DynaQuad!!!!!!!

[Mallette]

Out of the stack of LP's I obtained during my Klipsh-free vacation, I expected little except curio interest from the DynaQuad disk I found. What a surprise...and what a lesson!!! The first cut, a "Flight of the Bumblebee" on the Moog, blew my mind. Discretely all over the place, and so much more natural and musical than the best 5.1 I've ever heard. Dolby ProLogic and Digital is SO mechanical compare to this. It's the surround sound comparative to multimic and mixdown. I've always found two mic stereo to be generally preferable to any remix multimic recordings, and this did for me in surround sound what years of listening to various mic setups did for me. Some of you have probably read in my posts that I've used a Hafler passive rear channel system for 30 years and fully enjoyed it. At minimum, it provides a deptha and fullness that two front speakers just can't match. On heavily mixed albums like classic rock or Firesign Theatre, the effect is downright startling. But when the record is made purposefully with stronger out-of-phase signals, like in this Dynaco demo, it is downright AWESOME! It is that which lays to rest the 2 channel argument, as it is only two channels. However, with the passive circuit installed, it is a revelation...and still unprocessed and ungimmicky.

For the life of me I will never understand why they messed around with QS, SQ, and the discrete JVC (I think) encodeing systems. They never sounded anymore "natural" than the even more processor dependent Dolby system. We could have had surround for both audiophiles and regular listeners 30 years ago! No extra bandwith needed. I recall that Dyna even made a little device to be used in the car...bet those are rare artifacts, indeed!. Wish I could find one! I may even try wiring the circuit in my van.

The steam engine that follows the Bee cut is every bit as 4D as that used on the Dolby Theatre trailer...with a lot less circuitry and gimmicks to make it happen. The next three cuts are Buffy Sainte Marie, Ian and Sylvia, and Country Joe and the Fish. Each completely musical, seamless, and completely enveloping. I like Dynaco's characterization of this as "4 Dimensional Stereo." It is not a contradiction in terms, but a fact. The classical stuff on the back has this depth as well, but I found the recordings a bit edgey. I suspect they manipulated the mono and stereo cuts of Messiah to make them sound worse...damn shame, since no such subterfuge was really necessary.

Bottom line...natural is best. We could have avoided a lot of needless Quad wars back there that resulted in no winners, and had a much more natural and gimmick-free surround system if Dyna had more clout. I wonder if they held the patent too closely or something for the others to have gone to all the trouble and expense of getting it wrong, when right was SOOOOO simple.

The upside is that the Hafler circuit does so much good for any analog source even when not optimized for it. I say analog because I've noticed the effect is not so profound on digital sources. I do not see why, since there should be out-of-phase info there as well. I wonder if a lot of the o-o-p info that provides the "steering" is perhaps in the very high freqs not present on CD?

I probably won't sell anyone on this as it is politcally incorrect for the 2 channel crowd, and not technically challenging enough for the DD5.1 bunch.

It was damn sure a revelation for me...

Dave

------------------

David A. Mallett

Come taste muh'

[HDBRbuilder]

Dave,

I have to agree with you about MOST, but NOT ALL of the CD-4 stuff that was around in the old days. It seemes that in their rush to get much of this on the market, they tended to just do a "reverse" mix back to 4 channels from stereo on the masters of material PREVIOUSLY released. This just wasn't justice to the format at all!!! It made you feel like you were walking around among the band members up on stage instead of out in front of the band listening to it!! Not what the effect EVER should have been, IMHO!!

BUT, on the other hand, SOME of those CD-4 discs were recorded so that you were positioned in front of the band and they were well-worth the listen!!

It is too bad that quad died such a horrible death BEFORE they got it all worked out!! When it died out, it was in the same general infancy that stereo had gone through in the late 1950's/early 1960's. At least they had already figured out to use left and right by then, though, instead of front and rear for primary channels, like on some of the early stereo stuff!!

BUT!!!...there are very many CD-4 recordings that are VERY good!!

I still wonder what a comparison between the dynaquad and the H/K "enhanced stereo" surround from 2-channel sources would sound like, though!! It would be very interesting to do a side by side, don't you think? Maybe we can figure out a way to accomplish this sometime!!

------------------

I can now receive private messages

[Mallette]

I rather doubt I ever heard QS, SQ or the JVC systems under good conditions. The only decoder I ever owned was a Sansui QS purchased used in the 70's. It was so hissy I couldn't stand it.

I am not familiar with the H/K system you mentioned. However, my main point was that rear channel information occurs naturally and can be recovered naturally. Anything else is unneccessary and ultimately unsatisfying from a musical standpoint, IMHO. I have several QS and SQ disks, including the Gabrieli with the Philadelphia, Chicago, and one other brass ensemble in four corners, and the Biggs plays the four organs of Freiberg Cathedral. All exhibit some degree of four channel sound with the DyanQuad. I just picked up a copy of the Biggs while in Florida in the plain release. Looking forward to back-to-back with the SQ to see if there is a detectable difference...I doubt it, frankly.

I suppose it follows that a "2 mic, never mix or process" guy would also embrace this minimalist approach to 4 channel sound, but my ears tell me it is the only approach that adds or subtracts nothing from what is already there in the first place.

What do you (HDBR) think about my comments on CD through passive extraction? Perhaps just my bias (which seems to increase daily)? Don't know, but I certainly hear less from them.

Dave

------------------

David A. Mallett

Come taste muh'

[HDBRbuilder]

DAVE,

I have noted DEFINITE differences from what I hear from a CD recording and vinyl when both are run through the "enhanced stereo" on the H/K!! I remember that there was much discussion as to some things getting "left out" of digital formatting from previously released stuff on vinyl!! I can hear the difference on the H/K in the "enhanced stereo" format!!

There was much discussion about how the STRONGER signal of multiple signals in a particular frequency at a particular point in time on a recording just didn't "get picked up" through digital re-mastering because the stronger of that signal overrode them and was the only one "digitalized". This argument increased dramatically when comparisons between analog and digital were made of "live" recordings. Of course, none of this argument really matters when the source is originally mastered digitally to two channels, does it?

I sincerely believe that one of the reasons so many folks find refuge in vinyl these days is to hear things that are just left out in the digital format!! Although I have never had a chance to hear one, and CERTAINLY CAN'T AFFORD ONE, I am very interested in whether anything is "lost in the shuffle" when using one of those laser turntables on vinyl, as it is lost in the changeover from analog to digital in other formats!! It would seem to me that it may be the same kind of case, though!!

------------------

I can now receive private messages

[Mallette]

If I understood the guy from the company who makes the laser turntable correctly, the signal is pure analog all the way. The only conversion is from the analog modulated laser to current. Granted, that is an extra stage from normal pickup, but it's still analog. I suppose none of us knows what would be involved there, but it certainly seems like it should be a lossless process if done correctly, and the signal should be of far greater bandwith than the best mechanical pickup concievable.

Just uninformed speculation...

Dave

Dave

------------------

David A. Mallett

Come taste muh'

[jdm56]

The old "Hafler" hook-up does have a lot to offer. I've been using a Dynaco QD-2 to derive four channels from two for almost a year now. Bought it from Dynaco for $50 on ebay. Hah, it may have been the last one they made. Was probably sittin' in a warehouse for five years before some fool (me) finally latched on to it. I'll soon be feeding a center speaker from it, too. I still hope to get on the SACD and/or DVD-A bandwagon in the future, but for now it'll do.

------------------

JDM

[Mallette]

I am not familiar with the QD-2. I am currently running a QD-1, which at a recent check was still available from the current holders of the Dynaco name. It has a center channel output and costs around 90.00. Heckuva deal for a purist wanting to get all the info out of his recordings. I still have my original DynaQuad, but it does not have a center tap and the screws are quite small and difficult to get wires under. However, I really miss the null balance of the original...very handy for set up and fool proof. For Hafler to work well, the speakers really have to be pretty close in efficiency, if not in type. My rears are Frazier Monte Carlos and just barely make it in the efficiency category with the front horns. My center is a Cornwall which is sufficiently less efficient than the horns to be noticable. I hope to replace it with a La Scala at some point.

While DVD-A is in my future, I imagine I'll give SACD a pass. Too expensive for the limited repertoire (and probably lifespan). While I've not heard any modern recordings mixed for surround, I've heard plenty of movie soundtracks. They sound quite manipulated and forced compared to the natural sound of the Hafler experience. I really think a lot of audiophiles would go for Hafler if they heard it under the right conditions. Further, even a moderately savvy person could wire this, and even build a small board with a volume control. Not quite sure (I am "moderately savvy) how the null balance worked, but it would be nice to add.

Dave

------------------

David A. Mallett

Come taste muh' Klipsch!

This message has been edited by Mallett on 07-31-2002 at 09:14 AM

[jdm56]

I have no idea what the difference, if any, there is between the QD1 and QD2. Mine's got just three knobs; mode, gain and control. Seems to work really well, depending of course, on the recording.

I do rather like the idea of extracting the ambience that is already in a recording, rather than trying to generate artificial ambience with dsp. It's a shame the concept hasn't really ever taken off.

I even think that in a lot of ways, the surround systems that appeared in the late seventies/early eighties (ADS comes to mind) had some distinct advantages over the discrete SACD and DVD-A systems; at least they weren't capable of putting instruments and voices behind you.

I use an old pair of Infinity SM-120's in the back corners of my room. They seem just about right, effeciency-wise to work well with the front cornerhorns. They would probably do even better if I put them on stands. In a couple of weeks, my belle center should be here.(yes!) That should be fun; setting it up and dialing it in with the k-horns. I am a little concerned that I may have to back the gain off on the belle to maintain image width, which will also turn the rears down to, as they are wired together. (The gain control effects both. And they (the rear Infinity's) don't need turned down any. May have to try to pad down the belle some other way, if need be.

I'm sure plans have appeared on this bb that show how to do just what you are saying, at line level. I believe it was posted by Mr ALK himself. Or not

------------------

JDM

[Mallette]

I've always been of the opinion that plain 2 channel stereo is mostly 2 dimensional. Most of the arguments of the 2 channel forever crowd center around the unnatural nature of multi-channel schemes. I concur with this, as I've heard them all and even the best sound forced or worse. OTOH, simply extracting what is already present is no more unnatural than a passive preamp, and truly enhances the listening experience for me. In short, the arguments against more than 2 channels are really no more or less valid as those against 2 channel itself. After all, there are still a few luddites who prefer mono and have reasonable arguments (mostly just like the 2 channels only crowd) in support of their position. I listen to a lot of mono, but certainly prefer stereo and passively extracted rear channels. Like you, I am surprised at the lack of interest from the audiophile community in the Hafler circuit. Seems like a natural.

I suspect that it is too much for the 2 channel crowd, and too little for the multi-channel bunch.

Thank God it can be obtained without fancy circuits and such! The DynaQuad demo I obtained recently has the basic circuit on the back, though I'd like to know how they get the center channel. Bridges generally seem to be expensive, but this one appears to work very transparently and very cheaply.

BTW, is it possible to simple split the output of a preamp with a Y, then sum it to get a line level center for amplification? I'd like to try this with a Mac 2100 I have idle at the moment to see if the center Cornwall would sound better with the efficiency more closely matched to the 'horns.

Dave

------------------

David A. Mallett

Come taste muh'

[jdm56]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mallett:

I suspect that it is too much for the 2 channel crowd, and too little for the multi-channel bunch.

Dave

---

You hit the ol' hail right on the head there, Dave!

I think you could probably find help on summing the L & R channels to produce a line level center in the archives on this bb. If not, send ALK an e-mail. I think he's got some pics and/or diagrams.

------------------

JDM