Other quad LPs on an SQ decoder?

[ChopperCharles]

I have a Pioneer QX-4000, which uses the SQ decoder. Will I get anything out of playing QS LPs (either in regular or SQ mode), or should I just avoid them?

If I play a CD4 LP on a regular turntable (with a non-compatible cartridge and stylus), will I damage the LP? Will it sound decent? Will I get any quad out of it at all? I really, REALLY like the few Jethro Tull songs I've heard (as mp3) from the Aqualung quad mix, and I'd like the complete album. But, not if I have to buy more equipment to play it.

Charles.

 

[Q8]

That should have a RM (regular Matrix) mode which is essentially QS. This is what you would use to play QS LPs. That unit may also possibly have a CD-4 demodulator. You do need a CD-4 compatable cartridge with a shibata stylus for CD-4 playback. You may be able to get a little action with a regular stylus if your cartridge has a high enough range to detect the carrier, but it will be unstable at best. As for damaging the CD-4 LPs with a normal stylus? That is still a subject in debate. Some people say yes, some people say no, some people things it depends on the LP. Most would advise it is not worth the risk.

 

[ChopperCharles]

That should have a RM (regular Matrix) mode which is essentially QS. This is what you would use to play QS LPs. That unit may also possibly have a CD-4 demodulator. You do need a CD-4 compatable cartridge with a shibata stylus for CD-4 playback. You may be able to get a little action with a regular stylus if your cartridge has a high enough range to detect the carrier, but it will be unstable at best. As for damaging the CD-4 LPs with a normal stylus? That is still a subject in debate. Some people say yes, some people say no, some people things it depends on the LP. Most would advise it is not worth the risk.

Oh very cool. It as a Regular and an SQ mode, so that's awesome. However, I think Aqualung was only released as a CD4 LP, correct? Which means unless I get a demodulator and the proper turntable and stylus, I'm SOL... No SACD release and I can't play DVD-A (and don't want to spend $130 on the Aqualung special edition), so.... crap.

Charles.

 

[Quad Linda]

Pioneer QX-4000 predates CD-4. The SQ decoder is rudimentary and will give minimal Quad effects from SQ records.

Don't blame the messenger.

 

[dr8track]

I have a Pioneer QX-4000, which uses the SQ decoder. Will I get anything out of playing QS LPs (either in regular or SQ mode), or should I just avoid them?

You will get something playing a QS album in SQ mode. It just won't be what was intended. As Q8 stated, you'd use your RM mode for QS. And as Linda mentioned, for SQ records the Pioneer SQ decoder in not full logic. So, you won't get the kind of separation that's possible with a full logic SQ decoder. The only Pioneer I'm familiar with that had the full logic SQ decoder was the Pioneer QX-949A.

As far as the CD-4 decoders in the Pioneers, I am a long time Pioneer QX-949 owner and the CD-4 decoder was crap.

 

[Quad Linda]

Dr. 8 Track is correct. Notice he specified QX-949A. QX-949 (not A) has a similar SQ decoder to QX-4000 and QX-8000.

 

[Q-Eight]

If you ask me (which you didn't), the matrix systems suck in general. Yes, I'm very biased but it's my opinion wrong as it may be! (lol)

If you really want to have some fun experiencing Quadraphonics, stick to Q8's, Q4's and start saving up for a DTS/DVD playback section. For really little money, you can experience discrete Quad the way it was supposed to be. Really, you can get a Technics or Millenium DTS decoder for under a hundred bucks and almost any DVD player now has an optical out jack.

 

[Quad Linda]

Respectfully, I must disagree. Q4 reel-to-reel is the best Quad going. CD-4 is great, but you'll need a demodulator and phono cartridge suited for it. You have an adequate QS/RM decoder in that receiver. If you want to do SQ well, you'll need to buy an outboard decoder. As to Q8's, I have two decks and over 200 cartridges. All that being said, 8 track is the worst format ever invented. The separation is a s good as Q4, but the fidelity is lacking and tapes can jam. I would much rather listen to an SQ LP with its' admittedly inferior separation, but otherwise high fidelity than a Q8. SQ's separation is pretty nice with a good decoder, although not as good as tape or CD-4. Where possible, I've rebought all my Q8 titles on Quad LP's.

 

[ChopperCharles]

I have a Samsung HD841 for playing SACDs, but I don't believe it supports DVD-A. My Dark Side of the Moon SACD sounds amazing on this setup, and I only have two Quadraphonic LPs right now -- a sample disc and Billy Paul/War of the Gods. War of the Gods sounds decent through the SQ decoder.

I downloaded a couple of "Quad Mix" mp3s, but didn't get a whole lot out of them. I'm wondering if the compression affects the matrix or if they were downmixed for the digital release. (Ten Years After and Barclay James Harvest).

I'm not giving up my RT-707, so there is no Quad reel-to-reel in my future. I don't want an 8 track player either. Vinyl is my favorite music medium.

In fact, I'm just getting into Quad, as this was my father's setup back in the 70's. Although, I did add the SACD player and switched out his Realistic speakers for a quad of Baby Advents.

Charles.

 

[John Svensson]

Reviews of the Samsung HD841 say it plays DVD-A also, so you might want to check that.....also say it "forgets" its Dulby and DTS settings each time it is powered off. Hopefully that feature was repaired or you would go crazy. I think Aqualung has been floating about as a DTS version for years that you could find without too much trouble. That would be a cheaper route than cobbling together a CD4 set-up from scratch. John

 

[ChopperCharles]

Pioneer QX-4000 predates CD-4. The SQ decoder is rudimentary and will give minimal Quad effects from SQ records.

Don't blame the messenger.

No blame, but CD-4 came out in 1972. The QX-4000 was made from 1974-1976, if I'm not mistaken.

The QX4000 is what I've got, and I like it. For my small room it's more than enough volume, and it sounds great with a discrete quad input from my SACD/DVD player (I've already got the setup). With the two quad (SQ) LPs I have so far, I usually couldn't tell there was quad going on at all, except for a few tracks where it was obvious.

So, I've got regular matrix and SQ matrix, but no 4-channel stereo. So, if I user my tuner or play a 2-channel CD, but want four-speaker sound, should I put it to RM or SQ?

A CD-4 demodulator could be in my future, especially if my turntable will already support it with just a needle change. (Sony PS-LX5)

Charles.

 

[dr8track]

No blame, but CD-4 came out in 1972. The QX-4000 was made from 1974-1976, if I'm not mistaken.

The QX4000 is what I've got, and I like it. For my small room it's more than enough volume, and it sounds great with a discrete quad input from my SACD/DVD player (I've already got the setup). With the two quad (SQ) LPs I have so far, I usually couldn't tell there was quad going on at all, except for a few tracks where it was obvious.

So, I've got regular matrix and SQ matrix, but no 4-channel stereo. So, if I user my tuner or play a 2-channel CD, but want four-speaker sound, should I put it to RM or SQ?

A CD-4 demodulator could be in my future, especially if my turntable will already support it with just a needle change. (Sony PS-LX5)

Charles.

Charles, I may have missed it in the post, but does your Pioneer also have a CD-4 setting as well as SQ and RM? For stereo played on all four speakers CD-4 is the setting I always used on my receiver to basically get double stereo out of the front and back. Since you would be sending the unit a non-CD-4 signal it would just play the front and back in stereo. I"m pretty sure playing a stereo signal with the SQ or RM setting will also send sound to all four speakers. The only difference there is you'd get something other than just stereo duplicated in the front and rear. You could just use the setting that you enjoy the sound the best.

 

[Quad Linda]

There is no CD-4 setting on QX-4000. CD-4 was introduced in the US while it was a current model, not before.

In the day, I was a Pioneer dealer. QX-4000 & 8000 were available in '72 and '73. QX-646, 747 and 949 (not A) replaced them in the fall of '73. We had a neat package when QX-4000 was being closed out: $499 for a QX-4000, 4 house brand speakers, Garrard changer and Shure M91ED phono cartridge. $299 for the 4000 alone.

Pioneer QX-4000 page explaining Discrete (tape only) and Matrix (RM/SQ): http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIxNFg5MjI=/$T2eC16NHJGkE9no8gGLyBQt(ny2b+g~~60_12.JPG?set_id=880000500F

RM position would be preferable to SQ for synthesizing Quad from a stereo source. 2 ch position would be best for mono sources.

No blame, but CD-4 came out in 1972. The QX-4000 was made from 1974-1976, if I'm not mistaken.

The QX4000 is what I've got, and I like it. For my small room it's more than enough volume, and it sounds great with a discrete quad input from my SACD/DVD player (I've already got the setup). With the two quad (SQ) LPs I have so far, I usually couldn't tell there was quad going on at all, except for a few tracks where it was obvious.

So, I've got regular matrix and SQ matrix, but no 4-channel stereo. So, if I user my tuner or play a 2-channel CD, but want four-speaker sound, should I put it to RM or SQ?

A CD-4 demodulator could be in my future, especially if my turntable will already support it with just a needle change. (Sony PS-LX5)

Charles.

 

[Doug G.]

Linda, those package deals you talk about were some of THE neatest things about those days in HiFi. I never really took advantage of them because I always wanted to pick my own stuff out (although my BIC 980 came with a FREE Empire 2000 E/III and base when I bought it) but still...Exciting for the quad/stereo shopper.

And also, to add to this, most of the SQ/QS advocates were slow to include CD-4 with their equipment as they were determined matrix quad would be the winner, especially with CBS' huge push for SQ. Pioneer was one of the slow ones. Most manufacturers eventually did include a demogitator (demodulator) in their equipment although, by then, it was too late. Sad.

Doug

 

[Quad Linda]

Personally, I liked few packages we ever put together, even where I chose the gear. I had an Assistant Manager that used to refer to them as "Little Gyppers." That Pioneer package was a favorite of mine, and they FLEW out the door. If it were me, I would have bought the receiver ala carte, and added better speakers, Pioneer single-play turntable with an AT14S, and a JVC-4DD5 demogitator. I did, in fact, sell that package, but it was $850. I just described my first Quad system, with a Marantz receiver and Marantz speakers. It had a $1400 list price. ($3500 list ($10,000 eqiv today), including an Akai Q8, Teac Q4 and Teac cassette deck, wood case, remotes and SQ module.) The QX-4000 was a solid, nice sounding, well built receiver.

Sadly, there NEVER was a Quad receiver that did all formats well. Later Sansui's perhaps came closest, with a great QS section and CD-4 built in. With a Sony SQD-2020, or later a Tate, it would be all most folks need.

EVERY brand of Quad receiver, and perhaps all stereo receivers, had something about them that could have been improved. (An argument starter, for sure.) Poor decoders, no demodulator, muddy amps, poor sensitivity, poor selectivity, poor reliability and low power are the problems. EVERY brand suffered from one or more of these issues. The first two flaws are generic only to Quad. Yet, by adding a black box or two and/or a roof antenna, most/all of a receiver's inadequacies disappeared. What most brands had in common was a fantastic build quality. Pioneer was no exception.

 

[Doug G.]

Yup, your last paragraph illustrates why I stuck to separates for quad instead of basing my system around a quad receiver. There was always something about each one I didn't like. Each one seemed a bit better at some things but fell short with others.

Of course, I am more technically minded too so I went with Heathkits. Building those kits was tops!

EDIT: Sorry for the thread hijack.

Doug

 

[Quad Linda]

That "Healthknit" stuff was/is pretty nice.

Since '78, I've switched to tuner/preamp/power amp(s) packages, dbx II n/r and moving coil phono cartridges. Better build quality, more detailed sound and WIDER DYNAMIC RANGE, EQUIVALENT TO A RECEIVER WITH SEVEN TIMES THE WATTAGE! If you can afford $15,000 +, this is THE WAY to go.

And I'm also sorry for the hijack.

(PS: I edited my previous post.)

Yup, your last paragraph illustrates why I stuck to separates for quad instead of basing my system around a quad receiver. There was always something about each one I didn't like. Each one seemed a bit better at some things but fell short with others.

Of course, I am more technically minded too so I went with Heathkits. Building those kits was tops!

EDIT: Sorry for the thread hijack.

Doug

 

[ChopperCharles]

Well, so far I'm not terribly impressed with the SQ LPs I have. A few songs I can make out discreet instruments, but most just sound like 4-channel stereo to me. Obviously SACD sounds amazing. CD-4 may be the way to go, especially for this unit, which doesn't have a solid-state decoder.

Question about the demogitator/demodulator. My QX-4000 only has 2-channel phono input. Does the demodulator handle RIAA conversion, or do I need two phono stages as well? Or do I put the phono stage upstream of the demodulator?

Charles.

 

[Quad Linda]

The decoders work after the phono stage, so it's all built in. An external CD-4 demodulator is its' own phono preamp, and connects to a four-channel aux or tape input.

 

[dr8track]

Well, so far I'm not terribly impressed with the SQ LPs I have. A few songs I can make out discreet instruments, but most just sound like 4-channel stereo to me. Obviously SACD sounds amazing. CD-4 may be the way to go, especially for this unit, which doesn't have a solid-state decoder.

Question about the demogitator/demodulator. My QX-4000 only has 2-channel phono input. Does the demodulator handle RIAA conversion, or do I need two phono stages as well? Or do I put the phono stage upstream of the demodulator?

Charles.

I had that same underwhelmed impression when I first played an SQ album through my decoder on the QX-949. Pretty much killed my interest in SQ vinyl for decades. It's quite possible that you'll have a more impressive experience if you ever get your hands on a full logic SQ decoder.

As far as a CD-4 outboard decoder, this Sansui just was listed on ebay. BIN for $78. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sansui-CD-4-QUADRAPHONIC-4-CHANNEL-DEMODULATOR-QC-04-QUAD-/140911593857?pt=Vintage_Electronics_R2&hash=item20cefc4981

While Sansui is famous for QS and the Variomatrix decoder, I've never heard anything about Sansui CD-4 outboard units, so not sure how well it works for CD-4.