Contentious SQ vs QS vinyl

[Oldvalvemic]

Hi all A mate of mine in the US recently sent me the Percy Faith Black magic Woman SQ album which I dutifully played and enjoyed but straight after played The Harry Roche Constellations album Sometimes on QS encode. Now I know we have to compare apples with apples but I realised that I consistently enjoy QS recordings far more than SQ. SQ recordings generally sound like they are way more phasey and disparate ..the solidity of the audio especially in the central image is never nearly as strong as in QS recordings in general. Most of the classic CBS/Columbia SQ albums (green gold surround Quadraphonic ) are fairly lo fi to me. Pye, Command,ABC,Project 3 all seem to have a punch and clarity and separation that always moves me listening in QS. ( it maybe that Enoch Light was indeed light years ahead of anyone ever though)
There are a few exceptions to the bunch but mainly these are more avantgarde albums in SQ.(Subotnick and Carlos)
Where do people stand on fidelity generally of these 2 formats. Is it the encoding or the engineering I’d like to be proved wrong and would love to take a poll on peoples favourite recordings for their engineering quality and performances in both formats.
Apologies in advance if this has been hacked to pieces already

 

[par4ken]

Hi all A mate of mine in the US recently sent me the Percy Faith Black magic Woman SQ album which I dutifully played and enjoyed but straight after played The Harry Roche Constellations album Sometimes on QS encode. Now I know we have to compare apples with apples but I realised that I consistently enjoy QS recordings far more than SQ. SQ recordings generally sound like they are way more phasey and disparate ..the solidity of the audio especially in the central image is never nearly as strong as in QS recordings in general. Most of the classic CBS/Columbia SQ albums (green gold surround Quadraphonic ) are fairly lo fi to me. Pye, Command,ABC,Project 3 all seem to have a punch and clarity and separation that always moves me listening in QS. ( it maybe that Enoch Light was indeed light years ahead of anyone ever though)
There are a few exceptions to the bunch but mainly these are more avantgarde albums in SQ.(Subotnick and Carlos)
Where do people stand on fidelity generally of these 2 formats. Is it the encoding or the engineering I’d like to be proved wrong and would love to take a poll on peoples favourite recordings for their engineering quality and performances in both formats.
Apologies in advance if this has been hacked to pieces already

I know that some people would agree with you but I have always been an SQ supporter! IMHO there is nothing wrong with the sound of SQ LP's, especially those from CBS. Yes, they can have a phasy (foggy) sound quality. You may find that objectionable, but I find that it actually enhances the sound quality (depending on the music itself). To me SQ releases from Edgar/Johnny Winter, Rick Derringer, Santana and Aerosmith all sound far better than their stereo counterparts! To get the best decode from SQ you need a Tate decoder!

On the other hand QS records generally suffer from a narrower soundstage. The LP's from ABC Command do not do it for me even when decoded by Sansui QSD-1 or Involve. Also while the (Canadian) stereo pressings sound great the (US) manufactured quads are rather noisy by comparison. The soundstage is narrow in comparison with the stereo versions.

On the other hand Carole King "Music" is the best sounding QS recording that I have listened to, perhaps the best sounding matrix encoded record ever. It even sounds good decoded by a basic (non logic/Tate) SQ decoder.

 

[Oldvalvemic]

Thank you for your reply…I’m not sure I’d use the term objectionable but perhaps not as solid in imaging as I have experienced in other formats. I think by your description of listening to the Command recordings we might be looking for different things in our listening pleasure as I find them to be very solid and wide. This may of course reflect on The SMv3 Im using but when I used an older JVC amp I had the same experience moving from SQ and QS recordings. I will explore the QS Carole King album you suggest.

Any further recommendations of superlative examples of QS and SQ gratefully received

 

[Doug G.]

I know that some people would agree with you but I have always been an SQ supporter! IMHO there is nothing wrong with the sound of SQ LP's, especially those from CBS. Yes, they can have a phasy (foggy) sound quality. You may find that objectionable, but I find that it actually enhances the sound quality (depending on the music itself). To me SQ releases from Edgar/Johnny Winter, Rick Derringer, Santana and Aerosmith all sound far better than their stereo counterparts! To get the best decode from SQ you need a Tate decoder!

On the other hand QS records generally suffer from a narrower soundstage. The LP's from ABC Command do not do it for me even when decoded by Sansui QSD-1 or Involve. Also while the (Canadian) stereo pressings sound great the (US) manufactured quads are rather noisy by comparison. The soundstage is narrow in comparison with the stereo versions.

On the other hand Carole King "Music" is the best sounding QS recording that I have listened to, perhaps the best sounding matrix encoded record ever. It even sounds good decoded by a basic (non logic/Tate) SQ decoder.

I agree. I just could never get used to the narrow presentation of QS. "Music" may be the lone exception.

Doug

 

[par4ken]

SQ is capable of the exact same imaging that you get from a regular stereo disc, however most CBS quads are four corner mixes (plus centre front) featuring exaggerated separation designed to optimise decoding. There is not often a lot mixed in upfront between the speakers. SQ is really just stereo with rear channels mixed in using +- 90° phase differences.

According to the theory put forth by Ben Bauer of CBS left back will image left of centre and right back right of centre. It has since been shown that that placement is backward. A bit of a moot point as using phase to encode position produces rather vague results.

With QS the back channels are supposed to image outside the speakers. In theory at least that should produce a wider sounding stereo image. In practice I find most QS mixes sound rather narrow in stereo playback.

 

[MidiMagic]

Are we talking the width of the image in stereo, or when played with the proper decoder?

The QS image will of the front stage WILL seem narrow without the decoder, but not when properly decoded.

I myself prefer QS because any ambience in a classical recording is separated from the front by at least 8.3 dB, while in SQ the separation is only 3 dB.

Columbia and SQ had the advantage of more and better artists. QS was mostly made overseas.

QS is a lot easier to decode without the prescribed decoder.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Are we talking the width of the image in stereo, or when played with the proper decoder?

The QS image will of the front stage WILL seem narrow without the decoder, but not when properly decoded.

I myself prefer QS because any ambience in a classical recording is separated from the front by at least 8.3 dB, while in SQ the separation is only 3 dB.

Columbia and SQ had the advantage of more and better artists. QS was mostly made overseas.

QS is a lot easier to decode without the prescribed decoder.

Good one, Midi. I must agree.

 

[par4ken]

CBS did have an amazing stable of artists but back in the day more of my favourites were actually on ABC/Dunhill. Artists like Steppenwolf/John Kay, Three Dog Night, James Gang/Joe Walsh, Grass Roots, B.B. King, Smith/Gayle McCormick, Tommy Roe, Jim Croce, Hamilton Joe Frank and Reynolds, Steely Dan. Most but not all of those artists had quad releases.

I think that ABC chose QS simply because it was the cheapest option at the time. Apparently no royalties if the record made no mention of QS nor carried the QS logo. I find that situation very strange indeed, you would think that Sansui would want and insist that the QS logo be prominently displayed!

SQ doesn't decode well via QS or Dyna but QS sounds very nice decoded via (non-logic) SQ! That is how I listened to QS for many, many years.

I'm more a fan of "in the middle of the band" type recordings rather than ambient recordings but ambience can often be extracted from live stereo recordings very effectively, QS/surround/hall decoding is good for that.

I fully agree with the choice that the designers of SQ made in maximising left to right separation. With ears on the side of our heads that parameter is far more important. Less front to back separation should actually help to reduce or prevent the so called "cogging" effect. I personally have never found "cogging" to be a problem or to be objectionable. Even Electro-voice and Dyna kept the left to right frontal separation much wider than did QS/RM.

 

[jaybird100]

Are we talking the width of the image in stereo, or when played with the proper decoder?

The QS image will of the front stage WILL seem narrow without the decoder, but not when properly decoded.

I myself prefer QS because any ambience in a classical recording is separated from the front by at least 8.3 dB, while in SQ the separation is only 3 dB.

Columbia and SQ had the advantage of more and better artists. QS was mostly made overseas.

QS is a lot easier to decode without the prescribed decoder.

I concur. Listening to QS recordings, especially with the Surround Master, results in separation that's virtually impossible to tell from the discrete version. I've encoded some CD's, made from SACD's, into QS, and when played back through the SM, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference. As for QS narrowing the front image, that's true. However, the rear channels tend to image beyond the stereo speakers, when the recording is played without decoding. I think that makes up for the narrower front image.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

I used to encode both discrete to QS(RM) and SQ .
Lot's of fun fwiw , but my preference was still SQ .
Well when you have a TATE ,...it just makes sense.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

I used to encode both discrete to QS(RM) and SQ .
Lot's of fun fwiw , but my preference was still SQ .
Well when you have a TATE ,...it just makes sense.

What was your decoder for QS (RM) when you made this evaluation?

 

[fizzywiggs41]

What was your decoder for QS (RM) when you made this evaluation?

Sansui QSD-2

 

[jaybird100]

I used to encode both discrete to QS(RM) and SQ .
Lot's of fun fwiw , but my preference was still SQ .
Well when you have a TATE ,...it just makes sense.

Some people like Ford, some like Chevrolet...

 

[jaybird100]

I used to encode both discrete to QS(RM) and SQ .
Lot's of fun fwiw , but my preference was still SQ .
Well when you have a TATE ,...it just makes sense.

What was your QS encoder?

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Some people like Ford, some like Chevrolet...

I like both QS and SQ .(and Ford and Chevy , and Honda)

What was your QS encoder?

An exclusive "Kenneth Parsons" Regular Matrix Encoder , and the same incredible audio component make, for my SQ Encoder.

 

[jaybird100]

I like both QS and SQ .(and Ford and Chevy , and Honda)


An exclusive "Kenneth Parsons" Regular Matrix Encoder , and the same incredible audio component make, for my SQ Encoder.

I drive a Honda! I wish it had surround sound!

 

[par4ken]

I drive a Honda! I wish it had surround sound!

The problem with most modern vehicles is that unless they were designed for surround sound the speakers aren't placed properly. Most of the time the rear speakers are in the bottom of the back doors, they provide stereo to the rear seated listeners. You can't hear them properly in the front, just a bit of muffled bass. The old cars with the rear deck mounted speakers were great!

If you can get around the placement problem, you could run something like a Gavotte or a Rocktron (CSA12) Circle Surround decoder. They are still possible to find for sale on eBay if you are patient and look hard enough. You could also use an Involve decoder.

I have a Sony MEX DV2000 deck that I was using in my Dodge Caravan. It worked well there. I'm now using it in My Ford F-150. That deck has Dolby PLII built in but I have no use for it. Instead I run a Rockton Decoder to enhance/decode 2 channel sources. The MEX will play multi-channel SACDs as well as DTS CDs. I don't keep SACD's in any vehicle but do play burned DTS-CD or regular CD copies.

I was running the Rockton in my old Nissan Pathfinder, for that I built a couple of 6x9 speaker cabinets tall enough to get the rear speakers to clear the back seat, The factory front and back speakers ran on the front channels. That set-up worked well.