No, I'm afraid it sold. It now has a happy home!
Sansui QSD-1
- Thread starter Cai Campbell
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
I would have bought it myself except that I'm right in the middle of starting a business. I'm glad to see it is being appreciated. I don't have a whole lot of QS albums anyway, and the Tate does a fair job with them.
The Quadfather
The Quadfather
B
brthdan
Guest
Anybody got the schematics and/or the parts list for the qsd-1? I'd be willing to pay whatever for them. Took the cover off mine today and saw a few leaking caps. Looks like its time for a full restoration including better upgraded capacitors and 1% metal film resistors. Thanks!
Dan
Dan
W
William Sommerwerck
Guest
Years ago I owned a QSD-1, but sold it, partly because I needed the money, partly because I didn't have a lot of QS LPs, and partly because I was sick and tired of the loose circuit boards.
I just won a (supposedly) mint QSD-1 on eBay. Looking for a service manual (which I gave away with the unit), I found this group.
I am an Ambisonics person, lock, stock, and barrel. But I enjoy surround recordings in other formats. Having owned both the Space & Image Composer and the Tate-Fosgate unit, I have to say that I much prefer SQ to QS.
The reason is that SQ never needs lateral enhancement -- only front/back. And the ear isn't anywhere nearly as sensitive to anomalies in front/back directionality. Even with the multi-band QSD-1, you can plainly hear lateral image wander. It's annoying.
I have a 100V QSD-1000, which I "modified" to 117V by sticking a power resistor in series with the transformer. I've never been able to compare it with the QSD-1, but my gut feeling is that the QSD-1000 is cleaner and more transparent. If I can find a manual, I might modify the QSD-1 to replace the electrolytic coupling caps with Mylars or better.
I live in Renton and have a Really Good system.
I just won a (supposedly) mint QSD-1 on eBay. Looking for a service manual (which I gave away with the unit), I found this group.
I am an Ambisonics person, lock, stock, and barrel. But I enjoy surround recordings in other formats. Having owned both the Space & Image Composer and the Tate-Fosgate unit, I have to say that I much prefer SQ to QS.
The reason is that SQ never needs lateral enhancement -- only front/back. And the ear isn't anywhere nearly as sensitive to anomalies in front/back directionality. Even with the multi-band QSD-1, you can plainly hear lateral image wander. It's annoying.
I have a 100V QSD-1000, which I "modified" to 117V by sticking a power resistor in series with the transformer. I've never been able to compare it with the QSD-1, but my gut feeling is that the QSD-1000 is cleaner and more transparent. If I can find a manual, I might modify the QSD-1 to replace the electrolytic coupling caps with Mylars or better.
I live in Renton and have a Really Good system.
Hi William and welcome to the group!
You say you live in Renton, as in Renton, Washington? If so, we're practically neighbors. I live in Seattle. I'd love the chance to do a QSD-1 vs. QSD-1000 comparison. Drop me a line if you're so inclined and perhaps we can compare notes. I have a schematic for the QSD-1 but no service manual.
I would agree that SQ was a better system but much less forgiving than QS. In that I mean any flaws in QS presentation are less noticeable than in SQ. SQ, when done REALLY right (which was rare) sounded spectacular. QS, at best, sounded pretty darn good.
However, for synthesized quad from stereo source, it's hard to beat the Sansui vario-matrix circuit. I use my QSD-1 almost exclusively for stereo-to-quad listening. Depending on the material, sometimes the Tate will do a better job, but a vast majority of the time, the QSD-1 blows it away for this particular application.
You say you live in Renton, as in Renton, Washington? If so, we're practically neighbors. I live in Seattle. I'd love the chance to do a QSD-1 vs. QSD-1000 comparison. Drop me a line if you're so inclined and perhaps we can compare notes. I have a schematic for the QSD-1 but no service manual.
I would agree that SQ was a better system but much less forgiving than QS. In that I mean any flaws in QS presentation are less noticeable than in SQ. SQ, when done REALLY right (which was rare) sounded spectacular. QS, at best, sounded pretty darn good.
However, for synthesized quad from stereo source, it's hard to beat the Sansui vario-matrix circuit. I use my QSD-1 almost exclusively for stereo-to-quad listening. Depending on the material, sometimes the Tate will do a better job, but a vast majority of the time, the QSD-1 blows it away for this particular application.
Similar threads
