2019 QQ Test Lab Report - SURROUND MASTER 2

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Had an hour or two to mess around with comparisons between the SM2 and SPECWeb 1.5. I used the track "I Can't Tell You Why" from the Eagles CD (Target CD) "The Long Run" because I remember that particular tune decoded very nicely putting Glen Frey and the backup singers in the rears fairly isolated.

So I ran the track twice through the SM2 into my MOTU first in 4.1, then 5.1. I then ripped the track from the CD onto my PC, just to keep everything equal, then ran it through SPECWeb 1.5 with all of the default settings, once for 4.0, then for 5.1. I did not futz with any EQ or loudness stuff. These are the files as they were recorded in.

One thing about the SM2, or maybe it's just my SM2, but when I switch to 5.1 mode, I have to turn the center channel pot down to 9 O'Clock, as the center signal overdrives the MOTU to the point of clipping. Watching the audio into Vegas popped the red clipping indicators. Not sure what's up with that, but it's easily dealt with thanks to the signal level controls.

Here are the results, in 4 One Minute 6CH .flac files which you can check out if you like. They are of the second verse, where the background vocals are prominent. Those with DAW's can play around with them and look and listen to individual tracks. Those who can only listen can still hear the results and determine what you all think.

These less than one minute sample files are provided for evaluation only. No ownership is implied.

Surround Master 2 - 4.1 Involve Mode: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Samples/TEST_SM2_4-1.flac

Surround Master 2 - 5.1 Involve Mode: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Samples/TEST_SM2_5-1.flac

SPECWeb 1.5 (Defaults) - 4.0 Output: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Samples/TEST_SPEC_4-0.flac

SPECWeb 1.5 (Defaults) - 5.1 Output: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Samples/TEST_SPEC_5-1.flac


View attachment 41379

Maybe I'm missing something basic, but in TEST_SPEC 4-0 (SPECWeb 1.5 (Defaults) - 4.0 Output) why is there apparent content in channel 4 (LFE), rather than a flat line? It looks like 4.1 rather than 4.0.
 
Maybe I'm missing something basic, but in TEST_SPEC 4-0 (SPECWeb 1.5 (Defaults) - 4.0 Output) why is there apparent content in channel 4 (LFE), rather than a flat line? It looks like 4.1 rather than 4.0.

'cause I'm a moron and should have labeled it 4.1? :)

(Yes, it's 4.1)
 
Here's a new test. Did it very quickly but here are the results. Using the first minute or so of the D-V Sextant SACD that has the SQ tracks on the disc as well as the stereo and discrete quad. (Track 1)

Here's the discrete quad from a rip using sacd_extract:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Samples/HHRD_SACD.flac
41503



and here is the SM2 SQ decode of the same section of Rain. (NOTE TO KRAB: Even though the SM2 is set to 4.0, you end up with 4.1)

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Samples/HHRD_SM2.flac
41504
 
Thanks Jon,

I can't wait to hear this latest comparison over the weekend.

btw- I also really appreciated the 4.1 and 5.1 samples you had provided in your last test. All are VERY helpful!
 
I will talk to DAVE the Bitch as I am sure we have DSOTM in both QS and Involve format.

Heck,
If you want it from LP I'll just to the first minute or so of PF "Money" from the Quadrafile QS test disc. Then compare it to the same section off the BluRay.
I'm on it tomorrow.
 
Well, I did a more extensive test today with the SM2, using Billy Joel's Turnstiles SQ LP. I pitted a Tate Decode that I did a few years ago against a brand new SM2 decode that I did today.

I don't think anyone would be surprised if I told them the Tate did a better job than the SM2. The Tate is using the proper decoding algorithms while the SM2 is giving it a good show using modern technology. It's close, but it's also clear that the Tate is better.

Here's the deal: I went through the entire album and in many places the SM2 did not do as good a job as the Tate in isolating things in the backs from the fronts. I snipped out one example to post here for you all to check out if you have PC's or DAW's to play back the attached wav files and listen to the individual channels.

It's a short section of "New York State of Mind", where a sax plays in the rear speakers, rear left mostly. On the Tate decode you can barely hear the sax in the fronts. On the SM2 decode, it's louder in the fronts. It's not full presence there, it's just more pronounced than the Tate decode.

Here's a look at the wav files and also the attached audio clips. Top wav view is the Tate decode, lower wav is the SM2.
You can see that they look similar, but not exact.

41734


TATE Decode:
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Samples/NYSOM-Piece1_TATE.wav
SM2 Decode:
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Samples/NYSOM-Piece1_SM2.wav

So hey, it's not that big of a deal. The Tate cost me $800 in the '70s, the SM2 was less than $500 in 2019. A steal. Also, if you can find a better SQ decoder for sale today anywhere else, I suggest you buy that one! :)

Honestly, the SM2 does a very good job at SQ, and a terrific job with QS and stereo files/tunes. It's well worth the cost of the box, plus it decodes in real time, no need for DAW work or burning stuff. Connect it to your audio system and you're done.

This finding should not surprise anyone, or cause anyone to shy away from the SM2. It's just a fact of life. Despite what others may say or print, there is no favoritism at QQ. We tell it like it is, and in this case, the audio speaks for itself.
 
Hey Jon

Actually we are using full proper SQ decode algorithms. I think the difference we are looking at is a numbers chase. We can get any amount of separation you want in the output but at a cost of sonic artifacts and audible switching occurring. This is partly because in SQ you only have 3 dB to play with......its a big jump to move 3 dB to 40 dB. So what I see in the graphs is like you mention a small difference.

As I have mentioned before our test showed no audience members could perceive any separation beyond 12 dB (yep this is controversial) so we opted in some instances slightly lower separation in preference to things like imaging and less artifacts. This has been agreed by several reviewers. I personally can hear the difference between the Tate and the SM straight away but its nothing related to separation. Please note that on a graph 12 db represents about 25% OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE MAIN SIGNAL! We are way beyond that. Below are our SQ separation numbers.

41741


As you can see not 40 dB in all directions but it is deliberate on our part. It really sounded worse with higher numbers

Is it my eyes but in the middle of the graphs it looks like the SM separated more than the Tate??
Have you tried an instant blind A/ B switching listening test? This really is our main test at our end

Regards

Chucky
 
Hey Chucky,

I do not mean to be negative here, as I really do like the SM, SM-SQ, and the SM2 (Heck, I've bought one of each!)

While to the ear the SM2 decode sounds great and barely different than the Tate decode, you can tell if you listened to the files I attached that the sax is louder in the SM2 decode in the fronts than the Tate decode, so I am equating my findings on the actual discrete separation. Sure, the sax is clearly in the rear left of both decodes, and when you are listening in your room and not on a computer, that's what your ear hears - but if you look and listen to these files, you can tell that the sax is less isolated with the SM2.

As I said above, it's not bad, it's not a negative, it's not a non-starter. I don't know shit about decoding or technical specifications. All I am saying is that the Tate gets more sax out of the fronts than the SM2. That's all.

Tomorrow I will play around with the files Dave sent me.
 
Hi Jon

Not taking it as negative. Actually just confirming stuff- I like detailed feedback. Question, when you say you can hear a difference on the sax is louder in the fronts compared to the Tate decode. Is that with respect to the discrete? Also is that listening in the center position with all speakers on or just one speaker at a time?

Regards

Chucky
 
Hi Jon

Not taking it as negative. Actually just confirming stuff- I like detailed feedback. Question, when you say you can hear a difference on the sax is louder in the fronts compared to the Tate decode. Is that with respect to the discrete? Also is that listening in the center position with all speakers on or just one speaker at a time?

Regards

Chucky

Listening on my PC/DAW. Soloing the fronts with both sets of files. You guys can do the same thing if you download those two files I attached. They are very short, only a few measures of the song, about 14 seconds each. If you do, just listen to the fronts.

Like I said, when listening to the audio on a room system it sounds fine. Sax in the rear left, where it should be. As you said, the wav screen caps show that the unit is decoding the signal as the forms are virtually identical, but you can't tell from a screen shot what's in those envelopes. You need to use ears, so that's why I included the attached wav files.

Honestly, it's not that big of a deal. I just thought that in all fairness to the membership, I should post what I found. I do not want to come off as some sort of shill or whatever you call that type of person. o_O
 
Listening on my PC/DAW. Soloing the fronts with both sets of files. You guys can do the same thing if you download those two files I attached. They are very short, only a few measures of the song, about 14 seconds each. If you do, just listen to the fronts.

Like I said, when listening to the audio on a room system it sounds fine. Sax in the rear left, where it should be. As you said, the wav screen caps show that the unit is decoding the signal as the forms are virtually identical, but you can't tell from a screen shot what's in those envelopes. You need to use ears, so that's why I included the attached wav files.

Honestly, it's not that big of a deal. I just thought that in all fairness to the membership, I should post what I found. I do not want to come off as some sort of shill or whatever you call that type of person. o_O

All good, its just my extremely pedantic nature! I understand the test now. I will get Dave the Bitch to have a listen to the files on Monday and get him to report back on any findings..

Thanks Jon!!!
 
We can get any amount of separation you want in the output but at a cost of sonic artifacts and audible switching occurring.

I don't decode SQ records, but one of the features I like about the SM is the absence of sonic artifacts and audible switching when producing surround-sound from stereo material. I have had the pleasure of hearing some quad upmixes from stereo sources using Tate Surround. On occasion, the Tate produces some serious, detectable logic pumping. Even the apple of my eye, Logic7, can suffer from audible switching with certain material...early Beatles for example. While the novelty of extreme separation on this particular material sounds cool initially, over time it becomes annoying when pumping is detectable.
 
Last edited:
I don't decode SQ records, but one of the features I like about the SM is the absence of sonic artifacts and audible switching when producing surround-sound from stereo material. I have had the pleasure of hearing some quad upmixes from stereo sources using Tate Surround. On occasion, the Tate produces some serious, detectable logic pumping. Even the apple of my eye, Logic7, can suffer from audible switching with certain material...early Beatles for example. While the novelty of extreme separation on this particular material sounds cool initially, over time it becomes annoying when pumping is detectable.
Precisely, I have always agreed that the Tate will produce better numbers than the SM but I don't listen to numbers. Ultimately its all a big compromise. The trick is to ensure all the compromises fall below the threshold of human hearing/ perception. Really happy with Jon's result, it really lines up with what we have found at this end and I understand he had to listen to the individual speakers to confirm his result (That I agree with). In summary SQ is a shit sandwich at the best of times and its a great way to totally hide surround in a stereo package but very hard to extract. Tate did a fantastic job and I suspect Shadow Vector will do better than all (I hope). Having read up the little I know about SV it has done many of the things we do- so yep I think it will be great!!

I am the first to admit that the the SQ decode turned out to be about 3 times harder than I or the Bitch expected. Remember that we are electrostatic types and we are highly sensitive to imaging and clarity....so that is our emphasis. Anyway we are more focused on INVOLVE format encode.

Externally I look like an jumbo sized clown not unlike a village idiot, but deep inside I am the most pedantic bastard you will ever meet!

Regards

Chucky
 
Chucky,

I agree. Actually, I hate SQ. I always have. SQ is, IMHO, one of the reasons that quad failed. I've said it here before so eye into the top of you head for those waiting for it, but more average Joe's bought low cost quad systems in the early '70s, systems with no logic in the decodes, but receivers and decoders with SQ logo's on them proclaiming that SQ was the rats ass. When they got this shit home and set it up, it was "What? Where? Huh?" Their cheap little Q8 sounded amazing quad-wise, but their investment in SQ LP's did little more than the stereo LP of the title run through the same decoder.

Early disappointment led to negative vibes and a lack of interest in something that, other than 8-track, the average Joe could not hear a major difference. CD-4 came along with the higher cost and yada-yada-yada, but really, the good decoders like the Lafayette and the later Sony SQ2A's and such were late to the market, with the Tate's and AS&IC showing up when the records stopped and the quad sections disappeared.

IMHO, the SM2 does a fantastic job decoding my SQ LPs, and the only reason I posted the above was to show that there is some sort of difference, be it slight, so that some folks on the fence get multiple reports on the unit. What you guys have done with a 40+ year old technology for the price you are charging is honestly a miracle. Face it, in the '90s, most of us threw in the towel and many threw out their quad stuff. And here we are 50 years later and we're getting quad stuff rereleased on SACDs and a honest to God working SQ and QS decoder for under $500 that is very cool.

The SM2 almost, and I mean almost, makes me like SQ. Almost. :)
 
Back
Top