Surround Master Decode - SQ and QS Encodes of Same Album

[kfbkfb]

In some cases, a Quad album might be released SQ encoded in one region and QS encoded in another region, I'm wondering if the same album (SQ and QS versions) sounds nearly discrete (and nearly identical) when decoded with the Surround Master?


Kirk Bayne

 

[Doug G.]

If you decode the SQ version, you MUST call the decoder a "Surround Master". If you decode the QS version, you MUST call the decoder a "Master Surround".



Doug

 

[fredblue]

(disclaimer: i've never tried it!)

though i imagine they'd sound similar seated in the main listening position, the SQ would likely have CF content (lead vocals) leaked to the Rears whereas the QS would probably not, meaning that if you got up and moved around the room the SQ may lose imaging more quickly and of course if you went to check out the separate channels the SQ would likely have CF stuff in the Rears that wasnt there on the QS' Rears.

maybe

 

[J. PUPSTER]

In some cases, a Quad album might be released SQ encoded in one region and QS encoded in another region, I'm wondering if the same album (SQ and QS versions) sounds nearly discrete (and nearly identical) when decoded with the Surround Master?


Kirk Bayne

I would hope they'd sound very different, if I'm understanding you correctly, honestly not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[fredblue]

I would hope they'd sound very different, if I'm understanding you correctly, honestly not sure what you're getting at here.

in theory a QS decode and an SQ decode of the exact same content of the exact same mix should not sound wildly different from one another when run through a Surround Master, if the mix has a guitar prominent in the Rear Right channel both SQ and QS decodes should plonk it mostly in the Rear Right.

however, where it might get a bit messy, is if you check out the Rears only of each decode, whereupon i'm pretty sure you'd find the SM wiped out leaked CF content back there better on the QS decode than on the decoded Rears of the SQ encode. its something i've gone on about before, SM QS decodes obliterate CF content from the Rears whereas SM SQ decodes don't.

one day i'll get that Quadrafile LP set and give it a go...
tbh i'm surprised AOQ or someone of that ilk hasn't done tests of the Quadrafile set thru the SM already to see how it handles the same stuff in QS and SQ.. they probably have and i'm just out of the loop, he did a great job on his SM shootout after all

 

[J. PUPSTER]

in theory a QS decode and an SQ decode of the exact same content of the exact same mix should not sound wildly different from one another when run through a Surround Master, if the mix has a guitar prominent in the Rear Right channel both SQ and QS decodes should plonk it mostly in the Rear Right.

however, where it might get a bit messy, is if you check out the Rears only of each decode, whereupon i'm pretty sure you'd find the SM wiped out leaked CF content back there better on the QS decode than on the decoded Rears of the SQ encode. its something i've gone on about before, SM QS decodes obliterate CF content from the Rears whereas SM SQ decodes don't.

one day i'll get that Quadrafile LP set and give it a go...
tbh i'm surprised AOQ or someone of that ilk hasn't done tests of the Quadrafile set thru the SM already to see how it handles the same stuff in QS and SQ.. they probably have and i'm just out of the loop, he did a great job on his SM shootout after all

That's the reply I needed, the Quad knowledge runs deep here

 

[sjcorne]

It's easy to compare SQ & QS encodes of the same quad mix using the various Enoch Light/Project 3 albums available in both formats. Those mixes tend to decode really well in any matrix format due to their extreme four-corner directionality, but I find the QS decoding to more closely match the discrete tape.

 

[kfbkfb]

I would hope they'd sound very different

I think they'd sound close to the same (same discrete quad master, Surround Master decoder maximizing channel separation).

I was wondering if the unique characteristics of both SQ and QS would be audible.


Kirk Bayne

 

[fredblue]

I think they'd sound close to the same (same discrete quad master, Surround Master decoder maximizing channel separation).

I was wondering if the unique characteristics of both SQ and QS would be audible.


Kirk Bayne

tbh i think in this instance it'd be more a case of how the Surround Master handles SQ compared to how it decodes QS.

if you compare the Rears on a Tate SQ decode to an SM SQ decode you will see what i mean about Front Centre position content leaking to the Rears

 

[jaybird100]

In some cases, a Quad album might be released SQ encoded in one region and QS encoded in another region, I'm wondering if the same album (SQ and QS versions) sounds nearly discrete (and nearly identical) when decoded with the Surround Master?


Kirk Bayne

You have to assume they're both using the same mix. Most often, they will be. At the same time, Project 3 released QS and SQ encodings of several albums, and the ones I heard did sound pretty much the same. The QS was only slightly better than the SQ in some instances, especially with sounds in motion.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Project 3 were the only Record Company to release albums in 4 LP formats.

EV-4 , QS , CD-4 and SQ .
Also discrete tapes of Q8 and Quad Reel.

(and it's unclear if they issued Quad Matrix Stereo 8 tapes and Matrix encoded cassettes)

 

[gvl_guy]

Project 3 were the only Record Company to release albums in 4 LP formats.

EV-4 , QS , CD-4 and SQ .

Oh yeah. They helped end the confusion of the various quad album systems.
Many of the albums never even told you what system they used on the cover. (Although, you could tell on some by the catalog number using SQ and CD4 in the code. But many you couldn't.)

 

[jaybird100]

Oh yeah. They helped end the confusion of the various quad album systems.
Many of the albums never even told you what system they used on the cover. (Although, you could tell on some by the catalog number using SQ and CD4 in the code. But many you couldn't.)

There was usually a sticker on the shrink wrap that indicated which system was used on the record inside. If the suffix on the catalog number was QD, the earlier albums were most likely EV; after 1973, they were QS. The SQ and CD-4 suffices were self-explanatory.

 

[gvl_guy]

There was usually a sticker on the shrink wrap that indicated which system was used on the record inside. If the suffix on the catalog number was QD, the earlier albums were most likely EV; after 1973, they were QS. The SQ and CD-4 suffices were self-explanatory.

Buying used ones these days with no shrink wrap and no sticker makes it a bit more complicated.
I usually just play those Project Records in QS mode if I'm not sure what format it's in.

 

[MidiMagic]

Now the question is: how were these identical albums with different encodings actually made?

If they encoded all of them from the same discrete mix, then we would seethe actual differences.

If they made a different mixdown from the multitrack, then the mixes were made to make the best reproduction for the matrix used.

 

[par4ken]

(disclaimer: i've never tried it!)

the SQ would likely have CF content (lead vocals) leaked to the Rears whereas the QS would probably not

maybe

Not with a Tate decoder or Surround Master!

 

[fredblue]

Not with a Tate decoder or Surround Master!

yes! with a Surround Master!

give it a try, you'll be surprised the amount of CF content that leaks to the Back on SQ decodes thru the SM.

 

[par4ken]

Now the question is: how were these identical albums with different encodings actually made?

If they encoded all of them from the same discrete mix, then we would seethe actual differences.

If they made a different mixdown from the multitrack, then the mixes were made to make the best reproduction for the matrix used.

Off the top of my head we have John Lennon Imagine both SQ and RM of the same mix. Also Mike Oldfield "Ommadawn", there was a magazine review where both versions were compared, I think that they were were the same mix. On "Quadraphile we have the exact same mix of several selections (including Pink Floyd "Money") in four different systems SQ, QS, CD-4, UD-4.

https://www.discogs.com/release/8335618-Various-Quadrafile-Four-Speakers-Four-Systems-Four-Sides

 

[par4ken]

yes! with a Surround Master!

give it a try, you'll be surprised the amount of CF content that leaks to the Back on SQ decodes thru the SM.

I have tried it and there is almost no leakage, the input signals have to be properly balanced though. Every SQ decoder should have an input balance control! QS requires proper balance as well it's just not nearly as critical.

 

[fredblue]

Off the top of my head we have John Lennon Imagine both SQ and RM of the same mix. Also Mike Oldfield "Ommadawn", there was a magazine review where both versions were compared, I think that they were were the same mix. On "Quadraphile we have the exact same mix of several selections (including Pink Floyd "Money") in four different systems SQ, QS, CD-4, UD-4.

https://www.discogs.com/release/8335618-Various-Quadrafile-Four-Speakers-Four-Systems-Four-Sides

i would say "Money" would be the track to best discern the QS from the SQ, the mixes on "Imagine" and "Ommadawn" don't have enough separation in the first place to test it out