Comparing the various quad decoders

[Soundfield]

The Sound Master V2 has SQ on faceplate, and is void of any QS mentioning. But I keep finding articles that it decodes QS. Why is the QS decoder function not part of the advertisement? Any further explanation on this void in QS being mentioned by Involve would be helpful.

Whilst QS isn’t given a specifically enumerated switch designation on the front of the SM, the fundamentals of QS lie at the very heart of the Involve format (as their CTO, @chucky3042, has described in great detail on this forum many times). As such the Involve decode mode acts as a very fine QS decoder. The Involve algorithms also actually decode several other formats very well. These are clearly detailed on the SM, but are on the rear panel explanation of the mode switches…

 

[jaybird100]

The Sound Master V2 has SQ on faceplate, and is void of any QS mentioning. But I keep finding articles that it decodes QS. Why is the QS decoder function not part of the advertisement? Any further explanation on this void in QS being mentioned by Involve would be helpful.

The "Involve" setting is QS.

 

[Marcsten]

I had a great exchange with Bob after I saw these. Always good to talk to him. Its worth remembering that these were nearly ideal situations. So Bob's CD 4 is a setup few will have the means or ability to approach. Similarly, the Sansui QS performance is Bob's personal very tweaked and maximized late receiver. Despite that, its clear for SQ you can't beat a healthy tate and especially the S and IC. For QS its tough to beat his Sansui setup. Fine. But if you are just getting into or maybe are interested in getting a better decoder from an earlier more rudimentary one, do you really want to buy an Audionics unit or a Sansui unit on Ebay? Not a chance. LIklihood of performance anything like Bob's results, if they work at all, are poor. So if you are getting in now or upgrading now, the Sound Master version 2 makes the most sense. Its new so you won't have to worry about age related issues and it does a decent job of both SQ and QS even if its not quite as good as a healthy heritage unit. Also, it appears that the version 2 is a substantial improvement over the older model of Surround Master. In short, these are a welcome addition to modern decoder life~!

 

[Miker1102]

I know that you are being funny and it was kind of funny. But you can’t act like anything that I suggested is not in widespread use in modern electronics now. And cheap and effectively. I have an old 486 computer in my basement right now that had sat unused for probably 20 years or so. A couple months back I turned it on for the first time in decades and it booted right up. And doesn’t Involve have an amplifier with remote and on screen menus now?

I might be speaking only for myself, but I think it would be great to have a piece of modern equipment with all of the modern touches to pair with near 50 year old stuff. Kind of a juxtaposition between new and old but both essentially doing the same thing.

I have a brand new Sony receiver that is hooked up to a pair of almost 40 year old Sony speakers that sound great. People on this forum say the speakers suck but they sound better than the new Polks I bought. The balance is wonderful for classic rock. I am looking at some Wharfedale speakers from the late 70s.

 

[LetsRecapVintageHIFI]

The "Involve" setting is QS.

Appreciate that, I have made my order.

 

[LetsRecapVintageHIFI]

Whilst QS isn’t given a specifically enumerated switch designation on the front of the SM, the fundamentals of QS lie at the very heart of the Involve format (as their CTO, @chucky3042, has described in great detail on this forum many times). As such the Involve decode mode acts as a very fine QS decoder. The Involve algorithms also actually decode several other formats very well. These are clearly detailed on the SM, but are on the rear panel explanation of the mode switches…

View attachment 64400

Aha the fine print on the back panel. Appreciate your help.

 

[Wagonmaster_91]

For those of you who wish the SM had meters...I run my Surround Master through the discrete in/outs of a Sony SQD-2020. The 2020's meters give me a visual of what the SM is doing. Since I have a Tate and a S&IC, I rarely use the Sony 2020 for anything else.

 

[jaybird100]

I remember Fosgate having a "360° Space Matrix" surround processor, in both home and car versions, It was a high separation RM based unit. I had the car version in a Honda Civic hatchback, and it was excellent. Fosgate could have incorporated that circuit in their Tate II decoder, but they didn't. Imagine if they had...

 

[Sonik Wiz]

I remember Fosgate having a "360° Space Matrix" surround processor, in both home and car versions, It was a high separation RM based unit. I had the car version in a Honda Civic hatchback, and it was excellent. Fosgate could have incorporated that circuit in their Tate II decoder, but they didn't. Imagine if they had...

The 360 Space Matrix line of decoders came after the Fosgate 101 Tate. It was a collaboration between Fosgate & Schieber where as the 101A was Fosgate & entirely different collaborators. Kind of like two trains passing each other. In the Tate DES patents it is shown how that circuit could be changed to work with QS as well. But as you said they chose not to.

I did a little post about the Space Matrix design a while back:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/space-matrix-revisited.26421/

 

[Wagonmaster_91]

The 360 Space Matrix line of decoders came after the Fosgate 101 Tate. It was a collaboration between Fosgate & Schieber where as the 101A was Fosgate & entirely different collaborators. Kind of like two trains passing each other. In the Tate DES patents it is shown how that circuit could be changed to work with QS as well. But as you said they chose not to.

I did a little post about the Space Matrix design a while back:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/space-matrix-revisited.26421/

I use a 3610 model to create the signals for my faux-Atmos front overhead speakers.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

I use a 3610 model to create the signals for my faux-Atmos front overhead speakers.

Very interesting! Can you share details like you use just the original front or back chs fed to the Fosgate? What mode on the 3610 is used? And of course, how does it sound?

 

[Wagonmaster_91]

Very interesting! Can you share details like you use just the original front or back chs fed to the Fosgate? What mode on the 3610 is used? And of course, how does it sound?

Here's the story...
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/frankenstein-atmos-–-it’s-alive.28751/

 

[leeherman]

I know that you are being funny and it was kind of funny. But you can’t act like anything that I suggested is not in widespread use in modern electronics now. And cheap and effectively. I have an old 486 computer in my basement right now that had sat unused for probably 20 years or so. A couple months back I turned it on for the first time in decades and it booted right up. And doesn’t Involve have an amplifier with remote and on screen menus now?

I might be speaking only for myself, but I think it would be great to have a piece of modern equipment with all of the modern touches to pair with near 50 year old stuff. Kind of a juxtaposition between new and old but both essentially doing the same thing.

My initial quadraphonic setup revolved around a modern home theater receiver with no analog multi-channel inputs.

I originally had a Sony SQ-D2020 decoder with a Pioneer PL-600 turntable, Fisher 100 Q8 player, and a TEAC A-3340S RTR. As the receiver had no analog multi-channel inputs, I bought a MOTU UltraLite MkIV to use as a multi-channel A/D converter, connected it to a small footprint PC, and sent A/V out from the PC to the receiver via HDMI.

The whole setup was kludgy but worked well.

I've since built a dedicated quad setup in my home office so the only thing remaining of my original living room setup is the PC, which I can use to play the many many quad/5.1 digital files I've downloaded over the years. The TEAC is still downstairs but not currently connected, the Sony SQ decoder started giving me trouble and I haven't attempted to fix it yet, and the Fisher Q8 player is in use with my quad setup.

I recently moved the MOTU upstairs, which is allowing me to digitize my various SQ/CD-4/Q8/Q4 tapes from the quad system.

LH

 

[Electric Moo]

The "Involve" setting is QS.

I think Involve would be wise to advertise this fact more clearly; It took me a while to learn that QS is strongly supported ( indeed, even an inspiration ) by the SM.

Considering it's widely regarded as the best matrix style quad encoding, lots of people will be looking for QS decoding capabilities

 

[Electric Moo]

Can't figure out how to edit that on my phone. Sorry for/by the bad grammar

 

[J. PUPSTER]

My initial quadraphonic setup revolved around a modern home theater receiver with no analog multi-channel inputs.

I originally had a Sony SQ-D2020 decoder with a Pioneer PL-600 turntable, Fisher 100 Q8 player, and a TEAC A-3340S RTR. As the receiver had no analog multi-channel inputs, I bought a MOTU UltraLite MkIV to use as a multi-channel A/D converter, connected it to a small footprint PC, and sent A/V out from the PC to the receiver via HDMI.

The whole setup was kludgy but worked well.

I've since built a dedicated quad setup in my home office so the only thing remaining of my original living room setup is the PC, which I can use to play the many many quad/5.1 digital files I've downloaded over the years. The TEAC is still downstairs but not currently connected, the Sony SQ decoder started giving me trouble and I haven't attempted to fix it yet, and the Fisher Q8 player is in use with my quad setup.

I recently moved the MOTU upstairs, which is allowing me to digitize my various SQ/CD-4/Q8/Q4 tapes from the quad system.

LH

I also use a MOTU UltraLite MkIV to digitize my Quad LPs with a SMv2; and am curious as to what OS/software/DAW you’re using to record into?

 

[leeherman]

I also use a MOTU UltraLite MkIV to digitize my Quad LPs with a SMv2; and am curious as to what OS/software/DAW you’re using to record into?

I'm using a home built Windows 10 PC, Intel i7 processor with 16GB RAM, the AudioDesk software which came with the MOTU to capture the tracks in WAV format and Audacity for adjustments and the merge to a single FLAC file.

AudioDesk has been superseded by PerformerLite, and I got a license from MOTU, but I had issues getting PerformerLite to recognize the UltraLite so I've stuck with AudioDesk for now.

LH

 

[MidiMagic]

A few items:

1. How do you adjust the SM for the differences in DS, QS, EV, and DQ? Or do you move your chair?

2. I would rather have a cheaper basic SM with SQ than more features.

3. I almost had my own Tate decoder, but I didn't have the money the pawnshop wanted for it.

4. An "improved CD-4 decoder" could remove the crashes from dust ground into the record and the hiss from worn carriers. I have never found a used CD-4 record that didn't have these.

5. When Stereo Review used the scope to compare various matrix systems, they discovered that the original Sansui QS-1 gave a discrete-looking display because the adjacent-channel crosstalks cancelled each other out in the scope. So it is not foolproof.

6. I built my own quad scope that connected to the speaker outputs. It had the same limitation.

 

[par4ken]

A few items:

1. How do you adjust the SM for the differences in DS, QS, EV, and DQ? Or do you move your chair?

2. I would rather have a cheaper basic SM with SQ than more features.

3. I almost had my own Tate decoder, but I didn't have the money the pawnshop wanted for it.

4. An "improved CD-4 decoder" could remove the crashes from dust ground into the record and the hiss from worn carriers. I have never found a used CD-4 record that didn't have these.

5. When Stereo Review used the scope to compare various matrix systems, they discovered that the original Sansui QS-1 gave a discrete-looking display because the adjacent-channel crosstalks cancelled each other out in the scope. So it is not foolproof.

6. I built my own quad scope that connected to the speaker outputs. It had the same limitation.

1. No need the differences are relatively minor. That being said a pre-synth feature as originally proposed by Sonic could be used to adjust the effect as desired. Sansui used Hall (in phase blend) and Surround (out of phase blend) to simulate QS encoding from stereo. Sonic went one better by making things fully adjustable. I've often thought that If you wanted an exact setting for those asymmetrical encodes, you could use two decoders one adjusted properly for the fronts and the other for the rear.

2. Me too, although as an avid DIYer I could/would add the features I want myself (such as a pre-synth circuit). Others likely would desire/require extra features. The evaluation modules are a great value.

3. I would of got it regardless of cost. The surround master is a good alternative though.

4. Lou Dorran was working on one but sadly passed away.

5/6. Quad scopes are sort of cool, but I always thought that were too geeky even for me. I did create a display with my scope at one time, as I recall all you need are some diodes to create an adaptor/interface that connects to the horizontal and vertical inputs of the scope.

 

[MidiMagic]

1. No need the differences are relatively minor. That being said a pre-synth feature as originally proposed by Sonic could be used to adjust the effect as desired. Sansui used Hall (in phase blend) and Surround (out of phase blend) to simulate QS encoding from stereo. Sonic went one better by making things fully adjustable. I've often thought that If you wanted an exact setting for those asymmetrical encodes, you could use two decoders one adjusted properly for the fronts and the other for the rear.

2. Me too, although as an avid DIYer I could/would add the features I want myself (such as a pre-synth circuit). Others likely would desire/require extra features. The evaluation modules are a great value.

3. I would of got it regardless of cost. The surround master is a good alternative though.

4. Lou Dorran was working on one but sadly passed away.

5/6. Quad scopes are sort of cool, but I always thought that were too geeky even for me. I did create a display with my scope at one time, as I recall all you need are some diodes to create an adaptor/interface that connects to the horizontal and vertical inputs of the scope.

1. Actually moving your chair forward and backward produces the same result.

3. I was out of work at the time I saw it and had no way to get it.

6. That's what I did.