask me what it does, I have no idea but I think that it is only an ambience effect). In addition, I don't have any testing equipment and have to rely on my ears. So, this review should be read with that in account.
I have had the Surround Master for just over a month now. Sadly, I have only been able to use it anger four or five times. It is very sad because when I play SQ albums through it I sit back in amazement. It makes the poor Sony SQA-200 sound like my Yamaha DSP-1: false. I have tried to play as many of my SQ LPs through it. It took a little time get the balance right - I have a system built up over time, with all sorts of odd issues. The first issue I discovered was that the phono pre-amp on the front channels had decided to drop the right side. . Luckily, there were options and they resolved the problem. On my system, I have to have a strong forward bias - this is a room shape & listening position issue. Once that was resolved I listened to a few more discs.
I started with my stock first play disk, "DSoftM" - for some weird reason, I always play it through every new system, probably because it is my favourite album and I don't play it that often (to keep it fresh). It was incredible. There was a clarity of direction I have never had before. In a rush of blood, I followed it by playing two Santana albums ("Abraxas" and "III") and Janis Joplin's "Pearl". The Santana albums were equally impressive. Joplin was less so but I get the feeling that the pressing I have isn't great and the mix might have been more ambience then discrete in the first place - I bow to superior knowledge on that one. It was still a massive improvement though.
I guess my conclusion is: If you haven't had a full-logic decoder before - this kit is amazing and will change your listening experience. I am going to be a bit cheeky and say; even if you have had a full-logic set, this will be hard to beat.
I had been looking at a Sony SQD2020, which eventually sold for more than a Surround Master costs. I even thought that it might be worth saving up to have one for comparison. To be honest, I don't think that I will bother. I know that Tates and other top line full logic decoders might possibly give a more vinyl friendly results but for the price, I am going to stick with my SM. It is a fantastic little box, which has allowed me to appreciate my SQ collection in full.
A big "thank you" to Chucky and the boys.
I am waiting for the Octophonic/Hexadecaphonic version - no .1 please - though. Full sound all around.
I have had the Surround Master for just over a month now. Sadly, I have only been able to use it anger four or five times. It is very sad because when I play SQ albums through it I sit back in amazement. It makes the poor Sony SQA-200 sound like my Yamaha DSP-1: false. I have tried to play as many of my SQ LPs through it. It took a little time get the balance right - I have a system built up over time, with all sorts of odd issues. The first issue I discovered was that the phono pre-amp on the front channels had decided to drop the right side.
. Luckily, there were options and they resolved the problem. On my system, I have to have a strong forward bias - this is a room shape & listening position issue. Once that was resolved I listened to a few more discs.I started with my stock first play disk, "DSoftM" - for some weird reason, I always play it through every new system, probably because it is my favourite album and I don't play it that often (to keep it fresh). It was incredible. There was a clarity of direction I have never had before. In a rush of blood, I followed it by playing two Santana albums ("Abraxas" and "III") and Janis Joplin's "Pearl". The Santana albums were equally impressive. Joplin was less so but I get the feeling that the pressing I have isn't great and the mix might have been more ambience then discrete in the first place - I bow to superior knowledge on that one. It was still a massive improvement though.
I guess my conclusion is: If you haven't had a full-logic decoder before - this kit is amazing and will change your listening experience. I am going to be a bit cheeky and say; even if you have had a full-logic set, this will be hard to beat.
I had been looking at a Sony SQD2020, which eventually sold for more than a Surround Master costs. I even thought that it might be worth saving up to have one for comparison. To be honest, I don't think that I will bother. I know that Tates and other top line full logic decoders might possibly give a more vinyl friendly results but for the price, I am going to stick with my SM. It is a fantastic little box, which has allowed me to appreciate my SQ collection in full.
A big "thank you" to Chucky and the boys.
I am waiting for the Octophonic/Hexadecaphonic version - no .1 please - though. Full sound all around.
I think we are hearing differences in decoding styles here. I've listened to a few albums via the Sony SQD-2010, Audionics S&IC, (cartridge adjusted to full null), and the SQSM. Yes, there is more separation on the Chase Open Up Wide cut via the Tate. But the crosstalk on the SM does not in any way ruin the localization of the instruments. I may be putting myself out on a limb here because I have never owned nor heard this on a discrete tape but is it possible this small cross talk exists on the master discrete tape? Maybe the Tate is overcompensating. Yet I notice the SM also leaks the center vocals from some albums. "Sometimes In Winter" by Blood, Sweat & Tears comes to mind. Perfect center front localization of vocals via the Tate. But using the Surround Master the vocal leaks to right rear channel destroying the center front illusion. But then surprise, surprise, there are a few cuts on the first Paul Simon album (including the 2 hits) that provide perfect front vocal localization via the SM that leak to the left rear using the Tate. I can't explain why that happens. I think the mix may be reacting differently to the two decoding methods-DES vs. Variomatrix. All I know is that most of the SQ albums sound very close to the discrete tape using the Surround Master.The sound on the Tate is dryer, over processed & yes over separated, and that works-sometimes. It is sometimes what you want. But not all the time. The SM provides a very nice SQ sound stage most of the time. So I'm learning to adjust to those few records that does better on the Tate for the day when the SM is the only game in Town. Oh, and by the way, the Sony SQD-2010 did well for a logic decoder. Like the Surround Master is has great presence of sound but slips a bit in separation compared to the other two. What I am saying here is it is still a damned good SQ decoder. Can't wait to recap and fix my Lafayette SQ-W that crapped out on me last year. Now she is a beauty. Much better than the Sony in sound quaity & SQ decoding. But until then I got the Audionics Tate & the SQSM. Both top of the line SQ/QS decoders. I just love listening to my records again! And PS: Janis Joplins Pearl is a great SQ album. Except for the 2 single vocals "Me & Bobby McGee" & "Mercedes Benz" the rest of it is sonically active enough to make it very active quad mix. Big percussion in the rears, some in front along with vocals & horns & strings makes a very active sound stage. "Move Over" and "Half Moon" start in the rears and it opens up in the front with organs & vocals. Really well done. The mix is there with the SQSM.And it is THERE with the Tate too if you get my meaning. Does anyone feel the way I do?
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 266
I'm loving the reviews, especially the balanced, thoughtful ones (Which essentially is all of them)
There's nothing I like more than an approach to product reviews / reports that
a) Considers all the possibilities when something isn't as expected, and
b) point out things I hadn't considered and get me thinking about where to take things next.
It certainly beats the hell out of reading reviews on Amazon.com - people LOVE to have an opinion regardless of subjectivity, but there just seems to be more thought and passion in here.
Ok, I'm done blowing smoke up your butts. Just wanted to say thanks for all the feedback, it's invaluable.
~David
There's nothing I like more than an approach to product reviews / reports that
a) Considers all the possibilities when something isn't as expected, and
b) point out things I hadn't considered and get me thinking about where to take things next.
It certainly beats the hell out of reading reviews on Amazon.com - people LOVE to have an opinion regardless of subjectivity, but there just seems to be more thought and passion in here.
Ok, I'm done blowing smoke up your butts. Just wanted to say thanks for all the feedback, it's invaluable.
~David
It's been three months now since the last post in this column. Chucky, what's the status of our replacement chips?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,704
Hi Stereophile
Sorry I have not got back to everone on our progress but I have just returned to Australia from visiting USA, Hong Kong and Singapore on a marketing expedition. The trip was cut short due to the overwhelming response we had on our new Y2 and Y4 consumer bookshelf systems- I have had to rush back to speed up our final production designs to meet the demands of our distributors.
What has this crap got to to with the SQ update software, I sense you are thinking? Truth is we have a small team of engineers who are somewhat overloaded and it is causing delays to start the SQ revision. Currently the R+ D madness is scheduled to end on 19 September and then full time will be dedicated to the SQ revision (there is a chance we could slot it into a quiet week but cannot guarantee).
Sorry about this but commercial pressures must take priority but I give my 100% word we will get the update done.
Regards
Chucky
Sorry I have not got back to everone on our progress but I have just returned to Australia from visiting USA, Hong Kong and Singapore on a marketing expedition. The trip was cut short due to the overwhelming response we had on our new Y2 and Y4 consumer bookshelf systems- I have had to rush back to speed up our final production designs to meet the demands of our distributors.
What has this crap got to to with the SQ update software, I sense you are thinking? Truth is we have a small team of engineers who are somewhat overloaded and it is causing delays to start the SQ revision. Currently the R+ D madness is scheduled to end on 19 September and then full time will be dedicated to the SQ revision (there is a chance we could slot it into a quiet week but cannot guarantee).
Sorry about this but commercial pressures must take priority but I give my 100% word we will get the update done.
Regards
Chucky
workmeistr
Member
Hi, all. I'm still a huge fan of my SQ SM. I am worried about how much heat it produces. Does everyone elses' SQ SM heat up? I have mine operating on both SQ and QS/Involve for about 2 hours a night listening to matrix and stereo lp's. The unit is sitting on top of an equalizer that doesn't produce any heat and is well ventilated. I'm not too worried, just wanted to check and make sure this wasn't an anomaly. Take care.
Mine is the same and I've never had a problem. I believe it is normal.
willothewisp
Well-known Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 107
I've been reading this thread with some interest, but i think there's a problem with what is being said here. In fact, it's rather confusing.
At the time of developing the SQ Surround Master we were under significant "pressure" from you know who- the great Oxforddickie to ensure we were in fact decoding "BY THE BOOK". Well folks the test results today clearly show if the encode source is correct (as it will be for script based sources supplied by Oxfordickie and Bob Romano) you will get the full 35 db separation in all directions. For Vinyl sources (yes I fully accept this is the majority) the results will not be as good and dependent on how good your magnetic cartridge is in terms of separation and phase shift.
The way you say it you make it sound as though these people are using some source other than vinyl where, as much as i've seen, the releases are from vinyl, so i can't see why there would be any difference.
They must have used a magnetic cartridge to record the lp, so why doesn't their decodes suffer the same issues
At the time of developing the SQ Surround Master we were under significant "pressure" from you know who- the great Oxforddickie to ensure we were in fact decoding "BY THE BOOK". Well folks the test results today clearly show if the encode source is correct (as it will be for script based sources supplied by Oxfordickie and Bob Romano) you will get the full 35 db separation in all directions. For Vinyl sources (yes I fully accept this is the majority) the results will not be as good and dependent on how good your magnetic cartridge is in terms of separation and phase shift.
The way you say it you make it sound as though these people are using some source other than vinyl where, as much as i've seen, the releases are from vinyl, so i can't see why there would be any difference.
They must have used a magnetic cartridge to record the lp, so why doesn't their decodes suffer the same issues
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,704
Hello Willothewisp
The issue is that on MOST of the vinyl test recordings we have used we have found that the phase relationships (on the vinyl) were not "to the book"- relationships that should be say 90 degrees were in fact something else and the same for magnitudes. Oxforddickie's sources and several others are correct. I really do not know where or why the errors in the encodings occur but they are real.
Give us a few months.
Regards
Chucky
The issue is that on MOST of the vinyl test recordings we have used we have found that the phase relationships (on the vinyl) were not "to the book"- relationships that should be say 90 degrees were in fact something else and the same for magnitudes. Oxforddickie's sources and several others are correct. I really do not know where or why the errors in the encodings occur but they are real.
Give us a few months.
Regards
Chucky
Similar threads
