Matrix Quad Playback with the Wrong Matrix Decoder

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Poptronics/70s/1973/Poptronics-1973-01.pdf#page=24^^^
With these possibilities of varying percentages and phases, it is no wonder that so many variations in encoders and decoders appeared so quickly.


(found this looking for something else)


Kirk Bayne
I mentioned these articles (as I recall there were other similar ones) in other posts. In those early days most people would of had only one (non logic assisted) decoder, and played everything through it. That's what I did for years with my Audionics SQ decoder. One of the best sounding recordings was actually (QS) Carol King "Music", played via SQ.
Stereo played via SQ produced little rear separation but the phase shifted rear outputs sounded really good to me, the effect at the time was often referred to as surround sound (as opposed to discrete).

As logic and vario matrix assisted decoders became more common it became more important to play the correct recording via the correct decoder.
 
...That's what I did for years with my Audionics SQ decoder...

As logic and vario matrix assisted decoders became more common it became more important to play the correct recording via the correct decoder.
I feel like I've asked you this before, is the Audionics SQ decoder you mention the one pictured on the hardware side of the Columbia SQ lp sleeve?
 
I feel like I've asked you this before, is the Audionics SQ decoder you mention the one pictured on the hardware side of the Columbia SQ lp sleeve?
Yes it is. The one pictured was the 106 C, The decoder came in three versions the 106A was complete with case. The 106 B was the complete unit without the case. The one that I had was the bare board the 106-A.
 

Attachments

  • Audionics SQ.pdf
    2.3 MB · Views: 346
Yes it is. The one pictured was the 106 C, The decoder came in three versions the 106A was complete with case. The 106 B was the complete unit without the case. The one that I had was the bare board the 106-A.
I'd not seen their Shadow Vector Decoder flyer before, looks like it would have been a great bit of kit!
 
Audionics BLEND option - 10-10 or 10-40 or something else (didn't find this info in the pdf)?

The fidelity (decoding accuracy) that results from very accurate phase shift circuits lends credence to the idea that script based (software) matrix decoders may not need "logic" assistance, only accurate phase shift and (for SQ) infinite/10-10/10-40 blend options.


Kirk Bayne
 
Thanks for the info!! That's now the most I've ever heard or seen about that Audionics decoder. I finally know the model number! I've been curious about it since I realized what is was on those sleeves, specifically, since I realized who the manufacturer was.

I love the typos in the 1973 Canadian Stereo Guide review: it says SQ three times and CQ twice :LOL: . Also, dig that projected pricing for the forthcoming Audionics/Tate SQ decoder (the eventual Space & Image Composer) in the Nov-Dec 1976 newsletter: only $200! Love that in late '76 someone could still "mis-spell" quadraphonic with an "i". Even as it died the naming was not settled!
 
Audionics BLEND option - 10-10 or 10-40 or something else (didn't find this info in the pdf)?

The fidelity (decoding accuracy) that results from very accurate phase shift circuits lends credence to the idea that script based (software) matrix decoders may not need "logic" assistance, only accurate phase shift and (for SQ) infinite/10-10/10-40 blend options.


Kirk Bayne
Audionics only blended the rear channels, likely 40%. My board had connection points for a jumper for the blend. I might of tried it once or twice but I never really bothered to use blend. I didn't believe in reducing left to right separation, that was the main virtue of SQ. Logic assistance is desirable unless perhaps you want to sit in the exact center of the speakers. The decoder sounded very nice but was far from discrete. I often wondered what they did for the ambience setting, the bare board didn't have that option.
 
Thanks for the info!! That's now the most I've ever heard or seen about that Audionics decoder. I finally know the model number! I've been curious about it since I realized what is was on those sleeves, specifically, since I realized who the manufacturer was.

I love the typos in the 1973 Canadian Stereo Guide review: it says SQ three times and CQ twice :LOL: . Also, dig that projected pricing for the forthcoming Audionics/Tate SQ decoder (the eventual Space & Image Composer) in the Nov-Dec 1976 newsletter: only $200! Love that in late '76 someone could still "mis-spell" quadraphonic with an "i". Even as it died the naming was not settled!
The reference to CQ might be due to the SQ lp's catalogue numbers all starting with CQ. Or it could also be a typo.

Yes give me Quadraphonic, Quadriphonic, Quadrophonic, Quadrasonic I don't care!

In a post from Steve Kennedy he talked about the National Tate Chips. They screwed up the design and so an interface circuit had to be developed to make them work properly. That development would of cost a lot of money and increased the price of the final product. Originally it was thought that the chips would make decoders simple and cheap like the Motorola and Sony chips did for full-logic.
 
Love that in late '76 someone could still "mis-spell" quadraphonic with an "i". Even as it died the naming was not settled!
"Quadr(a)/(i)phonic" was a portmanteau word cobbled together from Latin ("quad") and Greek ("phono") as such it never had a correct spelling in English. Whilst the 'a' variant certainly became more prevalent, I'm not sure why.
 
Love it when someone has even the smallest concern with correct English!
"Quadr(a)/(i)phonic" was a portmanteau word cobbled together from Latin ("quad") and Greek ("phono") as such it never had a correct spelling in English. Whilst the 'a' variant certainly became more prevalent, I'm not sure why.

Living not that far from America's northern border, I have grown accustomed to Canadian idiosyncrasies of speech ["eh?"] and spelling ["colour"] following the British model.
Interjections and spelling hardly matter enough to be of concern.

There's one thing in written English however that's more than an idiosyncrasy, it's an outright poke in the eye:
Misusing "of" when "have" is what's correct.

I've [I HAVE] seen it so many times -- not just here -- that it's begun to rival the misuse of "loose" when one means "lose" as in, "I hate to see my team loose so many close games."
*SHUDDER*

Here are two examples of what I mean from this very thread:
"I might of [might've = might HAVE] tried it once or twice"
"development would of [would've = would HAVE] cost a lot of money"

I hope this largely gentle note has an effect.
Please...no more pokes in the eye.
 
OT...My attached pdf - I'm surprised that the Editor didn't catch the error about RF and LF needing "dematrixing" on CD-4, R and L are totally separate throughout the CD-4 mastering and playback process.


Kirk Bayne
 
I would of, should of , could of payed more attention in grammar class, but I didn't. Many grammar rules are still mystifying to me.

I would consider American spellings to be idiosyncrasies. Noah Webster had such disdain for the British that he wanted to create a separate American language!
.
And the last letter of the alphabet is Zed not Zee!
 
Last edited:
I would of, should of , could of payed more attention in grammar class, but I didn't. Many grammar rules are still mystifying to me.

I would consider American spellings to be idiosyncrasies. Noah Webster had such disdain for the British that he wanted to create a separate American language!
.
And the last letter of the alphabet is Zed not Zee!
So then... would you pronounce Zeerround's forum name as Zedrround???
 
British English, American English, Canadian English (don't know about Australian English) none of them WOULD HAVE found 'would of' as acceptable.

But I see your irony as amusing proof that you didn't loose your sense-of-humor regardless of how lose your grasp of verb forms may be.
I would of, should of , could of payed more attention in grammar class, but I didn't. Many grammar rules are still mystifying to me.


As for spelling, I almost never worry about it any more.
Well, maybe "payed" vs paid is worth mentioning. (Quoted twice.)

I would consider American spellings to be idiosyncrasies. Noah Webster had such disdain for the British that he wanted to create a separate American language!

Observe correct spelling, yes; give it undue weight, no.
Anybody can make a keystroke error. Plus, anyone who's [who HAS] ever used TV closed captions knows that speech-recognition tools too often make a complete -- sometimes hilarious -- hash out of English.

And the last letter of the alphabet is Zed not Zee!
Really?
And all this time I thought it was Zardoz!

Now back to "quad playback with the wrong matrix decoder" rather than wrong English usage.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top