A reply to a message on QQ

28 Oct

Now normally i refuse to have the going on in QQ mentioned here but i’ve been sent the details of a post there thatdoes so annoy me. As many will know, one of my gripes about QQ is the total lack of real knowledge about the subject that they profess to know about. One of the areas where they completely fail is in the area of the early pre- phas-shifting matrix systems DY & EV-4.

As i’m sure your all aware of, AOQ is running a ‘shoot-out’ on this very subject and i feel this new posting not only blurs his attempts.. Here’s what i’ve been sent:

“Are EV-4 and QS compatible with each other? Decide for yourself. EV-4 encoding uses a front blending coefficient of 0.2, slightly less than QS at 0.414. The back channels use a blend coefficient of 0.5 compared to QS at 0.414, slightly more. The decoded result will shift the fronts a bit toward the sides and the rears a bit closer together. Overall the decode should still be quite good.
The only other difference is that QS encoding phase shifts the rears by +90 degrees (left) and -90 degrees (right) to create a 180 degree (out of phase) difference. This phase difference is done directly with EV-4. This rear phase shift is reversed by the QS decoder. Ideally the rear phase shift should be switched out for EV-4 decoding and for stereo enhancement and switched in for QS. I believe that Sansui decoders leave the phase in shift both for simplicity and to increase the apparent separation of the rear decoded outputs for stereo enhancement (as they always referred to their units as “SYNTHESIZERS”).
I would think that one could tweak the separation pots in a QSD-1 or QSD-2 to perfectly decode EV-4. At some point I might try bypassing the phase shift in my unit to see if I hear a difference, positive or negative on none QS encoded material.
Forget about “correct” EV-4 decoding, those units were designed more stereo enhancement, basically an active version of the Dyna-Quad speaker connection. The asymmetrical decode was the best that could be done without using any form of logic.”

Now, if someone who has access to QQ and is willing to reply to this for me, i’d be grateful. My reply is:

‘100% Wrong!’




11 Responses to “A reply to a message on QQ”

  1. Jonathan Gatarz (armyofquad) October 29, 2016 at 13:37 #

    The thing is, QQ isn’t a reference site. It’s a discussion group. There is a lot of information contained within the discussion, but since anyone can post anything, and there has been a lot of misinformation that has existed over the years, if you’re going to look for information there (or just about anywhere on the internet), you’ll want to verify things.

    There will definitely be an SQ shoot out, I’ve already prepared materials for it and am working on gathering together different decodings, I’m going to put the Surround Master up against a Tate II, and then one of those up against a software decode. So far I’ve only heard back from 3 people for the EV4 shoot out, so I’m trying to drum up some more responses before I put together and post the results. If anyone is finding the material to be too much, it would be perfectly reasonable to pick a few tracks and only do a partial review, a partial review is better than no review at all.

    • Owen Smith October 29, 2016 at 17:05 #

      I hope you got my results for the shootout, I didn’t get any reply acknowledging receipt.

      • Jonathan Gatarz (armyofquad) October 30, 2016 at 01:36 #

        Yup, got it. Sorry, must have been busy that day and forgot to send a reply.

  2. Jonathan Gatarz (armyofquad) October 28, 2016 at 14:51 #

    Certainly over the years there has been misinformation and misunderstanding about many things. In college, for research I spent a few evenings going over archives of old stereo review magazines from the time period. From what I gathered and from what I remember, it seems at the time there was much focus on decoders that would synthesize quad from stereo sources, and just about everyone had their own version of such a decoder. I think that may be how QS started out, I believe the first QS decoder was designed strictly for synthesizing quad from stereo. Is that really a QS decoder? Or is it just a box that Sansui built before developing QS as an encoding/decoding format? Does it decode QS? I don’t know.
    But, one thing I remember reading much of, was commentary about what Sony was up to. When they were developing SQ, there was commentary of the confusion with all of these different formats, which some suggested were compatible with one another, and now Sony was going to come along and release this completely new format, that is completely incompatible with all of these other formats. What really struck me, was this mentality that all these different formats were supposedly interchangeable or compatible. Of course, if they’re different, it’s logical to question how compatible they really are, but certainly there was a mentality that existed at the time. And it was probably based on trying to sell people on the idea. There was so much confusion, how could one not just throw up their hands, and say, I give up. So….sell them the line that, you can totally play that on your quad system, don’t worry about the details, and hope the public keep buying recordings and maybe upgrade their system later.
    Now, many years have passed, many details are forgotten. Some years ago, I reached out to some contact email with Electro-Voice, asking if they had any details about the EV-4 system. They had none. The companies that developed these technologies at this point have moved on, and you’re more likely to hear “quadra-what?” from them, than any answers or information about what was what. So that leaves us with the task to sort these things out and figure these things out, if we want to know the nitty gritty details.
    Some of us are happy just listening to the music and grooving out. Some of us are sticklers for details. If someone says something that’s 100%, or any percent, wrong, it’s certainly not with any malicious thought or intent. And if someone says something that’s fact, and is dismissed by someone else, well…we’ve all been fed different lines over the years, and it’s difficult to sort out who’s telling the truth, and who’s repeating a bit of misinformation. It would be foolish to take any one individual’s writings as 100 percent fact without any verification, who knows, we probably have all very well spoken some misinformation without realizing it over the years. At the moment, I can think of some posts on this forum I hope stay buried because they’re factually incorrect, but I don’t want to draw attention to them by posting in them. I once called the Ozark Mountain Daredevil’s Q8 fake quad, only later to discover, it’s definitely a different mix, and definitely quad, just a bit subtle. I once said a part was swirling around the sound field in a quad mix after listening to the SQ version of it a bit, only to on further analysis find that, nope, it was stationary, the movement was in my head. Some of the things I’ve said in this very post may be misinformation. I don’t know.
    I’d love to see everyone in both of these sites be able to freely discuss these things. It’s only through open discussion and having respect for each other that we will ever sort out the years of misinformation from the facts.
    As far as the shoot-out goes, I don’t think any discussion blurs anything. It’s a straight blind comparison. Listen, compare to discreet, state what you like better and why. All the discussion of formulas and compatibilities doesn’t change the bottom line, what you hear, and what you like.

    As far as facts, I don’t know much of these formats or the formulas involved. But when exchanging emails with a friend, his response to the question of compatibility between EV-4 and QS was to suggest he doesn’t see how they would be compatible, and included this picture:

    (I’m not sure how to attach images here, but this same post is on QQ with the image)

    Not sure if this is fact or more misinformation. But, whether or not they should be compatible, this is about finding out what the bottom line is when playing things certain ways.

    • oxforddickie October 29, 2016 at 07:39 #

      I do hope it doesn’t affect the shoot-out, it shouldn’t as it has been done correctly with no clue as to which of the tracks was decoded by which process.

      I hope you’ve all taken part in this. It takes a lot of time to put something like this together and it can be quite a let down if people don’t get involved, plus it could affect the possibility of what, i beleive, is a possible SQ shoot-out.

      If people don’t get involved with this then why should those involved spent the time and resources in putting another one together?

    • Owen Smith October 29, 2016 at 17:12 #

      I think AoQ has it right when he says a lot of the manufacturers started this misinformation by saying all the formats were compatible (except SQ) in a bid to sell their equipment. We need to ignore such claims and any information derived from them, which means doing our own research. And the problem there is most of us just aren’t qualified for the job, I don’t feel I’m up to it for example and yet I have a degree in Computer Science with a part maths first year.

  3. Owen Smith October 28, 2016 at 07:33 #

    After the grief and personal attacks I got for some postings on QQ a while back (nothing to do with matrix systems) I have no interest in engaging with them. There will always be incorrect information on the web. I saw the above posting since I’m subscribed to that thread, I knew it was wrong but I decided not to get involved.

    • oxforddickie October 28, 2016 at 08:44 #

      I fully understand, which is why i didn’t ask you as i knew the responce you’d get.

      My point is that after 47 years of being in existance and quite a few years since i told them, they are still more than happy to peddle the same old rubbish on a subject they quite plainly know nothing about, eeven though they state it’s THE place for anything quad.

      Really, i feel it’s got to stop before quad reaches its 50th birthday.

      And that is the only reason i posted this, because someone has to put the record (pun intended) straight once and for all.

    • Owen Smith October 28, 2016 at 13:22 #

      It won’t make any difference. Somewhere on the web there will always be at least one person posting incorrect information on any subject you care to name. It is futile to try to stop this. It’s almost like a revolution, for each one you stamp out two more will arise in their place.

      • oxforddickie October 29, 2016 at 07:33 #

        Unfortunately your so right, but the reason i decided to post it was that it was from QQ, an area that says it’s ‘the’ home of quad but is full of incorrect information. There appears to be no interest by the moderators to actually clean the area up and actually work on providing factually true information for the mambers they already have and, this is more inportant, those who join in the future.

        To answer the question that may be on peoples minds but may be worried about asking it: Why don’t you do it then?

        Well the answer is easy. In the past the ignorance shown in QQ to my ‘work’ has led me to the point i do not want to help them in any way as ‘they know better’. As far as i’m concerned if i can do it, and i’m no brainiac’, then it can’t be too hard to do if you just spend a little time doing the research. This releates to DY/EV-4, QS and SQ.

      • Owen Smith October 29, 2016 at 17:02 #

        I think you underestimate your abilities.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: