Very easily could have been, but he might have indicated "DY" since it didn't much matter. Since it sounds reasonably good on any matrix decoder, since the recordings wouldn't necessarily benefit from more pinpoint localizations, the point is moot.
What's the Latest MATRIX LP/CD Added to Your Pile? SQ, QS, RM, EV
- Thread starter Quad Linda
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
jaybird100 said:
Cool! The Japanese QS is a real rarity.
My record, posters and stickers are near mint. I would grade the jacket VG+, it's hard to not have a little ringwear on those flimsy UK DSOTM jackets unless someone stored them seperately from the record from day one. It's one of those things I really wanted to have ahead of the SQ SurroundMaster.
I'm not sure what you are using for QS decoding, but is it fairly close to the discrete versions to you?
My QS decoding is done two ways. I have a Sansui QS-01 decoder, which was made to add onto the older Sansui receivers that pre-dated Vario-Matrix decoding. I also use Dolby Pro Logic II in the music mode. As good as the Sansui is, the Dolby PL II is actually better. It's more discrete, and rear placements are accurate. It doesn't do as well with SQ recordings, though.
George Benson Body Talk (SQ) I could use a better copy of this, but I cleaned it up and not too bad. My gf recently got a Dynaco Quadapter and I was listening to it through that. Sounded fairly directional. Played an Enoch Light EV-4 disc through it and it sounded even better cause EV-4 is another type of Passive Amplitude encoding. People underrate the amplitude decoders.
The EV decoders were actually active. They required a line-level input and had four outputs for the amplifiers. The Dynaco system was good in that it could give someone a taste of what quad was all about, still using their stereo records (quad LP's would be even better) to obtain a pretty decent ambient effect. It needed no additional amplifiers; just the speakers in a square pattern. They even had a version of it for car stereo. I wish I still had mine!
The Bushmaster
500 Club - QQ All-Star
Aah yes...The "Old Dynaco Systems"...Let's see...Where did I put them. Yup. Found them.
oxforddickie
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Here in the UK, that was called 'The Hafler System', after the "inventor", who was also behind Dynaco. There were quite a few amps around with this 'process' built in, but it quickly died out.
Although i will give an effect playing DY & EV-4 encoded material, it's far from accurate as there's no attempt at decoding the rear information, which was actually stereo, even though neither of the official decoders were capable of giving no more than 2db rear L/R separation
Although i will give an effect playing DY & EV-4 encoded material, it's far from accurate as there's no attempt at decoding the rear information, which was actually stereo, even though neither of the official decoders were capable of giving no more than 2db rear L/R separation
It was a sum-and-difference thing. The front channels were presented as normal, the rears were a left-minus-right signal. The two back speakers were wired out of phase with each other. That diagram was something I had followed to create a Dynaquad, or Hafler, decoder to try quad out, and my addiction began.
Not to further derail the thread but I wanted to run some things by you guys that I've read on the forum and some things I've witnessed. Firstly, I have read that the Quadapter is different than the Hafler and while it is similar, it is not the same. Also I have read that it may be better to bipass the volume pot as it effects the decode maths.
Also I wanted to bring up the fact that the information placed in the rear channel on my EV-4 decoder is definately missing from the front channel. It definately can place information solidly in the rear only. Actually better than most QS/SQ decoders I've heard. I think people tend to underestimate the Amplitude decoders.
Now I have thought I've heard some fairly discrete moments through the GF's Quadapter (especially with an Enoch Light EV-4 record, which would make sense, because it's EV-4 and it's Enoch Light mixing). I do not stand behind those statements as strongly as my statement about EV-4. I closely A-B'ed the channels on my EV-4 decoder, I have not with the quadapter.
Also I wanted to bring up the fact that the information placed in the rear channel on my EV-4 decoder is definately missing from the front channel. It definately can place information solidly in the rear only. Actually better than most QS/SQ decoders I've heard. I think people tend to underestimate the Amplitude decoders.
Now I have thought I've heard some fairly discrete moments through the GF's Quadapter (especially with an Enoch Light EV-4 record, which would make sense, because it's EV-4 and it's Enoch Light mixing). I do not stand behind those statements as strongly as my statement about EV-4. I closely A-B'ed the channels on my EV-4 decoder, I have not with the quadapter.
I've always been impressed by the Enoch Light Quad discs. Back when I had a CD4-50 JVC Pro demodulator, the Enoch Light CD-4 Quadradiscs always gave some of the best results.
More recently, OD has done some EV-4 experiments with Enoch Light material, yielding impressive results in decoding.
More recently, OD has done some EV-4 experiments with Enoch Light material, yielding impressive results in decoding.
If you want to hear the best decoding of
EV4 QSD 1 or Surround Master will the best
I have put a demo on the scope and have a number of EV4
LPs playing the Enoch Light lps they decode as almost discrete
and other EV4 lps that I have
One fine morning by Lighthouse on a Demo disc in EV4
the Guitar intro moves from channel to channel all around the room
in full separation
EV4 QSD 1 or Surround Master will the best
I have put a demo on the scope and have a number of EV4
LPs playing the Enoch Light lps they decode as almost discrete
and other EV4 lps that I have
One fine morning by Lighthouse on a Demo disc in EV4
the Guitar intro moves from channel to channel all around the room
in full separation
oxforddickie
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
I find it hard to believe that unit is capable doing 'everything' as you state, especially as it only decodes QS at 75% (there appears to be an important part of the matris decoding missing from the unit). The EV-4 encoding equation is nothing like QS, and requires an accurate decode equation to get anything out of it.
AND, just to give another clue to the guys in Aus, your problems with SQ are caused by exactly the same reason.
oxforddickie
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Here's an offer to you.
I have created a method of decoding DY & EV-4 to the point where a track from an EV-4 demonstration album decoded using EV-4/II was compared to the same track on a Q4,and was found to be very accurate in positioning, etc.
I will make that EV-4 encoded track available here, along with the decoded version so that you can decode it via your unit and upload the decoded results here for others to determine whether your claims are correct. Over to you
Oh, do the Involve guys back you fully with your claims?
I have created a method of decoding DY & EV-4 to the point where a track from an EV-4 demonstration album decoded using EV-4/II was compared to the same track on a Q4,and was found to be very accurate in positioning, etc.
I will make that EV-4 encoded track available here, along with the decoded version so that you can decode it via your unit and upload the decoded results here for others to determine whether your claims are correct. Over to you
Oh, do the Involve guys back you fully with your claims?
The Bushmaster
500 Club - QQ All-Star
And the proverbial "gauntlet" in the face. The chalenge is on. Gotta git my chips and beer for this one.
Doug G.
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
I like beer but I gotta have Coca Cola with chips.
Doug
Doug
Perhaps everyone can work together to get the "Math" correct if there is a problem. It is interesting as a "Matrix" guy to read about the math and try to wrap my head around how all these systems worked in the 1970s or not. Sounds, highly complicated.
But, would be great if we could all work together to finally crack the code once and for all. We rare few Quad folks are the only ones who care about this. Which makes the work just that more important. Thanks.
But, would be great if we could all work together to finally crack the code once and for all. We rare few Quad folks are the only ones who care about this. Which makes the work just that more important. Thanks.
I believe that in the ol' days no matrix decoder worked good without enhancements that often produced annoying artifacts such as pumping and swishing. What is great about the current digital technology is that the results are better than ever, using, if I have it right, just the phase differences.Perhaps everyone can work together to get the "Math" correct if there is a problem. It is interesting as a "Matrix" guy to read about the math and try to wrap my head around how all these systems worked in the 1970s or not. Sounds, highly complicated.
Which leads to a question. Would improper "Encoding" in the 1970s affect any decoding? In other words, would "Decoding" also have to figure out the variables of each and every "encoding" from each original release? Does the original encoder factor in at all? Thanks.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
