Just how discrete should this sound

[gvl_guy]

I bought my first "test" record in QS. Vector 4 Quadraphonic Sound on Ovation Records. It's presented well, if not the cheesy way they did back in 1974. There's lots of "here's the right channel, here's the left, here's the front and here's the back" by a guy with a huge "announcer's" voice. It sounds good running through my QRX-9001, but it doesn't seem to have much separation. Should it?

Using the balance control, when it says "these are the rear," you can still hear a good amount of sound coming from the front and vise versa. (Left/right is pretty good, though.)

When I sit in the center of the room and listen, yes, the sound mostly comes from the correct area, but not perfect by any means. I know matrix is all about perceived sound location, but I guess I thought it would be better than it is.

My question is, just how good should a matrix record sound in this advanced (for the time) QS decoder?

I appreciate any of your thoughts.

 

[Q-Eight]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Matrix Quadraphonic Sound.
This early stuff is a prime example of why for many, many years people said that Quad was "fake". And to a certain extent, they were right. A lot of this early stuff really depends on your imagination and how willing you are to believe what it's throwing at you. In my worthless opinion, QS is much better at convincing the listener that something is happening. Later decoders can move the sound around convincingly.

Don't get me started on SQ. I have a Tate 101a, and I still don't like SQ. The only reason I believe SQ was so prolific, was it came down to Sony's proprietariasm (new word!) and them going around, gonads out, bopping people on the head saying "SQ is better!". Maybe 40 years down the line with some of these scripts people have managed to come up with. But, to my ears.... some of them sound artificial. Kind of like bad CD-4 when you're getting too much distortion in the rears. Hard to explain. Me no good with uhm..... words.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

It could depend on how well you have your cart. set up/adjusted (stylus used - Shibata / MicroLine®?); and also believe an Involve Surround Master will do a better job of decoding the QS than even these old Sansui receivers.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

I bought my first "test" record in QS. Vector 4 Quadraphonic Sound on Ovation Records. It's presented well, if not the cheesy way they did back in 1974. There's lots of "here's the right channel, here's the left, here's the front and here's the back" by a guy with a huge "announcer's" voice. It sounds good running through my QRX-9001, but it doesn't seem to have much separation. Should it?
View attachment 59310
Using the balance control, when it says "these are the rear," you can still hear a good amount of sound coming from the front and vise versa. (Left/right is pretty good, though.)

When I sit in the center of the room and listen, yes, the sound mostly comes from the correct area, but not perfect by any means. I know matrix is all about perceived sound location, but I guess I thought it would be better than it is.

My question is, just how good should a matrix record sound in this advanced (for the time) QS decoder?

I appreciate any of your thoughts.
View attachment 59309

Since I don't have (I think) that record & I don't have vintage QS decoding, I'll still say I tend to agree with Pupster. Also left/right level balance to the decoder section is extremely important and often overlooked esp in a reciever if you can't adjust it. If you have a way to adjust input balance from your TT to the Sansui, I suggest put on any plain 'ol true monophonic record and listen to only the rear chs. Adjust the L/R balance for minimum rear output. Sometimes that helps a lot. Oh, and make sure when you play a record like this it is in basic QS mode, not Hall or Synth.

Using PC generated test tones I can tell you that the Surround Master gets the cross talk canceled to inaudible, right down to the basic noise floor, in any signal location.

 

[bigbillquad]

I bought my first "test" record in QS. Vector 4 Quadraphonic Sound on Ovation Records. It's presented well, if not the cheesy way they did back in 1974. There's lots of "here's the right channel, here's the left, here's the front and here's the back" by a guy with a huge "announcer's" voice. It sounds good running through my QRX-9001, but it doesn't seem to have much separation. Should it?
View attachment 59310
Using the balance control, when it says "these are the rear," you can still hear a good amount of sound coming from the front and vise versa. (Left/right is pretty good, though.)

When I sit in the center of the room and listen, yes, the sound mostly comes from the correct area, but not perfect by any means. I know matrix is all about perceived sound location, but I guess I thought it would be better than it is.

My question is, just how good should a matrix record sound in this advanced (for the time) QS decoder?

I appreciate any of your thoughts.
View attachment 59309

Hi. gvl_guy

I agree with PUPSTER & Sonic Wiz on set up is very important I have a Sansui QRX 8001 & Sansui QS-D1000 & QSD-1 uints plus a Surround Master v2. and I use that Vector 4 LP and I have ran tests with this QS LP on all of my units and yes the SM and my D1000 & my QSD-1 unit out performs way better to the QRX 8001 unit.

That said the QRX 9001 unit would be a close second to these units I believe that the QRX 9001 decoder is based around the QSD-2 stand alone unit.

I think that this Vector 4 demo LP is one of the best for testing QS Matrix systems.
BBQ...
PS. The only real discrete system is Quad Reel to Reel

 

[kfbkfb]

IIRC, the narration side of this disc calls the QS matrix system "discrete".

IIRC, the special Quad issue (1975-03) of Hi Fi News allowed Sansui to
describe QS as "discrete" also.


Kirk Bayne

 

[J. PUPSTER]

IIRC, the narration side of this disc calls the QS matrix system "discrete".

IIRC, the special Quad issue (1975-03) of Hi Fi News allowed Sansui to
describe QS as "discrete" also.


Kirk Bayne

Which one is that Kirk?
I have this Hi FI News LP to help set my cart. up and it seemed like a real torture test, but it's just stereo IIRC.

https://www.discogs.com/Len-Gregory-Hi-Fi-News-Analogue-Test-LP/release/15126366

 

[kfbkfb]

No, it was a special Quad issue of the magazine, I was surprised that the
editors allowed Sansui to put that in print (I'll go thru my photocopies,
I think I have the article).


Kirk Bayne

 

[Doug G.]

Hi. gvl_guy

....PS. The only real discrete system is Quad Reel to Reel

Harrrrumph! A properly operating CD-4 system!



Doug

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/1975-03-hi-fi-news-qs-matrix-discrete.29405/
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...in-the-lab-and-in-the-home.24231/#post-357495
(the QSD-4 decoder didn't rate very highly in the BBC tests in 1974)


Kirk Bayne

 

[gvl_guy]

Here's something that kinda surprised me. I decided to switch out my cartridge, just to see if that made any difference. I swapped out my Stanton 680 EL (always an excellent cartridge) with my Shure M24H and it definitely sounds better, more "discrete" if you will, going through the QS decoder.

I didn't think the cartridge would make that much of a difference with the stereo/decoding playback. I mean, it just needed to be good stereo, right? , but obviously I was wrong. Thanks to @J.Pupster for your response which gave me the idea to swap it out.

This cartridge has always been my go to when it comes to CD-4 playback (as long as I use an original replacement stylus. Those off market ones sucked. They flipped the front and back channels, and I tried two different ones!) My other CD-4 cartridge, a JVC, does okay, but not nearly as stable. Maybe it's that I bought the Shure NEW years ago?

In any case, this Shure sure made a difference with that QS test record.