INVOLVE SQ - IS HERE

[chucky3042]

Ooops

Sorry forgot to mention- do not worry about the heat. We have never had a return for repair due to heat. Providing you do not put it in a blanket it should be fine. The signal processors in it are really very busy!

Regards
Chucky

 

[Urban Spaceman]

Despite some of the concerns I've been reading about here I am still excited about having ordered one of the SM SQ units today. I'd be very interested in how my turntable / cart performs with this. Cheers!
---------- Chris

 

[workmeistr]

Urban, beyond what it does for your SQ and QS listening pleasure, the Involve/QS setting enhances everything. I run my SACD/mp3 player through it with surprising results, and most stereo records are enhaced with solid natural results. This latter benefit is what ultimately convinced me to purchase. Everything I listen to goes through the SM in 4.0 glory.

 

[Urban Spaceman]

Urban, beyond what it does for your SQ and QS listening pleasure, the Involve/QS setting enhances everything. I run my SACD/mp3 player through it with surprising results, and most stereo records are enhaced with solid natural results. This latter benefit is what ultimately convinced me to purchase. Everything I listen to goes through the SM in 4.0 glory.

I've been puttering around with quad and surround stuff for about 10 years or so, but I haven't had much luck with QS titles so what you are describing sounds very interesting indeed! I'd tried messing with scripts via Adobe Audition which was fun yet not quite what I was hoping to hear. I also got ahold of an old Lafayette LR-5000 receiver (which is still my main amp), yet it never did QS very well and the SQ decoder would sum the rear channels to mono (though they would be separate from the fronts). I also never really experimented much with how regular stereo albums sounded through the decoders I've had so this all is new territory for me - and happily so! Cheers!
----------- Chris

 

[workmeistr]

You're in for some pleasant surprises. My only QS and SQ decoders were on my Pioneer 949, so my expectations for matrix was low, but the SM blows it away. Some of my favorite QS records are my Rufus records. Also start watching for an SQ copy of Billy Paul's War of the Gods. I listen to Side 1 once every couple of weeks. I've only been doing quad for a year, and now have about 175 SQ, QS, and CD-4 records. I still use my 949 for CD-4 demodulation, but it has developed some RF background noise, so I am watching the auction sites for demodulators. Let us know about your SM experience once you give it a spin. Cheers.

 

[willothewisp]

It's still confusing, how can one persons copy of an album differ so wildly from another persons, especially as there were probably not that many pressings done, and how can one person be so lucky to always have a correct copy.

i will wait for your findings

 

[chucky3042]

Hey workmeistr

I really like your avitar!!!

Regards

Chucky

 

[KevinD9052]

Chucky and all the guys- Congratulations on the successful response to the book shelve speaker systems while on your worldwide trip. Success here keeps your company alive world-wide. The fact that you guys took the time to design,build and market 2 versions of Surround Masters that matches or blows away the devices from the surround era is amazing and much appreciated by those of us still heavily involved with quad. You & the guys took time from your busy schedules to create these miracles of modern decoding. SOTA decoding that doesn't require constant maintenance due to age. A dream I never thought I would see. I love it! Now it is time to get back to the black, to your core services, and make & market excellent audio technology to the new audiophiles out there. This is your primary objective & we want you to succeed here. You can't help us if you aren't around anymore,can you? So I thank you all for all your work on quad and wish you all the best of luck and profit on your current audiophile ventures!

 

[workmeistr]

Kevin, I second that emotion. Great work, Chuck and David. I enjoy sharing my SM SQ quad experiences with all whom care to listen. Most are surprised that a company would take on such a project to decode decades-old media. I see it as audiophiles doing great things for audiophiles. I am greatly appreciative for Involve Audio for my listening enjoyment. I listen to the world through the Involve setting

 

[Urban Spaceman]

My Surround Master SQ edition unit arrived in the mail today. Wasted no time hooking it up and WOW! I have never heard either SQ or QS decoded so well. I knew what SQ was capable of, but for me QS was the shocker. And I have to mention I was spinning LPs in real time through the SM with no problems. I have a concert to go to tonight otherwise I'd be playing albums and marveling in this great product (which I plan to do henceforth). Gads - this thing is so awesome I feel like buying another just to keep as a backup in case the first one ever goes south on me. Involve Audio ROCKS!:brew
----------- Chris

 

[surroundophile]

Hi Stereophile

Sorry I have not got back to everone on our progress but I have just returned to Australia from visiting USA, Hong Kong and Singapore on a marketing expedition. The trip was cut short due to the overwhelming response we had on our new Y2 and Y4 consumer bookshelf systems- I have had to rush back to speed up our final production designs to meet the demands of our distributors.

What has this crap got to to with the SQ update software, I sense you are thinking? Truth is we have a small team of engineers who are somewhat overloaded and it is causing delays to start the SQ revision. Currently the R+ D madness is scheduled to end on 19 September and then full time will be dedicated to the SQ revision (there is a chance we could slot it into a quiet week but cannot guarantee).

Sorry about this but commercial pressures must take priority but I give my 100% word we will get the update done.



Chucky

Ok. So September and December has past. It's now January of the following year. Any updates yet? I'm tired of seeing my SM in my system gathering dust, as it doesnt decode SQ correctly. I can't play any SQ now. Maybe I should pull it, and put the Tate back in.
Regards

 

[chucky3042]

Hi Surroundophile

Hate to say it but we are still in Xmas holidays and will return tomorrow (rest of Australia starts up in a week time). We are still overloaded with Y4 system design updates but I assure you we will do the SQ "down grade" when the existing work is finished.

I say down grade as in reality the Surround Master is responding correctly "according to the book" to poorly recorded SQ recordings with phase and magnitude issues, just turns out that the Tates inaccuracy make it more tollerant of these errors. Most users have reported a preferance of our SM SQ to the Tate an I think 3 have prefered the Tate.

If you want to return the SM SQ in good order we will refund your money, alternatively the down grade option will be within a few months.

Regards

Chucky

 

[Bob Romano]

I have to say that I have had the SM for months and months and have played almost all my QS and SQ LP's through it. I have also compared the SM decodes with Tate decodes and find that the results are, more often than not, as good or better than the decodes from a Tate. They tend to have less pumping. The actual separation sounds, to my ears, to be just as good. I also have the older scripts from OxfordDickie. They work really well and I often test the same material with the scripts against the SM and then listen to those against the Tate. I have to say that I am pleased with the results of the SM. Also, the scripts tend to take hours to run where the SM is real time.

I guess everyone's perception is different but I don't really think I will "need" to have the updated version. Will I get the update? Probably. More just to compare the two versions. But I am really happy with the results of the SM.

 

[rustyandi]

What is the problem
When you say it does not decode correctly
Do you mean that the channels are not in the right sides
or sound is smeared
What tracks do you feel are bad so I can test them hear
Ron

 

[surroundophile]

What is the problem
When you say it does not decode correctly
Do you mean that the channels are not in the right sides
or sound is smeared
What tracks do you feel are bad so I can test them hear
Ron

Please read my (and others) earlier posts above.

 

[surroundophile]

Thanks.

I would never want to return it, as it is the best QS decoder I've ever heard (never heard VarioMatrix). Never knew QS was capable of such discreet decoding!


But if all SQ records were encoded incorrcetly (and everyone I've tried decodes the front wrong with this unit, not just the test records) what good is the SQ decoder, as there were only a handful for SQ CDs reissued?

There were others that reported this also. Is it possible we have a bad SQ chip?

Hi Surroundophile

Hate to say it but we are still in Xmas holidays and will return tomorrow (rest of Australia starts up in a week time). We are still overloaded with Y4 system design updates but I assure you we will do the SQ "down grade" when the existing work is finished.

I say down grade as in reality the Surround Master is responding correctly "according to the book" to poorly recorded SQ recordings with phase and magnitude issues, just turns out that the Tates inaccuracy make it more tollerant of these errors. Most users have reported a preferance of our SM SQ to the Tate an I think 3 have prefered the Tate.

If you want to return the SM SQ in good order we will refund your money, alternatively the down grade option will be within a few months.

Regards

Chucky

 

[chucky3042]

Hi Surroundophile

Fact is we developed the SQ version using a number of "pure" SQ sources, such as "Oxforddickie's" scripts and subsequent tests showed all was positioned well.
I covered this (and I attached some test results) in a post back in 4 th January 2014 in this thread. See below. Fact is SQ is a very clever but very impractical format that has only a few dB to encode and is very phase sensitive, QS was a vast improvement.

We are still under huge pressure to complete some projects but I absolutely assure you we will tackle the SQ issue shortly.



We have been busy examining this controversy today and as it turns out we/ you may all be correct, we have a confusing picture.

First we used 3 test QS and SQ sources for our tests these can be found in this dropbox:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3jpgx0qhaxcfgzy/FiiHs7DykE

Please download these.

The SQ Q4 Vinyl test tones.wav is the CBS Q4 test disc and is as the name suggest recorded on vinyl.

The SQ test tones.wav is a "script" based series of tones and is 100% accurate in terms of magnitude and phase - "by the book"
Its test tone sequence is:
Centre Front - Right Front - Centre Right - Rear Right - Centre Rear - Left Rear - Centre Left - Left Front - Centre Front


The QS test tones.wav is also a "script" based series of tones that are 100% accurate in terms of phase and magnitude- also "by the book".
Its test tone sequence is:
Centre Front - Left Front - Centre Left - Rear Left - Centre Rear - Right Rear -0 Centre Right - Right Front - Centre D

Also included below are the test results we obtained from a Surround Master randomly pulled out of stock.

Please note for our tests today we had a noise floor of -42.2dB we actually needed more dynamic range for comprehensive results but the results are fine for what we are testing.

The results for the QS script are remarkably symmetrical showing a separation of generally better than 35 dB, this reduced to approx 13 dB for central sides. Level discrepancies were less than 0.5 dB. In short it looks like all levels are balanced for SQ and Involve mode.

Now things get more interesting:

For SQ test tones.wav script based encode again the results were very good showing very symmetrical results with 30- 35 dB separation, the worst results were as expected (for SQ) the side center symmetry that showed the center side position could be pulled to the rear by about 10dB. This is one of the week aspects of SQ. It is one of the reasons SQ cannot achieve stable side central images (unlike QS- perfectly linear). In short- no sign of problems with the correct encode format.


For the Q4 Vinyl test tones.wav the results are relatively poor showing a leakage of fronts to rear amounting to only 9 - 12 db separation IN THAT DIRECTION - all other directions the separation was better than 25 dB.

So TAB - YOU ARE CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!

Now the issue is WHY?

Upon examination of the CBS Q4 test disc we found that the encode was in error. SQ largely picks direction based on Left/ Right inter channel leakage. We found leakage in the L/R channel of say -15db and a phase error of 45 degrees. On the script based encodes these parameters are precise. This CBS disc was recorded from vinyl onto CD and it is most likely this leakage and phase shift is typical of most magnetic cartridges and RIAA equalisation curves.

At the time of developing the SQ Surround Master we were under significant "pressure" from you know who- the great Oxforddickie to ensure we were in fact decoding "BY THE BOOK". Well folks the test results today clearly show if the encode source is correct (as it will be for script based sources supplied by Oxfordickie and Bob Romano) you will get the full 35 db separation in all directions. For Vinyl sources (yes I fully accept this is the majority) the results will not be as good and dependent on how good your magnetic cartridge is in terms of separation and phase shift.

All our development work was with the script based encode sources and not with the Vinyl as we wanted to be "by the book". We note that most users of the SQ SM have reported as good or better results than the Tate yet now we have 2 users who clearly prefer the Tate. I suspect this is for 3 main reasons.

1 Given the non script - vinyl sources used they were only getting say 9 - 12 db separation in the front leak to rear direction.
2 Our previous (and controversial) tests indicate test audiences cannot pick separations above 12 dB and so clearly we fall under this and any other level issues such as amplifier pot mismatch, seating centrality, speaker sensitivity will tip the system over the edge so you will clearly notice the leakage.
3 Some people are more sensitive to separation than others - for example I listen more to things such as clarity, transient response and am less picky on separation.

Also the bulk of the users who state that they prefer our SQ SM to the Tate have reported issues of clarity and transient response. This observation is a direct result of the SQ SM being a full tri band decoder unlike the Tate that is single band.

SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO???

Looks like the Tate (being designed in the late 70's) was designed specifically with vinyl in mind and has been adjusted to allow for a much smaller level sensing range (it pushes harder to the edges) than the SQ SM that has been designed for script based encoding.

I offer the following:

1 Fully money back upon return of the SQ SM if unsatisfied.
2 We will schedule some research time in say 2 months to review the internal settings of the SQ SM to have it optomised for vinyl not script - for those who want it.
3 We will send an updated memory chip in the mail to all those who want the revision - so it can be installed by a qualified technician. Probably $20
4 We offer a free update if you pay for the return transport to our factory.

WHAT NOW?

We will continue to offer the existing SQ SM for sale as I really think it is the most accurate for script based encodes but hopefully we will offer two setting versions in a few months time. My recommendation is patience but remember the version set for vinyl will not be as linear as the current version and may be more prone to pumping (as several Tate users have reported). SQ is a VERY fiddly format and is not forgiving on encode source errors- unlike QS, unfortunately there is no "one size fits all" solution.

I know this is an imperfect solution but on the bright side at least our decode is "by the book".

Regards

Chucky

 

[DuncanS]

It would be interesting to see what happens when SQ vinyl is played via the turntable from ELPJ, which uses a laser to read the record - the channels 'should' be well matched in phase and amplitude. But at US$16k/£10k its an expensive experiment!

http://www.elpj.com/

 

[LizardKing]

It would be interesting to see what happens when SQ vinyl is played via the turntable from ELPJ, which uses a laser to read the record - the channels 'should' be well matched in phase and amplitude. But at US$16k/£10k its an expensive experiment!

http://www.elpj.com/

Check out this post - from rustyandi :yikes:

There's an ELP turntable in there...

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...ow-us-your-gear!&p=45840&viewfull=1#post45840

Ron - How's the ELP sound with the Surround master?

:51banana:

 

[DuncanS]

Check out this post - from rustyandi :yikes:

There's an ELP turntable in there...

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...ow-us-your-gear!&p=45840&viewfull=1#post45840

Ron - How's the ELP sound with the Surround master?

:51banana:

Wow! :yikes