so called "Tate Emulator Script"

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

quadralizer

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
43
Location
LIVERPOOL UK - it's FAB'N'GEAR & 'European Capitol
Recently theres been a few posts on usenet of SQ>DTS stuff
decoded with a
miraculous gizmo called a "TateII Emulator Script"
- the results seem good so far!!

BUT the arguments have raged on&on on here as to the best way
to decode SQ (or QS) on a pc, and the conclusions have thus far
been as clear as .... well .. mud ...


SO ...please

WHAT IS THE DEFINITVE PC SQ DECODING METHOD ???
& what exactly is the recipie for this elusive so called
"TateII Emulator Script" :confused: & does it need sticky back plastic
& a washing up bottle to make it work?
or should I take up juggleing soot for a hobby instead :mad:@:


One or mr urbans famous guides wouldnt go amiss to clear the fog!!:smokin
 

Lucanu

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
1,629
Location
Cabras, Sardinia, Italy, Europe, World, Solar syst
Well, I think we worked on these pc decoding things for help us to obtain the best as possible results decoding SQ/QS thru a pc, with various methods: scripts, DPLII, Vst, bidules...
I think the best ways to exctract those matrix recordings still remains the hardware way. But for who (me included) who hadn't the best hardware, the software solutions best expected are the AA scripts, winopener for SQ, and mine for QS.
Don't forget you can get a very good QS decoding through a DPLIIx in movie position.
 

quadralizer

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
43
Location
LIVERPOOL UK - it's FAB'N'GEAR & 'European Capitol
Lucanu said:
Well, I think we worked on these pc decoding things for help us to obtain the best as possible results decoding SQ/QS thru a pc, with various methods: scripts, DPLII, Vst, bidules....
I'm sure that's very true & a few members have worked very hard to try
to make it work and that is only to be congratulated.

BUT has an optimum way of SQ PC Decoding been arrived at yet?

I was particually impressed with a recent usenet post
"1897 - By request - Mott The Hoople - The Hoople (SQ to DTS)"
conversion by someone with the handle of "Quadumvirate"
which contained the track Marionette by Mott the Hoople.

IF ALL SQ can be decoded this descreet sounding with software
then this seems to be an optimum ..SO far and the way forward!

If anyone has got details of the exact process that was used for this
specific conversion it would be greatfully recieved or if you are the
person responsible for the conversion, please standup & accept your award NOW!

Lucanu said:
I think the best ways to extract those matrix recordings still remains the hardware way.
I would have thought that as a 'Matrix' is a mathematical process
then the best way to resolve it is with an inverse mathematical process.
Digital computers are best for that, not analogue ones.

THE problem is that all 'matrix systems' are flawed form the start.
To combine signals within the same 'frequency domain' merely by
phase shifting & summing and to expect the signals to be resolvable
back to their original components (without losses) is near on impossible.

Matrix systems do work BUT only when the 'difference' signals are
easily resolvable by way of a modulated subcarrier(s) that are
recoverable by frequency selective filters & demodulation.
Just as in the case of FM Stereo Radio, Pal Colour TV & .... er CD4!

Lucanu said:
But for who (me included) who hadn't the best hardware, the software solutions best expected are the AA scripts, winopener for SQ, and mine for QS.Don't forget you can get a very good QS decoding through a DPLIIx in movie position.
Thats very true, the hardware availability can be a problem.

Instead of these various 'audio software' methods has anybody
tried using mathcad with the Signal Processing Extension Pack to
resolve an audio matrix? Mathcad is designed to process
mathemetical equations & then apply them to real world signals in wav files etc!
 

BananaSlug

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
1,742
Location
Petaluma, CA
The people that are doing these conversions have a secret website somewhere. However, they used to be at dtsac3.com (or something like that) and there is a discussion there about software decoding. Some time ago I was reading there and it looks like the script they are using is the same as the one posted at this forum. I believe there are several individuals that are members of both groups and there was a discussion there about the software decoding that was discussed here. I've been using Winopener's script for some time on a few SQ lps and cds that I've bought and the results are very good - it really does sound discrete from the sweet spot.
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,943
Location
Connecticut
One thing we all must remember is that no matter how good you decode these recordings, the absolute best, primo, steller decoding still will be governed by the original ENCODING 30 years ago. Face it, some of the early encoders were not that sophisticated. That's why people still seek the lowly Q8 for the definative Columbia quad conversions.
 

Lucanu

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
1,629
Location
Cabras, Sardinia, Italy, Europe, World, Solar syst
Hey Jon, I've tried myself, as a cavia.
Because I owned some SQ/QS recordings and didn't have a tate or a sansui at the time, the software way was the best I could have.
Now, winopener script is VERY discret when it exctract the channels, but tweaking up some more would help to get even better decoding.
Now I tested that script with Machine Head from Deep Purple in SQ, and the results are amazing.
Now I don't know if there was an evolution in software decoding right now, but IMHO those scripts in AA are great, and in this case I would recommend that if anyone don't own a Tate or a Sansui.

Hands up for winopener/imploder for SQ, and modestly for me in QS.
 

winopener

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
4,008
Second thing everyone doing these SQ conversion must remember is that if you use a LP as a source you can't have more than a 35dB separation between channel no matter what turntable/head you use. This flaw is inherent to the stereo system we all know and love, called Westrex45, and 35dB is the max separation that is possible with the *cutter* stylus. MOre is possible only with a SQ master tape or a SQ cd done from the master tape.
For total separation no vinyl can stand a discrete tape.
 

Bob Romano

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Apr 26, 2002
Messages
5,395
Location
Viva Las Vegas
I ran the Chase cd through the SQ script in Audition and I can tell you that the separation is excellent. The first notes of Open Up Wide actually go around to all four speakers flawlessly. The rest of the album is nicely separated from front to back as well.
 

winopener

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
4,008
Bob,
try the same Open Up Wide from a LP and you will see the difference. It's exactly the track that gave me the first hint of this problem.
 

Lucanu

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
1,629
Location
Cabras, Sardinia, Italy, Europe, World, Solar syst
The only way I've found to better the separation from a vinyl was to eliminate the rumbling from the source in AA.
Try this: sample a track from your vinyl,including space at the start and end of the song. Then take the pre-part of the track (the silence).
Go to noise reduction, and "capture profile"
Now close it, and select entire wave.
Go again to noise reduction and apply with Reduction level @ 100, and reduce by 120 dB.
Click Ok.
If any rumbling is there do the same for the end part of silence of the track.
Now, you have a clean sample and decoding will be better.
 

Dylan Berichon

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
765
Location
Portland, OR USA
Lucanu said:
The only way I've found to better the separation from a vinyl was to eliminate the rumbling from the source in AA.
Try this: sample a track from your vinyl,including space at the start and end of the song. Then take the pre-part of the track (the silence).
Go to noise reduction, and "capture profile"
Now close it, and select entire wave.
Go again to noise reduction and apply with Reduction level @ 100, and reduce by 120 dB.
Click Ok.
If any rumbling is there do the same for the end part of silence of the track.
Now, you have a clean sample and decoding will be better.
In my opinion, reducing noise by that many db will damage the audio.

You should never do noise reduction at more than say, 20 db, if even that is really needed.
 

Cai Campbell

In Remembrance
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 4, 2002
Messages
2,970
Location
Seattle, WA
Lucanu said:
The only noise you're going to remove is rumbling, that is record vibration and motor feedback, nothing more.
You just have to try it, believe me.
I have done this and you are crazy if you think that employing 120dB of noise reduction will reduce only record vibration and motor feedback! Even when you employ a noise profile (which you should ALWAYS do, BTW) you are going to seriously destroy much of the dynamics and transients in the recording with such a heavy hand at the NR controls. 120dB noise reduction is INSANE! I use the same methods you describe but I never, ever use more than 16dB and then only in the most extreme cases (which is still a pretty good case since I refuse to start the process with a record that I feel is overly compromised from a noise standpoint).

I'm with HearToTemptYou on this one. 20dB is certainly reasonable but just bit too much if you ask me. Six times that is just plain destructive.

Also, you should capture a separate noise print and apply reasonable noise reduction to both sides of the record as separate processes, since the noise signature of each side of the record can vary widely.
 

Lucanu

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
1,629
Location
Cabras, Sardinia, Italy, Europe, World, Solar syst
Cai Campbell said:
I have done this and you are crazy if you think that employing 120dB of noise reduction will reduce only record vibration and motor feedback! Even when you employ a noise profile (which you should ALWAYS do, BTW) you are going to seriously destroy much of the dynamics and transients in the recording with such a heavy hand at the NR controls. 120dB noise reduction is INSANE! I use the same methods you describe but I never, ever use more than 16dB and then only in the most extreme cases (which is still a pretty good case since I refuse to start the process with a record that I feel is overly compromised from a noise standpoint).

I'm with HearToTemptYou on this one. 20dB is certainly reasonable but just bit too much if you ask me. Six times that is just plain destructive.

Also, you should capture a separate noise print and apply reasonable noise reduction to both sides of the record as separate processes, since the noise signature of each side of the record can vary widely.
;)
 

Dylan Berichon

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
765
Location
Portland, OR USA
Cai Campbell said:
I have done this and you are crazy if you think that employing 120dB of noise reduction will reduce only record vibration and motor feedback! Even when you employ a noise profile (which you should ALWAYS do, BTW) you are going to seriously destroy much of the dynamics and transients in the recording with such a heavy hand at the NR controls. 120dB noise reduction is INSANE! I use the same methods you describe but I never, ever use more than 16dB and then only in the most extreme cases (which is still a pretty good case since I refuse to start the process with a record that I feel is overly compromised from a noise standpoint).

I'm with HearToTemptYou on this one. 20dB is certainly reasonable but just bit too much if you ask me. Six times that is just plain destructive.

Also, you should capture a separate noise print and apply reasonable noise reduction to both sides of the record as separate processes, since the noise signature of each side of the record can vary widely.
You are right, 20 db may be pushing it a bit.

I picked 20 db because it is the most I will ever use, and even that is in extreme cases. Rarely for vinyl, more often for really really hissy tapes.

When it comes to noise reduction, I'm a firm believer that less is more.
 
Top