• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Quad decoders

B

Bill Murray

Active Member
I am putting together a history of my stereo gear, dating back to 1962. For a brief period in the 1970s I, like a lot of other fools, was into "quad" "four channel" or whatever other name the marketing con men put on it. Since I already was into surround sound and had 2 amps and 4 speakers, all I really needed was a decoder. Ultimately I got a Sony SQD-2050 (which I still have, collecting dust in the basement) but for a short time previous to that I had a decoder made by Metrotec. Can't remember the model nr, and I would love to have a picture of it. It is the only one of my components I have nothing on. Can anyone help?? Thanks
 
Register to hide this ad
There were three different competing "Quad" recording types for LP's. SQ (matrix based) was the most well-known. QS from Sansui was also a matrix-based system. It was considered to be better sounding than SQ. The third and widely considered to be the best sounding system was CD-4 from JVC. It was a fully discrete system.

QS and SQ were quite similar and decoders for either system worked with LP's encoded as QS and SQ. Dolby pro-logic decoders do a pretty good job on both.

CD-4 required a special decoder. CD-4 LP's like any LP were compatible with LP ordinary (2 channel). However, being a discrete system, a CD-4 decoder is necessary for proper playback.

CD-4 LP's require a phono cartridge that has a frequency response that extends beyond 40KHz. The Shibata stylus shape was invented specifically to properly track CD-4 LP's.

I didn't forget 4 channel (Quad) 8 Track machines. My opinion of 8 track was/is, they're not my cup of tea.
 
I believe it was SQ based. CD-4 required a CD-4 decoder. There was/is no substitute. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of CD-4 LP's out there. However, IMO they sound better than either QS or SQ.
 
I must admit that "Quad" never won me over. I tried all three competing types. The CD-4 was simply better sounding being a discrete system. In any case being in the middle of the band didn't work for me. That and the paucity of CD-4 LP's was enough to for me to pass on the whole thing.

However, I am a fan of music on DVD or Blu-Ray in 5.1, especially classical. Rather than try to put me in the middle of the band they use the surround for reproducing the ambience in the recording. if pop/rock is your thing remember, most pop/rock recordings are strictly studio recordings. With them there is no ambience to recreate.
 
That looks like it. I only had it a few weeks before I traded it in for the Sony. I should not have wasted my time. I view it as the time I bought the Brooklyn Bridge. Thanks for the pic.
 
OBMG74 said:
I owned a Radio Shack version of the EV.
I actually enjoyed it back in the day to get some rear channel (probably differential) information from stereo records.

I was in high school, so it was cool
Click to expand...
Yeah, so much that was cool in high school is stupid now. We all go thru the SOS.
 
f0427ea said:
I'd really like to get me one of these.

https://involveaudio.com/product/surround-master-v3/

View attachment 2986464
Click to expand...

I have one. I have not had it long. Compared to my usual quad adapter that sits in between my stereos, the 4SQ setting is identical to the Marantz SQA-2B. I have not compared it against the other Marantz cards. The Involve 4 setting is better for QS records than the Vari-Matrix system that Marantz has, whereas I like Vari-Matrix better for 2 channel stereo old records that may have some extra stuff that can be synthesized.

This is good with me, as I bought it primarily for QS decoding. I use it purely on a 4.0 old style quad system. It does give me a way to put a sub in, should I be so inclined.

The company is VERY small, and VERY Australian, and this presents challenges, at times.
 
Doug G. said:
Why are you slapping quad fans in the face with your denigration? It's rather low on your part.

Doug
Click to expand...
I would hardly call being honest about "quad" slapping anyone in the face. I was already deep into audio when Quad was introduced. I tried all three types of Quad LP's. I never liked 8 tracks so adding discrete quad from them was a bust for me. I was also aware of quad RtoR but never investigated that media.

It seems that some are offended by anyone who's not a fanboy of their particular "baby". After trying most of the available "quad" formats I built a Dynaco Quadapter which I used for many years. It was especially effective on minimally mic'd recordings.
twiiii said:
I a sxzlways preferred the sound of the Sansui Quad units.
Click to expand...
As I said in my original post the Sansui QS system was easily the best of the matrixed schemes.
Kodaline said:
I ain't bothered; he forgot 3 or 4 formats, so it shows.
Click to expand...
Other than quad reel to reel what did I not mention? Please be so kind as to enlighten me. I know there were lots of lots of quad decoders. However, AFAIK there were only the three quad types that I mentioned for LP's and cassettes. Quad tapes (8 track or RtR) do not need a decoder to play them correctly.
Doug G. said:
No, some of us appreciate the added dimension quad/surround contributes to listening to music at home. Others are incapable of this. Some claim, "I have only two ears."

Doug
Click to expand...
At the end of my post I very plainly said that I am a fan of 5.1 DVD and Blu-ray discs. You know, the only currently available "Quad" sources. The only real complaint I posted about quad was that I didn't like the perspective of being in the middle of the band. I was in a band and doing studio work at that time. Being in the middle of the band while listening to a recording just never appealed to me.

As someone who has a reasonably sized LP collection of which many are SQ/QS encoded I'm well aware that Dolby Pro-Logic does a fairly good job of decoding many LP's and cassettes even if they're not encoded as such.

Those who have an HT receiver with Dolby Pro-logic should give it a shot with LP's and cassettes. It's a free way to find out if Quad is something you want to invest in.

IME/O 5.1 Blu-rays and DVD's sonically walk all over every quad format except maybe quad reel to reel tapes.

I was a fan of CD-4 LP's. They IME/O sounded better than any type of matrixed system. However, there weren't enough recordings released in that format to cause me to invest in a CD-4 decoder. However, I did buy and still use a couple of phono cartridges with a Shibata stylus.

To sum it up. After 50+ years as an audiophile there is very little that I haven't actually tried in my room.
 
Last edited:
JoeESP9 said:
I would hardly call being honest about "quad" slapping anyone in the face. I was already deep into audio when Quad was introduced. I tried all three types of Quad LP's. I never liked 8 tracks so adding discrete quad from them was a bust for me. I was also aware of quad RtoR but never investigated that media.

It seems that some are offended by anyone who's not a fanboy of their particular "baby". After trying most of the available "quad" formats I built a Dynaco Quadapter which I used for many years. It was especially effective on minimally mic'd recordings.

As I said in my original post the Sansui QS system was easily the best of the matrixed schemes.

Other than quad reel to reel what did I not mention? Please be so kind as to enlighten me. I know there were lots of lots of quad decoders. However, AFAIK there were only the three quad types that I mentioned for LP's and cassettes. Quad tapes (8 track or RtR) do not need a decoder to play them correctly.

At the end of my post I very plainly said that I am a fan of 5.1 DVD and Blu-ray discs. You know, the only currently available "Quad" sources. The only real complaint I posted about quad was that I didn't like the perspective of being in the middle of the band. I was in a band and doing studio work at that time. Being in the middle of the band while listening to a recording just never appealed to me.

As someone who has a reasonably sized LP collection of which many are SQ/QS encoded I'm well aware that Dolby Pro-Logic does a fairly good job of decoding many LP's and cassettes even if they're not encoded as such.

Those who have an HT receiver with Dolby Pro-logic should give it a shot with LP's and cassettes. It's a free way to find out if Quad is something you want to invest in.

IME/O 5.1 Blu-rays and DVD's sonically walk all over every quad format except maybe quad reel to reel tapes.

I was a fan of CD-4 LP's. They IME/O sounded better than any type of matrixed system. However, there weren't enough recordings released in that format to cause me to invest in a CD-4 decoder. However, I did buy and still use a couple of phono cartridges with a Shibata stylus.

To sum it up. After 50+ years as an audiophile there is very little that I haven't actually tried in my room.
Click to expand...

You needn't talk to me as if I am relatively inexperienced. I have at least fifty years, too. More like sixty. Your "...some are offended..." little dig wasn't clever,either

I wasn't addressing you with my comments. It was the other guy who slapped us quad/.surround fans in our collective face by calling us fools.

He starts off with an attitude and you defend him.

Doug
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom