kidthorazine
Active Member
I have an SQA-1 decoder I got out of another Marantz 4415 4 channel reciever that was fried I was wondering if it would be worth installing it in my good 4415 reciever and is there anything else I need with it?
Marantz SQA-1 Decoder
- Thread starter kidthorazine
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
NewKidInTown
Active Member
Just recently I bought a 4140 quad amp which came with the SQA decoder that is mounted on the bottom of the amp. Since I'm new to quad, I too had questions and was told that I would just need a cartridge that had the capability to play the quad LP's.
kidthorazine
Active Member
theres 3 different decoders -the SQA-1,SQA-2 and SQA-2b apparently the SQA-2b is the best for quadraphonic playback at keeping signal seperation <----sounds like I know what I'm talking about,just googled it and read it 
should say right on the decoder which version you have
should say right on the decoder which version you have
Jailtime
Standin' on a corner
Good luck finding and purchasing a SQA-2B, they bring large sums on the 'bay. Any one of the decoders is better than none at all. You need quad records and a cartridge to get the original quadraphonic revolution in sound. Not to mention 4 speakers. Obviously expensive, so it never met much success. Still cool, though.
greybeige
Active Member
Quad gear and a vivid imagination.....
I had a KLH Model 54 SQ Quad Receiver that I bought in college. I had a decent TT and a good cartridge and 4 very good 12" 3-way speakers. I used to sit in the exact center of the square formed by the 4 speakers and played Rick Wakeman's "Six Wives of Henry the 8th" and with a vivid imagination I could hear quad sound. I only bought a couple of quad records since I really didn't think it worked all that well. Had a Loggins and Messina album also.
Not to be too flippant about it, but frankly I didn't really think it worked all that well. I do know that the other quad technology, called CD-4 was discrete so it was cleaner 4-channel separation. The SQ quad was referred to as a "matrix" since is was encoded into the LP or tape and then decoded by the SQ decoder. But like I said I wasn't all that impressed. Like other audio and video technologies, the record companies and equipment manufacturers aligned with one or the other technology and then fought it out in the market place. (Tape: beta vs vhs, HD DVD: blu-ray vs etc etc).
What I mostly liked was that the receivers had "bridging" circuitry in them that boosted the output power in 2-channel mode. Mine was 25w x 4 channel or 60w x 2 channel.
I had a KLH Model 54 SQ Quad Receiver that I bought in college. I had a decent TT and a good cartridge and 4 very good 12" 3-way speakers. I used to sit in the exact center of the square formed by the 4 speakers and played Rick Wakeman's "Six Wives of Henry the 8th" and with a vivid imagination I could hear quad sound. I only bought a couple of quad records since I really didn't think it worked all that well. Had a Loggins and Messina album also.
Not to be too flippant about it, but frankly I didn't really think it worked all that well. I do know that the other quad technology, called CD-4 was discrete so it was cleaner 4-channel separation. The SQ quad was referred to as a "matrix" since is was encoded into the LP or tape and then decoded by the SQ decoder. But like I said I wasn't all that impressed. Like other audio and video technologies, the record companies and equipment manufacturers aligned with one or the other technology and then fought it out in the market place. (Tape: beta vs vhs, HD DVD: blu-ray vs etc etc).
What I mostly liked was that the receivers had "bridging" circuitry in them that boosted the output power in 2-channel mode. Mine was 25w x 4 channel or 60w x 2 channel.
Last edited:
kidthorazine
Active Member
The Marantz 4415 is 15w x 4 or 30w x 2 nothing ear splitting but still nice and what the hell put 1 set of speakers in 1 room and the other set in another room
kidthorazine
Active Member
Back to my question- if you look at the pics in this link you will see the reciever I got the decoder from,so the question is is it safe to put that decoder in my working 4415 ?
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=215866
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=215866
Arkay
Lunatic Member
The whole point of quad is to get a "surround" kind of effect. Putting one pair of speakers in another room when operating in quad mode just means that you'll get partial sound in each room.
If you want to get sound in two rooms, just use the "Speaker A" and "Speaker B" connections, and select both speakers on the front panel.
Early quad decoders often didn't work very well, and if the cart+stylus isn't properly set-up, you may not even pick up the quad signal very well. Sometimes, LPs that have been over-played or played with bad styli may have sustained damage to the fine/delicate modulations of the high-frequency encoding, so the quad cannot be well decoded. [This is more common with CD-4 LPs than with SQ or other formats.] Things like this may explain the disappointing results some earlier adopters had with quad, perhaps including greybeige's experience.
A well-adjusted quad turntable with quad cart and "shibata" stylus, with a better, later-era decoders such as a Sansui QRX-8001 or 9001 receiver or the 'ultimate' Fosgate-Tate decoder, quad can sound great.
A quicker, often easier way to experience quad sound is to use an HT receiver with Dolby Prologic II decoding (it MUST be the "II" version) and SQ source material (NOT CD-4). Prologic II circuitry was based on the earlier SQ quad, and usually decodes it fairly well. A good number of CD releases of stuff originally recorded in quad, still carry the encoding, and can be played back in quad this way, but not all. A little research online will help you find out which ones work, and which ones work "weirdly", and which ones don't work.
Quad can be a bit of fun, or just a novelty... or a very impressive and involving sonic experience. A lot depends on what you put into it. Getting GOOD quad sound takes a little work. CD-4 is ultimately the best form of quad, but it is also the hardest one to get working right. And good quad will always cost a bit more, because of the need for two more channels of amplification and two more speakers.
If you decide to pursue this, just wear your "patience" and "persistence" hats, and have fun. There are rewards at the end of it all!
If you want to get sound in two rooms, just use the "Speaker A" and "Speaker B" connections, and select both speakers on the front panel.
Early quad decoders often didn't work very well, and if the cart+stylus isn't properly set-up, you may not even pick up the quad signal very well. Sometimes, LPs that have been over-played or played with bad styli may have sustained damage to the fine/delicate modulations of the high-frequency encoding, so the quad cannot be well decoded. [This is more common with CD-4 LPs than with SQ or other formats.] Things like this may explain the disappointing results some earlier adopters had with quad, perhaps including greybeige's experience.
A well-adjusted quad turntable with quad cart and "shibata" stylus, with a better, later-era decoders such as a Sansui QRX-8001 or 9001 receiver or the 'ultimate' Fosgate-Tate decoder, quad can sound great.
A quicker, often easier way to experience quad sound is to use an HT receiver with Dolby Prologic II decoding (it MUST be the "II" version) and SQ source material (NOT CD-4). Prologic II circuitry was based on the earlier SQ quad, and usually decodes it fairly well. A good number of CD releases of stuff originally recorded in quad, still carry the encoding, and can be played back in quad this way, but not all. A little research online will help you find out which ones work, and which ones work "weirdly", and which ones don't work.
Quad can be a bit of fun, or just a novelty... or a very impressive and involving sonic experience. A lot depends on what you put into it. Getting GOOD quad sound takes a little work. CD-4 is ultimately the best form of quad, but it is also the hardest one to get working right. And good quad will always cost a bit more, because of the need for two more channels of amplification and two more speakers.
If you decide to pursue this, just wear your "patience" and "persistence" hats, and have fun. There are rewards at the end of it all!
One does not need a special quadraphonic cartridge to play any type of matrix (Stereo-4, SQ, QS) quadraphonic records. Any good quality stereo cartridge will do just fine.
Note that one does need a special cartridge to play CD-4 (aka Quadradisc) quadraphonic records. These records use a high frequency (30kHz.) frequency modulated signal, much like FM multiplex FM stereo, to carry the additional information to produce discrete quadraphonic sound when used with the proper demodulator. For this type of quadraphonic playback a cartridge with a frequency response to 45kHz. is recommended. In addition low capacitance (<100pF) wiring between cartridge and preamplifier is required to prevent high frequency losses. Only records specifically made for CD-4 playback will give quadraphonic results with this system.
The CD-4 quadraphonic is a phonograph record playback only system. Perhaps you were playing your television audio through a matrix decoder to simulate quadraphonic sound. Simulating quadraphonic sound with a matrix decoder can often bring very satisfying results, depending on how the recording was made.
The high-frequency modulated carrier is only used with the CD-4 (aka Quadradisc) format. The matrix records (SQ, QS and Stereo-4) do not use a high-frequency modulated signal. No special cartridge is needed for playing back a matrix encoded quadraphonic record.
This is right on the money.
Last edited:
archie2
Addicted Member
"The CD-4 quadraphonic is a phonograph record playback only system. Perhaps you were playing your television audio through a matrix decoder to simulate quadraphonic sound. Simulating quadraphonic sound with a matrix decoder can often bring very satisfying results, depending on how the recording was made." Quote from tcdriver.
I was listening through a Marantz 4270 and had the setting on SQ Decoding. I switched back and forth between SQ decoding and Matrix. On SQ2 Decoding I thought I was listening to Dolby decoding as the program was Dolby encoded. There was a difference between Matrix and SQ2, Matrix was "adjustable" and synthetic as you said. But I thought the SQ2 was actually decoding the TV audio. I have the SQ2 full logic decoder on the bottom of the 4270.
BTW, how do you isolate certain quotes in that blue backtone?
I was listening through a Marantz 4270 and had the setting on SQ Decoding. I switched back and forth between SQ decoding and Matrix. On SQ2 Decoding I thought I was listening to Dolby decoding as the program was Dolby encoded. There was a difference between Matrix and SQ2, Matrix was "adjustable" and synthetic as you said. But I thought the SQ2 was actually decoding the TV audio. I have the SQ2 full logic decoder on the bottom of the 4270.
BTW, how do you isolate certain quotes in that blue backtone?
To answer this question first, click on the QUOTE button in the lower right hand corner of the post instead of using the reply button in the bottom left corner.
Dolby Surround and SQ are matrix encoded surround systems. They use somewhat different codes. However, they both work in playback by isolating the out of phase information and routing it to the surround speakers. Dolby Surround is designed to reproduce left front, center front, right front and surround back. The surround information is monophonic in that it is the same signal for both rear channels. SQ or Martix quadraphonic is engineered to reproduce left front, right front, left surround and right surround. The “logic” in Dolby Surround Pro Logic and in SQ “logic” is designed to dynamically adjust volume levels between the signal channels to enhance separation. Dolby Pro-Logic II is designed to create stereo (two-channel) surround information instead of the mono surround found in the original Dolby Surround. To a certain extent, the Dolby Pro-Logic II and SQ with logic are closer to each other than Dolby Surround is to SQ.
When you listen to TV audio programs that are Dolby Surround encoded, through your SQ or Matrix decoder built into your Marantz receiver, you will hear some degree of surround sound and sometimes the results can be rather good and no harm will come to your equipment. In my opinion, you are making good use of your quadraphonic receiver when you use it in the manner you described. Good listening.
archie2
Addicted Member
you deleted the closing "quote" tag. It looks like this without spaces: [ / QUOTE]
If you want to reply to a long post in bits, you can insert your own opening and closing quote tags to break it up.
BlackLungs
New Member
I know this thread is crazy old but you guys all seem to know what’s up with these so I’m just curious how this 4415 looks? Thank you
