I’ve Joined the Tate family!

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.
Marcsten, this is great news that you finally have your gear sorted! I recently got 2 snare drums back from a repair person who had had them for at least 5 or 6 years. It was a very odd situation with me calling every few months, but I have to say, the work was awesome. We're all good now as well.
 
FWIW, I finally got my Tetrasound back from it’s doctor's visit. I put it off for close to a year but it is finally ready to join it’s place amongst my other vintage Quad gear.

For anyone that is looking for someone to overhaul their Tate, I can suggest Inner Sound here in Portland. You can even ship to them as that is what I did even though they are close by. Total for the recap was less than $200. They have been in business since I can remember so they can be trusted.

3D7162A3-BF48-4A6B-ACC4-EFB2B23DCF34.jpeg
 
FWIW, I finally got my Tetrasound back from it’s doctor's visit. I put it off for close to a year but it is finally ready to join it’s place amongst my other vintage Quad gear.

For anyone that is looking for someone to overhaul their Tate, I can suggest Inner Sound here in Portland. You can even ship to them as that is what I did even though they are close by. Total for the recap was less than $200. They have been in business since I can remember so they can be trusted.

View attachment 69295
How is sounding? Maybe I should send them my 101a and S&IC, that shop is close to where it was "born"(the Audionics).
 
How is sounding? Maybe I should send them my 101a and S&IC, that shop is close to where it was "born"(the Audionics).

Haven’t set it up yet. It actually sounded pretty nice beforehand except for some scratchy controls. They do good work.....they rehabbed my old Marantz 4400 which included fixing the scope. They work on pretty much everything but they might need the schematic for the S&IC since it is pretty obscure and a fairly complicated piece. Or maybe not if it is just a simple fix or just a recap.
 
Haven’t set it up yet. It actually sounded pretty nice beforehand except for some scratchy controls. They do good work.....they rehabbed my old Marantz 4400 which included fixing the scope. They work on pretty much everything but they might need the schematic for the S&IC since it is pretty obscure and a fairly complicated piece. Or maybe not if it is just a simple fix or just a recap.
It's easy to re-cap the S&IC, you should use film type coupling capacitors as there is lots of room. The schematics can be downloaded from Steve Kennedy's site. Links are posted here as well if you search around for them.
 
S&IC back from repair shop this week and sound great(and seem to be decoding more precisely according to the Wurlyscope). They also fixed the loose rca jacks and I had the old cracked power cord replaced. Apparently couldn't source appropriate sized replacements for the six 47mf caps so six bypasses were added, not complaining though, other repair shops I contacted wouldn't even touch it. :) :)
20210928_150153.jpg
 
Last edited:
Furui

Can I ask the name and address of the shop that repaired your S&IC?
Mine is a quadbob repair job which means it has failing connections throuought It is unplugged from my system
The replaced caps should be OK it is a matter of fixing the solder joints I would guess based on other quadbob failed repair jobs.
 
Furui

Can I ask the name and address of the shop that repaired your S&IC?
Mine is a quadbob repair job which means it has failing connections throuought It is unplugged from my system
The replaced caps should be OK it is a matter of fixing the solder joints I would guess based on other quadbob failed repair jobs.
It is the same repair shop where doity sent his Tetrasound 101 post #42 on this thread. (the bill was higher on mine since I had more parts installed)
 
S&IC back from repair shop this week and sound great(and seem to be decoding more precisely according to the Wurlyscope). They also fixed the loose rca jacks and I had the old cracked power cord replaced. Apparently couldn't source appropriate sized replacements for the six 47mf caps so six bypasses were added, not complaining though, other repair shops I contacted wouldn't even touch it. :) :)
View attachment 72080
The 47µF capacitors are just for the display, they could of been replaced with any good quality electrolytics, has no effect on the sound. The repair shops that you contacted missed out on easy money. Very simple to replace the 10 coupling capacitors! Did you replace the power supply filter caps as well?
 
The 47µF capacitors are just for the display, they could of been replaced with any good quality electrolytics, has no effect on the sound. The repair shops that you contacted missed out on easy money. Very simple to replace the 10 coupling capacitors! Did you replace the power supply filter caps as well?
They do look much cleaner but I don't see it specified on the invoice. I requested that anything out of spec be replaced and they said everything tested well after the work had been done, so if not I am assuming that they judged it wasn't necessary.
 
They do look much cleaner but I don't see it specified on the invoice. I requested that anything out of spec be replaced and they said everything tested well after the work had been done, so if not I am assuming that they judged it wasn't necessary.

The big electrolytics in the power supply look new to me in your picture.
 
Furui

Can I ask the name and address of the shop that repaired your S&IC?
Mine is a quadbob repair job which means it has failing connections throuought It is unplugged from my system
The replaced caps should be OK it is a matter of fixing the solder joints I would guess based on other quadbob failed repair jobs.
Huh. Again, maybe I have been lucky or a member of some sort of secret club that I wasn't aware of, but Bob did my S and IC recaps ten or more years ago. This piece is the center of entire system, so is nearly always in use. It has worked flawlessly since his work. That's all I can say.
 
It is the same repair shop where doity sent his Tetrasound 101 post #42 on this thread. (the bill was higher on mine since I had more parts installed)

Glad it worked out well for you furui. That shop will work on just about anything that you can throw at them. I think they are less selective after they moved to the burbs and business slowed because of it. We have another shop in town that will not even work on stuff if parts seem hard to get, if it is a certain brand or piece, or if it will require more time than usual to diagnose and fix. Granted he is a great guy and won’t charge for estimates and won’t charge for repairs that don’t meet his standards. He actually returned something to me fully fixed and didn’t charge me. I actually rang him up and gave him half the charge because I felt bad for taking advantage.
 
IMHO shops that refuse to work on this vintage stuff are losing a lot of easy money.

I've seen some eBay listings lately that say the item was seller refurbished. Described as being re-capped, but reading further it sounds like only the main power supply capacitors were changed! I even watched a YouTube video about recapping and all they did was replace the main power supply capacitors. Not only that the replacements were much smaller than the originals and so be had to devise a new means of mounting them. I would have just left those alone if they still looked good (no signs of swelling, or ozze, but in any case he could have selected a higher value part and even upped the voltage rating a bit. That way the replacement would fit better and even perform better.

I've found that It's more common to have some of the smaller capacitors (ie coupling capacitors) to actually need replacement. Use of film types (if they will fit) will not only improve sound but make the unit far more reliable in the long run.

Much of the vintage Quad stuff is nearly fifty years old by now, unbelievable that much of it still functions. With capacitor replacement you should be good for another fifty years or more!
 
For what all these restorations are likely to cost you, you could get a Surround Master, which replaces both the Tate and the QSD-2, with tri-band decoding and a much smaller footprint. Well worth it.
While the Surround Master is very good it is still not as good as a Tate, especially with SQ! I have never thought that tri-banding was necessary nor even desirable, unless your goal is to put bass in one speaker and treble in another. Reduction of artifacts is the often quoted reason for tri-banding but Vari-matrix has no real artifacting and with the Tate decoders it can me minimised, I have never felt it to be a real problem. That being said multi-banding makes some sense if decoding is being done via DSP rather than analogue, it is much easier to implement that way. I'm not attempting to knock the Surround Master which is a great decoder in its own right.

I just bought a Tate II when the eBay seller offered a discount that I couldn't refuse. I already have several Composers!

A few points about it. It appears to be almost a clone of the Tetrasound unit. It would seem that as Jim's companies folded he would quickly start another. Notice the Tetrasound is from "Tetrasound Inc". while the Tate II is from "Fosgate Research Inc".

Differences between the two include no tape monitor on the Tetrasound, just a tape output. Only one remote jack. The surround modes ST1 and ST2 are relabelled as Surround and Cinema on the Tate II. Other than those differences they appear to be much the same. The board layout of both are very similar. It strikes me also how similar the boards are compared to the Composer as well.

The power transformer is the Audionics Space and Image Composers Achilles' heel. The one in the Fosgate looks larger/heavier than the one in the Composer, and (hopefully) less likely to break away from the board. Definitely much better than a wall wart!

The interface circuit distinguishes itself from that of the Composer. In the Tetrasound it is encased in epoxy presumably to protect it's secrets. In the Tate II it is fully visible. The schematic shows it as a block labeled Q8. If I get around to it I might try to draw out the actual circuit, it looks to be very simple, containing only hfe graded 2N3904 transistors, diodes and resistors. My unit has orange dots on the transistors, the one in posted picture shows green, so the important thing is not the actual gain of the transistors just that they all be matched. With greater speed comes the possibility of anomalies so the alternate switch is there to slow it down. In normal use I notice no difference but listening to the rear channels only and adjusting the input balance a difference was noticeable. The Tate II produces a very sharp null of vocal leakage to the rear, extreme separation coupled with fast speed can cause audible artifacts. Rear output was smother sounding under the same conditions using the alternate switch setting, and the null didn't seem as sharp.

Like the previously posted picture my unit looks factory fresh inside. I wouldn't worry too much about re-capping. To Jim's credit he used film capacitors in the signal path. The values are rather small compared to the Composer. Those low values are possible by using high value resistors in audio stages, high impedance causes higher noise but the unit is not excessively noisy. The volume and balance pots were all noisy in operation but a spray of contact cleaner helped to clear that problem up.

Initial impression of the 101A is it works very well on SQ and stereo synthesis. I've been listening to it via the speakers set up around my work bench and computer desk, I was previously listening to my Photlume Vartio-matrix decoder. The Tate in surround mode seems more active than the Vario-matrix although both produce a similar overall surround effect.

I will post more about my particular unit latter.
 
While the Surround Master is very good it is still not as good as a Tate, especially with SQ! I have never thought that tri-banding was necessary nor even desirable, unless your goal is to put bass in one speaker and treble in another. Reduction of artifacts is the often quoted reason for tri-banding but Vari-matrix has no real artifacting and with the Tate decoders it can me minimised, I have never felt it to be a real problem. That being said multi-banding makes some sense if decoding is being done via DSP rather than analogue, it is much easier to implement that way. I'm not attempting to knock the Surround Master which is a great decoder in its own right.

I just bought a Tate II when the eBay seller offered a discount that I couldn't refuse. I already have several Composers!

A few points about it. It appears to be almost a clone of the Tetrasound unit. It would seem that as Jim's companies folded he would quickly start another. Notice the Tetrasound is from "Tetrasound Inc". while the Tate II is from "Fosgate Research Inc".

Differences between the two include no tape monitor on the Tetrasound, just a tape output. Only one remote jack. The surround modes ST1 and ST2 are relabelled as Surround and Cinema on the Tate II. Other than those differences they appear to be much the same. The board layout of both are very similar. It strikes me also how similar the boards are compared to the Composer as well.

The power transformer is the Audionics Space and Image Composers Achilles' heel. The one in the Fosgate looks larger/heavier than the one in the Composer, and (hopefully) less likely to break away from the board. Definitely much better than a wall wart!

The interface circuit distinguishes itself from that of the Composer. In the Tetrasound it is encased in epoxy presumably to protect it's secrets. In the Tate II it is fully visible. The schematic shows it as a block labeled Q8. If I get around to it I might try to draw out the actual circuit, it looks to be very simple, containing only hfe graded 2N3904 transistors, diodes and resistors. My unit has orange dots on the transistors, the one in posted picture shows green, so the important thing is not the actual gain of the transistors just that they all be matched. With greater speed comes the possibility of anomalies so the alternate switch is there to slow it down. In normal use I notice no difference but listening to the rear channels only and adjusting the input balance a difference was noticeable. The Tate II produces a very sharp null of vocal leakage to the rear, extreme separation coupled with fast speed can cause audible artifacts. Rear output was smother sounding under the same conditions using the alternate switch setting, and the null didn't seem as sharp.

Like the previously posted picture my unit looks factory fresh inside. I wouldn't worry too much about re-capping. To Jim's credit he used film capacitors in the signal path. The values are rather small compared to the Composer. Those low values are possible by using high value resistors in audio stages, high impedance causes higher noise but the unit is not excessively noisy. The volume and balance pots were all noisy in operation but a spray of contact cleaner helped to clear that problem up.

Initial impression of the 101A is it works very well on SQ and stereo synthesis. I've been listening to it via the speakers set up around my work bench and computer desk, I was previously listening to my Photlume Vartio-matrix decoder. The Tate in surround mode seems more active than the Vario-matrix although both produce a similar overall surround effect.

I will post more about my particular unit latter.
Hate to disagree but I listened to the Tate vs SM at Rustyandis' home in a totally unbiased manner, I could always hear the difference in terms of better imaging and less "muddle" on the SM. But hey I am an untrustworthy source!
 
Last edited:
Hate to disagree but in my totally unbiased listed to the Tate vs SM at Rustyandis' home, I could always hear the difference in terms of better imaging and less "muddle" on the SM. But hey I am an untrustworthy source!
Like I said some people think it is better some not as good some as good
But the thing is unless you have the teck. to repair or you have the spare chips
and anything goes wrong you have a door stop
At least if the S/Master has a problem you can get it fixed
My only thing against the TATE was in playing stereo was every now an again it
would pull the sound to one of the rear channels
The S/Master or QSD 1 did not
But the main thing is just enjoy the music
Ron
 
While the Surround Master is very good it is still not as good as a Tate, especially with SQ! I have never thought that tri-banding was necessary nor even desirable, unless your goal is to put bass in one speaker and treble in another. Reduction of artifacts is the often quoted reason for tri-banding but Vari-matrix has no real artifacting and with the Tate decoders it can me minimised, I have never felt it to be a real problem. That being said multi-banding makes some sense if decoding is being done via DSP rather than analogue, it is much easier to implement that way. I'm not attempting to knock the Surround Master which is a great decoder in its own right.

I just bought a Tate II when the eBay seller offered a discount that I couldn't refuse. I already have several Composers!

A few points about it. It appears to be almost a clone of the Tetrasound unit. It would seem that as Jim's companies folded he would quickly start another. Notice the Tetrasound is from "Tetrasound Inc". while the Tate II is from "Fosgate Research Inc".

Differences between the two include no tape monitor on the Tetrasound, just a tape output. Only one remote jack. The surround modes ST1 and ST2 are relabelled as Surround and Cinema on the Tate II. Other than those differences they appear to be much the same. The board layout of both are very similar. It strikes me also how similar the boards are compared to the Composer as well.

The power transformer is the Audionics Space and Image Composers Achilles' heel. The one in the Fosgate looks larger/heavier than the one in the Composer, and (hopefully) less likely to break away from the board. Definitely much better than a wall wart!

The interface circuit distinguishes itself from that of the Composer. In the Tetrasound it is encased in epoxy presumably to protect it's secrets. In the Tate II it is fully visible. The schematic shows it as a block labeled Q8. If I get around to it I might try to draw out the actual circuit, it looks to be very simple, containing only hfe graded 2N3904 transistors, diodes and resistors. My unit has orange dots on the transistors, the one in posted picture shows green, so the important thing is not the actual gain of the transistors just that they all be matched. With greater speed comes the possibility of anomalies so the alternate switch is there to slow it down. In normal use I notice no difference but listening to the rear channels only and adjusting the input balance a difference was noticeable. The Tate II produces a very sharp null of vocal leakage to the rear, extreme separation coupled with fast speed can cause audible artifacts. Rear output was smother sounding under the same conditions using the alternate switch setting, and the null didn't seem as sharp.

Like the previously posted picture my unit looks factory fresh inside. I wouldn't worry too much about re-capping. To Jim's credit he used film capacitors in the signal path. The values are rather small compared to the Composer. Those low values are possible by using high value resistors in audio stages, high impedance causes higher noise but the unit is not excessively noisy. The volume and balance pots were all noisy in operation but a spray of contact cleaner helped to clear that problem up.

Initial impression of the 101A is it works very well on SQ and stereo synthesis. I've been listening to it via the speakers set up around my work bench and computer desk, I was previously listening to my Photlume Vartio-matrix decoder. The Tate in surround mode seems more active than the Vario-matrix although both produce a similar overall surround effect.

I will post more about my particular unit latter.


Ken,

I was thinking of having my Fosgate Tate II unit re-capped.
However you state because Jim used film caps , they should not leak .

So would it be a waste of time plus $ if I did such?
(mind you I haven't had a peek inside)
But I'm certain the controls need a good de-oxing, kinda noisy when you twist them.
 
Like I said some people think it is better some not as good some as good
But the thing is unless you have the teck. to repair or you have the spare chips
and anything goes wrong you have a door stop
At least if the S/Master has a problem you can get it fixed
My only thing against the TATE was in playing stereo was every now an again it
would pull the sound to one of the rear channels
The S/Master or QSD 1 did not
But the main thing is just enjoy the music
Ron

Hmmm , never encountered that...I think ??!
Ron, is it a sudden pull to the rears , (which might be distracting), or more of a slow to rear .

Your SM is best in involve , RM , for stereo to quad-like effects. But I needn't tell you ...as most of us know this from experience .
Sansui .....awwww I miss my QSD 2.
 
Ken,

I was thinking of having my Fosgate Tate II unit re-capped.
However you state because Jim used film caps , they should not leak .

So would it be a waste of time plus $ if I did such?
(mind you I haven't had a peek inside)
But I'm certain the controls need a good de-oxing, kinda noisy when you twist them.
There are caps that could be replaced but I like the old adage "if it ain't broke don't fix it". All the audio coupling capacitors are film types, unlike in the S&IC. Replacing capacitors might extend the units need for repair life but won't likely improve the sound. You could add a treble bypass cap across them but the relatively low values may not benefit much from that possible mod.

In mine I replaced something like 13 4.7µFd 50V capacitors, because I had them in my stock already. I don't even know what they do as they aren't shown on the schematic, they might be supply bypasses. There are a number of 220µFd capacitors that do bypass the supply mounted throughout the board. There are some low value electrolytics, 0.47µFd, .33µFd that could be replaced with film types. I don't know why electrolytics are ever used for such low values. I might change them in the future but an in no hurry to do so.

I found that the component leads were bent over on the bottom of the board, great for mechanical strength but harder to remove. The Op-amps are also soldered to the board so replacement is more work than with the Composer where everything is in sockets.

I sprayed my pots with an electrical contact cleaner. I might try DeOxit but I'll have to get some more of it. The output balance control is still noisy on mine but the spray worked on the other controls. If the noise persists it might be necessary to replace the pot.

My biggest beef are the cheap looking old style phenolic input and output jacks. The input jacks are far enough apart that you can use cables with fat plugs but the output are so close together that only the cheapest of cables will fit. There is not a lot of room to mount larger better quality jacks either.
 
Back
Top