INVOLVE SQ - IS HERE

I totally agree with you KevinD9052, You would think that Music would Carm the Savage beast ... that's all we are here for aren't we..THE LOVE OF MUSIC

KevinD9052 said:

All I know is that the Surround Master is one of the best SQ decoders out there. It is without question the best QS decoder ever. I'm getting the SQ Vinyl to see how much better it can be. If that is possible. (Besides, I wanted a backup unit anyway)! I'm sure I speak for most of the QQ members when I say thank you for all your time & effort. It has not gone unappreciated.

Click to expand...

Remember that making a SQ decoder for a limited amount of customers
is not a money making endeavour
I have not been able to play with the new SQ update as my room sprang a leak
I think I have fixed it but I have to wait until it rains again
But as I have said before I did not hear a great difference with my system
But others may get a better results

Greetings all

Here is a little document about the some of the reasons behind the vinyl update of the software.
Hope you get something out of it.

`D

The SQ/Vinyl source issue - a possibly related issue:

In the mid-1970s, many FM stations broadcast the SQ encoded
King Biscuit Flower Hour music program.
Does the FM audio processing used about 40 years ago
(and perhaps a Dolby B encode/decode cycle on
Compact Cassette recordings of the broadcasts)
adversely affect SQ decoding?

Kirk Bayne

kfbkfb said:

The SQ/Vinyl source issue - a possibly related issue:

In the mid-1970s, many FM stations broadcast the SQ encoded
King Biscuit Flower Hour music program.
Does the FM audio processing used about 40 years ago
(and perhaps a Dolby B encode/decode cycle on
Compact Cassette recordings of the broadcasts)
adversely affect SQ decoding?

Kirk Bayne

Click to expand...

Recording it on Compact Cassette is going to do far more harm to SQ encoding than FM stereo or Dolby B.

I've been a member here for about a year or so. I got into vintage quad just about a year ago... and really loved the sound the vintage quad receivers put out. I settled on a "below the radar" quad unit... a Sanyo DCX3300KA. With all the meter lights and dial lights, it's really sexy looking@:

But that receiver is 40+ years old. I had it checked out by a tech, but no caps were removed and I was told by others on another audio forum that caps cannot be reliably checked when measured "in circuit." The tech said it all checked out ok. And it still sounds great to me... but it can't last forever, and a re-cap job would be multiple hundreds of $$.

So, I began researching the Surround Master and finally shelled out the $$ for the basic model... not the SQ model. I don't have and don't plan on having any of the old recordings made during the quad era. I listen almost exclusively to streamed audio from paid (& therefore higher bitrate) Pandora and Spotify accounts. The vintage quad sounded fantastic when streaming. However, I haven't been as impressed with the SM as I thought I would/should/ought to be.

Here's what I mean. When using the SM, I am not hearing the amount of sounds emanating from the rear speakers that I hear when using the vintage quad. I'm pretty sure I have the SM connected properly. I have a Kenwood VR-507 AV receiver from about 2000 that has the necessary set of RCA DVD/6Channel Inputs as described online by Involve Audio. I have four Polk Audio Monitor 40 speakers and a MartinLogan Dynamo 300 (8") for the subwoofer (so my system is basically a 4.1). The rear sounds get a bit better when turning the volume up more, but I didn't have to do that with the Sanyo vintage quad unit. Plus, using the Kenwood, I have increased the volume in both rear speakers +5dB and I am closer to the rears than the fronts. And by the way, I typically use the #2 Matrix mode on the Sanyo.. sounds the best to me... FWIW.

Now I know that a lot of multi-channel performance comes from the way the recording was miked/mastered. But regardless of that, the vintage Sanyo quad seems to have much better front to back separation than the SM when I listen to streamed audio. The Sanyo also seems to have better R to L separation also. To be fair, I did turn the rears up a bit using the Sanyo's individual knobs for each channel, but not that much... at least not as much as I seem to have on the SM.

I've been through 3 different Yamaha RX-Vxxx AV receivers... haven't met one I liked yet... nor their audio quality. So I've been down the modern home theater receiver road and found it wanting. And don't want to go there again.

One plus for the SM was watching Revenge of the Sith. I did notice sounds panning from one side to the other and also front to back and vice versa, depending on what was happening. The SM does better with movies than anything else I've heard. BUT... and it's a big one, I'm much more into listening to music than watching movies. I'm not nearly as moved by movies as I am by music. So while the SM is good on movies (perhaps even better if I had a center speaker), I have yet to be impressed by its music making.

One more thing: the female RCA plugins on the back of the SM are recessed and the plastic housing around the RCAs is very close to the RCA input jacks. The problem is that some "better" RCA cable male ends are "flared" and cannot be used with this design. It would be much better to me if the RCA jacks on the SM were protruding out beyond the plastic housing, allowing better and easier connections.

At this point, the $395 Surround Master is not earning its keep. But I'm here asking/hoping for some help.

Chucky... if you're reading this, I hope you'll reply. I was referred to you by another member from a comment I made to him about the SM.

So......... if anyone's got some suggestions, please reply. Many thanks.

Hal

Hi Hal

Firstly Your set up seems fine. I agree about the RCA hole access, it is poor and I have made negative remarks about the box previously. All I can say is a metal extrusion based design is being planned, but that does not help you.

Before I cast any opinion- silly question. If you are using 4 channel I assume you are extracting the fronts/ rears from the 4 RCA's immediately next to the input RCA's, yes it is an obvious problem that some users have got wrong.

Next

Input just one side - say left - you now should have equal volume coming from the front left and rear left speakers. Repeat this experiment with the right. If not equal level adjust appropriately.

Please report back on your findings.

Regards

Chucky

Thank you very much for your prompt reply... much appreciated.

Starting off with your "silly question" : When you speak of the "4 RCAs," are you referring to the back of the SM or the Kenwood? If you are speaking of the SM, then yes, I have two pairs (4 connections altogether) of cables running from the " 4 CH out" of the SM into the "6Channel inputs" of the Kenwood.

If you are speaking of the Kenwood, then, no I'm totally lost.

I will assume I've got it right... that you are speaking of the SM. Now, I will try the adjustments you have suggested, and then I'll post here again what I find.

Thanks again.

Hal

Chucky... I did as you instructed. It was easier to hear the separation that way by eliminating one whole side (L or R). I was able to tell the difference and it is pretty significant. I made a slight adjustment on each rear speaker. I attenuated one and increased the other.

It sure would be easier to do this if I could do an instant A/B test between my vintage quad Sanyo and the Surround Master.

But your suggestion is good and I can go back and tinker further with it.

A couple more questions: Does the Surround Master get hot? I saw no mention of it in the User Manual.

If I was to use the Surround Master with my Sanyo quad unit, using its 4 channel inputs to run the SM into, wouldn't the Sanyo quad functions mess with the Surround Master's job?

Thanks again. Your suggestions helped.

Hal

Good stuff Hal

Correct assumption, I will await your next test.

Regards

Chucky

hnash53 said:

Thank you very much for your prompt reply... much appreciated.

Starting off with your "silly question" : When you speak of the "4 RCAs," are you referring to the back of the SM or the Kenwood? If you are speaking of the SM, then yes, I have two pairs (4 connections altogether) of cables running from the " 4 CH out" of the SM into the "6Channel inputs" of the Kenwood.

If you are speaking of the Kenwood, then, no I'm totally lost.

I will assume I've got it right... that you are speaking of the SM. Now, I will try the adjustments you have suggested, and then I'll post here again what I find.

Thanks again.

Hal

Click to expand...

Hello Hall

Yep the box does get hot but we have left these permanently on for years and so far no heat failures. Oh for the metal box version!
I am not familiar with the Sanyo but I will see if I can find out some detail later tonight, does it have a pass through mode?

I suspect it would be OK as I do not think the Sanyo would do any processing for a 4 channel input- just process 2 channel input.

I will get back to you shortly

regards

Chucky

hnash53 said:

Chucky... I did as you instructed. It was easier to hear the separation that way by eliminating one whole side (L or R). I was able to tell the difference and it is pretty significant. I made a slight adjustment on each rear speaker. I attenuated one and increased the other.

It sure would be easier to do this if I could do an instant A/B test between my vintage quad Sanyo and the Surround Master.

But your suggestion is good and I can go back and tinker further with it.

A couple more questions: Does the Surround Master get hot? I saw no mention of it in the User Manual.

If I was to use the Surround Master with my Sanyo quad unit, using its 4 channel inputs to run the SM into, wouldn't the Sanyo quad functions mess with the Surround Master's job?

Thanks again. Your suggestions helped.

Hal

Click to expand...

Hi All

Can anyone help Hal out regarding the Sanyo DCX3300KA. Does it have straight pass through on its 4 amplifiers......I am not sure?

Regards

Chucky

Received my shipping notice for the new Vinyl SQ/QS Surround Master; very excited about this, my new amp will arrive around the same time

Hi. Hal
I think I am right, when you use the 4CH. INPUT ..AUX & or TAPE inputs of your Sanyo quad unit you do By-pass the internal setting you have to switch off the SQ MODE & turn on 4CH discrete mode I think & switch on what INPUT you use, AUX or TAPE. The only mode that would change the sound would be the BASS & TREBLE.. only.
I hope this helps Bill....

hnash53 said:

Chucky... I did as you instructed. It was easier to hear the separation that way by eliminating one whole side (L or R). I was able to tell the difference and it is pretty significant. I made a slight adjustment on each rear speaker. I attenuated one and increased the other.

It sure would be easier to do this if I could do an instant A/B test between my vintage quad Sanyo and the Surround Master.

But your suggestion is good and I can go back and tinker further with it.

A couple more questions: Does the Surround Master get hot? I saw no mention of it in the User Manual.

If I was to use the Surround Master with my Sanyo quad unit, using its 4 channel inputs to run the SM into, wouldn't the Sanyo quad functions mess with the Surround Master's job?

Thanks again. Your suggestions helped.

Hal

Click to expand...

Is there any way the new chip can have an output level more matching of the Involve side?

Hi Q8

We can adjust levels in the software upon request but I am unsure if it is required- I will check tomorrow.

Regards


Chucky

Q8 said:

Is there any way the new chip can have an output level more matching of the Involve side?

Click to expand...

I've noticed SQ output has always been a good amount lower, requiring a good amount of volume adjustment between the two. It's a minor gripe but since we're fixing things.

Sorry false post!

Hi anyway

Just received my SQ Vinyl edition this week and have been having great fun testing it. I already shared some of this with the nice folks at Involve Audio over PM. I again thank them for developing this great device.
1. QS decoding quite amazing, compares well with my Sansui QSD-2..in fact I may give that device a rest.
2. Quad synthesis best I have heard, from both LPs and streaming sources (eg Spotify). In some cases sounds better than actual quad releases of some of the material..very discrete in some cases amazingly so .
3. SQ decoding – my main issue. Better than my ‘wave matching’ decoder (built into my old Lafayette LR 4000 receiver), as there is no pumping, but, I’m finding the channel separation in some directions less than what I expected (e.g. center front to rear cancellation). I find the corners do better, even with multiple channels and
concurrent material . I know its recommended we not do individual channel tests..but I could not resist. Comparing the new AF Billy Joel ‘Streetlife Serenade ‘ SACD vs the SQ..the SQ decoding gets the basic directions right (but so does my old wave match decoder) but I know Billy’s vice should not be coming out of the back as loudly as it does and I sit closer to the rear speakers . I wouldn’t complain so much but after reading the rave reviews and comparison to the Tate (which I don’t own) was wondering. Maybe it’s impossible to do better with a 40 year old matrix and old records.
Thanks

sjcorne said:

Just received my SQ Vinyl edition this week and have been having great fun testing it. I already shared some of this with the nice folks at Involve Audio over PM. I again thank them for developing this great device.
1. QS decoding quite amazing, compares well with my Sansui QSD-2..in fact I may give that device a rest.
2. Quad synthesis best I have heard, from both LPs and streaming sources (eg Spotify). In some cases sounds better than actual quad releases of some of the material..very discrete in some cases amazingly so .
3. SQ decoding – my main issue. Better than my ‘wave matching’ decoder (built into my old Lafayette LR 4000 receiver), as there is no pumping, but, I’m finding the channel separation in some directions less than what I expected (e.g. center front to rear cancellation). I find the corners do better, even with multiple channels and
concurrent material . I know its recommended we not do individual channel tests..but I could not resist. Comparing the new AF Billy Joel ‘Streetlife Serenade ‘ SACD vs the SQ..the SQ decoding gets the basic directions right (but so does my old wave match decoder) but I know Billy’s vice should not be coming out of the back as loudly as it does and I sit closer to the rear speakers . I wouldn’t complain so much but after reading the rave reviews and comparison to the Tate (which I don’t own) was wondering. Maybe it’s impossible to do better with a 40 year old matrix and old records.
Thanks

Click to expand...

Mine has arrived too and I will be setting up later today with any luck! I've only been decoding QS with DPLII and have no way of decoding SQ; I'm really looking forward to hearing it in action and I've lined up some SQ records and their SACD/DVDA counterparts for comparison.