In 1979 I was using a Sansui Variomatrix QRX3000 for synthesizing stereo sources, a JVC CD-4 demodulator for Quadradiscs and an Akai 1730 four channel reel for 2 and 4ch tapes. One afternoon I was playing Carly Simon’s CD-4 “No Secrets” when a truly revolutionary piece of equipment arrived at my door; the Fosgate Tate II 101A surround processor. I immediately put it into my system and used “No Secrets” to test it out, but became confused when I literally could not distinguish between the signal from the Tate and the demodulator. The Tate was in fact decoding the CD-4 mix perfectly. You could not walk out of the room and walk back in and say with confidence that you were listening to the demodulator output. This was amazing and for me Fosgate had just become the road to the future.
When I discovered QuadraphonicQuad, about three years ago, the very first thing that hit me was the Sansui veneration! The Tate had its special place, and rightly so, but the processors that had been the heart of my system for over twenty years, the Fosgate Scheiber DSM3602 and 3610 were nowhere to be found. As I read the posts I quickly found the level of discourse very high and for someone who considered himself pretty savvy about MC, I was frankly stunned that my equipment was unknown to all but a very few and rejected by most of them. I had to scrounge up a quote from an old Yahoo post from none other than QuadBod who made a passing comment indicating that my stuff was “...as discreet as the Tate..”; but this didn’t change my apparent ignorance about the Variomatrix which appeared, according to some very bright people at QQ, to be the best 2-4 circuit extant. I tried to find a Type A VM to listen to but to no avail, and I didn’t have the cash to buy anything three years ago. Things change.
Through the very good graces of Mr. Cai Campbell, I was finally able to obtain a Sansui QSD-1 synthesizer in pristine condition. Thank you Cai. After extensive listening I finally understood the preference for the Variomatrix on QQ. Although my Tate and my Fosgate-Scheiber DSM 3602 and 3610 were as discreet as the QSD-1, the pictures they created were not as big or as complete. The Tate was as discreet but there is this sense that that whole image quickly collapse to a speaker and then opens up again, in other words the total space is not constantly maintained. I mean this to be a very minor criticism. The two 3600’s threw out smaller bits that were utterly clear in their space, but these pieces couldn’t compare to the entire mural being painted by the QSD-1; but….and this is a big but…….. that QSD mural was ever so slightly blurred. Complex orchestral music sounded congested through the QSD-1 and this was difficult for me to take for long periods. After a week of listening, I still preferred my 3602 and 3610 which were as discreet in most ways and perfectly clear.
I shot an email to QuadBob, introduced myself and explained my observations. Bob chuckled and assured me that his restoration would take care of my concerns. Well, within a few weeks I was on my way to his Quad Shack to deliver my QSD-1 for the QuadBob surgery; by the way, that is a day I will always remember. I can only say that we multi-channel lovers need to be in the company of like minded folk once in a while. Cyber space isn’t by itself sufficient. After about seven hours of talk and a lovely dinner I set out on my three hour drive north without my 32 year old QSD-1 baby. Jump to the present……..
I was prepared for an improvement, but this was almost beyond belief. At 59 I’ve had a lot of audio mods, and most are of the pleasant or subtle variety. The result of the QuadBob mod is not subtle. It is remarkable. I exclaimed an unplanned “Oh my God” within three seconds of my first listen. There was astounding clarity and delicacy, like shards of white ice against velvet black, and separation that actually did seem infinite. In short, the improvement went beyond what was promised and unlike anything I had ever heard. I will not forget it. How many times in your audio experience can you say you got more than you expected or paid for? I simply don’t know how I missed this piece of equipment 30 years ago, but I did and I’m damn lucky QuadraphonicQuad is here to educate me today…..and lucky that there’s a QuadBob who knows how to protect and exact 100% from these very precious electronic wonders .......... and lucky that there are so many informed and erudite members to save me from audio ignorance.
I would like to finish by addressing two issues. First, the Fosgate-Scheiber 3602 and 3610, my reference units for over twenty years, sell for under $70 on ebay and both will get into those back corners better than any other Fosgate or DLPII implementation I have heard; and I have owned or still own every generation of Fosgate ever made, not to mention various Aphex, and Lexicon models.. If you cannot afford an updated Type A Variomatrix or a Tate, and you are looking for synthesis only, i.e. not for SQ or QS decoding, than you would be well served by these units. Remember that although they are seven channel processors, the power of their circuit is relegated to the front and side outputs. Ignore the rears which are there for Dolby licensing purposes. Compared to the Tate they are a step up in definition while maintaining fantastic separation and space. Second and finally, during my day with QuadBob, I had a chance to confirm my Tate vs CD-4 recollections. I asked QBob to play a Cd-4 through his demodulator and then switch it through his Tate. He did and it was as I recalled, the image did not change. The Tate, in the surround position, does appear to do a very credible job of recreating the actual CD-4 surround mix. I’m an old dog who’s had the pleasure of experiencing a few new tricks! Feels pretty good!
Thanks to everyone at QQ.
Dwight
.
When I discovered QuadraphonicQuad, about three years ago, the very first thing that hit me was the Sansui veneration! The Tate had its special place, and rightly so, but the processors that had been the heart of my system for over twenty years, the Fosgate Scheiber DSM3602 and 3610 were nowhere to be found. As I read the posts I quickly found the level of discourse very high and for someone who considered himself pretty savvy about MC, I was frankly stunned that my equipment was unknown to all but a very few and rejected by most of them. I had to scrounge up a quote from an old Yahoo post from none other than QuadBod who made a passing comment indicating that my stuff was “...as discreet as the Tate..”; but this didn’t change my apparent ignorance about the Variomatrix which appeared, according to some very bright people at QQ, to be the best 2-4 circuit extant. I tried to find a Type A VM to listen to but to no avail, and I didn’t have the cash to buy anything three years ago. Things change.
Through the very good graces of Mr. Cai Campbell, I was finally able to obtain a Sansui QSD-1 synthesizer in pristine condition. Thank you Cai. After extensive listening I finally understood the preference for the Variomatrix on QQ. Although my Tate and my Fosgate-Scheiber DSM 3602 and 3610 were as discreet as the QSD-1, the pictures they created were not as big or as complete. The Tate was as discreet but there is this sense that that whole image quickly collapse to a speaker and then opens up again, in other words the total space is not constantly maintained. I mean this to be a very minor criticism. The two 3600’s threw out smaller bits that were utterly clear in their space, but these pieces couldn’t compare to the entire mural being painted by the QSD-1; but….and this is a big but…….. that QSD mural was ever so slightly blurred. Complex orchestral music sounded congested through the QSD-1 and this was difficult for me to take for long periods. After a week of listening, I still preferred my 3602 and 3610 which were as discreet in most ways and perfectly clear.
I shot an email to QuadBob, introduced myself and explained my observations. Bob chuckled and assured me that his restoration would take care of my concerns. Well, within a few weeks I was on my way to his Quad Shack to deliver my QSD-1 for the QuadBob surgery; by the way, that is a day I will always remember. I can only say that we multi-channel lovers need to be in the company of like minded folk once in a while. Cyber space isn’t by itself sufficient. After about seven hours of talk and a lovely dinner I set out on my three hour drive north without my 32 year old QSD-1 baby. Jump to the present……..
I was prepared for an improvement, but this was almost beyond belief. At 59 I’ve had a lot of audio mods, and most are of the pleasant or subtle variety. The result of the QuadBob mod is not subtle. It is remarkable. I exclaimed an unplanned “Oh my God” within three seconds of my first listen. There was astounding clarity and delicacy, like shards of white ice against velvet black, and separation that actually did seem infinite. In short, the improvement went beyond what was promised and unlike anything I had ever heard. I will not forget it. How many times in your audio experience can you say you got more than you expected or paid for? I simply don’t know how I missed this piece of equipment 30 years ago, but I did and I’m damn lucky QuadraphonicQuad is here to educate me today…..and lucky that there’s a QuadBob who knows how to protect and exact 100% from these very precious electronic wonders .......... and lucky that there are so many informed and erudite members to save me from audio ignorance.
I would like to finish by addressing two issues. First, the Fosgate-Scheiber 3602 and 3610, my reference units for over twenty years, sell for under $70 on ebay and both will get into those back corners better than any other Fosgate or DLPII implementation I have heard; and I have owned or still own every generation of Fosgate ever made, not to mention various Aphex, and Lexicon models.. If you cannot afford an updated Type A Variomatrix or a Tate, and you are looking for synthesis only, i.e. not for SQ or QS decoding, than you would be well served by these units. Remember that although they are seven channel processors, the power of their circuit is relegated to the front and side outputs. Ignore the rears which are there for Dolby licensing purposes. Compared to the Tate they are a step up in definition while maintaining fantastic separation and space. Second and finally, during my day with QuadBob, I had a chance to confirm my Tate vs CD-4 recollections. I asked QBob to play a Cd-4 through his demodulator and then switch it through his Tate. He did and it was as I recalled, the image did not change. The Tate, in the surround position, does appear to do a very credible job of recreating the actual CD-4 surround mix. I’m an old dog who’s had the pleasure of experiencing a few new tricks! Feels pretty good!
Thanks to everyone at QQ.
Dwight
.
