hardware & software decoding comparison

[jrborg]

Hello all,
I've been doing a lot of research on all the SQ and QS threads relating to Adobe Audition decoding. The idea intrigues me because it's high-techey and sexy. Then last night some sanity invaded my brain and the thought occurred: How does the software decoding compare with hardware decoding? Which one sounds better?
Could some of you who have both methods give us your opinion on how they sound in comparison to each other when processing the same material?
For reference, please include your hardware decoder model, the Adobe Audition version (1.5/2/3) and the script used.
I've collected some hardware and have AA2.0, so the survey results will influence which way I proceed in getting into quad.
Thanks
Joe

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Ideally, it would be great to have on one disc a TATE decoding (the gold standard for SQ decoding boxes), the best Script decoding and the raw SQ Stereo files uncleaned, so that all three streams could be played. At this point, as it is understood, SQ and QS cannot be 100% decoded. It would be great to find out what the DB of separation is with the scripts. In addition, different scripts by different writers can give better results for a record depending on many factors with the original source.

Lou Dorren’s explanation about SQ / QS is an interesting place to start:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showpost.php?p=73501&postcount=291