Matrix Quad Playback with the Wrong Matrix Decoder

[surround.sound.enthusiast]

So then... would you pronounce Zeerround's forum name as Zedrround???

Zeerround Zound, Dahling!

 

[surround.sound.enthusiast]

And the answer is [Quad__phonic] (from the 1973 consumer's guide to FOUR CHANNEL SOUND)

Kirk Bayne

Thanks Kirk. I've tripped across that once before. Quite right too Soundfield. It is funny though, the concept of quad doomed itself to death through disagreement with competing systems, and also suffered disagreement on naming convention!

 

[kfbkfb]

IIRC, the E-V universal matrix decoder appeared in an E-V receiver, but none of the major receiver manufacturers used it (IMHO, too bad, it, combined with an all automatic CD-4 demod could have greatly simplified Quad for the average listener).


Kirk Bayne

 

[par4ken]

IIRC, the E-V universal matrix decoder appeared in an E-V receiver, but none of the major receiver manufacturers used it (IMHO, too bad, it, combined with an all automatic CD-4 demod could have greatly simplified Quad for the average listener).


Kirk Bayne

I would agree if it would of preformed better. It was a compromise design that did everything rather poorly.

 

[MidiMagic]

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

They meant that the baseband L is LF+LB and R is RF+RB and had to be dematrixed with the demodulated carrier to get LF and RF.

 

[MidiMagic]

Love it when someone has even the smallest concern with correct English!


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.

I have three misuses I cringe at:

- Misplacement of "only" - it is an adjective and belongs before whatever it modifies. People see the "ly", think adverb, and mistakenly put it next to the verb.

- Podium - From pod (foot). A platform to stand on. You stand on a podium, not behind it. That thing you stand behind is a lectern, a stand, or an ambo.

- Transpire - It does NOT mean to happen. It means to leak out or become known.

 

[MidiMagic]

IIRC, the E-V universal matrix decoder appeared in an E-V receiver, but none of the major receiver manufacturers used it (IMHO, too bad, it, combined with an all automatic CD-4 demod could have greatly simplified Quad for the average listener).


Kirk Bayne

Actually the SQ 10-40 blend was very close to the EV-44 decoder. EW-44 was actually SQ with 20-45 blend.

Notice that a non-logic SQ decoder can decode QS, EV, and DQ with the limitation that both back speakers produce a center-back signal.

 

[Madman Riley]

I agree that the EV-4 would HAVE been more useful had it "performed better" and yet I got enough out of it that dubbing through it (into my SANSUI QD-5500, riding gain slightly for the rear channels) gave me very nice results.

Especially true when significant out-of-phase signals were present on stereo LPs but that, of course, would HAVE been true of any '70s era decoder.

I would agree if it would of preformed better. It was a compromise design that did everything rather poorly.

Here, I disagree.
Not about Electro-Voice "design" concerns but that it "did everything rather poorly."

Maybe you could make such a case with 'scope measurements, frequency analyses, channel separation charts and the like that you can SEE but if satisfying surround effects that you can HEAR are the end result, the EV-4 worked well enough for me.

And its successor the EVX-44 was both more effective and more versatile.
(Kind of a minor 'Grail' search, ultimately successful.)

On that EVX-44 subject there are interesting posts here Decoder: Electro Voice EVX-44 drawing particular attention to the four posts after the thread was revived last year.

 

[Madman Riley]

Periodically catch myself about to misuse 'aggravate' and almost never when something's grown worse to the point of becoming egregious.
And there's a word so completely over-used it's frequently becoming misused by those who think they know what it means!

I have three misuses I cringe at:

- Misplacement of "only" - it is an adjective and belongs before whatever it modifies. People see the "ly", think adverb, and mistakenly put it next to the verb.

- Podium - From pod (foot). A platform to stand on. You stand on a podium, not behind it. That thing you stand behind is a lectern, a stand, or an ambo.

- Transpire - It does NOT mean to happen. It means to leak out or become known.

Really nice examples!

The most de-humanizing of all is, when speaking of PEOPLE, substituting 'that' for 'who.'

As in "those parents that," "children that," "athletes that" etc. etc.

Human beings are a who not a that

 

[par4ken]

I agree that the EV-4 would HAVE been more useful had it "performed better" and yet I got enough out of it that dubbing through it (into my SANSUI QD-5500, riding gain slightly for the rear channels) gave me very nice results.

Especially true when significant out-of-phase signals were present on stereo LPs but that, of course, would HAVE been true of any '70s era decoder.



Here, I disagree.
Not about Electro-Voice "design" concerns but that it "did everything rather poorly."

Maybe you could make such a case with 'scope measurements, frequency analyses, channel separation charts and the like that you can SEE but if satisfying surround effects that you can HEAR are the end result, the EV-4 worked well enough for me.

And its successor the EVX-44 was both more effective and more versatile.
(Kind of a minor 'Grail' search, ultimately successful.)

On that EVX-44 subject there are interesting posts here Decoder: Electro Voice EVX-44 drawing particular attention to the four posts after the thread was revived last year.

I'm referring to the EV-44. Making it SQ compatible (but not quite SQ) compromised EV-4 and especially QS decoding. I admit that I've never listened to one but am reporting what was widely reported by others. As I recall they did include some form of F-B logic or vari-blend to help keep the vocals up front.

I had a home built decoder that could be set (adjusted) exactly like the EV-4 decoder but I prefered to use it with no blend on the front and full (out of phase) blend on the rear. It sounded amazing at the time on some material.