That was from The Realistic LP "The Full Spectrum of Quadraphonic Sound" SQ LP.
INVOLVE SQ - IS HERE
- Thread starter chucky3042
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
^^
nope don't have that one
I like jazz a lot & your example sounded interesting as a song. that must have been a Radio Shack demo for selling quad. I don't have Chase either. do you have the Paul Simon or Art Garfunkel SQ LPs? I was thinking of vocals to try.
nope don't have that one
I like jazz a lot & your example sounded interesting as a song. that must have been a Radio Shack demo for selling quad. I don't have Chase either. do you have the Paul Simon or Art Garfunkel SQ LPs? I was thinking of vocals to try.
I do, but this was handier. I have the whole system torn apart to do this, so it's time to gather up all the shelves and put everything back. My living room is a mess right now with all of the equipment.
Tad
I did what you said to the front channels
I turned them right of
And played the Barbara Streisand track
There is a small difference in the level of the vocal
to the rear but there is a bit of pumping with the
Audionics unit that is not there with the
Surround master
When you turn back the front channels on there is no
noticeable difference between both Decoders (To my ears)
I have tested the Chase track before and shown
the results on the Vectore Scope it is on the board
I did not find any problems with the separation
Charlie is looking into it
Ron
I did what you said to the front channels
I turned them right of
And played the Barbara Streisand track
There is a small difference in the level of the vocal
to the rear but there is a bit of pumping with the
Audionics unit that is not there with the
Surround master
When you turn back the front channels on there is no
noticeable difference between both Decoders (To my ears)
I have tested the Chase track before and shown
the results on the Vectore Scope it is on the board
I did not find any problems with the separation
Charlie is looking into it
Ron
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,704
Hi SS9001
Like us you are using dipole speakers (we have electrostatics), whilst this is very good we both need to remember that 50% of the sound energy is going to the rear and then around the room and so SPL measurements made in a room via a sound meter (specially with continuous tone) can vary significantly from position to position by say 6 db. Having said that your results look very good indeed and are well within my expectations, the say 2 db mismatch is probably room or in your system outside the Surround Master. Even volume knobs on amplifiers can vary by 2 dB.
I read that you do not have a working multimeter (shameful ) may I suggest that you beg, borrow or steal a multimeter with dB and repeat the test with the probes shoved directly into the respective surround master outputs. I have randomly grabbed a recent SM and I conducted the following tests:
IN SQ MODE
All measurements in dB- input 1Khz 0dB
MONO INPUT 1 KHZ SINE / Left side input only / Right side input only
FL +0.7 / +0.9 / -39.7
FR +0.6 / -38.0 / +0.9
RL -30.9 / -27.7 / -28.2
RR -30.9 / -27.2 / -28.2
IN QS MODE
All measurements in dB- input 1Khz 0dB
MONO INPUT 1 KHZ SINE / Left side input only / Right side input only
FL +2.6 / +0.3 / -15.5
FR +2.5 / -15.4 / +0.1
RL -15.0 / 0.0 / -15.5
RR -30.9 / -15.3 / 0.0
In summary the above test results are close to perfect and please note how close the numbers are- showing tight electronic tolerances. Your reported 2 dB difference would be well outside tolerance, this is why you now need to get your hands on a multimeter. Remember your existing surround decode arrangement has been setup for years and your system MAY have drifted somewhat - even speakers can be 2 dB out but amplifier KNOBS are notorious for level shifts. Small amounts like 2 -3 dB can really throw an image.
I also note that some of our reviewers in QQ use speakers of different sensitivity front to rear or even speakers that sound different. It is extremely important to get all speakers balanced or the resultant surround image can really go Whoops!!!
So first thing first, please try a multimeter and get some numbers directly from the output of the SM. If there is any doubt I will be pleased to d=send a replacement.
I hope this does not inconvenience you too much, we are certainly not in the clear yet!
Regards
Chucky
Like us you are using dipole speakers (we have electrostatics), whilst this is very good we both need to remember that 50% of the sound energy is going to the rear and then around the room and so SPL measurements made in a room via a sound meter (specially with continuous tone) can vary significantly from position to position by say 6 db. Having said that your results look very good indeed and are well within my expectations, the say 2 db mismatch is probably room or in your system outside the Surround Master. Even volume knobs on amplifiers can vary by 2 dB.
I read that you do not have a working multimeter (shameful ) may I suggest that you beg, borrow or steal a multimeter with dB and repeat the test with the probes shoved directly into the respective surround master outputs. I have randomly grabbed a recent SM and I conducted the following tests:
IN SQ MODE
All measurements in dB- input 1Khz 0dB
MONO INPUT 1 KHZ SINE / Left side input only / Right side input only
FL +0.7 / +0.9 / -39.7
FR +0.6 / -38.0 / +0.9
RL -30.9 / -27.7 / -28.2
RR -30.9 / -27.2 / -28.2
IN QS MODE
All measurements in dB- input 1Khz 0dB
MONO INPUT 1 KHZ SINE / Left side input only / Right side input only
FL +2.6 / +0.3 / -15.5
FR +2.5 / -15.4 / +0.1
RL -15.0 / 0.0 / -15.5
RR -30.9 / -15.3 / 0.0
In summary the above test results are close to perfect and please note how close the numbers are- showing tight electronic tolerances. Your reported 2 dB difference would be well outside tolerance, this is why you now need to get your hands on a multimeter. Remember your existing surround decode arrangement has been setup for years and your system MAY have drifted somewhat - even speakers can be 2 dB out but amplifier KNOBS are notorious for level shifts. Small amounts like 2 -3 dB can really throw an image.
I also note that some of our reviewers in QQ use speakers of different sensitivity front to rear or even speakers that sound different. It is extremely important to get all speakers balanced or the resultant surround image can really go Whoops!!!
So first thing first, please try a multimeter and get some numbers directly from the output of the SM. If there is any doubt I will be pleased to d=send a replacement.
I hope this does not inconvenience you too much, we are certainly not in the clear yet!
Regards
Chucky
^^
Thanks, Chuck for the info & I will give it a go. Just have to wait about a week. Don't let me stop you from doing normal business.
My fronts & rears are made of the same sonic cloth so to speak in the mids & highs but Maggie's wall mount panels are bass limited vs the fronts, rated to 80 hz with wall reinforcement. In HT use, I have 2 subs. Subs are not used when playing the Sansui so I just turn the Sansui's rear bass knobs up & live with it. but that doesn't effect signals > 100 Hz. I have a complex system but not important to this.
Your readings will give me a benchmark so I appreciate it. And I will get a new meter I'll get back as soon as I can.
Thanks!
Thanks, Chuck for the info & I will give it a go. Just have to wait about a week. Don't let me stop you from doing normal business.
My fronts & rears are made of the same sonic cloth so to speak in the mids & highs but Maggie's wall mount panels are bass limited vs the fronts, rated to 80 hz with wall reinforcement. In HT use, I have 2 subs. Subs are not used when playing the Sansui so I just turn the Sansui's rear bass knobs up & live with it. but that doesn't effect signals > 100 Hz. I have a complex system but not important to this.
Your readings will give me a benchmark so I appreciate it. And I will get a new meter
I'll get back as soon as I can.Thanks!
Rustyandi,
Not sure what to say other than my results are my results. There is a night and day difference between the Tate and the Involve when it comes to the front levels, and that exacerbates the additional leakage problem. On the CHASE track, the Tate nails it while the SM bleeds quite a bit and the left rear seems to bleed into the right rear more than it should. It just doesn't sound right...
-Tab
Not sure what to say other than my results are my results. There is a night and day difference between the Tate and the Involve when it comes to the front levels, and that exacerbates the additional leakage problem. On the CHASE track, the Tate nails it while the SM bleeds quite a bit and the left rear seems to bleed into the right rear more than it should. It just doesn't sound right...
-Tab
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,704
Hi All
We have been busy examining this controversy today and as it turns out we/ you may all be correct, we have a confusing picture.
First we used 3 test QS and SQ sources for our tests these can be found in this dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3jpgx0qhaxcfgzy/FiiHs7DykE
Please download these.
The SQ Q4 Vinyl test tones.wav is the CBS Q4 test disc and is as the name suggest recorded on vinyl.
The SQ test tones.wav is a "script" based series of tones and is 100% accurate in terms of magnitude and phase - "by the book"
Its test tone sequence is:
Centre Front - Right Front - Centre Right - Rear Right - Centre Rear - Left Rear - Centre Left - Left Front - Centre Front
The QS test tones.wav is also a "script" based series of tones that are 100% accurate in terms of phase and magnitude- also "by the book".
Its test tone sequence is:
Centre Front - Left Front - Centre Left - Rear Left - Centre Rear - Right Rear -0 Centre Right - Right Front - Centre D
Also included below are the test results we obtained from a Surround Master randomly pulled out of stock.
Please note for our tests today we had a noise floor of -42.2dB we actually needed more dynamic range for comprehensive results but the results are fine for what we are testing.
The results for the QS script are remarkably symmetrical showing a separation of generally better than 35 dB, this reduced to approx 13 dB for central sides. Level discrepancies were less than 0.5 dB. In short it looks like all levels are balanced for SQ and Involve mode.
Now things get more interesting:
For SQ test tones.wav script based encode again the results were very good showing very symmetrical results with 30- 35 dB separation, the worst results were as expected (for SQ) the side center symmetry that showed the center side position could be pulled to the rear by about 10dB. This is one of the week aspects of SQ. It is one of the reasons SQ cannot achieve stable side central images (unlike QS- perfectly linear). In short- no sign of problems with the correct encode format.
For the Q4 Vinyl test tones.wav the results are relatively poor showing a leakage of fronts to rear amounting to only 9 - 12 db separation IN THAT DIRECTION - all other directions the separation was better than 25 dB.
So TAB - YOU ARE CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!
Now the issue is WHY?
Upon examination of the CBS Q4 test disc we found that the encode was in error. SQ largely picks direction based on Left/ Right inter channel leakage. We found leakage in the L/R channel of say -15db and a phase error of 45 degrees. On the script based encodes these parameters are precise. This CBS disc was recorded from vinyl onto CD and it is most likely this leakage and phase shift is typical of most magnetic cartridges and RIAA equalisation curves.
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.
All our development work was with the script based encode sources and not with the Vinyl as we wanted to be "by the book". We note that most users of the SQ SM have reported as good or better results than the Tate yet now we have 2 users who clearly prefer the Tate. I suspect this is for 3 main reasons.
1 Given the non script - vinyl sources used they were only getting say 9 - 12 db separation in the front leak to rear direction.
2 Our previous (and controversial) tests indicate test audiences cannot pick separations above 12 dB and so clearly we fall under this and any other level issues such as amplifier pot mismatch, seating centrality, speaker sensitivity will tip the system over the edge so you will clearly notice the leakage.
3 Some people are more sensitive to separation than others - for example I listen more to things such as clarity, transient response and am less picky on separation.
Also the bulk of the users who state that they prefer our SQ SM to the Tate have reported issues of clarity and transient response. This observation is a direct result of the SQ SM being a full tri band decoder unlike the Tate that is single band.
SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO???
Looks like the Tate (being designed in the late 70's) was designed specifically with vinyl in mind and has been adjusted to allow for a much smaller level sensing range (it pushes harder to the edges) than the SQ SM that has been designed for script based encoding.
I offer the following:
1 Fully money back upon return of the SQ SM if unsatisfied.
2 We will schedule some research time in say 2 months to review the internal settings of the SQ SM to have it optomised for vinyl not script - for those who want it.
3 We will send an updated memory chip in the mail to all those who want the revision - so it can be installed by a qualified technician. Probably $20
4 We offer a free update if you pay for the return transport to our factory.
WHAT NOW?
We will continue to offer the existing SQ SM for sale as I really think it is the most accurate for script based encodes but hopefully we will offer two setting versions in a few months time. My recommendation is patience but remember the version set for vinyl will not be as linear as the current version and may be more prone to pumping (as several Tate users have reported). SQ is a VERY fiddly format and is not forgiving on encode source errors- unlike QS, unfortunately there is no "one size fits all" solution.
I know this is an imperfect solution but on the bright side at least our decode is "by the book".
Regards
Chucky
We have been busy examining this controversy today and as it turns out we/ you may all be correct, we have a confusing picture.
First we used 3 test QS and SQ sources for our tests these can be found in this dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3jpgx0qhaxcfgzy/FiiHs7DykE
Please download these.
The SQ Q4 Vinyl test tones.wav is the CBS Q4 test disc and is as the name suggest recorded on vinyl.
The SQ test tones.wav is a "script" based series of tones and is 100% accurate in terms of magnitude and phase - "by the book"
Its test tone sequence is:
Centre Front - Right Front - Centre Right - Rear Right - Centre Rear - Left Rear - Centre Left - Left Front - Centre Front
The QS test tones.wav is also a "script" based series of tones that are 100% accurate in terms of phase and magnitude- also "by the book".
Its test tone sequence is:
Centre Front - Left Front - Centre Left - Rear Left - Centre Rear - Right Rear -0 Centre Right - Right Front - Centre D
Also included below are the test results we obtained from a Surround Master randomly pulled out of stock.
Please note for our tests today we had a noise floor of -42.2dB we actually needed more dynamic range for comprehensive results but the results are fine for what we are testing.
The results for the QS script are remarkably symmetrical showing a separation of generally better than 35 dB, this reduced to approx 13 dB for central sides. Level discrepancies were less than 0.5 dB. In short it looks like all levels are balanced for SQ and Involve mode.
Now things get more interesting:
For SQ test tones.wav script based encode again the results were very good showing very symmetrical results with 30- 35 dB separation, the worst results were as expected (for SQ) the side center symmetry that showed the center side position could be pulled to the rear by about 10dB. This is one of the week aspects of SQ. It is one of the reasons SQ cannot achieve stable side central images (unlike QS- perfectly linear). In short- no sign of problems with the correct encode format.
For the Q4 Vinyl test tones.wav the results are relatively poor showing a leakage of fronts to rear amounting to only 9 - 12 db separation IN THAT DIRECTION - all other directions the separation was better than 25 dB.
So TAB - YOU ARE CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!
Now the issue is WHY?
Upon examination of the CBS Q4 test disc we found that the encode was in error. SQ largely picks direction based on Left/ Right inter channel leakage. We found leakage in the L/R channel of say -15db and a phase error of 45 degrees. On the script based encodes these parameters are precise. This CBS disc was recorded from vinyl onto CD and it is most likely this leakage and phase shift is typical of most magnetic cartridges and RIAA equalisation curves.
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.
All our development work was with the script based encode sources and not with the Vinyl as we wanted to be "by the book". We note that most users of the SQ SM have reported as good or better results than the Tate yet now we have 2 users who clearly prefer the Tate. I suspect this is for 3 main reasons.
1 Given the non script - vinyl sources used they were only getting say 9 - 12 db separation in the front leak to rear direction.
2 Our previous (and controversial) tests indicate test audiences cannot pick separations above 12 dB and so clearly we fall under this and any other level issues such as amplifier pot mismatch, seating centrality, speaker sensitivity will tip the system over the edge so you will clearly notice the leakage.
3 Some people are more sensitive to separation than others - for example I listen more to things such as clarity, transient response and am less picky on separation.
Also the bulk of the users who state that they prefer our SQ SM to the Tate have reported issues of clarity and transient response. This observation is a direct result of the SQ SM being a full tri band decoder unlike the Tate that is single band.
SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO???
Looks like the Tate (being designed in the late 70's) was designed specifically with vinyl in mind and has been adjusted to allow for a much smaller level sensing range (it pushes harder to the edges) than the SQ SM that has been designed for script based encoding.
I offer the following:
1 Fully money back upon return of the SQ SM if unsatisfied.
2 We will schedule some research time in say 2 months to review the internal settings of the SQ SM to have it optomised for vinyl not script - for those who want it.
3 We will send an updated memory chip in the mail to all those who want the revision - so it can be installed by a qualified technician. Probably $20
4 We offer a free update if you pay for the return transport to our factory.
WHAT NOW?
We will continue to offer the existing SQ SM for sale as I really think it is the most accurate for script based encodes but hopefully we will offer two setting versions in a few months time. My recommendation is patience but remember the version set for vinyl will not be as linear as the current version and may be more prone to pumping (as several Tate users have reported). SQ is a VERY fiddly format and is not forgiving on encode source errors- unlike QS, unfortunately there is no "one size fits all" solution.
I know this is an imperfect solution but on the bright side at least our decode is "by the book".
Regards
Chucky
Attachments
OK...interesting results and somewhat in line of what I was thinking was going on. In a perfect digital world, your script is good. However, being that there are painfully few SQ CDs, I feel that it needs to be set up to accept the errors that vinyl gives. But, of almost equal concern was the low-level front channels. It works great with tones, but during music they were somewhere between 6db and 12db off, pushing the sound to the back.
I will stick it out and wait for a fix. Should we wait and send them back when the time has come or should we send them now? I fully support this project and don't want a refund!
Also, will you be letting us know via email or just on this board??
I will stick it out and wait for a fix. Should we wait and send them back when the time has come or should we send them now? I fully support this project and don't want a refund!
Also, will you be letting us know via email or just on this board??
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,704
Hi Quadradial
In regard to the front/ rear level shift shown on the vinyl test results the shift is around 2 - 3 dB, on script it is perfect. I suggest you remeasure with a multimeter the actual levels coming out of your SQ SM with say the CBS test tones, you may have a setting bias in your amps/ speakers. If your SQ SM is 6 dB out then either it is faulty or your cartridge is very leaky. Try the script test tones we supplied to compare so at least we can see if your SM is OK.
In the short term try attenuating the rear by 3 dB. May I suggest you hold off sending the unit back for an update until we actually start the update project (we will notify the forum). Think about the option of us sending the update chip and DIY or give to a tech to install - it would be cheaper.
Regards
chucky
In regard to the front/ rear level shift shown on the vinyl test results the shift is around 2 - 3 dB, on script it is perfect. I suggest you remeasure with a multimeter the actual levels coming out of your SQ SM with say the CBS test tones, you may have a setting bias in your amps/ speakers. If your SQ SM is 6 dB out then either it is faulty or your cartridge is very leaky. Try the script test tones we supplied to compare so at least we can see if your SM is OK.
In the short term try attenuating the rear by 3 dB. May I suggest you hold off sending the unit back for an update until we actually start the update project (we will notify the forum). Think about the option of us sending the update chip and DIY or give to a tech to install - it would be cheaper.
Regards
chucky
I can solder on the 1970's stuff...but microprocessors are a whole other thing. Not sure if I'm up to the task and Kentucky isn't littered with good repair centers. It's just...littered.
Hi Chuck
Wow..go away for several hrs & all kinds of stuff happens...
Very glad you folks ID'd issue & have some fixes in the works. I'll look at the options and let you know, either here, IM or email to Dave. I'm tied up until Fri at the earliest so can't do any meter testing right now.
would your conclusions / results apply to me as well for QS, script vs vinyl? I do play CD's but they are std published 2 ch and so I use Sansui QS Synth or Tate "enhance" on them. None have matrix encodes from conversions. All my SQ & QS recordings are vinyl and that would be what I'd play, no digital disc conversions that contain the matrix encoding. I just never got into digitalizing my LP's.
I'd be tempted to try the chip replacement if the circuit board work wasn't too involved. But I'll let you know once I have a chance to work with mine again. I'll keep u posted.
I want the product to succeed. I'd like to see what you folks come with for vinyl. once I get some multimeter readings, if all looks normal than I'll evaluate the options. if they fall outside the window then we can go from there.
thanks again, Chuck, for keeping everyone informed. what really would be optimum is a switch to change from script mode to vinyl mode. one product - both kinds of users happy.
Wow..go away for several hrs & all kinds of stuff happens...
Very glad you folks ID'd issue & have some fixes in the works. I'll look at the options and let you know, either here, IM or email to Dave. I'm tied up until Fri at the earliest so can't do any meter testing right now.
would your conclusions / results apply to me as well for QS, script vs vinyl? I do play CD's but they are std published 2 ch and so I use Sansui QS Synth or Tate "enhance" on them. None have matrix encodes from conversions. All my SQ & QS recordings are vinyl and that would be what I'd play, no digital disc conversions that contain the matrix encoding. I just never got into digitalizing my LP's.
I'd be tempted to try the chip replacement if the circuit board work wasn't too involved. But I'll let you know once I have a chance to work with mine again. I'll keep u posted.
I want the product to succeed. I'd like to see what you folks come with for vinyl. once I get some multimeter readings, if all looks normal than I'll evaluate the options. if they fall outside the window then we can go from there.
thanks again, Chuck, for keeping everyone informed. what really would be optimum is a switch to change from script mode to vinyl mode. one product - both kinds of users happy.
Last edited:
wappinghigh
Well-known Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 185
So If I largely stream my stereo music from the likes of Pandora, Rhapsody or play the odd stereo 24/192 or DSD track via a DAC, I should wait till this is sorted right?
After what Charlie found out
I wonder if our 2 different results on the same LP
are the types of needle
I am using a DENON 303 Moving coil with the arm that is set for it
I have only used moving coil cartridges for so long I forget
I found them best for CD4 also
Any way it looks as though he is moving forward with the fix
I wonder if our 2 different results on the same LP
are the types of needle
I am using a DENON 303 Moving coil with the arm that is set for it
I have only used moving coil cartridges for so long I forget
I found them best for CD4 also
Any way it looks as though he is moving forward with the fix
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,704
Hi Wappinghigh
If you intend to play a bunch of SQ Vinyl and you suspect your phono cartridge has poor or not great separation then yes wait till we have the phono optomised SQ SM. Please remember that the revised SQ SM software is not really an upgrade (in my opinion) as there will be a cost of more pumping as many users report for the Tate unit.
Overture was talking to Rustyandi this morning and it was mentioned that Rustyandi has both a very high cost MC cartridge and a really high tech laser based cartridge. In both instances you would expect very good separation and so he has not had noticeable problems with front to rear leakage on SQ (Rustiandi please correct me if this is a false statement).
I remember back in the 70's (sucks being old) there were several well reviewed cartridges like Empire that when I looked at the channel separation graphs showed only around 12 dB separation- yet no one complained about a lack of stereo (remember our 12 dB findings). The vast bulk of reviewers on QQ have not reported hearing issues with separation and have generally preferred the SM SQ to the Tate which somehow tells me their cartridge have really good separation. I am not saying that separation is the sole criterion for evaluating phono cartridges, as I stick by my claim that for general stereo listening anything more than 12 dB is in fact generally undetectable. I am saying that SQ is a very level sensitive format and 2 or 3 dB can really throw it.
So wait if you have doubts about your cartridge or play a lot of SQ vinyl.
Regards
Chucky
If you intend to play a bunch of SQ Vinyl and you suspect your phono cartridge has poor or not great separation then yes wait till we have the phono optomised SQ SM. Please remember that the revised SQ SM software is not really an upgrade (in my opinion) as there will be a cost of more pumping as many users report for the Tate unit.
Overture was talking to Rustyandi this morning and it was mentioned that Rustyandi has both a very high cost MC cartridge and a really high tech laser based cartridge. In both instances you would expect very good separation and so he has not had noticeable problems with front to rear leakage on SQ (Rustiandi please correct me if this is a false statement).
I remember back in the 70's (sucks being old) there were several well reviewed cartridges like Empire that when I looked at the channel separation graphs showed only around 12 dB separation- yet no one complained about a lack of stereo (remember our 12 dB findings). The vast bulk of reviewers on QQ have not reported hearing issues with separation and have generally preferred the SM SQ to the Tate which somehow tells me their cartridge have really good separation. I am not saying that separation is the sole criterion for evaluating phono cartridges, as I stick by my claim that for general stereo listening anything more than 12 dB is in fact generally undetectable. I am saying that SQ is a very level sensitive format and 2 or 3 dB can really throw it.
So wait if you have doubts about your cartridge or play a lot of SQ vinyl.
Regards
Chucky
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,704
Hi SS9001
QS is a far more level tolerant format and cartridge separation IS NOT AN ISSUE. No revised versions are planned for the QS/ Involve decode.
In your specific case I really think you have a level mismatch front to back in your amplifier/ speaker/ room placement chain. After you do the actual measurements with the multimeter on the output of the SM we will be able to make a better judgement on your situation. I remember we got hammered in a few early reviews by some users complaining about front / back level issues as the SM does not have level adjusts. Our test results showed really good tolerances on the SM outputs (less than 0.5 dB)
When these same unhappy users used an external level adjust they were transformed into happy users.
Regards
Chucky
QS is a far more level tolerant format and cartridge separation IS NOT AN ISSUE. No revised versions are planned for the QS/ Involve decode.
In your specific case I really think you have a level mismatch front to back in your amplifier/ speaker/ room placement chain. After you do the actual measurements with the multimeter on the output of the SM we will be able to make a better judgement on your situation. I remember we got hammered in a few early reviews by some users complaining about front / back level issues as the SM does not have level adjusts. Our test results showed really good tolerances on the SM outputs (less than 0.5 dB)
When these same unhappy users used an external level adjust they were transformed into happy users.
Regards
Chucky
Its odd, because I actually still prefer the performance of the SQ mode on SQ vinyl to Involve on QS vinyl @_@
Maybe there is something wrong with me.
But in any case, to both my ears both are stellar. (although I do hear about 30% better in my right ear, lol)
This thread is really becoming an emotional roller coaster ride.
Maybe my cartridge is better than I thought. Right now I'm using a fairly pedestrian cartridge (Technics eps-p4 pmount I think is the model #). Anyone know the seperation figure for this? Also I am using a well serviced linear. That may also increase my seperation due to good tracking. I have since upgraded to Shibata and my experience has been even better. Especially with clearity of course. Heck, the SQ Columbia 1812 Overture almost brought me to tears of joy. I will eventually experiment with other tables and carts.
I am definately curious to hear the difference with whatever you come up with for the "SQ Vinyl" Version
I have never owned a tate or SQ-W, but this thing blows the Sony full logic gear out of the water like when your opponent gets two pegs in your battleship.
Also everyone is right speaker positioning does make a big difference. Not to mention all your other furnature. You can place a piece of furnature in a seemingly harmless position in the sound field and it messes everything up. People in the sound field mess it up too.
I still do not know why I have not noticed a front/rear bleed issue at all. With matrix there is always bleed, but so far as long as the furnature, me, other people and the speakers are in the right position, I have what I would consider perfect balance without adjusting levels and I am all vinyl when it comes to SQ mode.
Maybe there is something wrong with me.
But in any case, to both my ears both are stellar. (although I do hear about 30% better in my right ear, lol)
This thread is really becoming an emotional roller coaster ride.
Maybe my cartridge is better than I thought. Right now I'm using a fairly pedestrian cartridge (Technics eps-p4 pmount I think is the model #). Anyone know the seperation figure for this? Also I am using a well serviced linear. That may also increase my seperation due to good tracking. I have since upgraded to Shibata and my experience has been even better. Especially with clearity of course. Heck, the SQ Columbia 1812 Overture almost brought me to tears of joy. I will eventually experiment with other tables and carts.
I am definately curious to hear the difference with whatever you come up with for the "SQ Vinyl" Version
I have never owned a tate or SQ-W, but this thing blows the Sony full logic gear out of the water like when your opponent gets two pegs in your battleship.
Also everyone is right speaker positioning does make a big difference. Not to mention all your other furnature. You can place a piece of furnature in a seemingly harmless position in the sound field and it messes everything up. People in the sound field mess it up too.
I still do not know why I have not noticed a front/rear bleed issue at all. With matrix there is always bleed, but so far as long as the furnature, me, other people and the speakers are in the right position, I have what I would consider perfect balance without adjusting levels and I am all vinyl when it comes to SQ mode.
I guess the people that notice it most are the ones that own a Tate. I dunno. If you are used to an internal SQ decoder or an old "Full Logic" decoder, then this probably sounds pretty good.
I tried 3 cartridges on mine and it never fell into the groove, so to speak. The Tate seems to take it in stride a bit better. I've never had an issue with cartridge performance in the past. SQ and CD-4 always worked fine...along with QS.
Feh. It's late. I'm going to bed.
I tried 3 cartridges on mine and it never fell into the groove, so to speak. The Tate seems to take it in stride a bit better. I've never had an issue with cartridge performance in the past. SQ and CD-4 always worked fine...along with QS.
Feh. It's late. I'm going to bed.
Similar threads
