INVOLVE SQ - IS HERE

I have been with my grandchildren for the last few days
I have Denon 303 with the arm for it tracking 1.8 grams
And tested the Surround Master /Audionics back and forward with the ELP/denon
To my old ears there is not a lot of difference in separation
But I have heard a better separation with ELP using Envolve (QS) on some QS LPs
But the decoding using S/M SQ has a better front sound stage
The Audionics front is often a strong center
When I brought the Audionics I was one of the first 75 who put in an order
at a selling price of $300.00 After I had it a few months there was an upgrade
When I received it back they had made the front wider I asked them if that was right
and they said yes

Chuck,

What is this person talking about?? :

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...-Heard-something-about-a-brand-new-SQ-decoder

Hi Surroundophile

Actually, I am not sure but the other forum members have done a really good job of answering the question!

Regards

Chucky

chucky3042 said:

Hi Surroundophile

Actually, I am not sure but the other forum members have done a really good job of answering the question!

Regards

Chucky

Click to expand...

Hi Chucky; I'm about to purchase the surround master SQ - I wondered before I did so if there had been any updates to the decoder as you mention earlier in the thread?

Hi (love your name!)

We are within a week of having a close look at the vinyl optomised SQ version, personally I would stick to the existing one as it is more technically correct- but that's me.

Given all sorts of things tend to pop out of design reviews I would delay ordering any SQ stuff till we have finished the review.

Thank you all for your patience.

Regards

Chucky

inquadwetrust said:

Hi Chucky; I'm about to purchase the surround master SQ - I wondered before I did so if there had been any updates to the decoder as you mention earlier in the thread?

Click to expand...

chucky3042 said:

Hi (love your name!)

We are within a week of having a close look at the vinyl optomised SQ version, personally I would stick to the existing one as it is more technically correct- but that's me.

Given all sorts of things tend to pop out of design reviews I would delay ordering any SQ stuff till we have finished the review.

Thank you all for your patience.

Regards

Chucky

Click to expand...

Great advice and gratefully received too; I'll be ready and on standby as the SQ/QS side of it for me is going to be vinyl based.

I am satisfy with my present SM decoder (in the optomized case) - also by SQ. May be, it is also a result by playing this records with a moving coil system. Beneth the well separation the sound is clear as awaited from a new set.

Dietrich

Hi chucky3042, I'm also planning to buy the SM SQ very soon. What do you mean by "the existing one as it is more technically correct"? Is the next one also more "incorrect".
Another question: how much does it take to arrive once you place the order?
Thanks!

Until Charles answers
From what I know it is the vinyl that is the problem
The decoder has to take into count the vinyl is not perect

Hi Rlander

Rustyandi is correct (as always) many (but not all vinyl) records / cartridge combinations can have level differences of say 2 db- in fact some really nice sounding cartridges can have separation of only say 12 db. The SQ matrix really only gives you around 3 db to encode front/ rear levels. Consequently if there are any level error issues in the source this can lead to great shifts in the front/ rear image. The Tate has more gain front to back to push the extreme points into the corners. Involve SQ works more in a linear manner in an attempt to place stuff between these points. This is great if the source is OK but if its not OK it will appear as a lack of separation.

This is why I say the proposed modified SQ decoder is inferior- it will produce better apparent numbers but in my opinion on good sources the imaging front/ back will be better on the original.

Hope you guys are confused - I sure am.

Regards

Chucky

Thanks Chucky (and Rustyandi),
Your explanation is perfectly clear. The big question (for me) is when the new SM SQ version will be available? Do you think it'll cost the same as the current one?

Hi

Overture (AKA Dave the bitch) is starting the revision on Monday with a bit of luck it will be ready in 1 or 2 weeks.

Regards

Chucky

rlanda said:

Thanks Chucky (and Rustyandi),
Your explanation is perfectly clear. The big question (for me) is when the new SM SQ version will be available? Do you think it'll cost the same as the current one?

Click to expand...

Me again

For those just as confused as me there are some interesting posts on these pages:

Overtures post
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?17525-INVOLVE-SQ-IS-COMING/page7

Quadradial's post and my post
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?18022-INVOLVE-SQ-IS-HERE/page7

May I suggest that no one orders any SQ versions till we have finished evaluations and after we get the revised version to some well known test animals such as Rustyandi and Tab (Quadradial) and their stamp of approval.........any other volunteers?

We are in for some more fun!

Chucky

Thank you, Chucky. I'll wait, then.

Hi,
Any news? How is the revision going on?

Dearest All,

Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated. I may have delved into the SQ mathematical abyss for a while however. It is a very shallow abyss, only about 3dB deep. Then again it is possible to drown in 2cm of water, so there you go.

ANYWAY - The BETA version of the revised software is now ready for testing. A dev unit went out to Ron (Rustyandi) to be put through its paces. The early reports I'm hearing are that it's doing the job really well. So, you know, I think it might have been worth the wait.

The whole idea behind it was to allow for the fact that vinyl reproduction isn't mathematically perfect. The original SQ version works wonderfully on script encoded material played back through a digital medium i.e. cd, DAC, PC, etc. So this version pushes the numbers as far as necessary to account for how twitchy the SQ encode is - only 3db of difference between great separation and too much leakage.

I'll get back to you with proper listening reports - I'm sure Ron will be saying something on the forums as well.

Watch this space.

Dear All

I have been informed by Rustyandi that his listening "man cave" has been flooded and it will take a bit longer before his review of our amended SQ "vinyl" version will be complete.

My version when listening at Rustyandi' setup was that the separation was clearly better on Tab Patterson's test trumpet track. The bigger difference to the Tate was a lack of pumping that was quite noticeable.

May I call for "volunteers" for those who want to try out the new version.

Three options:

1 Order an update chip and get a good tech to solder it in .....say $20 + postal costs

2 Send your SM back to us and we will do the update.....say $30 + postal costs

3 Order a special SQ SM that has dual SQ- either vinyl optomized or "script" optomized for all you SQ nutters- so you have both flavors. Say a special QQ price of $395 + postal costs but by special personal message request.

4 Any other suggestions!!!!!

Hopefully we will get some test pilots in the next few days

I thank all those who complained (correctly) and a special thanks to Tab.

Regards

Chucky

Before the rising Damp I had a play

I would like to start with the Tate chip
There were a couple of different chips for the decoding
I have a Audionics decoder
It was the first run I ordered it and paid $75 and waited 3 years to get it for $300
When I played SQ lps there was a very narrow front image
In about 6 months after I had it I received a note that there was an upgrade
I sent it back and when it returned there was a wider front image I asked them
If that was right and was told that’s was the upgrade
So when you test the Surround Master against a TATE witch TATE
Charlie brought over the SQ BETA mod to test
We first tested it against the Chase track with the trumpet moves around all channels
I turned the front channels off and just heard the rear there was a big improvement
With cross talk between front and rear
But when you played a singer that is in the front centre there is still a bit more in the rear channels
Than the Tate
But when you played all channels it is hard to pick the difference
The Tate decoding has an effect of almost making a rear mono channel when there is a vocal in front
Then opening to either L/rear or R/ rear to give a dominant signal and if you listen only to the rear
That’s what seems to give the pumping effect
The Surround master has a smother effect

As to the test I spoke to Charlie and said I have been very happy with the existing SQ decoder
And apart from the Chase test I did not hear a great difference
Dave said that he was glad that it did not degrade the decoding as he thinks that this a step backwards
As it is not to correct maths
I had the same friends over to listen Richard who has a Tate for 15 years when I switched back and forth
The decoders could pick the difference apart from he felt the Surround Master had a smoother sound
Also Warren who has better hearing than me also liked the highs that he could hear

He also said that my cartridge a Denon 303 M/C had a very good separation and other cartridges
May get a better resalts

I would like to hear what Tab has to say

To sum up it is still a great SQ decoder I wish that I could say that there was some great improvement
Whether it is better than the TATE or nearly as good it is better than any Logic decoders
still the only one that can be repaired

So if I have the SQ/QS Involve version can mine be further modified or will the new chip replace the old SQ chip. I'm really happy with it the way it is but I would love extra options.

I'm in with the option 3. How do I proceed? Do I buy it through the website? Thank you.