INVOLVE SQ - IS HERE

[ss9001]

Mine arrived at the end of day yesterday! I'll hook it into tape monitor loop of Sansui to try out and later wire it into a twin stack of dbx 400 switchers that are normally in the loop for outboard gear, so Ill be able to do quick push button A/B comparisons with the Audionics-Tate.

Will post later today or tomorrow.

 

[ss9001]

Well...

based on initial listening impressions, it won't replace a tweaked Sansui Variomatrix for straight QS decoding or QS Synth on 2 ch. That doesn't mean it's "bad" or not worthwhile. We all know Sansui had the best 4 ch matrix solution.

I have no scope, software "proof" just my ears. And I don't know if your matrix is supposed to be a "clone" or do the same decoding as QS Variomatrix. But it's not close to being even a tie based on what I hear.

I have the Project 3 LP Brass Menagerie which Tab (Quadradial) refers to in his post above. No, I didn't play MacArthur Park . Instead I listened to Track 1 on Side 2, Theme from Shaft. This LP is about as good as it gets for near-discrete QS. While the rear action is about identical on the intro, when some horns come in, the rears become much lower in volume than Sansui QS. just before a brassy trumpet comes in, there's a horn part (not sure which one, clarinet or french horn maybe?) that horn Sansui QS directs to the left rear. With Involve, not only is that horn not in the rear, it's much lower in overall volume in the front left. Plus, the trumpet blast with Sansui QS is front-centered, but in Involve it's definitely right of center. past the intro, the whole soundfield becomes front-centric with a shift in L/R balance.

On the 2 ch CD Merl Saunders, track 1 there are rain forest - various chirps & thunderclaps which my Sansui spreads all around and near discretely puts in rears, but with Involve, the rear channels were quite a bit lower in volume and the thunder is not as noticeable from the rears. It's almost as if Involve mode outputs dB's lower in volume than the front. it's not subtle, it's noticeable. I have a RatShack meter but am not measuring at this point. if the Involve matrix is not a 1:1 correlation to QS that's fine, but if it's supposed to...I wonder what's going on.

Oddly, contrasting to Tab's results, playing just the intro part of Track 1 on Santana Caravanseri, the SQ mode did an excellent job compared to the built-in SQ mode in the Sansui. I didn't notice the effect he had in SQ. I haven't been able to compare to the Audionics-Tate due to some issues with one dbx switcher that I have to troubleshoot.

The above listening is using the SM plugged directly into 4 ch Tape 2 loop, and comparing by Tape monitor switch, and turning the SM off when not used so it was in bypass mode. Also, I have to admit that I'm using the included audio cables & would replace them with better ones after I tested & confirmed it worked OK.

Only several comparisons, not all the way thru a song even but I'm reporting what I hear so far.

My Sansui receiver has been tweaked, removing Sansui's blend resistors which supposedly could increase front/rear & diagnonal separation past Sansui's normal Vario-matrix's 25 dB. So my receiver may not be a normal Sansui owner's experience.

The lower volume of that horn, shifts in balance and diminished rear channel volume in Involve mode are interesting but a bit troubling. It be nice to know if that's a normal artifact or not. and yes, I have the cables connected correctly.

Could this be bug or software issue? Hardware QC? or is this is what it's supposed to be? I don't know...

Would like some input from Chucky or Dave.

I really hesitate to post this so early on and I promise I will post more and as I do more listening if my impressions change, I will gladly say so. Because I really like you guys bringing this product to the marketplace & really want you to succeed with it.

I still think it's very worthwhile product to get for quad music fans & SQ works better than I expected, just not QS which is weird since that should be where it shines.

 

[ss9001]

my QSD-1 is fresh. I've never heard anything like it. I also dread every lightning storm within 300 miles of here.

although mine is a tweaked QRX9001, I very much relate. mine has outperformed ProLogic IIx with every 2 ch LP/CD I have compared. I've owned it for 35 years! recently, I tried Michael Jackson Thriller 2 ch SACD thru it with QS Synth. Stunning! so maybe you & I have unrealistic expectations based on our Sansui's. and yours is a better decoder than what Sansui put in their top receivers like mine. if I were you, I'd definitely want to keep it running

 

[ss9001]

did some measuring...Radio Shack SPL meter.

rear balance turned for rears only, point meter at center of rear speakers.

Involve - about 10 dB lower in volume, going thru the box, cables & tape monitor loop than Sansui in QS Synthesizer mode, consistent with 2 different LP's. measurement w Involve on at one place in song hovered between 73-75 dB and with QS Synth it was about 83 dB. extra resistance and going thru ADC, DSP, DAC may be the reason. don't know...

but that's pretty significant decrease. and didn't subjectively seem that way when playing SQ LP in SQ mode. but I can measure that too:

QS LP & SQ LP - approx 5 dB lower rears with Involve. fronts approx the same delta.

more data points. at least straight decoding level delta seems consistent, so maybe the hookup & extra circuit board resistance.

I can tell a bit more phasiness on rear channels with Involve over Sansui QS on QS LP.

is there a test file what we can download to check if unit is working properly? and what media player would be needed to play it correctly?

if something like that existed, that would put my mind at ease that this is the way it's supposed to be.

 

[chucky3042]

Hi SS9001

Sounds a bit like something is wrong. It is really strange that suddenly we have the first 2 unhappy customers so yes we will fully investigate.

Lets start with some basics

1 Put a MONO signal in -preferably a steady tone and measure the outputs from all speakers. You should only get output from the two fronts at the same level, the rears should be way down.

2 Put a signal only into the left input. Measure the outputs and you should only get outputs from the front and rear left. Repeat for the Right channels.

I assume you have connected your outputs to the 4 ch side of the rear RCA's on the SM - not the 5.1 connection.

get back to me ASAP.

Regards

Chucky

 

[QUADradial]

Here are some files that you might try to download and compare. First are the stereo QS and SQ versions of the same material, directly from vinyl - no clean up.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54310913/SQ_QS_Stereo_Wavs.zip

Here are the front/rear wavs from the SQ LP, played through the Involve SQ.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54310913/SM_SQ_Test.zip

For comparison, here is the same material played through the Tate 101A.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54310913/Tate_SQ_Result.zip

Here are the QS files played through the Involve decoder's Involve mode.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54310913/Involve_QS_Result.zip

And here are the same QS tracks through the Sansui QSD-1 - in QS mode.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54310913/Sansui_QS_Result.zip

Finally, here is a comparison of Involve mode versus the Sansui QSD-1 in QS Synthesizer Mode.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54310913/Sansui_vs_Involve_Stereo2FourChannel.zip

To me, there is no clear winner in the QS domain. The Involve SQ doesn't sound right to my ears. Listen for the rear bleed when something is either in Front Left or Front Right. The front channels sound so much lower than the rears. but they aren't that much off. I think the bleed is making the rears too heavy handed.

The Sansui vs. Involve using stereo sources is, I guess, a personal taste. I find the Sansui is REALLY trying to surround you with quad effect. Personally, this is what I like. That said, the Involve is very, VERY good.

I'll leave these files in my dropbox account for a few days. I always need the space, so grab them while you can.

 

[chucky3042]

Also

When doing these tests ONLY USE THE SAME AMPLIFIER INPUT.

Meaning disconnect all other amplifier channel inputs and use only one of the RCA's as the test line. This way we will be sure their is not some issue with your amplifier input lines.

Regards

chucky

Hi SS9001

Sounds a bit like something is wrong. It is really strange that suddenly we have the first 2 unhappy customers so yes we will fully investigate.

Lets start with some basics

1 Put a MONO signal in -preferably a steady tone and measure the outputs from all speakers. You should only get output from the two fronts at the same level, the rears should be way down.

2 Put a signal only into the left input. Measure the outputs and you should only get outputs from the front and rear left. Repeat for the Right channels.

I assume you have connected your outputs to the 4 ch side of the rear RCA's on the SM - not the 5.1 connection.

get back to me ASAP.

Regards

Chucky

 

[QUADradial]

Everything was the same, just a swap out of test material and decoders. The output fed the computer directly.
A tone test is nice, but it isn't "real world." This does well with a single 1kHz tone in either left or right. It seems to lose its focus in the SQ mode on music. The CD release of "CHASE" does show the trumpet going in circles, but the front info bleeds into the back to a much larger degree than the Tate. It seems to have an issue with this. It's almost like...if it isn't 100% perfect, it won't steer properly. The Tate seems to have a much larger "window of forgiveness" with phase relationships...and it was known to be picky.

 

[ss9001]

I assume you have connected your outputs to the 4 ch side of the rear RCA's on the SM - not the 5.1 connection.

get back to me ASAP.

Regards

Chucky

thanks for asking but yes to the above, I know better than use 5.1. been doing quad since 1972 and HT surround sound since the Dolby Surround days. but it's OK to ask since you don't know me. troubleshooting 101, assume nothing about the user

as to the signals, I will give it a try Sunday. but I have time limitations since I have to get ready for a biz trip bright & early Monday AM. I won't be able to re-visit this until next weekend. my wife is certainly not going to tinker with it

all I can tell you is it doesn't seem as compelling a surround field as Sansui QS decoding & 2 ch >> 4 ch synth. and even with an overall lessened volume, the balance seems more front centric. to get the same audible impression of the rear channels which are actually side surrounds not in the corner, I have to shift the f/r balance to the rear, say 25% less than dead center. this is not the Sansui, since the Sansui's built-in decoders don't need to do that & the dbx 400 switchers with the Tate connected into one of their loops also doesn't require it. it's the Involve unit that causes the rears to reduce in volume relative to fronts.

like I said, weirdly enough SQ seems better but I only tried on 1 song on 1 LP. if it works good on 1 with known aggressive surround effects, it should be OK on others. also, keep in mind my Sansui has had the blend resisters removed so it will probably be more discrete & more separation depending on the recording. Sansui used blend resisters to bleed some of the front into the rear to make the soundfield more "cohesive" to a listener, sacrificing some of their theoretical discrete capability. but how much real difference this makes, I couldn't say but it depends on recording. but it could help explain why one sounds "better".

I do have a freq test tone CD that's mono. I guess I can use that for test 1 & a normal 2 ch CD for test 2, just shift balance all the way to Left & unplug the R ch cable from player.

Keep in mind, I am not going from source to SM, because of no phono preamp capability. I had it in the 4 ch tape loop in the Sansui, just switched it in/out.

Thanks very much for your rapid reply with the huge time difference.

If this is what the Involve is supposed to do, I'm OK. I'd just like to confirm it's working the way it should be.

Will post more tomorrow, Chuck

I'll let you know how the tests come out.

 

[ss9001]

"When doing these tests ONLY USE THE SAME AMPLIFIER INPUT"

OK

 

[surroundophile]

Hi SS9001

Sounds a bit like something is wrong. It is really strange that suddenly we have the first 2 unhappy customers so yes we will fully investigate.

Lets start with some basics

1 Put a MONO signal in -preferably a steady tone and measure the outputs from all speakers. You should only get output from the two fronts at the same level, the rears should be way down.

2 Put a signal only into the left input. Measure the outputs and you should only get outputs from the front and rear left. Repeat for the Right channels.

I assume you have connected your outputs to the 4 ch side of the rear RCA's on the SM - not the 5.1 connection.

get back to me ASAP.

Regards

Chucky

Since this has now come up....I have neglected doing any kind of review because I was so dissapointed in this product, and because I haven't had time to do a therough listening evaluation. First, I can't comment on the QS decoding, as I've never had access ti the QS 1000. I now only have one QS disc, and have never seen a QS test disc, I don't think any were ever made. But it did sound good. I will have to compate that disc to the Q8 version.
As for the SQ, I felt like I was taken for buying this product. Sorry guys for saying that. Using the same Project 3 SQ discs mentioned here (we all think alike?), as well as the CBS SQ Test Disc, I had the same bleed thru issues mentioned here. It sounded weird, like discreet AND an early non-logic decoder mixed together at the same time! I haven't used it since, and have gone back to my Tate. (My comparison was Involve SQ, Tate SQ and Q4 reel of the same Project 3 albums) I hope Chuck and Co. can figure out what's going on.

 

[QUADradial]

It sounded weird, like discreet AND an early non-logic decoder mixed together at the same time!

That's exactly what I was trying to put into words! It's...close...but not quite right. I feel like the QS mode is extremely good, though. And please, guys...all this negative stuff doesn't mean we don't like what you've tried to accomplish. I never even thought I'd ever have a product like this. It's probably a minor tweak somewhere in the software and I am willing to help out as much as I can. In other words...don't give up on it...or us (if that thought has crossed your minds).

 

[chucky3042]

Hello All

This sucks!

Ok, until these issues are resolved I am stopping all sales of the Surround Master

Either

1 All the other reviews are wrong
2 My listening of Tate vs SQ at Rustyandi home a few days ago was wrong
3 Some oversight has occurred in our process and final test
4 The customer test disc are strange
5 Customer set up is some how faulty
6 Customers actually prefer a faulty decode (no disrespect- just listing possibilities)
7 Damage in transit
8 Something else -dunno

I really have problems reconciling the earlier reviews and the recent bad stuff. Got to solve this one, please be patient.

It is Sunday here and we will start some investigation of QUADradial's material tomorrow and report here our findings.

Meanwhile, if anyone wants there money back- we will refund but I suggest we all wait for the investigation.

Regards

Chucky

 

[bmoura]

Chucky...
I haven't heard back from Dave as to where to put the source material. I can dropbox it to you guys if you want. I'll record the QS and SQ versions of the song, then I'll run a 4-channel wav file of each.

As far as the QS synth mode...don't forget, my QSD-1 is fresh. All caps and transistors have been replaced. Only the Sansui ICs are old. I've never heard anything like it. I also dread every lightning storm within 300 miles of here.

Hmm, that is odd. I have used the QS/Involve and SQ modes on my Surround Master and they are working fine.
When it comes to Stereo Synthesis to Surround, I prefer the QS/Involve mode vs. the SQ mode on the Surround Master. But both work.

Agreed, the Project 3 material would be a good test of the Surround Master. Those albums sound about as good as anything released in Quad - SQ, QS or CD-4 - from the '70s in my experience.
I'll be watching the thread to see how this all turns out. A mystery indeed....

 

[chucky3042]

Hi

mystery is an understatement, I have just called Rustyandi as he has Tate/ SM-SQ and the project 3 test disc. Have asked him to have a comparison later today.

Regards

Chucky

 

[ss9001]

And please, guys...all this negative stuff doesn't mean we don't like what you've tried to accomplish. I never even thought I'd ever have a product like this...In other words...don't give up on it...or us (if that thought has crossed your minds).

+1 to your thoughts.

this is a great opportunity for people with quad collections and want to pursue something better than Dolby ProLogic II. I don't want Chuck, Dave & their company to throw in the towel, lose customers or take some impressions as saying the product isn't good.

It's late, I'm tired & burned out. Will resume in the AM, and try Chuck's suggestions. If I get the time, I'd also like to try the SM between my tube preamp and top Pioneer HT receiver, instead of the Sansui tape loop. The Pioneer has 7.1 analog inputs and can do analog direct with no processing. maybe see how it does there. but the Pioneer swap may have to wait until next weekend...I have things to do before going a'traveling to company HQ Mon. but I'll get the testing done & post.

 

[ss9001]

Hi

mystery is an understatement, I have just called Rustyandi as he has Tate/ SM-SQ and the project 3 test disc. Have asked him to have a comparison later today.

Regards

Chucky

that would be great! Thanks, Chuck. I don't recall if Proj 3 did SQ LP's but the ones I have are QS. Brass Menagerie is QS/RM. but any feedback from Rusty is much appreciated whichever format he wants to test.

 

[QUADradial]

I tried to be as complete as possible with my tests. You have the actual sources and the front/rear wav files in both formats and three decoders. I tried 3 cartridges to see what would give the best results. Oddly, the conical tipped cart had the best separation for these tests. There was noticeably less separation using higher end carts on all three decoders. Still, there is the leakage issue - and that's the number one thing to look into in my opinion. Just find a part where something is in the front right or front left, and listen to the rear channels.

-Tab

 

[bmoura]

Since this has now come up....I have neglected doing any kind of review because I was so dissapointed in this product, and because I haven't had time to do a therough listening evaluation. First, I can't comment on the QS decoding, as I've never had access ti the QS 1000. I now only have one QS disc, and have never seen a QS test disc, I don't think any were ever made. But it did sound good. I will have to compate that disc to the Q8 version.

A suggestion for QS encoded material to try. I picked up the 24/192 Stereo WAV download of Electronic Realizations by Synergy from HD Tracks which is QS Encoded. It performs quite well here via the Surround Master's QS circuitry.
http://www.hdtracks.com/electronic-realizations-for-rock-orchestra-134018

 

[bmoura]

I don't recall if Proj 3 did SQ LP's but the ones I have are QS. Brass Menagerie is QS/RM. but any feedback from Rusty is much appreciated whichever format he wants to test.

Project 3 did release in SQ and CD-4, in addition to QS. In fact, towards the end of their Quad releases, they elected to go SQ only.