Okay Convince Me--QS Decoder Better than Tate II 4 QS?

[berninahusq]

Having not ever seen a QS encoded album until an eBAY seller unexpectantly threw in a couple of pretty mint VoxBox 3-record sets as a bonus with my last purchase, I thought I'd never own any.

These sound pretty discrete (as discrete as matrix can sound) through the Tate II. I never heard those Enoch Light Surround Sound Regular Matrix sound so good until I got the Tate. So I'm wondering how these QS records should really sound.

So ... without beating a dead horse ... what would I gain by getting a Sansui Variomatrix decoder over the Tate? Is it worth the money? Are the decoders in the Sansui QRX receivers just as good as the standalone decoders? Will the Sansui give even more discrete separation over the Tate?

Your opinions count!

Thanks--Ed

 

[AllAroundSurround]

Cai would know, as he has the infamous QSD1- at one point I even think he had 2. I want one ! Didn't have the Green at the time.
But don't have that many QS albums I use a QS-1- But iI did manage to get a TATE ii 101-a last year and it was worth it !
So I'm assuming the QSD-1 is the way to go for top QS decoding ! Maybe a software decoder will some day be made for this and the Tate! One could only hope!
Rob

 

[Cai Campbell]

Well, QS recordings can sound great through the Tate, but you're not hearing what the engineer/artist intended. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you enjoy the end result. What I'm getting at is if you only have a few QS titles and you enjoy them through the Tate, there is no reason to seek out a QS decoder. However, a good QS decoder will work best for QS recordings, no doubt about that.