Comparing the various quad decoders

[gvl_guy]

If you happen to be on Facebook, Bob did an absolutely freakin' amazing job of comparing all the various QS and SQ decoders out there. Video and all! It's fascinating to watch!

Spoiler: most did a good job, some more than others. The scope tells the story.

To see this, I believe you have to log into Facebook. You might need approval from the group, although it's a public group, so maybe not.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[Doug G.]

It's neat but we should be told what we are supposed to see in the displays. It's similar to what Tab has on his website.

Duh! See below.

Doug

 

[gvl_guy]

Well, he lists what each decoder he is using on each video and then the vocal on the test record says "front right, rear left," etc.

 

[Doug G.]

Dang, I can't hear the audio. Sorry.

Duh! See below.

Doug

 

[furui_suterioo]

Any way to see it without making a FB account? really don't want one.

 

[doity]

I don’t see it.....I don’t see it! I see the post but not the video. Oh well, I think that I will survive but it would be good viewing. BTW.....on one of the posts there on the Facebook group near the top a guy has a Technics RS-858 deck with some kind of modification where he has a hole cutout on top and a little white thing protruding from the innards. What precisely is this for? To make some kind of adjustments or it is a joystick kind of thing?

 

[Marcsten]

Any way to see it without making a FB account? really don't want one.

Yeah I can't see it either. I got rid of my FB account way back in 2013 and will never EVER have one again. FB is evil. But I digress. Any other way to see Bob's work?

 

[gvl_guy]

Any way to see it without making a FB account? really don't want one.

Not that I know of

 

[doity]

Well if anyone has a Facebook account maybe they could just do a quick summary. I have a couple of those decoders and would be curious as to what he thinks are the best ones.

 

[furui_suterioo]

I've mentioned myself doing a decoder comparison a few times, the photos I took of vu meters are just too blurry but I will try again when I get my heathkit scope working. I had aquired a new printing of the service manual but it showed up with missing/duplicated pages, so I finally found an original copy of the assembly manual recently.

 

[Doug G.]

You can create a FB account for things like this and just never otherwise use it. I did that years ago and have never had a problem.

Doug

 

[jaybird100]

His comparison was excellent. I don't know of any other record that is more capable of enabling that type of comparing the systems as the "Quadrafile" album. For those not familiar with it, and I'd be surprised if anyone here wasn't, it's four sides of identical program material, differing only in how they're encoded. SQ, QS, CD-4, and UD-4 are represented here. His scope told all, and all decoders used did a fine job. But what I found really interesting was how the latecomer in the group, the Surround Master v.2, pretty much equalled, or surpassed, the performance of the Tate II, for SQ, and the Sansui QSD-1000 for QS. When I bought my S&IC, in 1980, it was twice the price of what the SM sells for now, and it couldn't do QS. The particular Sansui decoder he used, I don't recall ever seeing offered for sale in the US, but it's possible I missed that. Its SQ was the equivalent of partial logic. That had to be an expensive decoder in its day. Adjusting for inflation, that Tate decoder would be around $3900.00 in today's dollars. The SM, at US$599, given its low price and high level of performance, is a no-brainer.

 

[furui_suterioo]

I finally borrowed a friend's phone to watch these, would've downloaded but didn't see an option, great comparison. Would also be interesting to see a comparison of UD-4 demodulator, but those are fairly rare.

 

[Doug G.]

Ya know, I could hear the audio a lot better after I turned it on! And now, the whole thing is beautiful! I love this stuff.

The Tate is still the best for SQ. The others will easily provide directionality, however. CD-4 still the best in an absolute sense, when adjusted properly. Either right separation needed tweaking or the record is not perfect.

Doug

 

[gvl_guy]

Overall, the Surround Master did the best job if you only want one decoder. Excellent in both SQ and QS. But yes, the Tate was outstanding for SQ.

I have a Sansui 9001 without the blend resistors, so I'm actually happy seeing what it can do for QS and, to a lesser extent, SQ. Bob made me a happy camper.

Did you see the CD-4? Wow. Perfection from an LP.

(I'm still thinking about a Surround Master, though.)

 

[Doug G.]

Same here. I'd like to hear one first, though.

Doug

 

[Doug G.]

Boy, having that scope would make it a snap to adjust separation for CD-4. Not that it's that difficult, otherwise, but I like oscilloscopes (used them for years at work).

Doug

 

[Sonik Wiz]

I've got a scope like that. Never thought of using for CD-4 adjustment. Great idea! However I must admit that format doesn't live large in my daily use. Next time I get the fits to set up CD-4 again I will use my Panny scope.

 

[doity]

Overall, the Surround Master did the best job if you only want one decoder. Excellent in both SQ and QS. But yes, the Tate was outstanding for SQ.

I have a Sansui 9001 without the blend resistors, so I'm actually happy seeing what it can do for QS and, to a lesser extent, SQ. Bob made me a happy camper.

Did you see the CD-4? Wow. Perfection from an LP.

(I'm still thinking about a Surround Master, though.)

I would had bought one by now if it was a bit more pleasing to the eye. I had the V1 version but after my man cave flooded not once, but twice, I then sold the bulk of my quad gear including a Marantz 4400 and the Surround Master. I’m sorry.....if I am gonna plunk down that kind of dough I want something that is nice to look at. Nothing personal towards the fellows down under, but that’s just me. You would think with the tech available nowadays that they could put together something that both worked and looked good? Lord knows that they have had numerous suggestions from us here on possible improvements. If it was the only game in town so to speak I would have no issue with it and would gladly line up for one.

 

[gvl_guy]

I would had bought one by now if it was a bit more pleasing to the eye. I had the V1 version but after my man cave flooded not once, but twice, I then sold the bulk of my quad gear including a Marantz 4400 and the Surround Master. I’m sorry.....if I am gonna plunk down that kind of dough I want something that is nice to look at. Nothing personal towards the fellows down under, but that’s just me. You would think with the tech available nowadays that they could put together something that both worked and looked good? Lord knows that they have had numerous suggestions from us here on possible improvements. If it was the only game in town so to speak I would have no issue with it and would gladly line up for one.

It's possible that the V3, which I understand is in the works, could have those suggestions built in.