The SQ shoot-out - The Involve SQ vinyl edition vs. the Fosgate Tate II

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
This is a followup to my previous post "This is my take on the Tate II and SM units". I did a couple of quick comparisons to discreet sacd’s. I received another copy of the Blood, Sweat & Tears (self titled) SQ lp. I wanted to compare this copy to the one previously reviewed to see if they decoded differently. This was an excellent copy with some record noise for the first minute or so then MN- silence. Compared to the other copy tested, the front center vocals were front center with some rear channel bleeding. The channel separation and locations were very stable compared to the sacd and the other lp. This lp acquits itself very well compared to the sacd.

I just received the UK SQ pressing of "Dark Side of the Moon". It was difficult to adjust the speaker levels between the lp and sacd versions so that they were matched. I attribute this to the sacd having more dynamic range. It also sounded like the tape it was made from was at least a generation closer to the original or perhaps it was the original master mix. On the lp the front center vocals had a noticeable tilt to the right front. The channel separation was as distinct as the sacd. Again, this is another lp that acquits itself very well compared to the sacd, with the exception of the front vocal bleeding. If you'd never heard the discreet version one might conclude that this was normal.

I speculated in my original post if there could be pressing anomalies and/or encoding problems to cause these anomalies and differences between the same albums. Not all albums are cut from the same safety copy of the mix. If any of you have other theories of what might cause these differences, speak up.
 
I just received the UK SQ pressing of "Dark Side of the Moon". It was difficult to adjust the speaker levels between the lp and sacd versions so that they were matched. I attribute this to the sacd having more dynamic range.

The fact that the SACD is a completely different mix done decades later by a different engineer may also be a factor.:mad:@:
 
This is a followup to my previous post "This is my take on the Tate II and SM units". I did a couple of quick comparisons to discreet sacd’s. I received another copy of the Blood, Sweat & Tears (self titled) SQ lp. I wanted to compare this copy to the one previously reviewed to see if they decoded differently. This was an excellent copy with some record noise for the first minute or so then MN- silence. Compared to the other copy tested, the front center vocals were front center with some rear channel bleeding. The channel separation and locations were very stable compared to the sacd and the other lp. This lp acquits itself very well compared to the sacd.

I just received the UK SQ pressing of "Dark Side of the Moon". It was difficult to adjust the speaker levels between the lp and sacd versions so that they were matched. I attribute this to the sacd having more dynamic range. It also sounded like the tape it was made from was at least a generation closer to the original or perhaps it was the original master mix. On the lp the front center vocals had a noticeable tilt to the right front. The channel separation was as distinct as the sacd. Again, this is another lp that acquits itself very well compared to the sacd, with the exception of the front vocal bleeding. If you'd never heard the discreet version one might conclude that this was normal.

I speculated in my original post if there could be pressing anomalies and/or encoding problems to cause these anomalies and differences between the same albums. Not all albums are cut from the same safety copy of the mix. If any of you have other theories of what might cause these differences, speak up.


The Alan Parsons 4.0 mix on the DSOTM Immersion Blu Ray matches the SQ LP, not the James Guthrie 5.1 remix on SACD
 
The fact that the SACD is a completely different mix done decades later by a different engineer may also be a factor.:mad:@:

This may be a completely different mix, but the lf, rf, lr, and rr matches the lp, except on the lp the front center vocals had a tilt to the right front. This was a relatively quick test so I will revisit this when time permits. I could be mistaken. If they remixed it they didn't change much that I could detect. They may have used equalization judiciously, which could explain some of the sonic differences.

I have a couple of sacd's I bought because they were supposedly remixed and better than the originals I had, but they sounded the same to me. It turned out they were bit for bit identical. Buyer beware.
 
If they remixed it they didn't change much that I could detect.

:confused:

The differences between Alan Parson's original 4.0 mix of DSotM and Guthries's more recent 5.1 remix have been quite thoroughly discussed here on QQ. They are quite a bit different!
I recommend getting a hold of the Bluray from the Immersion Box, so that you can compare the two mixes. From there you can do comparisons to the LP in whatever manner you wish.
 
:confused:

The differences between Alan Parson's original 4.0 mix of DSotM and Guthries's more recent 5.1 remix have been quite thoroughly discussed here on QQ. They are quite a bit different!
I recommend getting a hold of the Bluray from the Immersion Box, so that you can compare the two mixes. From there you can do comparisons to the LP in whatever manner you wish.
The multi-channel mix I have is an sacd I got in 2003 on Capital and is the same as the lp with the differences I have noted. I have not heard Guthries's more recent 5.1 remix, so I cannot comment on that. Looks like we are trying to compare apples with oranges. I would love to find that Blu-ray 5.1 mix you are using as a comparison. I wasn't trying to stir up an argument or rehash an old discussion. It was merely an opinion and a listening observation.
 
The multi-channel mix I have is an sacd I got in 2003 on Capital and is the same as the lp with the differences I have noted. I have not heard Guthries's more recent 5.1 remix, so I cannot comment on that. Looks like we are trying to compare apples with oranges. I would love to find that Blu-ray 5.1 mix you are using as a comparison. I wasn't trying to stir up an argument or rehash an old discussion. It was merely an opinion and a listening observation.

That 2003 SACD is the Guthrie mix. It was completely remixed, from the source multi-tracks. Any similarity to the original 4.0 mix is just incidental. It stands to reason that some similar decisions would be made. The 2003 mix is also included on the Bluray. So is Parsons's original 4.0 mix, in LPCM, so you can hear what it was really meant to sound like - fully discrete. That ought to provide you the best comparison to the LP.
 
That 2003 SACD is the Guthrie mix. It was completely remixed, from the source multi-tracks. Any similarity to the original 4.0 mix is just incidental. It stands to reason that some similar decisions would be made. The 2003 mix is also included on the Bluray. So is Parsons's original 4.0 mix, in LPCM, so you can hear what it was really meant to sound like - fully discrete. That ought to provide you the best comparison to the LP.
I will have to defer to your expertise. As I said it was a quick comparison, and I will revisit the comparison when time permits. In the meantime I'll try and find a Bluray copy. As usual, QQ members are very knowledgeable and I am constantly learning new tidbits. I thank-you for your insightful posts.
 
I will have to defer to your expertise. As I said it was a quick comparison, and I will revisit the comparison when time permits. In the meantime I'll try and find a Bluray copy. As usual, QQ members are very knowledgeable and I am constantly learning new tidbits. I thank-you for your insightful posts.
Found One!
 
Finally found some time to finish authoring the disc for round 2 of the SQ shoot-out. I've posted a link over at my youtube channel, so head on over there, and subscribe while you're at it if you haven't already, for the latest post where you can find the link for the materials.

https://www.youtube.com/c/TheQuadcast

Since these materials are for review purposes, I'm claiming fair use.
 
Round 2 of the SQ shoot out is being withdrawn and delayed. I forgot to specify that the software decode is OD's Phoenix decoding process. However, he's also notified me that he has now developed a new process, Phoenix plus, so I'm sending files over for a new decoding. Will post a new link when that's ready.
 
Does anyone have the means to encode Discrete Quad source material (Open Reel or CD-4) using the original 1971 CBS SQ encoding equations (IIRC, some on this forum have access to or knowledge about software based SQ encoders)?

This would seem to be the ultimate test of SQ (logic) decoders, comparing decoding to the original Discrete source (with "Lt" and "Rt" level matched).

Kirk Bayne
 
Does anyone have the means to encode Discrete Quad source material (Open Reel or CD-4) using the original 1971 CBS SQ encoding equations (IIRC, some on this forum have access to or knowledge about software based SQ encoders)?

This would seem to be the ultimate test of SQ (logic) decoders, comparing decoding to the original Discrete source (with "Lt" and "Rt" level matched).

Kirk Bayne

I found this neat java app awhile back that will encode to a few quad matrices (SQ, QS, EV4, DY) and it does seem to work, buts it's likely not quite the same as the original hardware encoders used by CBS. Some Sansui QS encoders have popped up on eBay but I've never seen an SQ one.
 
I found this neat java app awhile back that will encode to a few quad matrices (SQ, QS, EV4, DY) and it does seem to work, buts it's likely not quite the same as the original hardware encoders used by CBS. Some Sansui QS encoders have popped up on eBay but I've never seen an SQ one.

Hi. sjcorne

I had that java software, it had big potential but I found out that he based his software equation on a striped down SQ & QS matrix formula thinking that it was correct that it was from a reputable website so its full potential to decode matrix files was lost.
I believe that he aloud his soft ware to be open source so if some one how could re right this software with the full matrix formula it could be very interesting ???
Bill..
 
Hi. sjcorne

I had that java software, it had big potential but I found out that he based his software equation on a striped down SQ & QS matrix formula thinking that it was correct that it was from a reputable website so its full potential to decode matrix files was lost.
I believe that he aloud his soft ware to be open source so if some one how could re right this software with the full matrix formula it could be very interesting ???
Bill..

Interesting...I remember using the QS encode to make files to play through my old Acura's PLII decoder (until I found the dedicated eac3to pro logic encoder) and the effect was quite impressive. I played around with it a lot...Was always curious how the DSOTM QS LP sounded so I just ran the files from the discrete blu ray release through the program. I remember it sounded pretty good but if the matrix equation was flawed as you say I guess it wasn't entirely correct.
 
That 2003 SACD is the Guthrie mix. It was completely remixed, from the source multi-tracks. Any similarity to the original 4.0 mix is just incidental. It stands to reason that some similar decisions would be made. The 2003 mix is also included on the Bluray. So is Parsons's original 4.0 mix, in LPCM, so you can hear what it was really meant to sound like - fully discrete. That ought to provide you the best comparison to the LP.
I received the DSOTM Immersion package and I did comparisons, all of it very interesting and informative. You are totally correct about the 4.0 and 5.1 mixes, totally different. Personally I prefer the 4.0 mix which is a more aggressive multi-channel mix. The 5.1 mix is much more homogenized. Put another way, if I wanted to show off quad I'd use the 4.0 mix. If I wanted to show off better fidelity and dynamic range the 5.1 mix would be my choice. This has been a great educational experience and I again thank-you for your input. Also, the LP holds up quite well when compared to the 4.0 mix using the surround master. I'm so glad I found the Surround Master, it has brought to life the 3 to 4 hundred quad LP's I have that will more than likely not become available in discreet format.
 
Back
Top