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.
Hi Wunlow and Rustyandi

I did the comparison between the Fosgate and the SM at Rustyandi man cave. I did not pick audibly much different in terms of separation but the differences were in clarity and image where for me and one other in my group we found it was obvious. Please note that I am ultra critical on image precision being an electrostatic nutter for 22 years. Rustyandi could not audibly pick the difference.

Rustyandi...................Please clarify your comment "I have and a couple of my friends there verdict was
one thought it was better the other nearly as good as the Audionics
Also Look up Tad Bartell on his verdict the SQ vinyl Decoding" as I am too stupid to understand it.

Regards

Chucky

I am still interested in others opinions if they have done comparisons between the Audionics, Fosgate and even the QSD-1. Chucky, more of your insights would be greatly appreciated, even if biased.

I started in this quad game in the early 70's. I think my first unit was an EV-4 decoder and rear amplifier. Very disappointing. Then the early SQ decoders same thing. Then Lafayette(sp?) came out with the LR-4000 receiver which had SQ full logic decoder built in. I went to the Lafayette store and they demoed the unit with the Chase song with trumpet going around the room. I bought that then and there.

For those of you old enough to remember, Bose actually made some real Hi-Fi components. So when I could afford to upgrade to separates, I got the Bose 4401 Quad pre-amp (they also came out with the 1801 250 W stereo power amp). They promised to come out with an SQ full logic plug-in module and a CD-4 module for the preamp. That was their main selling point, it was modular and could be upgraded as the technology progressed. When I bought the preamp the modules weren't yet available. First the SQ unit came out then followed in a couple of months the CD-4 module. I couldn't afford the Bose power amps, so I opted for 2 Phase Linear 400's. I lived with that system for many years upgrading speakers when I could. I added a QSD-1. By the late seventies Audionics of Oregon came out with the Space and Image Composer Tate unit. I got it even though Quad was dyeing. Simply amazing unit for both SQ and synthesis. At the time I liked it better than the QSD-1, it just had better separation and SQ was the dominant format in the U.S. Audioncs later came out with the Tate ll upgrade, which I also had done. I also later acquired a Fosgate Tate ll.

As home video and Dolby started to come into vogue my equipment started to change but having a quad system I was ahead of the game. So my old Quad decoders and preamp went into storage and I started on the Dolby and DTS band wagon. Jumping way ahead to about a year ago I wanted to start listening to my quad lp's (I never really stopped listening to lp's, I have too many and have been collecting since the late 50's). My quad lp's which I had kind of ignored for so long were begging me to see what multi-channel magic they contained . I thought my Fosgate ll, Audioncs and QSD-1 would need some kind of servicing (cap replacements at least) and the thought of daisy chaining all that stuff together and finding rack space would be a chore. Also, finding someone competent to do the restoration work would probably be impossible.

Luckily, I came across a thread discussing the SM, I couldn't believe it. A modern day SQ and QS decoder in one unit. I read every forum and thread I could find to learn more about the unit. I guess it's been 3 or 4 months since my purchase. I couldn't be happier with this purchase. I'm sure it's price (I didn't know of the qq discount)was still less than the repair bill would have been to have my old units restored. Actually, they have been well stored and may work, I'm just too cautious to turn them on for fear of causing a failure.

One other point of interest (I wouldn't be surprised if you guys don't already know this). My current pre-processor has the latest Dolby and dts codecs,i.e., Dolby Atmos and dts:X and by extension their up mixers (surround synthesizers). By accident I played a QS encoded lp which was a test record with channel id. The Dolby up mixer surprised me by being nearly perfect on the channel id's. It wasn't as accurate as the SM but was close. Same with the dts up mixer only it had a definite front channel pull to the center. I preferred the Dolby over the dts and the SM well above them both. I do like the up mixers for classical and jazz the SM is also a great synthezer and more often than not puts both those up mixers to shame on much material.

So if you have a newer pre-processor with those codecs and if you have any QS encoded lp's or files and haven't bought the SM (you should) they will get you by until you can get the real thing.
 
Tomorrow, 7/22/17, at 8pm EST, I'll be covering the results of this portion of the shoot out on a live youtube stream.

The channel link is https://www.youtube.com/c/TheQuadcast

This time around I've recruited Dune from the Dune and Bob show (https://www.youtube.com/user/dunejmpr) to assist me as a co-host.

Also, I'll be revisiting the topic of EV4. I have 2 vintage EV4 decoders arriving today to play around with.

And of course, moving on to the next portion of the shoot-out - hardware decoding vs. software decoding.

And any other quad discussion that may come up. Remember - participation is encouraged.
 
Just tried to log in to the Involve website. Can't get there from here. Please tell me their server is down or they have a new web address. I truly hope they're not out-of-business.
 
Hi All

I would like to thank Army of Quad for all the work he has done on this. I am really unsure if we gave him the vinyl version or the accurate script version. There are differences as the vinyl will produce better results for records.

RustyandI rang me up about this test and informed me in no uncertain terms that for us surround folk its all about separation separation and then separation. I do understand this desire but it certainly was not the main parameter that guided our design. I am in no way criticising army of quad in his test methodology and I do not want to start an arguement but we did not and do not listen to one channel in isolation from the others, instead we listen to the whole surround effect as it was intended to be presented...with 4 or 5 speakers(I really hate the center).

Below I have the actual separation test results (cannot remember exactly - I think it was for the pure non vinyl edition) as you can see we do not achieve the "magical" 40 db figure often held as the holy grail, I think the Tate does in some directions. This was a deliberate design choice as in our book the minimisation of sonic artefacts such as pumping, image shift and image smear is way more important than a pissing contest of db separation. In addition we also need to consider that our unit is a full tri band decoder (I think the Tate was mono band- please correct me if I am wrong)/

In my completely non biased manner I compared the Tate to our unit at RustyandI man cave and I found the real difference was better imaging and detail on the Involve unit less "mud". I found I could pick this immediately. Please note we were using 4 speakers at once!

Now to the issue of db separation, I am now going to be really controversial and let you guys in on one of our innermost design bits of knowledge!

How many db separation can the human head detect on music with 2 speakers (in quad it is less!). Well guys we actually conducted such tests a few years ago on some test monkeys in our factory. I suppose back in the days of cartridges the magic number was 20 db (yet really good cartridges did way less than that), then came the cassette and we managed to get around 60 db and finally we have the wretched CD that gave us a magic 100db. Well guys - who can say they hear the improved separation of CD'S vs Vinyl ON MUSIC CONTENT - NOT SINE WAVES??

Well the results of our tests was.........................12 db!!

No one in our test group could discern signal leakage above this number. The result initially surprised me but later I realised it tied in with a few other secrets we discovered (not telling you bastards!).

We can on request "fix up" the SQ version to give any separation you want but the result is sonic artefacts and that gives you a headache after a short period of time. We resisted the urge for numbers and let our ears guide us.

True lies

Chucky
 

Attachments

  • SQ Test Tones results.jpg
    SQ Test Tones results.jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 262
I do believe that I have the vinyl edition of the Surround Master. I am curious how the first one compares with the vinyl, but with the majority of SQ material being on vinyl (as far as I know), that seems the most relevant version.


I do realize that my episode focused primarily on separation, as that's what is easiest to hear and present when demonstrating these things, especially in a format in which I only have 2 channels of audio to present. But the votes in the shoot out were (I hope) based on listening in the sweet spot to the entire presentation, not based on isolated channels to purely compare separation. My instructions were rather clear to vote purely based on listening in the sweet spot, and that if one were going to isolate channels to compare separation, that be done so after deciding the preferred mix. It was with these instructions that the Tate did still come in the lead.

However, coming in 2nd to the Tate is not a bad place to be. The Tate isn't exactly something you can easily buy, and even so, the older they get, the higher the risk that the irreplaceable chips are going to burn out. As I mentioned in the episode, my Tate has been in the shop for 10 years, trying to get all the parts together to fix it up. Also, when isolating the channels as I did in the episode, you can clearly here the pumping that the Tate is known for. The Involve doesn't have that. So while the Tate did have more votes, I think the votes were rather close, one of the participants called it a tie on all examples, and it was a rather small sampling with 5 participants.


I realize you designed this with the best compromise in mind, and not to just hit high numbers in separation. But it does seem that the vocal leakage into the rear continues to be something of a noticeable "flaw" that has been spoken of by a few people in threads, and noticed in the shoot-out. I do love that the Surround Master doesn't have the Tate's flaw of pumping....I feel like it's almost there, if the front center leakage could be tweaked a little to be more comparable to the Tate in that one aspect, without adding further artifacts, I think that would be a clear winner.
 
Hi Again

I note that in your tests the participants know which unit is the tate and which is the Involve. This is an issue as in all our A/B testing it was blind so no preconceptions can occur. Still it comes down to what you are used to and how sensitive you are to pumping and image issues. As mentioned in a full surround setup I found very clear difference between the 2 units but actually RustyandI could not tell the difference. Please note that I have always used electrostatic loudspeakers all round (the Nakamichi Dragons that I designed) and as such I am hypersensitive to image and clarity as is Ohverture the co designer.

More regards and thanks

Chucky

I do believe that I have the vinyl edition of the Surround Master. I am curious how the first one compares with the vinyl, but with the majority of SQ material being on vinyl (as far as I know), that seems the most relevant version.


I do realize that my episode focused primarily on separation, as that's what is easiest to hear and present when demonstrating these things, especially in a format in which I only have 2 channels of audio to present. But the votes in the shoot out were (I hope) based on listening in the sweet spot to the entire presentation, not based on isolated channels to purely compare separation. My instructions were rather clear to vote purely based on listening in the sweet spot, and that if one were going to isolate channels to compare separation, that be done so after deciding the preferred mix. It was with these instructions that the Tate did still come in the lead.

However, coming in 2nd to the Tate is not a bad place to be. The Tate isn't exactly something you can easily buy, and even so, the older they get, the higher the risk that the irreplaceable chips are going to burn out. As I mentioned in the episode, my Tate has been in the shop for 10 years, trying to get all the parts together to fix it up. Also, when isolating the channels as I did in the episode, you can clearly here the pumping that the Tate is known for. The Involve doesn't have that. So while the Tate did have more votes, I think the votes were rather close, one of the participants called it a tie on all examples, and it was a rather small sampling with 5 participants.


I realize you designed this with the best compromise in mind, and not to just hit high numbers in separation. But it does seem that the vocal leakage into the rear continues to be something of a noticeable "flaw" that has been spoken of by a few people in threads, and noticed in the shoot-out. I do love that the Surround Master doesn't have the Tate's flaw of pumping....I feel like it's almost there, if the front center leakage could be tweaked a little to be more comparable to the Tate in that one aspect, without adding further artifacts, I think that would be a clear winner.
 
In my test I randomly labeled the Involve and Tate as A and B with the use of a coin toss to determine in each case which would be which. The intent was for the test to be blind. However, in the notes I received it seems at least some participants recognized rear leakage in the SM and pumping in the Tate, and were able to rather easily determine which was the Tate and which was the Surround Master.

Certainly the test wasn't scientific, and being that it was conducted with participants that are familiar with these decoders, it would be fair to suggest there may be a bias towards better separation and the Tate. Although the votes went to the Tate in the shoot out, as far as reviewing the 2 units I don't think I'd consider one a winner, they're different. I certainly want to have both in my system. After all the shoot outs are over I plan on doing something of a more full review of the Involve.


I guess what I want to do is put my comment in the last post in the form of a question. Do you feel it would be possible to further tweak the SQ vinyl edition to have less front center bleedthrough in the rear to be more comparable to the Tate, without sacrificing other aspects of the sound that you have taken into consideration?



Hi Again

I note that in your tests the participants know which unit is the tate and which is the Involve. This is an issue as in all our A/B testing it was blind so no preconceptions can occur. Still it comes down to what you are used to and how sensitive you are to pumping and image issues. As mentioned in a full surround setup I found very clear difference between the 2 units but actually RustyandI could not tell the difference. Please note that I have always used electrostatic loudspeakers all round (the Nakamichi Dragons that I designed) and as such I am hypersensitive to image and clarity as is Ohverture the co designer.

More regards and thanks

Chucky
 
In my test I randomly labeled the Involve and Tate as A and B with the use of a coin toss to determine in each case which would be which. The intent was for the test to be blind. However, in the notes I received it seems at least some participants recognized rear leakage in the SM and pumping in the Tate, and were able to rather easily determine which was the Tate and which was the Surround Master.

Certainly the test wasn't scientific, and being that it was conducted with participants that are familiar with these decoders, it would be fair to suggest there may be a bias towards better separation and the Tate. Although the votes went to the Tate in the shoot out, as far as reviewing the 2 units I don't think I'd consider one a winner, they're different. I certainly want to have both in my system. After all the shoot outs are over I plan on doing something of a more full review of the Involve.


I guess what I want to do is put my comment in the last post in the form of a question. Do you feel it would be possible to further tweak the SQ vinyl edition to have less front center bleedthrough in the rear to be more comparable to the Tate, without sacrificing other aspects of the sound that you have taken into consideration?

this last point you raise would, for me, make the Surround Master pretty much unbeatable with SQ records even up against the Tate & software decoding methods.
I have tried summing the rears to mono on hundreds of SQ LP Surround Master decodes and many times the results are astonishing, with Centre Front elements (often lead vocals) that have bled to the rears wiped out. then compare it with the rear content in the discrete Q8 presentation of the same mix and whats in those mono summed rears comes remarkably close in many instances.
 
In my test I randomly labeled the Involve and Tate as A and B with the use of a coin toss to determine in each case which would be which. The intent was for the test to be blind. However, in the notes I received it seems at least some participants recognized rear leakage in the SM and pumping in the Tate, and were able to rather easily determine which was the Tate and which was the Surround Master.

Certainly the test wasn't scientific, and being that it was conducted with participants that are familiar with these decoders, it would be fair to suggest there may be a bias towards better separation and the Tate. Although the votes went to the Tate in the shoot out, as far as reviewing the 2 units I don't think I'd consider one a winner, they're different. I certainly want to have both in my system. After all the shoot outs are over I plan on doing something of a more full review of the Involve.


I guess what I want to do is put my comment in the last post in the form of a question. Do you feel it would be possible to further tweak the SQ vinyl edition to have less front center bleedthrough in the rear to be more comparable to the Tate, without sacrificing other aspects of the sound that you have taken into consideration?



Chucky?
 
You know?
I don't won a Tate nor an Involve SQ unit, the Tte because of the pumping and the Involve because I can't afford one, and its 20K cutoff also puts me off (please let me know if I'm wrong),
and we've all listened to A/B tests, and one thing is clear; SQ was probably invented for very simple soundwaves, but , when you combine a lot of instruments and go berserk with effects(in spite of all the "nono's" for SQ mixing).
SQ was flawed, but it came a close second place to QS....
 
Hi Reknick and kap n' Krunch

The SM is good to around 23 - 24 Khz last time I checked. When I was 12 year old I could hear out to 25 kHz, these days at the tender age of 59 (I don't look a day over 90) the best I can struggle is 14 kHz. The laws of Nyquist still apply.

Kap n' Krunch is correct in saying SQ has challenges, in essence you really only have 3 db of room to squeeze the surround info in, it may be OK for single tone or non simultaneous music (you know the ping pong effect stuff) but on real complexed stuff the result can be severe pumping.

We have had a bash at improving the front center to rear center issue but the net result is pumping and shitty sounds - basically it ceases to be musical.

Did talk to Ohverture about any chance of squeezing more numbers out of it and he was negative about it. I will review this again shortly. Meanwhile please remember that it has been conclusively proven that on multiple simultaneous sound sources the human ability to distinguish separation diminishes dramatically - its one of the basic principals that matrix surround is based on. In practicality it does not make matrix inferior to discrete from a real human perception point of view - from numbers YES. I understand this is controversial but all psychoacoustic studies have verified this.

Regards

Chucky
 
Back
Top