What's the Latest MATRIX LP/CD Added to Your Pile? SQ, QS, RM, EV

[fredblue]

Come From The Shadows - Joan Baez (QS)

 

[fredblue]

Buddha And The Chocolate Box - Cat Stevens (SQ)

 

[fredblue]

My Merry Go Round - Johnny Nash (SQ)

2nd copy, hopefully plays better (less crackly) than the 1st..

 

[fredblue]

Piano Man - Billy Joel (SQ)

3rd copy lucky..

 

[kap'n krunch]

Looks GREAT and promising!!!

 

[fredblue]

Looks GREAT and promising!!!

well put it this way, with a record like this (which pretty much plays as good as it looks, which is just about as pristine as you could hope for a 42 year old record that isn't sealed old stock.. I wonder if it was ever played before, the disc itself looks amazing and with little to no noise or clicks etc).

tbh I feel I'm almost at the limitations of primarily whatever the SQ LP mastering was like in the first place I guess.. but also the sound quality of the cartridge, the pre amp and the abilities of the decoder with this SQ stuff.. and then to make sure I set it all up to its optimum of course, lots of "fiddling about, Uncle Ernie" required for that..

..so I have a couple of options between now and Christmas.. do I splash out on yet another CD-4 demodulator, or do I get what I was going to get anyway before I went mad for CD-4 and get a moving coil cart, appropriate pre amp for MC phono and ultimately a Tate so I can really eek the absolute most(est) out of these lovely old SQ records..

what would you do..?

 

[jaybird100]

..so I have a couple of options between now and Christmas.. do I splash out on yet another CD-4 demodulator, or do I get what I was going to get anyway before I went mad for CD-4 and get a moving coil cart, appropriate pre amp for MC phono and ultimately a Tate so I can really eek the absolute most(est) out of these lovely old SQ records..

what would you do..?

If you really want a CD-4 demodulator, go for it...as long as you have a cartridge that supports its unique needs. As for going with a Tate SQ decoder, don't. Instead, go for a Surround Master, which is made in Australia, but delivers SQ as good as a Tate, and QS as good as a Sansui QSD-1. The information for ordering a Surround Master is on the site here, and you can search it out.

 

[fredblue]

If you really want a CD-4 demodulator, go for it...as long as you have a cartridge that supports its unique needs. As for going with a Tate SQ decoder, don't. Instead, go for a Surround Master, which is made in Australia, but delivers SQ as good as a Tate, and QS as good as a Sansui QSD-1. The information for ordering a Surround Master is on the site here, and you can search it out.

a.) I've got 2 x JVC 4DD-5 demodulators already (can't get either of them to work properly),
b.) I'm using an Audio Technica 440MLb cart (which several people here said works for CD-4 no problem),
c.) I've got the Surround Master SQ Vinyl (I love it, it's great.. QS = particularly good.. but I want an SQ decoder that can cancel out the vocals that bleed from front to back, which the Surround Master doesn't do, or if it does I can't get it to work )

HELP..!!

 

[jaybird100]

a.) I've got 2 x JVC 4DD-5 demodulators already (can't get either of them to work properly),
b.) I'm using an Audio Technica 440MLb cart (which several people here said works for CD-4 no problem),
c.) I've got the Surround Master SQ Vinyl (I love it, it's great.. QS = particularly good.. but I want an SQ decoder that can cancel out the vocals that bleed from front to back, which the Surround Master doesn't do, or if it does I can't get it to work )

HELP..!!

I have one 4DD-5 with a channel out. I have a few cartridges that can support CD-4, but with a channel out in the demodulator, it doesn't do much good. The Tate doesn't always provide full cancellation of front vocals in the rear channels. As good as the Tate is, it still isn't discrete. QS can actually do a better job of it, but again, it's not fully discrete.

 

[fredblue]

I have one 4DD-5 with a channel out. I have a few cartridges that can support CD-4, but with a channel out in the demodulator, it doesn't do much good. The Tate doesn't always provide full cancellation of front vocals in the rear channels. As good as the Tate is, it still isn't discrete. QS can actually do a better job of it, but again, it's not fully discrete.

I'm sorry to hear that you're having a bad experience with CD-4 & the JVC unit too

Oh, I wasn't aware of that, so that's the Tate off my shopping list (thanks, you've just saved me a ton of money and hassle! )

So, is there any other SQ decoder of the calibre of the Tate/Surround Master that can cancel out unwanted vocals and stuff in the rears?

 

[jaybird100]

So, is there any other SQ decoder of the calibre of the Tate/Surround Master that can cancel out unwanted vocals and stuff in the rears?

That's one of the limitations of SQ. QS is better at that, but even that isn't perfect. No matrix decoder is going to give you fully discrete separation on SQ or QS records. QS offers a better effect, in that by emphasizing separation to the diagonals, separation between adjacent speakers is pretty much uniform. SQ, in its basic form, emphasizes left-right separation, but a minimal amount of front-rear separation. Even the best logic circuitry can only do just so much.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I'm sorry to hear that you're having a bad experience with CD-4 & the JVC unit too

Oh, I wasn't aware of that, so that's the Tate off my shopping list (thanks, you've just saved me a ton of money and hassle! )

So, is there any other SQ decoder of the calibre of the Tate/Surround Master that can cancel out unwanted vocals and stuff in the rears?

I've been following your 'analogue saga' closely, Adam and to throw my two cents in......I still think it's the input/output connectors of your JVC demodulators that need re~soldering. And as far as bleed through on the rear channels of both the surround master and Tate (I have an old one floating around along with a 'bunch' of fosgates), it could also be turntable dependent.

One of the reasons I gave up on analogue is Stereophile's Michael Fremer who was always touting the lastest whacky (obscene price wise) TT/tone arm/cartridge combos....some exceeding $180K in price. Imagine having one of those ultra exotic puppies in your possession. You'd probably hear things from vinyl that you could only imagine in fairy tales.

As for going the 8~track route: unless you want to deal with pad replacement or jammed faulty cartridges.........beware. And sorry, 3 3/4ips tape while it may impart the excitement of discrete surroundness ain't audiophile by any stretch of the imagination.

But if one hears an AF QUAD/5.1 or Steve Wilson remix none of those formats.....neither vinyl nor 8 track nor even CD~4 will EVER quite give you the sensation of hearing the REAL DEAL...unless Fremer lends you one of his MEGABUCK TT/tonearm/Cartridge and setp up transformer combos (some costing $60K) and that ain't likely to happen!

 

[fredblue]

I've been following your 'analogue saga' closely, Adam and to throw my two cents in......I still think it's the input/output connectors of your JVC demodulators that need re~soldering. And as far as bleed through on the rear channels of both the surround master and Tate (I have an old one floating around along with a 'bunch' of fosgates), it could also be turntable dependent.

One of the reasons I gave up on analogue is Stereophile's Michael Fremer who was always touting the lastest whacky (obsecene price wise) TT/tone arm/cartridge combos....some exceeding $180K in price. Imagine having one of those ultra exotic puppies in your possession. You'd probably hear things from vinyl that you could only imagine in fairy tales.

As for going the 8~track route: unless you want to deal with pad replacement or jammed faulty cartridges.........beware. And sorry, 3 3/4ips tape while it may impart the excitement of discrete surroundness ain't audiophile by any stretch of the imagination.

But if one hears an AF QUAD/5.1 or Steve Wilson remix none of those formats.....neither vinyl nor 8 track nor even CD~4 will EVER quite give you the sensation of hearing the REAL DEAL...unless Fremer lends you one of his MEGABUCK TT/tonearm/Cartridge and setp up transformer combos (some costing $60K) and that ain't likely to happen!

could be Ralph.. but how can it be the input connectors when I'm getting strong signals into both demodulators, its just the demodulating that's the problem (the most important bit, nay their whole raison d'être = 4DD-5 epic fail..! ) anyway this is a Matrix thread, so please forget I'm having a near meltdown about CD-4 for a minute

if it wasn't for the fact that nobody's reissuing the Quads I want to hear on SACD or whatever, I wouldn't be contemplating getting back into 8 track (sponges disintegrated or gone to mush? been there done that.. tape spilled out everywhere or caught up in the players' mechanism? ditto.. the joys of 8 track as a format are not an unknown quantity chez moi.. yet I'm still prepared to think about it, for the love of Quad.. ).

ah.. I don't know Michael Fremer from a bar of soap, I'm sure he wouldn't give me the snot out of his hanky let alone loan me a fancy turntable.. by far the easiest solution is for AF to resume their splendid Surround programme.. otherwise I may end up in a lunatic asylum and nobody wants that on their hands :ugham:

 

[4-earredwonder]

could be Ralph.. but how can it be the input connectors when I'm getting strong signals into both demodulators, its just the demodulating that's the problem (the most important bit, nay their whole raison d'être = 4DD-5 epic fail..! ) anyway this is a Matrix thread, so please forget I'm having a near meltdown about CD-4 for a minute

if it wasn't for the fact that nobody's reissuing the Quads I want to hear on SACD or whatever, I wouldn't be contemplating getting back into 8 track (sponges disintegrated or gone to mush? been there done that.. tape spilled out everywhere or caught up in the players' mechanism? ditto.. the joys of 8 track as a format are not an unknown quantity chez moi.. yet I'm still prepared to think about it, for the love of Quad.. ).

ah.. I don't know Michael Fremer from a bar of soap, I'm sure he wouldn't give me the snot out of his hanky let alone loan me a fancy turntable.. by far the easiest solution is for AF to resume their splendid Surround programme.. otherwise I may end up in a lunatic asylum and nobody wants that on their hands :ugham:

You seem to be getting a solid input signal from your JVC demodulatoir but how about the output going into your pre/pro. That could be a possible culprit.

And believe me Adam, you're way too sassy to end up in any kind of asylum........except if you decide to go the Q8 route. Even some of my old reels have either print through or are warped (the old acetate ones).

And yes, one could only wish that AF would continue their QUAD SACD releases but I'm afraid it has nothing to do with Marshall Blonstein but rather the accountants or upper eschelon of power brokers who control AF's future releases. But I still hold out hope that the majors might reinvorgate surround releases such as Warner's recent and totally unexpected Chicago Quadio boxset. What do they have to lose....they own the masters and could conceivably produce them way cheaper than ANY of the reissue labels. Fingers crossed Adam Blue.

In the meantime, we are still getting some spectacular surround surprises from smaller consortium of labels like Bandcamp, etc. and although I, like you, prefer older more tried and tested material, once in awhile something extraordinary does come down the pike and perks up the old juices.

Believe me, if I COULD get the sound we derive from these fabulous NEW hi rez releases from vinyl or Q8 without the hassle or bleed through and of course the rice krispie effects, etc., I'd be back in that saddle again but I'm about to make a major investment in new equipment which revolves around Digital>Digital and I feel I'll never go that [analogue] route again......way too many bad memories.

But I do suppose that one has to go through the hassle before they can fully realize this [as I HAVE].

 

[bigbillquad]

Hi. fredy

I personally think you striving for perfection is commendable in trying for discrete decoding of matrix surround, which in theory is unattainable because in it`s nature is 4-2-4 system and there is a lose in transfer as good as the Tate 101a & the Surround Master is, it is unattainable where as in theory the CD-4 system was a 4-4-4 system with its problems. The only true Discrete system is Q4 Reel to Reel or lowfi Q8 tape systems which are fully Discrete..

I personally think you should down load a copy of the service manual of the 4DD-5 unit and get on your horse and go hunt out a audio technician and get your CD-4 unit fixed these units are over 30 years old & will have problems even if you can find a brand new old stock unit..
The T.T. and cartridge combination you have I think is more than adequate for the job in hand..
Bill.

I'm sorry to hear that you're having a bad experience with CD-4 & the JVC unit too

Oh, I wasn't aware of that, so that's the Tate off my shopping list (thanks, you've just saved me a ton of money and hassle! )

So, is there any other SQ decoder of the calibre of the Tate/Surround Master that can cancel out unwanted vocals and stuff in the rears?

 

[fredblue]

Hi. fredy

I personally think you striving for perfection is commendable in trying for discrete decoding of matrix surround, which in theory is unattainable because in it`s nature is 4-2-4 system and there is a lose in transfer as good as the Tate 101a & the Surround Master is, it is unattainable where as in theory the CD-4 system was a 4-4-4 system with its problems. The only true Discrete system is Q4 Reel to Reel or lowfi Q8 tape systems which are fully Discrete..

I personally think you should down load a copy of the service manual of the 4DD-5 unit and get on your horse and go hunt out a audio technician and get your CD-4 unit fixed these units are over 30 years old & will have problems even if you can find a brand new old stock unit..
The T.T. and cartridge combination you have I think is more than adequate for the job in hand..
Bill.

Thanks for all your help and advice Bill, I do appreciate it

I have to go by what you long time Quad experts are telling me so if the Surround Master SQ vinyl really is the best thing we've got to date (and as good as a Tate.. heh that rhymed..) then I won't pursue the SQ thing further.

I could never get the Adobe SQ thing working on my Mac (just in case that's suggested as an alternative) so I gave up on that a while back..

Meantime, I'm trying out some CD-4 again right now.. and blow me down, no distortion, everything is ok, better than that in fact, its (dare I say it) perfect!
..and I haven't touched a single thing about it or the turntable since it was distorting like a MoFi last time...!! :yikes
what the 'eck is that all about..??

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Thanks for all your help and advice Bill, I do appreciate it

I have to go by what you long time Quad experts are telling me so if the Surround Master SQ vinyl really is the best thing we've got to date (and as good as a Tate.. heh that rhymed..) then I won't pursue the SQ thing further.

I could never get the Adobe SQ thing working on my Mac (just in case that's suggested as an alternative) so I gave up on that a while back..

Meantime, I'm trying out some CD-4 again right now.. and blow me down, no distortion, everything is ok, better than that in fact, its (dare I say it) perfect!

..and I haven't touched a single thing about it or the turntable since it was distorting like a MoFi last time...!! :yikes
what the 'eck is that all about..??

If you can get a TATE unit, be it Fosgate or other make, and it's affordable to you ?........Go for it.

Always good to have a second operating decoder for that collection of SQ discs. Good insurance I think anyway.:sun

 

[fredblue]

If you can get a TATE unit, be it Fosgate or other make, and it's affordable to you ?........Go for it.

Always good to have a second operating decoder for that collection of SQ discs. Good insurance I think anyway.:sun

what are the other makes of Tate, Fizzy?

 

[fizzywiggs41]

what are the other makes of Tate, Fizzy?

Audionics had one, and they joined hands with Fosgate later, but I don't know if they SQ'D that union.?

And then Shadow Vector, by Proton I think-not Tate but a highly respected SQ decoder.



-also Tetrasound. Not sure who manufactured it, may be Bob Fosgate.





And Peter Scheiber had the "360 Degree Decoder" again not Tate but quite SQ advanced, released in 77?, but I believe it was also quite expensive at the time.


fizzy

 

[bigbillquad]

Here is the pinnacle of these vintage decoders.

SQ UNITS

This is very rare to find


these came in black as well, and more common to get


This is the next best to the Tate, this is my opinion

QS UNITS



And remember these are vintage and old most likely need some attention from a technician.................