Quantcast

I’ve Joined the Tate family!

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

jefe1

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
1,987
Location
Los Angeles
One of my pipedreams too is to take an electronics class with soldering etc. Almost enrolled in El Camino college for a night course a few years ago but couldn't swing the commitment. I did take an electricity class in high school...…..
 

jaybird100

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
1,230
Location
Pembroke Pines, FL
Well I agree that the Fosgate Tate did great on stereo to surround. But so did QS. Any Variomatrix unit had the Synthesizer mode that also provided a horseshoe wrap around effect. The Sansui method also enhanced any rear ch ambience/reverb while the Fosgate did not. So I would describe this as the QS Synth mode sounds fuller or more rounder (sic?) while the Fosgate Tate 101A that I used had a thinner more distinct soundfield, both doing the 270 deg wrap around.



Whether it's SQ or QS a center front vocalist is essentially a mono mix where left ch equals right ch. If you take a true mono record or mono pink noise , & listen to only the rear chs (QS or SQ decoding mode)adjusting for left/right balance on the input to the SM you can null that center front leakage out completely. Or at least that any leakage to the rears is completely inaudible. One of the drawbacks to the SM is it has no input balance like the Fosgate unit & that balance is very critical. Get that right & any center front leakage to the rear, SQ or otherwise, should be a non-issue.

Edit: The biggest problem on the SM any version is that is does not have a proper stereo synth mode like the Fosgate or Sansui units!
An input balance control might be a good suggestion for a SMv3.
 

ar surround

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
2,061
Location
New Joisey
I seem to be the only one singing its praises, but I love the Tate's 'surround' upmix mode. I prefer it to both my SMv1 and QSD-2. It creates a horseshoe-like effect where everything that's hard-panned left or right in stereo is placed discretely in the rear speakers. It really isolates stuff in a way I've never heard any other hardware matrix decoder do. I've had really impressive results with Fleetwood Mac's Tango In The Night, CSNY's Deja Vu, Black Sabbath's debut LP, Dire Straits' self-titled album, and several others.

Regarding SQ decoding, I don't agree that the Involve unit is as good or better than the Tate. I've done a close A/B between the two and I think the Tate gives more separation, particularly in the center front to center back position. Listen to the rear channels only of an Involve SQ decode and you'll almost always hear the vocals leaking into the rears, whereas the Tate wipes them out almost completely.
I can confirm that the Tate upmixes of Deja Vu and especially Tango are spectacular. But there is also Pretzel Logic for which I have heard both a Tate and a Penteo upmix. These two upmixes are indistinguishable from each other and equally impressive.
 

sjcorne

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
3,078
Location
Southern NY
I can confirm that the Tate upmixes of Deja Vu and especially Tango are spectacular. But there is also Pretzel Logic for which I have heard both a Tate and a Penteo upmix. These two upmixes are indistinguishable from each other and equally impressive.
Based on the samples I've heard, it sounds like the basis for Penteo is the 'horseshoe" effect with hard-panned stereo elements usually sent to the rears - but with minimal artifacting and a slightly 'fuller' sound. With the Tate, sometimes you get that 'pumping' separation artifact where the front and rear pairs shift in volume depending on where the instruments dominate. CSNY's "Carry On" starts with a lone acoustic guitar in the left rear, but it drops in volume slightly when the vocals and bass guitar enter in the front channels shortly after.
 

par4ken

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
737
Location
NW Ontario
The Sansui decoders produce a horseshoe surround effect in Surround mode from stereo sources. The Tate units utilize SQ decoding for stereo enhancement and produces more of an inverted V shaped decode, but still quite similar to that of the QS units. The Tate units might be a bit more discrete sounding but the QS more natural. The Involve lacks the surround mode and sorry but I dislike straight QS decoding for stereo. Those who rave about the surround master should try it with a pre-synth circuit or pre-synth the audio files in a program such as Audition (see posts by Sonic-Wiz). I'm sure that you will be more even blown away. I find that digital surround units always colour the sound a bit compared to purely analog units such as the Tate.
 
Last edited:

doity

Active Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Messages
87
The Sansui decoders produce a horseshoe surround effect in Surround mode from stereo sources. The Tate units utilize SQ decoding for stereo enhancement and produces more of an inverted V shaped decode, but still quite similar to that of the QS units. The Tate units might be a bit more discrete sounding but the QS more natural. The Involve lacks the surround mode and sorry but I dislike straight QS decoding for stereo. Those who rave about the surround master should try it with a pre-synth circuit or pre-synth the audio files in a program such as Audition (see posts by Sonic-Wiz). I'm sure that you will be more even blown away. I find that digital surround units always colour the sound a bit compared to purely analog units such as the Tate.

Yeah I tend to like the analog realm when it comes to audio processing or manipulation or however you want to phrase it. I can always tell the difference in most cases as the digital output always sounds a bit unnatural. Especially like with some of those early DSP units that some high end car stereos had as optional add-ons.

It would be very fascinating if someone who owned all of the popular four-channel Quad synthesizers could do a test using a good audio scope and using the same source material to show exactly how the different units handle the same audio. I know it would not be a perfect test because of the fact that unlike the Surround Master they were all tweakable to some degree, but it could be done if care was taken to ensure some kind of standard regarding levels, balance, etc.
 

rustyandi

800 Club - QQ All-Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 19, 2002
Messages
833
Location
Australia
The Sansui decoders produce a horseshoe surround effect in Surround mode from stereo sources. The Tate units utilize SQ decoding for stereo enhancement and produces more of an inverted V shaped decode, but still quite similar to that of the QS units. The Tate units might be a bit more discrete sounding but the QS more natural. The Involve lacks the surround mode and sorry but I dislike straight QS decoding for stereo. Those who rave about the surround master should try it with a pre-synth circuit or pre-synth the audio files in a program such as Audition (see posts by Sonic-Wiz). I'm sure that you will be more even blown away. I find that digital surround units always colour the sound a bit compared to purely analog units such as the Tate.
I have had the QSD 1 since about 1978 and used to play stereo with the SYN. mode all the time
but after many years I found that too much rear level
I don,t know if it changed when I put the same speakers in the rear as the front
But I now find it smoother playing stereo in QS or Involve
But I have some very exciting sounds when I play stereo By using Involve TSS and then into QS/or Involve
I have a old model as well It is like playing a Q Sound CD with QS
Ron
 

chucky3042

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
1,635
An input balance control might be a good suggestion for a SMv3.
Yeah, good comment. I think it is a good idea for SQ as it is incredibly sensitive to ANY cartridge or input imbalance and could accound for some observations made here. We put in the SQ mode on request of you fellas reluctantly as we really do not want to promote SQ format as it contrary to or directions. Both INVOLVE encode format and QS are way more tolerant of input variations. But yes, I will add that to the wish list on the SM3 and definitely on the super surround pre amp that Dave the Bitch is due to restart soon.

Has anyone played with a pre amp balance control feeding SQ into the SM V2???
 

Sonik Wiz

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,614
Location
Kansas City
Has anyone played with a pre amp balance control feeding SQ into the SM V2???
Yep.
Elsewhere I posted about a DIY front end companion piece for the SM. It has L/R balance controls. The only draw back to this set up is the blinky lights on the Chase aren't all that precise so it's hard to know exactly when the balance is neutral or correct. So it's my habit at the start of a movie/music session to turn on the Chase, the SM and let them temp stabilize a bit. Since I have white noise test signals ready to go on an HDD attached to my Oppo I play center front , listen to only the back speakers & adjust. It's a sensitive adjustment but when done it really drops front to back crosstalk to silent. Doing the opposite, playing center back & checking only the front speakers I find the SM still agrees with that L/R balance & there's no bleed through.

Trying to do this with an SQ test record is difficult because the test tones are only long enough for speaker identification. But really, if the topic is center front to back bleed through then a mono record works just as well. I like to use Martin Denny or Cha Cha records of my parents that are still in pretty good shape. In this situation I hear record noise, ticks & pops & a little bit of center front bleed through in the rear chs. I attribute this to the LP record not being as pure a source as PC generated test tones, phono cartridge anomalies such as slight but unequal phase shift between the 2 chs & also the limited separation of ~25 dB in a phono cart.

But adjusting L/R input balance makes the best of this. The bleed through is quite small & with the front speakers working completely unnoticeable. I've been very happy with the direction sensing & separation enhancement on the SM using SQ or QS with sounds in any location. If there is a significant amount of front to back bleed through I suggest the problem is in the signal chain before the SM. And one example of that is sometimes records are not as precisely balanced as we expect & that's another time you would want to tweak input balance for best effect.
 
Last edited:

sjcorne

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
3,078
Location
Southern NY
And one example of that is sometimes records are not as precisely balanced as we expect & that's another time you would want to tweak input balance for best effect.
I'm convinced that a lot of the old CBS SQ records suffer from balance and/or encoding errors. There are times where instruments/vocals I know are meant to be located in front center do not trigger the Tate's balance indicator light.
 

par4ken

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
737
Location
NW Ontario
I have had the QSD 1 since about 1978 and used to play stereo with the SYN. mode all the time
but after many years I found that too much rear level
I don,t know if it changed when I put the same speakers in the rear as the front
But I now find it smoother playing stereo in QS or Involve
But I have some very exciting sounds when I play stereo By using Involve TSS and then into QS/or Involve
I have a old model as well It is like playing a Q Sound CD with QS
Ron
With a variable pre-syth you can adjust the effect to your own taste. Scott's original design allowed for in phase blending as well which also produces the "Hall" effect. Straight SQ produces a similar effect to Hall mode. With straight Involve decode of stereo you will have a hard left reproduced equally from both side speakers but with a 90° phase shift, same on the right. For stereo enhancement (not for QS) it would be better if that phase shift was not present.
 

Marcsten

300 Club - QQ All-Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
385
Location
Seattle
Well, I am almost afraid to share this story. Quad Bob and I spent a long time communicating many years ago and I sent him my Audionics Tate for re-capping. Came back in good time and it is my primary device to this day. I prefer its synthesizing to the Sasnui, but that's another story. The reason for this post is that Bob and I communicated about him rehabbing my HH Scott 1959 tube amplifier. I shipped it to him. He let me know that it arrived and started the process. Then, disappeared. Multiple, multiple attempts to contact him failed. I can only assume he really liked the unit and kept it. I hate to trash an icon, but that was my story. Buyer beware as with all things.
 

quadaholic

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
76
Location
Newtonville MA
Well, I am almost afraid to share this story. Quad Bob and I spent a long time communicating many years ago and I sent him my Audionics Tate for re-capping. Came back in good time and it is my primary device to this day. I prefer its synthesizing to the Sasnui, but that's another story. The reason for this post is that Bob and I communicated about him rehabbing my HH Scott 1959 tube amplifier. I shipped it to him. He let me know that it arrived and started the process. Then, disappeared. Multiple, multiple attempts to contact him failed. I can only assume he really liked the unit and kept it. I hate to trash an icon, but that was my story. Buyer beware as with all things.
Marcsten, I'm sorry to hear of your dilemma. Keep after him and do your best to keep it civil.
 

Marcsten

300 Club - QQ All-Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
385
Location
Seattle
Marcsten, I'm sorry to hear of your dilemma. Keep after him and do your best to keep it civil.
Thanks! Its a strange thing. It was so many years ago now that I have pretty much given up. I only raise it now as someone was considering sending their tate to him. I am still very confused by it all. We had communicated a great deal leading up to this and I really liked and trusted him, obviously or I would not have sent me gear to him. And while the amp is a great piece, its hardly super valuable or rare. They show up on Ebay all the time. So why would he risk his reputation over it? I want to think its all just some big misunderstanding and there is an explanation, but as I said, after all these years, I have moved on. I would love to get the Scott back, though. It was my parents when I was growing up and they gave it to me when they didn't want an antique that used tubes any more. (Their words not mine - almost all my gear has tubes!). Oh well. Bob - if you are out there and you read this, reach out, brother.
 

Marcsten

300 Club - QQ All-Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
385
Location
Seattle
Thanks! Its a strange thing. It was so many years ago now that I have pretty much given up. I only raise it now as someone was considering sending their tate to him. I am still very confused by it all. We had communicated a great deal leading up to this and I really liked and trusted him, obviously or I would not have sent me gear to him. And while the amp is a great piece, its hardly super valuable or rare. They show up on Ebay all the time. So why would he risk his reputation over it? I want to think its all just some big misunderstanding and there is an explanation, but as I said, after all these years, I have moved on. I would love to get the Scott back, though. It was my parents when I was growing up and they gave it to me when they didn't want an antique that used tubes any more. (Their words not mine - almost all my gear has tubes!). Oh well. Bob - if you are out there and you read this, reach out, brother.
Well this is one of the things that is so great about this site! Bob saw it, he reached out, and despite the passage of all this time and whatever hurt feelings from years past, we are all good, and its been resolved, and my amp will be coming home soon. Thanks to all of you who may have contributed to this great outcome after all these years. Its made my day to have this resolved after so long. It really is best to always hold out the best in people and not be judgmental. Thanks again to all of you and, thanks, Bob.
 
Top