QuantumGuitar
Active Member
Feel free to point me in the right direction if this has already been expanded upon, but I'm hoping someone can provide a little more detail about the difference between the Sansui QS Synthesizer Surround in the QRX-9001 and the regular QS decoder. I've often read that people use QS to upmix quad from stereo masters, and the Surround Synthesizer on the 9001 has been working fabulously for me and can only imagine its more effective with a purely stereo source than regular QS.
A follow up question (maybe I should post it elsewhere...), I've read that Wendy Carlos often used a tweaked Regular Matrix encoder for her 4-to-2 channel "fold-ins" during her mix down process.
"RM enchanted me in a different way, though. Here was an extended plan which followed closely the simple fold-down method I have been using since the mid 60's to derive two-tracks of Stereo for final release, when most of my master mixes have been designed and realized as four channel surround sound. It was during the production of Sonic Seasonings that Rachel and I really got excited about this elegant way to collapse the soundfield into normal stereo. I've reported before, and so has Rachel in the liner notes, that at times we had to double-check what we were listening to, as the two channel reduction could often mimic true surround sound, when played back on the same setup. Anyway, RM represented the underlying pattern that our method was a subset of. Kinda cool, and the fact that at times you can be fooled like this suggests that there is more to this field that anyone has yet explored. I think it's time we tried, don't you? "
"...There's a note to myself that with the addition of the all-pass filters (known as a 90-degree quadrature pair) or Psi Network (also called a J-Network), the RM can be converted exactly into a QS matrix."
I recently purchased a 4trk stereo 1/4" 3 3/4 ips copy of Sonic Seasonings and was planning to run it through the QS Synthesizer Surround as I usually would for stereo content, but after reading this it seems as if I might be better off with regular QS? Any thoughts?
A follow up question (maybe I should post it elsewhere...), I've read that Wendy Carlos often used a tweaked Regular Matrix encoder for her 4-to-2 channel "fold-ins" during her mix down process.
"RM enchanted me in a different way, though. Here was an extended plan which followed closely the simple fold-down method I have been using since the mid 60's to derive two-tracks of Stereo for final release, when most of my master mixes have been designed and realized as four channel surround sound. It was during the production of Sonic Seasonings that Rachel and I really got excited about this elegant way to collapse the soundfield into normal stereo. I've reported before, and so has Rachel in the liner notes, that at times we had to double-check what we were listening to, as the two channel reduction could often mimic true surround sound, when played back on the same setup. Anyway, RM represented the underlying pattern that our method was a subset of. Kinda cool, and the fact that at times you can be fooled like this suggests that there is more to this field that anyone has yet explored. I think it's time we tried, don't you? "
"...There's a note to myself that with the addition of the all-pass filters (known as a 90-degree quadrature pair) or Psi Network (also called a J-Network), the RM can be converted exactly into a QS matrix."
I recently purchased a 4trk stereo 1/4" 3 3/4 ips copy of Sonic Seasonings and was planning to run it through the QS Synthesizer Surround as I usually would for stereo content, but after reading this it seems as if I might be better off with regular QS? Any thoughts?
