I listen to quad every day. It's alive and well in my music room.

In 1974 as a college student I came into a small inheritance and blew it all on a new stereo system. Quad was all the rage and I bought some of the best equipment I could afford. My system included a Marantz 4400 quad receiver with the remote control, built in oscilloscope and the optional plug in decoders for all the various formats. I had a Teac A-3340s reel to reel, 4, JBL L-100 speakers, and an Empire 698 Turntable with a 4 channel Empire cartridge. To this day, I don’t think I have ever heard a better system. The main problem was getting 4-channel material to listen to. Living out in the wilds of Wyoming the album choices were few and far between. I eventually joined the Columbia Quad Record Club but even their choices were minimal. The difference between listening to a stereo lp vs. a quad lp was astonishing. I remember I had Santana’s Barboletta album in both stereo and quad and the sound on the quad album would just blow the stereo lp away. In my experience what killed quad was the different formats (Betamax anyone?) and the lack of available recordings. If this format had received proper backing from the industry and they had settled on a single format, we would still be listening to it today because when it was done right, it was the best sound out there. Thanks for the video. It brought back great aural memories.

@doobiz

4 жыл бұрын

A lot of us still do listen to quad and 5.1 music,there's a lot of surround music out there. facebook has a few quad and surround groups.

@That_AMC_Guy

4 жыл бұрын

It's funny, when you read contemporary magazine articles like from Playboy, Rolling Stone or even Billboard.... QUAD was this magical darling that was going to revolutionize the industry! EVERYBODY will be doing it in a year or two. Even little labels like Stax, Ode, 20th Century, Fantasy.... were teaming up with the Big Boys to put out as much Quad content as they could. Reproducing Companies were churning out as much as they could - so much in fact that some albums COULDN'T be done as there just weren't enough hours in the day. Hell, there was even going to be QUAD FM!!! And then 1975 rolls around and everything just ground to a halt. Quad didn't almost overnight ceased to exist. The FCC dragged their feet so long, QUAD-FM wasn't even passed until 1983 long after the death-knell of the format. Granted, it took the big boys a year or two to really figure out how to mix an album to Quad. Some of those early albums make NO sense and are literally something over here, something over there with no logic to it whatsoever. What is really ironic is that by the time they'd figured out how to mix, came up with a GOOD QUAD LP format (CD-4), 24-track with Dolby was in literally every studio and some studios created by the artists themselves (Like Bolic studio by Ike & Tina; Caribou Ranch by Chicago; even Elton John's "Windmill" Studio) were ALL BUILT with Quad in mind. Many more were built I'm sure. And then overnight, it all went away. Which is really sad. I think with the popularity of Disco, Quad would've seen a second life. Disco was PERFECT for Quad with those thick, lush instrumental beds. Horns and Strings and Synths and vocals..... ugh. Never to be.

@rikkey3k

3 жыл бұрын

Ditto ! With the right producers (i.e. Alan Parsons) and the right equipment (discrete quad tape) it is an immersive experience. One of my most valued possessions is the "Dark Side of the Moon" package with the CD and the multi-channel blu ray. Of course, I also own several Otari and Teac decks . . . and a mixing board for the eight track masters.

@hadleymanmusic

Жыл бұрын

Cool 4 same speakers

I'm making and selling my own discrete quadraphonic reels on ebay. I've been having a great time doing this and I feel you can still enjoy quadraphonic music using the old analog equipment, as well as the newer technology.

Back in the early 70s. I had a quadraphonic sound system. Not all quadraphonic records were the same. Some like yours were just ambient quadraphonic. While others were discreet quadraphonic. The best were these Gold discreet records. I had Edgar Winters, Frankenstein. Where these effects were so visceral as the "break" music swirled around you like a tornado. With the lights out. You can imagine the wicked witch of the west riding her bicycle with the basket. Around and around you. Quadraphonic may have turned out to be a novelty. But it's an experience every audiophile must experience. But like all music. It's very source dependent. Don't judge it by that one record.

@frankfarago2825

3 жыл бұрын

Disengage the center channel in a surround receiver-processor, and you will have Quad in any 5.1 room. At least simulated Quadraphonic.

I had a CD-4 system back in the day... black water by the Doobie Brothers was fantastic with different voices from each speaker. My opinion is that CD-4 was the authentic quad, but the ‘Matrix’ (SQ & QS) were disappointing. My theory of what happened to quad is as follows. Quad was gaining popularity and manufacturers wanted to jump on the bandwagon, so everyone came out with four channel stuff but many took advantage of the lack of standardization. Ie: I once had a ‘quad’ Pakard Bell... I was unimpressed so I thought there was something broken. I took it to a repair shop and they told me there was no difference between front and back circuitry the back speakers were just sent through a resistor from the front ones. It was just a four-speaker stereo. They also told me that was how most consumer companies did it rather than actually processing the signal. Later I bought an outboard CD-4 processor and was amazed! Dolby labs has yet to catch up to the incredible surround experience of CD-4. But, by then, public opinion had turned against Quad and manufacturers bailed. CD-4 was fantastic, true quad, but too many companies just sold snake oil.

@jamescollins4208

2 жыл бұрын

Great Real World User Insight!! But tell Us this, Ma’am, if you know. (And, of course, we’re taking time to go through other posters comments), Q1.> What do you understand about whether or not original CD-4 LPs or Quad Discreet Reel-to-Reel released recordings have or have not been converted to other disc formats of SACD, DVD (or whatever) ? Q2. > So in your comments, are you implying that you have actually listened to original Quad recordings which are now available in some form of Dolby Surround or DTS Surround formats. It this true or did we misunderstand?

I have a Sansui Qrx-6001....and it's fantastic. I have mixed speakers, 6 vintage Sansuis and 2+2 BostonAcoustics and Fishers. I have them arranged in a 1/2 moon facing me. Everybody who has heard it says it sounds amazing!! Remember, this was made BEFORE electronic music. Jazz was the newest musical art form. The open E on a stand-up bass was the lowest note in music. Homes, bedrooms and living rooms were smaller, carpeted and less cluttered. Try under those conditions and it'll rock you. 🎉

Back in the 60’s, I found some interesting info. I don’t remember how I learned this, no internet at that time. Anyway, hooking up the left and right speakers properly and a THIRD speaker set up so one connection was to the amp’s hot LEFT terminal and the other was to the amp’s hot RIGHT side. This created an echoey sound that seemed to be the difference of the left and right channels. Gave it a wonderful feeling of space. I remember listening to a record from The Goon Show (look it up), “Tales of Old Dartmoor”, where a character was walking down a long passageway. With the third speaker it sounded so lifelike. - BG

@hadleymanmusic

Жыл бұрын

Third speaker goes in the middle or rears?

A lot of quad material has been converted to DTS and is available on the internet. The Moody Blues albums sound pretty good in this format. I must admit I'm a fan of surround. I have a good collection of SACD's DVDA's and Blu ray audio disk. I really enjoy when they isolate the lead vocals in the center channel. You can't beat that kind of imaging.

@MODAC

4 жыл бұрын

I always enjoy listing in surround mode. It’s just a pain to set up in a room sometimes. Thanks, Dave

@jamescollins4208

2 жыл бұрын

@@MODAC Don’t I remember some guy in one of the magazines like Stereo Review or Video Audio Interiors with an entire article about his beautiful custom home interior Theatre Room, who would invite neighbors and friends over to watch movies with his expensive Laser Projector and in which ever audio surround format, but also he would have special Music in Surround nights, (or whatever he called it), or is all this just my imagination?

@donaldrobertson8957

9 ай бұрын

I’m kind of new to surround sound music. Maybe I’m just using the wrong search terms but I’m having trouble finding material. I have 5.1 system in my living room. So Far, I’ve only been able to find a few titles that I’m interested in. I’d love to have the Doobie Brothers or Moody Blues albums that have been mentioned in the comments. How do I get them?

@ehanni

9 ай бұрын

@@donaldrobertson8957 The site SuperDeluxEdition has a lot of reviews with links to where they may be purchased. Burningshed has some also.

My only experience with Quad was thanks to my music teacher Tom Tinnea in Lindbergh School District in St Louis County Missouri. Thanks to Mr. Tinnea,, we had. Technics Quad system and 4 speakers in our classroom. We would listen to classical recordings at beginning of class and at the end of class, He played Edgar Winter’s Frankenstein in quad. It was incredible!

Pretzel logic is my favourite Steely Dan album. Enjoyed your take on Quad.

My father was a career military man. I inherited his Sansui QRX 6500 ,4 high end Sansui speakers, a Phillips 312 turntable, a Sansui reverb unit, and a set of nice quad headphones. Got it all for my 15th B-day in the mid 70's. Anyway, as a military man he liked the military march music and had an LP called Pass in Review. Not my kind of music, but I remember him playing it on the system sometimes. You would swear the bands started in one speaker, and then moved to the other speakers until a new band came in behind the band before.Like I said, really not my kind of thing, but it really did demonstrate how the whole quad thing worked. And then I tortured him with my copy of Dark Side of the Moon...lol

Apart from the problem of competing formats another was that many audiophile listeners had very large speakers by modern standards and had no room for four 15 inch Tannoy GRFs. I remember in the mid 70's attending a demo in Harrogate by Ortofon. The room was very large and very dead. However when they played a recording of a church choir the effect was astonishing- the acoustic became that of a big church! I was hooked and experimented with SQ , QS and CD4. The BBC broadcast concerts from the Royal Albert Hall in Quad but you needed two tuners and amps. At present there are a number of Philips recordings of that era reissued on surround SACD by Pentatone - such a pity there are so few for there are so many great recordings of all genres there in the vaults and worthy of reissue in a more convenient format.

1) Matching speakers. 2) Discrete format. 3) Different source selection. This will more appropriately demonstrate the format.

@MODAC

4 жыл бұрын

I agree. I do like what I have. But I believe my money will be better spent on other things other than a quad upgrade. I wish I knew someone with a setup like that.

Back in 1974, a good school buddy of mine had I owned a quadraphonic stereo at his parents house. Bein only 14 at the time went over to hear his sound system. He did buy a few quad stereo records at the time. After hearing this new way of listening it was impressive but really didn't knock me over with any impression in the difference in sound quality compared to normal 2 channel sound that I owned at the time. It's no wonder it never took off as most thought it would.

If you're able, try to get a quad copy of Pink Floyd's Dark side of the moon on reel to reel and use a 4 track reel to reel tape player. It really does sound amazing. 👍🍻

@nexgenhippy

3 жыл бұрын

yeah proper discrete 4 channel on reel to reel sounds fantastic

@terrancetucker8020

2 жыл бұрын

Or better yet the DVD Audio or Blu-ray.

They tried it again with DVD Audio. I wasn't convinced by quadrophonic, but one of the best sound experiences I ever had was The Beatles Collection "Love" album in 5.1 surround sound DVD Audio. I think because it had a "centre" for the vocals, and everything else provided sheer immersion.

@That_AMC_Guy

3 жыл бұрын

The funny thing is, the center and subwoofer channel were 11-th hour creations to trick both record company executives (and then later, the public) that " 5.1 surround sound is NOTHING like Quadraphonic and will be way more successful!" And then the first DTS releases in 5.1 were nothing more than old Quadraphonic mixes with faked center and subwoofer channels. Even the inventor of 5.1, Brad Miller used to say: "There's nothing you can do in 5.1 that you CAN'T DO in 4.0 (Quad)." Just like once upon a time, 3-channel stereo was almost a reality until somebody pointed out that mixing the same object or instrument in each channel IN PHASE creates a phantom center that you don't actually need a 3rd discrete track for.

In 1974 or75 I remember hearing Emerson,Lake,Palmer, BRAIN SALAD SURGERY IN quadraphonic sound and it just blew me away. It was incredible... So maybe production of the albums weren't all equal...That was the first and last time I ever heard quad but it was amazing..Nown I am older was always curios about quad sound....I never obtained quad equipment but that one listening experience chance my life,realizing good sound need good equipment..So I have Quicksilver Mono 90s pushing. klipsch K-Horns,Tara Labs pre amp and a Wadi CD playe.using Audioqwest Dragon cables..I still have my Nakamichi Dragon still works.I have some older Adcom GFA 555 amps I run into older Sansui 4way speakers 18 inch woofers don't sound good till you apply power.....Anyway tubes rule KT 88 s...... What do you think is the next generation for music format?

I saw this video yesterday on my TV, and came back to see the reactions of several viewers, which are apparently a bit old. I am surprised that nobody mentioned Dutton Vocalion SACDs. Mr. Dutton is a knowledgeable mastering and balancing engineer, and has concentrated his work on quadraphonic releases, which, by the way, sound exceedingly good. May I suggest that you should try those?

@MODAC

6 ай бұрын

I sold the quad receiver a couple of years ago. Thanks anyway.

I still have the AT cart that can play and decode quad vinyl. The record was mastered with a 48K decoding signal that could discretely separate the channel information to the decoder in the quad receiver. You needed a special cartridge. As the head the AT cart I have from the 70s is mounted on an s shaped tonearm, I did purchase a used (of course ) Lafayette T-4000 turntable. The few quad vinyl I have, with an old quad receiver, this too, from Lafayette, works perfectly. Lafayette electronics was an early adopter of quad. I'm an audio geek from the oldie but moldie days. (BTW, I still have the old Radio Shack and Lafayette catalogs from the 70s to the early 80s. Arthur Fiedler of the Boston Pops was the spokesman for Realistic.) The vinyl had to be mastered and cut for quad. Back to quad....Some Dokorder open reel models were designed for two channel to four channel play back. Superscope made a quad and stereo version of their 8 track players. You did bring it up. very good. I'd recommend getting off ebay an old Dokorder quad open reel, set up four mics and just do some recording separating each channel. Or, you could find an old Superscope TD 44 8 track and find an old quad 8 track tape. The joke we had for quad headphones at the time is that they fit all four ears. Quad headphones were a joke. The issue I think you are having is that you are not using a quadrophonic cartridge. As you have an s-shape tonearm, with a removable headshell, you may need to find the old Audio Technica cartridges from the 70s that decoded the signal. I wanted to also bring up that Radio Shack made cd 4 decoders that simulated quad. They used a series of high and low pass filters. I owned one for the fun of it. Quad failed because stereo had such a large installed base that upconverting to quad was expensive. Sometimes a better technology does not take off, example of this is Beta Max vs. VHS in the early 80s.VHS won out because of its longer play time.Beta was better quality to the VHS. I'm glad you're trying out quad. This would evolve into surround sound of today.

Insightful! Thanks Dave!

Became a subscriber today. The WaWa hat...and now Eagles. My from Philly. so there ya go. Well, yeah, in the 70's had a moderate Quadraphonic system, with 8 track. Had 8 tracks that were quad. (The Joker- Steve Miller and a handful of others). I thought it was nice. True separation with bass, drums, guitar and singer in all 4's. Had the headphones too. It was a Miida setup. But like other things in the 70's (mood rings, Atari tank, and bell bottoms, my system gave way to what I still own: NAD, Dual tables-3 with Shure and Ortofon backup, Bang & Olfsen speakers and Harman Kardon deck.

Of course people would never fall for that again... 5.1 , 7.1, 9.2 etc! ......Atmos ,hold my beer

Mr.Cutter - In order to experience 4 channel sound, you must have a turntable with wiring set up for 4 channel as well as a 4 channel cartridge. What you were listening to could have been achieved by add 2 speakers to a normal 2 channel receiver and playing your Steely Dan record on a normal stereo turntable, which is exactly what you did.

@MODAC

4 жыл бұрын

My setup is exactly what was available and correct. There were/are no such things as 4-channel phono cartridges. A vinyl record can only have 2 channels. The CD-4 quad format required a phono cart w/ a Shibata stylus (which I do own). They were able to retrieve the very high frequencies that were encoded in the record groove for the rear channels. My Sansui employs the QS format that can use an ordinary cartridge. The downside is that the channel separation isn’t as good as CD-4 or discrete tape. Thanks, Dave

@JayRudko

4 жыл бұрын

@@MODAC Absolutely correct. Only CD-4 requires a special cartridge and stylus. QS and SQ, the matrix formats, need only a decent stereo cartridge. The Sansui has connections that would allow a more advanced matrix decoder, such as the Involve Audio Surround Master v.2, which delivers even better performance from QS and SQ, as well as extracting a quad effect from stereo.

Although many of Us are aware of Quad, the Real Test is to delve into restored Quadraphonic music which is now available to be played through modern receivers with current ‘surround’ decoders like DTS and different Dolby Surround decoding electronics, like previous posters Eric Hanni and others have mentioned. Eric favorably mentions Moody Blues music, and I can attest to my agreement, but in a much more cost effective way. What ever year it was in the 1970s, I figured out how to make custom cable sets and electrically tap-into my dad’s Ford station wagon’s stereo radio system which had (what I think is called) parallel stereo speakers; two in the front dash and two in the interior tailgate panel. This in-dash stereo had a fader concentric control for front-to-rear balance. My engineered cable ‘magic’ more than one person thought was totally impossible. I proved them all dead wrong, by successfully hooking up, and drilling some holes under the car’s front dash, to install the kit-provided plate, which provided a slide-in-&-out feature, and the electrical interface for a car Pioneer Quadraphonic 8 Track Player. And the enclosed car environment was very, very cool 😎 for this kind of music, especially, but depended of the skill sets of the in-studio audio engineer to provide the best quadraphonic effects. But this is where, Mr. My-Own-Devices is correct, and others have noted, many of us, myself included, realized later, we did not want to spend the large sums of money that Quadraphonic equipment required, in that original time frame. So some of us are now trying to understand if it’s worth the time, effort and money to get involved in understanding the modern or recent formats of SACDs DVDAs and Blu-rays to now go back and ‘experiment’ with the rerelease of original Quadraphonic recordings. (As a side note, many people who were financial savvy, and x-ed-out Quadraphonic from their budgets, also analyzed carefully 3D Hi-Def TV when it came along, and didn’t buy into that what-proved-to-be-an-economic-failure either. I tried to explain to a young guy at work what happened to Quad from a manufacturers point-of-view as financially bogus, and how 3D DVDs was already being noted by the experts who followed the economics as really uncertain, but the guy chose to be dumb and spent over $3000 for a complete 3D capable TV monitor and receiver. And now that format is dead. Or are there readers who can correct me?

From what I understood back in the day, quad and mid level stereo systems were quite pricey. Many folks could afford a decent two speaker system but not four speakers. In the 70s I did not know anyone who owned a quad system, but many did own regular stereo. But I agree quad receivers look a lot cooler compared to stereo.

I picked up a Marantz 4240 Quad receiver at a thrift store. Its out for repair right now. We will see how it turns out. Has the typical beautiful Marantz vintage aesthetics.

@hanksta34

3 жыл бұрын

How did it turn out. Just bought a 2250

Most movies are using auto mix for 5.1, after all, who has the time to sit for hours or days manually mixing 6 channels. Most if not all movies on Netflix come with two mixes: 5.1 and 2.0, the 2.0 being an almost guaranteed automatic down-mix of the 5.1, which may also be done with an AI auto algorithm. Phantom center -- of course. We only use center channels and a sub for playback and 5.1 mixing & mastering. For playbacks, we disengage the center channel, make it virtual and split the info between FL and FR center channel speakers. So basically a 4.1 Quadraphonic or virtual Quadraphonic with a faux center channel info. Then for mixing to 5.1, we re-engage the center channel and use all 5 of them plus the sub. We do not use any bookshelves, towers, surrounds, Atmos speakers in the room, only 3-way center channels. There is nothing like working with and listening to a number of these horizontally laid down 3-way centers. Most pro-grade soundtrack mixing room using 3-way powered studio monitors operate this way.

Here's hoping that more bands try doing Atmos mixes. The Beatles Abbey Road atmos mix was very good.

I used to have a sylvania quadraphonic receiver, it had a directional joystick like sound controller on the front

They never produced enough LPs in Quad. So it died a quick death. Plus, people didn’t want to spend the cash on two more speakers.

I noticed an advert for a realistic receiver. This is the same quadraphonic model qta 753 that my dad had in the late 70s and 80s. Here in the UK,my dad subscribed to the Tandy(radio shack) catalogue. There were 4 Goodman's speakers dotted round the room and it sounded great.

Nice vid! So basically one could do that just by having an extra amp and other 2 speakers, as the sound was the same. Thanks for the vid that explains a lot, i gues that having a piece of history is a good thing too.

Daang! That was why my modern Integra stereo receiver never had quadraphonic sound. So after all I always thought that my B Speaker section was just an extra stereo and not for quadraphonic purposes. How I wish now that quadraphonic sound would come back in modern stereo amplifiers.

@MODAC

4 жыл бұрын

I used to own a Meridian digital preamp that had wonderful DSP multi-channel surround processing. I edited it out of the video, but the receiver has synthesized surround that sounds real nice with regular stereo records. My advice to anyone watching: If you ever come across an old quadraphonic receiver, don’t be scared, go ahead and buy it. They are interesting devices and surprisingly versatile. You can still find old quad records and they can play stereo discs just fine.

I loved and still love my Quadraphonic setup . QS totally sucked! SQ was much better, but needed a SQ Full Wave Decoder like the Lafayette LR-4000. I also purchased a CD4 Decoder and that exceeded my expectations. Those who still have CD4 demodulator buy Tomita's Snow Flakes are Dancing, it's Outstanding. You can find it usually on Ebay or what I like to call it I-Pray 😏

My nephew just got into vinyl and audio and he's bought two old quad receivers, a Pioneer and a Kenwood. I didn't ask him why he bought quad units because I didn't want to be 'that guy' who told him that was kind of weird in 2021. I want him to stay enthused about analog so I gave him a bunch of records. During the 'quadraphonic revolution", I came very close to buying a Sansui add-on unit that had two channels of power for rear speakers plus processing for all four channels via their QS system. I had a subscription to Stereo Review during the entire quad revolution (they were into it) and I still have all those back issues stashed away (1972-1980) that I haven't parted with because of all the bands and hi-fi gear they turned me on to, and because I'm a packrat.

Many people thought that being able to play two pairs of speakers (A+B) simultaneously made it a quadraphonic system. In reality, the second pair of speakers were just a copy of the first pair. Towards the end of the 70s, my brother and I did an experiment by reversing (left / right) the second pair of speakers (behind us), in relation to the first pair (in front of us). The result was surprising all the same, since the sounds of the front right were reproduced at the rear left. Listening to Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon, sitting in the center of the four speakers, it was pretty special as sound effects. What on the album goes from R to L or from L to R, then also crossed from R front to L back, or from L front to R back in the shape of an X, or rather like a Z. With four speakers of the same quality, strategically placed, the result was quite special. It was our homemade "quadraphonic" system, LOL. With a few puffs of the illegal stuff, the illusion was perfect.

The QRX XXXX-A line are a progression in Quad IC technology. While it's is a fact that multiple Quad formats and expense resulted in the failure of Quad, these Receivers only need a Stereo signal to extract a true Quad effect. The model A's do this with greater separation and rear speaker power than the prior models. I am studying the exact reason for this. Here is what I know so far. The Hafler circuit is at the center of this quad separation of a stereo signal, however with the QRX 7500A I notice a better front to back separation over the QRX 7500. It also shows in the specs with a performance of usually 12 dB to 18 dB front to back separation while prior models are typically 8dB separation of a stereo signal. (Note: best switch mode for this is SQ, then QS Synthesizer a close 2nd.) For the listener, I have friends over that own vintage audio amps or Receivers from Pioneer, to Marantz. In playing their favorite music from stereo sources 7 times out of 10 the person hears enhanced sounds or background ambient sound almost undetectable on their system. And I love their systems, some with an overall warmer sound then mine. But these quads when matched with the right balance of speakers front to back, always draw out more sounds sometimes barely noticed on other HiFi systems. Bad speaker matching will ruin this. My Sansui SP 2000 are not used because even with equalizer for my small listening room, they overwhelm the listener with midrange sounds. Drowning out the subtle quad phase and ambience advantage. My current front speakers are Tannoy T125's. Rear speakers: a small company in Ann Arbor Mich , DCM model KX6. Very responsive and small. Draw back....on certain songs the quad enhanced version is over the top on certain guitar solos or synthesizers.

Hi David have you tried the “Hafler System “ using four speakers. I had this in the seventies. The front speakers are normal stereo but the rear two speakers derive their signal (The out of phase information ) from just the plus terminals on the amplifier. It doesn’t need any decoding. The sound produced sends very good. The rear speakers need to be more sensitive than the front ones as the signal is at a lower volume.

@MODAC

Жыл бұрын

I know about it, but never tried it.

unfortunately in the seventies there was a Quad audio format war, various equipment manufacturers and record companies were either CD-4 or SQ format quad. CD-4 was a genuine 4 discrete channel format, real independent channels for content however it was more expensive for the hardware. SQ was a simulated quad sound and was deemed considerably less immersive for the quad listening experience compared to CD-4. Therefore when you get a CD or SACD or Bluray Audio disc these days depending upon the the master tape quad format mix will impact on the quad sound you will experience listening with your equipment . For example, Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd was SQ Quad when released so the quad sound was a different mix from the Stereo release however not really that great for the quad sound experience. However another record was Aqualung by Jethro Tull, this used CD-4 quad format, 4 discrete / independent channels. Not only was various tracks were mixed differently from the Stereo release, the engineers added extra instruments / vocals that were reproduced clearly to enhance the Quad listening experience. The Aqualung and Locomotive Breath tracks are fantastic. In recent times Aqualung was released I think/recall on CD/Bluray disc(s) from quad master tapes. It is obvious the sound experience will be superior as the source material was better from the beginning. I hope this info may assist the masses

I had 4 matched ads Braun speakers I had a 4 channel reel to reel, 4 channel Discreet Tape was by far the best.i had a separate preamp decoder it did discreet, matrix and Derived and 2 stereo amps for the 4 channels. .It is important you have matched speakers.also play with speaker placement I Had better results with the rears firing toward my ears on the side wall also play with the fronts so their not cancelling each other out give it another shot even if you get 4 small speakers.move the speakers around also play with the volume less on rears.

Hi there, in addition to my blurb immediately below, as new discs are released with quad mix, the current audio engineers try to keep to original sound and intent of the original sound source. If you like respect to days gone-by to the original engineers. Of course the new release will reduce noise and try to reduce distortion however not the detriment of the original. So if have a bluray audio disc that says quad mix, even though it maybe in DTS or DD sound, the actual listening experience would reflect the sound listening experience close to the original regardless of how many channels DTS or DD supports. This applies if one does not enable additional sound effects or processing during playback, enjoy.

In the Baltimore area, one radio station WKTK, did (or at least claimed to) broadcast in quadraphonic sound.

My thoughts exactly. I still have my mid 70s Sony SQR-6650 SQ, that I bought new. When acquired, I immediately rushed out and bought an identical set of speakers to the ones I owned, and a couple of SQ albums (one was Chicago and the other ?) and wired everything up prepared to be blown away by the sound. Sadly, I wasn't. And, at the time quad albums seemed twice the price of the stereo version making it an expensive and unnecessary novelty for me.

In the early 1970's I had and still have all the proper equipment to play back CD-4, SQ, QS, EV4 and Quad 8. Quadraphonic Sound can produce a realistic and clever reproduction of music and natural sound but what was missing was a center front channel. Discrete quadraphonic sound is really the only way that it comes out correct.Many of the quad recording from RCA Victor and Columbia are available on Super Audio CD's in discrete 4 channel and 2 channel sacd and standard cd on the same disc Your feeling of Quadraphonic Sound is based on Matrix Quad try Discreate and I bet you my change your mind.

Had a quad system as a young man (1970s) both SQ matrix and discrete. Wasn't happy about the square foot that I had to stand in to get the effect.

The Sansui QRX was my second good system after a pioneer. I found that with the right balance of speakers, not all the same type, these monsters could bring out nuances that are missed in very good stereo systems. Your choice of Steely Dan,s quad is a very unimpressive selection. I love Steely Dan but Pink Floyd or The Doors or Paul McCartney and wings quad really makes a departure from stereo sound. Having said that, yes the other comments are all correct. Yet, this did lay a foundation for Dolby surround, and for us hearing loss people (now that I'm 60) I have to have the 4 speakers just to catch everything normal hearing people can hear on stereo. So I'm still a quad enthusiast. Yet understand the failure modes that turned off so many .

What happened to quad sound? It became the best stereo sound you ever heard. Except no one knows about it. And you do NOT need any quad source material. You simply use the quad synthesizer. Sansui has a quad synthesizer that converts (sort of) stereo to quad. Then you put the front speakers in a typical stereo position and then stack the rear speakers on top of the front speakers. And viola! (I use only JBL vintage speakers.) You have the best sounding stereo you've ever heard. I guarantee it. I can prove it by switching the Sansui quad receiver I have back and forth between quad and stereo while someone is listening. Even without telling them what I am doing, the invariably, immediately say, "Turn it back!" whenever I change it to stereo. The difference is abrupt. The airiness of the quad sound disappears when it's turned to stereo. Airiness is the only way I can think to put it. It sounds so much more realistic and present. I even have a friend who is deaf in one ear. Same thing. He wants it turned on quad.

I think the issue being is that you started with one of the most lackluster, possibly fake Quad releases. Compared to the other two Steely Dan Quad mixes, Pretzel Logic is a dud. Guys who are into Quad have debated for years if it was simply "double-stereo"; meaning just the same stereo pair going to the front and the rear. I have the Q8 Quad tape of this album, and while it may not be double stereo, the only Quad effect that may be employed is a guitar solo in front center or a conga drum in back center. The rest seriously feels like double stereo. If you insist on staying with the QS format, there is not much out there. BUT, I would highly suggest either QS LP's by the Four Tops, either of the other two Steely Dan's or any of the Jim Croce's. ABC Records had some of the best Quad mixes on the market at the time, it's just such a shame that they chose the QS Matrix for their LP releases and did not stick with Ampex for their Q8 tape releases, changing quickly to General Recorded Tape Inc. (or GRT). The GRT tapes are rife with channel errors, duplication errors and on several occasions.... even a time lapse between front and rear channels!! I personally have over 650 Q8 cartridges and, in my mind anyway, I love Quad. We even have in the past had a few modern re-issue companies releasing SACD's with the vintage Quad mixes on the multichannel layer of the SACD. In the last few years, we've even had the pleasure of having a few albums that were mixed to Quad in the 70's but then left unreleased!! Titles from Laura Nyro, Billy Cobham, Edgar Winter and even Paul Revere & The Raiders!!

@MODAC

4 жыл бұрын

Obviously you have been a quad fan for a long time and are very knowledgeable. I appreciate your comments very much and will look into the better QS titles. The Sansui manual says it can decode SQ disks as well, but maybe not as well as QS(?). I have a few systems set up in my house, and the quad is not my primary one. One point of my video is that quad did not catch on with the majority of the public due to reasons not related to sound quality. It sounds good, to me, but not good enough to get me to start enthusiastically hunting for quad LPs. I do like the synthesized surround setting with stereo recordings. Regards, Dave

@That_AMC_Guy

4 жыл бұрын

@@MODAC I'll be honest.... SQ sucks..... and I have a Tate/Fosgate 101a! It was supposed to be the end-all, be-all of Quadraphonic decoding existence and let's just say I'm glad I got it for a less-than-market price. Now, the math behind SQ actually is valid, but I believe it was foisted on the public WAY before it was worthy of commercial sale. Early decoders barely had 3db of separation!! Your ears need a minimum of 8db to be able to discern in which direction a sound is emanating. Even today, many have tackled the SQ-decoding process with top-notch computer processing and while the results are decent, some are so laden with digital artifacting that you might as well not bother. The noise created from mathematically cancelling front to back channels is noisier than a poorly dubbed 8-track still with less separation than a Q8 can reproduce! In my collection, I have a healthy collection of QS discs and MANY CD-4. Since getting my CD-4 setup working, I'm a believer in the Quadradisc system. When it works, it WORKS. I've equally been impressed by QS. The instant you push the button or turn the knob to the QS position from stereo.... you can instantly hear a difference. I don't understand what in the math makes QS work so much better, but even with the dopey on-board QS decoder in my Pioneer QX-9900, while the LP's I play are far from discrete, they are trying their damndest to put the instruments in the same discrete locations as their Q8 counterparts. On the Grass Roots 16 Greatest Hits, during the song "Let's Live for Today", when Warren counts out " 1...2...3....4...." each number pops out of Left Front, then Right Front, Back Left then Back Right. While not as discrete as the Q8, the QS system can move the sound where it needs to be without pumping or smearing. I'd believe the SQ system was to be a compromise but then, as I said, some hard core computer geeks have come up with some decoding scripts that are near discrete from an SQ source. BUT, if you were left to using vintage decoders, you will never get those results. SQ will never match the discrete placement of their Q8 counterparts and I wonder if that was intentional. Because say you mix something to Front Right in discrete, that will appear in the phantom right channel, which is equidistant empty space between the FR and BR speakers. SQ seems to be able to locate the front center and the phantom left and rights quite nicely. It cannot, mathematically, reproduce BACK center due to that being a complete 180 out-of-phase. SQ more often than not will give you a nice, room filling "Super Stereo" simply removing the lead vocals from the back channels. That's not TOO bad, but when you hear some actual DISCRETE Quad, then SQ becomes completely disappointing. QS can sound better. Although SQ is better at the "Around the room" panning gimmick, QS can better replicate Ping-Pong style Quad. Every system is a tradeoff. CD-4 can be noisy because you are literally trying to tune in two FM stations that have been encoded onto a record. The dirtier the record, the worse it can be. You would think Quad or 5.1 would be oh so prevalent in today's society since we now have all these wonderful formats that can reproduce TRUE DISCRETE QUAD in Hi-resolution formats without the use of decoder boxes or fancy gizmotronics. But, with the state the record companies are in today, they seemingly do not care. It's sad when boutique re-issue companies can put out more albums than the big, corporate giants.

i used a "Hafler" Quadrophonic system back in the mid 1970s (David Hafler) forget how it worked, but i think it put the Rear speakers out of Phase and just using one channel??. Worked quite well and you didn't need any special records, just stereo, and was cheap to add the "Hafler" box to an existing Stereo amplifier, but of course needing 2 extra Speakers. I'm here in the UK btw.

@alm5693

3 жыл бұрын

PS Audio posted a video about the Hafler circuit on 1/12/2021. It's called "Is Brian Eno Correct?"

You should have played The Dark Side of the Moon-sounds great!

@MODAC

3 жыл бұрын

I already own the 2 channel version. I’ve heard it’s good. Thanks

@venusrain369

3 жыл бұрын

Well- if you ever get your hands on the quadrophonic version or get a chance to listen to it in quad- and it changes your opinion- I would hope you would make another video stating such!😀

@MODAC

3 жыл бұрын

Does my opinion really matter? It sounds nice to me, but quad died 40 years ago. Nothing anyone says is bringing it back. I like the receiver and the 4 channel surround mode that it has very much. If I find any good deals on quad albums, I will consider buying more. Thanks.

@richardcrook2112

3 жыл бұрын

I remember hearing Deep Purple - Machine Head, and Jeff Beck - Blow By Blow round my uncles house.

I use my sansui QRX 6500 as a 2 channel receiver to drive 4 sets of speakers instead of just 2 lol. Seriously tho, they do sound great!

my question is..did you try other modes ? also is there a possibility that the turntable and cartridge were setup correctly? all of the quad setups i ever heard had a front stage and a rear reverb. this surprises me.

I can tell you first hand about this sound... when I got my first new car back in late 1974 ... a 1975 Chevy Camaro... type.. XLT.... I had this system installed//... though I do not know which brand it was... the whole vehicle sound .....car and all came to a whopping... 3675.00 retail..... big money for me... a buddy of mine purchased a new Vette at the same time... I don't know how he afforded it... his Vette..?..6999.00 MSRP..... imagine being able to by a new Vette for that price nowadays... any way... I immediatetly went out and started buying Quad tapes... they were a bit pricey... bit at the time I traded this car off... I had about 20 and I still have those tapes.. somewhere....when I popped in the Quad tape thru this car's system... It was amazing... unlike your experience... almost every tape had different instruments and sounds coming out of each of the 4 speakers seperately.... some of my favorite songs... were off of America's... Holiday.. tape... Guess Who's Road Food...tape.....and some others which I cannot remember... If you have the Guess Who song..." Hang on to your Life".... ..try playing that quad song on your system.. there are some songs today... that I have never heard the same since I gave up that system... almost... 50 years ago.....I agree with Jennifer below..... no doubt.. some Quad releases did Not take advantage of the quad capability as well as others.....I would Not dismiss quad sound... until you check out some decent quad recordings first.....America... enginuity blew.. that creation.... too bad.......

I'm sorry it didn't worked for you. You have a great Sansui amplifier. I have a technics system CD-4 (quadradics) discrete 4 channel and it work very well. For spectacular sound effects i have 3 LPs of Tomita. For rock music i have The Doors Greatest hits, riders on the storm is remarquable in quad. I can also listen to SQ (cbs) Barbra Streisand, Art Garfunkel, Blood Sweat and Tears, they sound great, less separation than CD-4 but still i do have some imaging and channel separation. I also have some 4 ch discrete Q8 cartridge and it's very convincing. Sometimes the problem lies in the quad mix they did at the time. In early 70's studios were not well equipped to do 4 channel mix. Sometimes they simply tossed each musical instruments in corners. Some other times they put the orchestra in front and echoes on the rear channels. For those groups who had time and money, they did some extraordinary quad mixes. (The Moody Blues, Pink Floyd etc...) Are you sure your LP bare the QS logo? Are you sure the QS decoder in your Sansui amplifier is working correctly? You should at least feel spatial differences when trying different Mode effects. I hope you can make it work correctly, good luck!

Suggestion, get the early 1970s Best of BB King on LP or CD. That's also QS and was a quad-only release. Carole King's Music album, also QS, is also said to be pretty good.

I was stuck with just reversin phase and balance on a extra set of speakers

I have a copy of dark side of the moon that I’ve always wanted to listen to. I do have a dvd made for 5.1 theater with the wizard of oz video. Not exactly the same thing but it was supposed to imitate the quad. I do remember the coin machines in money circling the room in 7/8 time!

About 80% of what I listen to is quad. I think you should spend a little more time investigating the format.

@MODAC

4 жыл бұрын

I didn’t say I didn’t like it. It’s cool. I may buy more quad records in the future.

@inthezone4123

4 жыл бұрын

@@MODAC I enjoy watching your videos. My perception, after the first viewing, after you said that you could live without a quadraphonic system, was that you didn't care for it. People with deep pockets back in the 70s listened to quad on reel to reel, which was more discrete.

Primary CoD was the format fiasco and manufacturers choosing only to support one or 2 of the 3. To my knowledge, Pioneer was the only brand w/ all 3 decoders stock. These half assed “tests/demos” are pretty amusing.

I have a Realistic STA 64 Quatrovox receiver from 1977. Love the receiver. Was never big on the Quatrovox part of it. Just seemed like it added an echo from a crappy room like a concert in a hockey arena. Much prefer the stereo mode. I also never liked concerts "in the round" and perfer a stage in front so....

@senorverde09

3 жыл бұрын

Quatrovox was merely a Hafler Circuit (google it). All it does is play the stereo difference (L-R/R-L) of a song out the back. Any mono information stayed in front.

You would have experienced quadraphonic in all its glory if you'd have put on a classical (opera particularilly) from a European pressing! There were 1000's of quad issues on classical labels such as EMI.

You had SQ you which is probably the worst that you could have pick.. plus you have to have a special $$$ needle to listen to a record recorded in CD-4 quad sound which is definitely a real experience. The reason it fail was price and not enough music in quad format.

Now we can listen again to music in surround thanks to Blu Ray Audio....."back to the future?"

First problem QS has the weakest channel seperation. Mostly forgettably unimpressive. Try listening to Dark Side of the Moon on a quality SQ decoder (ie: Tate) and your PF experience will be forever altered. Another stand out SQ album is Aerosmiths ""Get your wings". CD-4, was a discrete 4-ch expetience using a shibata needle to extract the rear channel high frequency content on the upper part of the record groove. Makes listening to the Doors a religous experience. Of course with dvd-a, dts, dolby atmos, modern multichannel is relatively easy.

@JayRudko

8 ай бұрын

I disagree. QS was a superior system to SQ. The record David chose was a poorly mixed example of what QS could do. Check out some of Project 3's quad mixes. Much better separation, and more compatible with stereo and mono play than SQ.

They're the best High Fives sounds for Jazz!

How do you like two channel stereo records with this receiver?

@MODAC

2 жыл бұрын

Sounded great. Works either way.

because you are using ortofon red which only good for stereo use. you need line contact stylus cartridge which can go up to 50khz at least. In this case you need ortofon bronze or black stylus to fully hear the quad sound. also you need to calibrate your receiver using quad test lp before playing.

@MODAC

2 жыл бұрын

I believe I used an Audio Technica cartridge with a Shibata stylus. Not the dreadful Red. Thanks

@JayRudko

8 ай бұрын

That would be true for CD-4 records, but the record David was using was matrix-encoded, not discrete, and did not require a special cartridge or stylus. Any stereo cartridge will suffice for QS, SQ, or other matrix systems. Matrix-encoded discs don't need any special calibration, either. David chose a badly mixed album for his test. Pretzel Logic doesn't really show what QS can do. Check out some of the other ABC Command titles, or Project 3 QS records, to get a better idea of just how good QS can sound.

I have a Marantz 4400. Would I need also a quad needle?

@senorverde09

3 жыл бұрын

SQ and QS (also called RM) are encoded matrix formats. You need the 'special needle' for CD-4 and an appropriate demodulator.

Qué tipo de aguja ustaste? Para escuchar discos Quadarphonic, sólo funcionan agujas SHIBATA. De lo contrario, no escucharás cuadafónico.

Find the quad version of Dark Side Of The Moon, it's great

I knew a lot of guys in the 70s when I was in the Navy that bought Quad 8 track tapes. They would play them on my player and of course they were horrible.

@That_AMC_Guy

3 жыл бұрын

You must've had a horrible player then! lol

@mikecampbell5856

3 жыл бұрын

@@That_AMC_Guy It was a stereo deck like everybody else, they thought it would sound awesome but you were only getting two channels. Madness! LOL

You need to listen to fu discrete Quad.. Nothing compares

@MODAC

4 жыл бұрын

How am I going to do that? Buy a quad R2R and tapes? I am confident that will not happen at this point. I don’t know anyone with that setup either.

Some dude on eBay said he had a 4 channel amp. I was like, how cool. I wanted to know more. He had a 2 channel with a/b. Lmfao he had me fooled

I had an turntable that was compatible with quadraphonic Vinyl music.

They tried to force records to do 4 channels, they didn't succeed and they missed the chance to define a quadro option to the CD.

So it was basically 4 channel stereo sound?

@MODAC

4 жыл бұрын

Not exactly...the rear channels were not effects. They were equal in importance.

Try listening to Pink Floyd or Led Zepelin. Some bands and engineers really used the tech to its full capabilities. Other recorded it in stereo and duplicated it. Its like the difference between a 3D movie that was written to be 3D and one they add 3 D as an after thought money grab.

I believe you're short changing quad. Sansui didn't have the best quad setup compared to others & I say that even though I own a Sansui quad & love it for many reasons. This is not a fair overall review.

I wonder what you think of 5.1 or 7.1 and God forbid 9.1 with Dolby Atmos. You think just 4 speakers was to many LOL

@MODAC

2 жыл бұрын

I actually have a 7.1 Atmos system in my family room and a 65 inch LG OLED TV. Very nice. Much different than quad.

I had a quadrofonic receiver but for some reason I didn't care that much about it.

all two channel receiver's with A/B channels are Quadraphonic Receiver's. get good 3way speakers all 4 must be the same put one in each corner when you hook up the speakers on B channel put the right in the left and the left in the right. that was how Quadraphonic receiver's was done all they did was do it for you inside the receivers when people found out about it they stopped buying Quadraphonic receivers and that was the end of Quadraphonic receivers & the advertisement 5 years later they started introducing Quadraphonic audio again under the new name remastered music and putting it on CDs

@JayRudko

8 ай бұрын

Not so! You might want to read up on how it was really done. Quad requires at least four separate amplifier channels, while a stereo receiver, even with the A/B switch for the speakers, still only has two. The A-B speaker switch was to enable playing two different sets of speakers, generally in two different rooms. It's also necessary to make sure your speakers are no less than 8 ohms, if you plan to run all four at once from a stereo receiver. You could blow the power output transistors if you go below 8 ohms on the speakers. Please read up on how quad really worked before you make statements like you did.

Discreet 4 channel was the only way to go. CD4 did that on vinyl when the stars were aligned. Tape was by far the best. Today DTS is the only thing comparable.

@MODAC

4 жыл бұрын

Only tape can truly do totally discrete. Not easy to come by. Thanks, Dave

@That_AMC_Guy

3 жыл бұрын

@@MODAC You could invest in a relatively cheap DVD/SACD player from Pioneer (generally around $100) and then invest a little bit in blank DVD's and downloading some of the Quad conversions that circulate the internet or, better still, pop over to Dutton-Vocalion's website and purchase some of their AMAZING SACD albums that feature hi-resolution versions of the album in both stereo and Quad. Those discs are about $15 USd each and many feature two albums per disc!

@cubdukat

2 жыл бұрын

If only it was a little more durable. But at least it gave us the Shibata stylus...

And no mention of the who's quadrophenia??

I have mine...

Should of found a copy of Pink Floyd “Dark Side Of The Moon” in quadraphonic. I bet you would of had a better experience

Your best bet is to get a Quadrophonic 8 track tape player with 4 matching speakers and some Q-8 tapes. Then sit back and listen to some pure discrete 4 channel music. Once that happens you might actually get it. Then you will fully understand how good quad sound can be, there is nothing like it. Reel to reel is a lot more expensive to get into so I recommend Q8 eight track tape player. Forget the QS and SQ experience it’s fake quad. CD-4 is pretty good when the stars align I still don’t think you have a 4 channel cartridge so your not doing CD-4 correctly. I feel you are commenting on stuff and spreading misinformation about how disappointing quad can be or how it’s does not have very impressive channel separation based on one small experience. That’s because you are not willing to step up and get a system that can replicate what real discrete 4 channel sound is. This video is just like the fake quad stuff you just listened to it’s disappointing and your better then this. Also take some advise and swallow your pride. Get some better source material like the ABC records by the Four Tops or the other Steely Dan records that we’re recommended to you.

@MODAC

4 жыл бұрын

I understand your point, but I can just describe my experience. I have no current plans to explore other quad gear unless I find something interesting. I actually do not feel obligated to “step up” to do anything. I can only talk about what I own, and don’t have unlimited space and budget. I do have a cartridge w/ a Shabata stylus, so if I come across a CD-4 receiver at a reasonable price, maybe I’ll look into it. But quad died 40 years ago, and nothing we say or do is going to change anything. I have many other relevant things to explore and learn about.

Far out man !

go birds

David, I bleed for you and others that auditioned Steely Dan's Pretzel Logic as your first experience with quadraphonic recordings. It is one of the most unimpressive and lousy quad recordings ever produced. It's more like double-stereo than quadraphonic, and that's what you were hearing. I have about 120 vintage quadraphonic recordings (all discrete) and I refuse to allow that Pretzel Logic quad anywhere near my collection. And I am sure there are a number of other quads that compete for futility. There's a company in the UK called Dutton Vocalion who has been reissuing vintage discrete quadraphonic recordings on SACD over the past several years; and every one of them is impressive. Also, the Australian Company called Involve Audio has been producing quadraphonic decoders that can handle both QS and SQ encoded material. This new decoder is far more sophisticated and has oodles more channel separation than the vintage devices of the early to mid '70s. Unfortunately, it was experiences such as yours, which I believe you video documented quite well, that turned people off to quad.

QS was underwhelming. You really need to either listen to CD-4 or 4 channel tape to know what quad really is.

@MODAC

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, that’s what I have read. Not going to invest in any of that gear at this point, though. Thanks.

@That_AMC_Guy

3 жыл бұрын

@@MODAC What?!?! Oh c'mon! What if I donated a CD-4 demodulator to your cause?

@senorverde09

3 жыл бұрын

QS' main problem was programming. Other than ABC records the vast majority of QS albums were classical works released by small labels. On paper though the QS scheme was vastly superior to SQ. Equal sound distribution (Colombia demanded full stereo left-right separation across the front and back at the costs of side separation and a mono center channel) allowed Sansui to quickly roll out with simple logic decoders that didn't aggressively pump or steer signals like complex SQ logic decoders.

I always felt i have 2 ears so i only needed 2 speakers. Guess I was right.

@ehanni

4 жыл бұрын

Do you ever hear people talking behind your back? lol

@TheAirConditionerGuy

3 жыл бұрын

With a discrete format it sounds amazing. But only if the music was recorded and mixed for 4 channel

Next failure, the Elcassette.

@cubdukat

2 жыл бұрын

Quad sound wasn’t a complete failure. It just migrated to a different venue: the movie theatre. Matrixed formats like SQ ended up being the basis for the first generation of Dolby Stereo. My first surround receiver was an old Hitachi quad receiver that could handle all three formats (CD-4 was handled a lot like DVD-Audio handled multichannel audio: through discrete outputs.). It did the job quite well and it was cheaper than a true Pro Logic receiver.

It died because it was gimmicky. You wouldn't go to a concert and expect the musicians and their amps to be positioned 360 degrees around you.

@JayRudko

8 ай бұрын

You're probably too young to remember some of the early stereo records that used a ping-pong effect, bouncing sound back and forth between the speakers. That wasn't realistic, either. But quad, used properly, could put you onstage with the band, in 10th row center in a concert hall, or whatever the artist and producer had in mind. It's not always about realism. It's also about having fun with the music. Ya gotta hear it done right!

Like l always said, you only got TWO EARS. The rest seemed like trickery to me. BTW, what's up with this MQA crap now?

hi my mate has the same make as you some of the quad recordings are very poor and for the money my mate payed out for them they are money pits i will say new ac3 encoding sounds great it all down to who likes what they have in the homes i have the later ac3 encoding and play back because recording are easyer to find out there i have sony quad decoders sony 70's quad was a let down for me i do have a teac 44 and akai 1800ss decks so i know what i am saying the best way to re record quad audio is you are noy going to like this for the money is BETACAM SP QUAD VIDEO TAPES so far i have tryed them all the format yes i know they are big and heavy

One record dosen't give authority over an entire system.

You were not using a quad cartridge. You were not listening to quadraphonic sound.

@MODAC

3 жыл бұрын

There is no such thing as a quad cartridge. There are only two sides of a stereo groove. The Sansui QS and the CBS SQ systems work with a regular cart. JVCs superior CD-4 system requires a Shibata stylus which I did happen to be using, even though it wasn’t needed. The extra two channels info is included on a quad LP at a inaudible high frequency that is “decoded” by the quad processor in the receiver. Do the research like me and learn.

@JayRudko

8 ай бұрын

No. That ain't how it works. Matrix-encoded quad records didn't need a special "4 channel cartridge"; only CD-4, the "discrete" system, did. And that system rarely worked properly. It was finicky to set up, needed frequent re-adjustment, and was prone to some nasty distortion. Matrix systems, such as SQ and QS, were a compromise, for sure, but the biggest problem was the state of the decoders. They were still a work in progress. Since matrix depended on phase shifts, rather than a carrier, no special cartridge was needed. Any good stereo cartridge would do the job perfectly. The best decoder for matrix, which can work perfectly for both QS and SQ sources, is made by an Australian company, Involve Audio. Their Surround Master delivers discrete-rivaling performance from both systems, and can deliver a really nice quad effect from stereo sources, too. Check it out at involveaudio.com. It can't hurt to look.

Quadraphics, really? You need to proof-read before posting, buddy.