Quadraphonic Format Talk

[JonUrban]

The SQ LP and Q8 share an identical (intended) mix, it's simply that the limitations of the SQ format do not allow for a completely discrete result.
Had SQ been able to produce a discrete result, then the SQ LP, Q8 and SACD would all share the identical 4-channel mixes.

So, essentially, due to the limitations of the SQ Matrix, I suppose you could conclude that it is a different mix. However, it is not supposed to be.

But, if we're going to compare apples to apples, the Stereo LP and SQ LP mixes are different.

Columbia's own Q8 tapes were the biggest indictment of how ineffective it's own SQ system really was, especially in the '70s.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Columbia's own Q8 tapes were the biggest indictment of how ineffective it's own SQ system really was, especially in the '70s.

Wonder why Columbia never released any QUAD OPEN REELS? PROBABLY FOR THE SAME REASON IT WOULD SHOW UP THE DEFICIENCIES OF THEIR DREADFUL SQ MATRIX SYSTEM!

So why choose Q8, instead?......IMO, that format further denigrated the 15/30 ips QUAD masters.....SIGNIFICANTLY!

 

[JonUrban]

Wonder why Columbia never released any QUAD OPEN REELS? PROBABLY FOR THE SAME REASON IT WOULD SHOW UP THE DEFICIENCIES OF THEIR DREADFUL SQ MATRIX SYSTEM!

So why choose Q8, instead?......IMO, that format further denigrated the 15/30 ips QUAD masters.....SIGNIFICANTLY!

The matrix systems were flawed because they mixed up all of the channels and then spit them out in a less than discrete decode, but the thing we have to remember that if it was not for those matrix systems, we probably would not have had such a large output of quad from the likes of Columbia and their sister labels. Because they were constantly trying to improve and develop the SQ system, the titles rolled out of their studios for over 5 years, which was in fact quite longer than the Sony SACD program did in the early 2000's. Many of the titles we seek and love today only exist because Columbia was behind the SQ system, and all of its flaws, and wanted to rule the marketplace.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The matrix systems were flawed because they mixed up all of the channels and then spit them out in a less than discrete decode, but the thing we have to remember that if it was not for those matrix systems, we probably would not have had such a large output of quad from the likes of Columbia and their sister labels. Because they were constantly trying to improve and develop the SQ system, the titles rolled out of their studios for over 5 years, which was in fact quite longer than the Sony SACD program did in the early 2000's. Many of the titles we seek and love today only exist because Columbia was behind the SQ system, and all of its flaws, and wanted to rule the marketplace.

Correct, Jon. Sometimes out of CHAOS comes ORDER. We can only speculate on what could've been if both camps [SQ/CD~4] REALLY had their acts straight when they introduced their Vinyl formats/decoders to the public but even they had to know [as did the artists involved] that all their efforts, REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, were NOT ready for Prime Time.

Just like RCA's dreadful SELECTAVISION Video Disc system with that ridiculous stylus which got gummed up from over lubricating their video discs........YIKES [Jon, please reinstate the YIKES emoji......pretty please]......

 

[Q-Eight]

I'm sure all of Columbia's and RCA's development problems could be summed up with the phrase that every man knows and understands completely:

"It seemed like a good idea at the time."

 

[4-earredwonder]

I'm sure all of Columbia's and RCA's development problems could be summed up with the phrase that every man knows and understands completely:

"It seemed like a good idea at the time."

Like Jon said, Q~Eight......look what they did achieve........releasing thousands of surround titles within a short period of time. Never in the history of recorded music have that many surround titles been prepared/released at any one time.

Problem was, these matrix/CD~4 systems might've worked in a 'laboratory' environment but with all the variables involved......sans that 'controlled environment' the average Joe Public would not be able to duplicate those results in his home.

I'm sure the studios used the best turntables/arms/cartridges at the time and we know Lou Dorren used a custom 'tweaked' CD~4 demodulator to get the results he achieved but the average person was not privy to such refinements.

All I ever got out my SQ/CD~4 home receivers and turntables was AGITA until I switched to QUAD Open Reel with an outboard dolby b decoder and then so few Open Reel QUADs were ever released and then the plug was pulled altogether. And there was NO world wide net to know exactly what was released in QUAD OR so I never even knew Japan was releasing them to the general public at that time.

 

[kap'n krunch]

....
All I ever got out my SQ/CD~4 home receivers and turntables was AGITA until I switched to QUAD Open Reel ...

oh, man...this reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes EVER.... from the highly underrated Stallone movie "Oscar" (1990), I think it's Harry Shearer who says:

" Finuccis in, Finuccis out, Finuccis in. He give me agita."

(BTW, are you Paisano?)

 

[Q-Eight]

Like Jon said, Q~Eight......look what they did achieve........releasing thousands of surround titles within a short period of time. Never in the history of recorded music have that many surround titles been prepared/released at any one time.

Problem was, these matrix/CD~4 systems might've worked in a 'laboratory' environment but with all the variables involved......sans that 'controlled environment' the average Joe Public would not be able to duplicate those results in his home.

I'm sure the studios used the best turntables/arms/cartridges at the time and we know Lou Dorren used a custom 'tweaked' CD~4 demodulator to get the results he achieved but the average person was not privy to such refinements.

All I ever got out my SQ/CD~4 home receivers and turntables was AGITA until I switched to QUAD Open Reel with an outboard dolby b decoder and then so few Open Reel QUADs were ever released and then the plug was pulled altogether. And there was NO world wide net to know exactly what was released in QUAD OR so I never even knew Japan was releasing them to the general public at that time.

Oh, I know exactly where you're going. It's funny too because I'm also an armchair CED collector and have a small collection of discs with a couple players. CED's also aren't necessarily bad - it's a very flawed system. But, when you think about what they achieved (video off an LP?) - that's fucking amazing!

Same goes for Quad. What they actually released is a drop in the bucket compared to what rumours state was mixed and left locked away! Nearly 50 years later, here we are talking about this stuff and opening the eyes (and ears) of yet another generation to what we've been saying all along was a great idea just poorly executed.

But then, I honestly have NO problem with Quad 8-tracks. With a half decent amp, a foursome of quality speakers and a pair of 10-band, 2-channel equalizers; I've made believers out of the humble Q8 tape. CD-4.... once again, great idea - poorly executed. SQ? Terrible idea (and I own a Tate!!) QS..... "meh".

I'm sure 45 years ago, a freshly stamped CD-4 LP with a good cartridge, stylus & demodulator must've sounded great. I've got a couple Japanese CD-4's that I'm going to assume are relatively low-mileage and they sound great!

I think one of the biggest differences between "then" and "now" are just the simple fact that companies (and people) back then were willing to take a chance. The moon landing wasn't a sure-thing - they took a hell of a chance - and look what they accomplished! I think that sort of ideal trickled down into other areas of society. Look at some of the advancements in the auto industry at the time. How about the advancements in television construction, quality, etc. The record companies must've also thought "Hey, we can do this! Let's give it a shot!" It wasn't about the bottom line, it was about getting there first with the next big thing.

Sure, I don't believe neither the market, the public nor the technology itself was ready. The end result was that they tried and that's bloody admirable.

We're only NOW starting to see companies take risks again like Tesla and Ford. But most refuse to because it's all about the bottom line and keeping the shareholders happy and keeping the gravy train rolling. Status Quo and away we go.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Oh, I know exactly where you're going. It's funny too because I'm also an armchair CED collector and have a small collection of discs with a couple players. CED's also aren't necessarily bad - it's a very flawed system. But, when you think about what they achieved (video off an LP?) - that's fucking amazing!

Same goes for Quad. What they actually released is a drop in the bucket compared to what rumours state was mixed and left locked away! Nearly 50 years later, here we are talking about this stuff and opening the eyes (and ears) of yet another generation to what we've been saying all along was a great idea just poorly executed.

But then again, I honestly have NO problem with Quad 8-tracks. With a half decent amp, a foursome of quality speakers and a pair of 10-band, 2-channel equalizers; I've made believers out of the humble Q8 tape. CD-4.... once again, great idea - poorly executed. SQ? Terrible idea (and I own a Tate!!) QS..... "meh".

But then again, I'm sure 45 years ago, a freshly stamped CD-4 LP with a good cartridge, stylus & demodulator must've sounded great. I've got a couple Japanese CD-4's that I'm going to assume are relatively low-mileage and they sound great!

Q~Eight, without that past, we'd have NO present. History is full of the good, the bad and the ugly. But I personally find it difficult to look back and listen and watch those old formats. Call me a snob. Yeah, I'm the one who reels against LOSSY formats because all I want is what is REALLY on those 15/30 inches per second MASTER TAPES. And when you hear them done right [LOSSLESS TRANSFERS] with NO HISS, DISTORTIONS, COMPRESSION ... just room filling sound.......You know YOU'VE ARRIVED.

And realistically speaking, we ALL know we'll never get ALL those unreleased surround masters in modern LOSSLESS formats so I totally understand and think it cool that so many QQ members do derive immense pleasure from spinning/decoding those vinyl SQ/QS/EV~4/CD~4 discs and fiddling with those Q8s and 'surgically' attending to them when they break at the splice and playing those Quad OPEN REELS.....most especially, because you may never get to hear them again in surround were it not for those 1970's formats.

But really, Q~8.......RCA's Selectavision was a BAD, BAD, BAD idea. Even failed in in store demos. Someone must've taken a bad tab of LSD when they GREENLIGHTED that abominable format! http://thumb.zeppy.io/00/s/MTYwMFgx...na-blacklight-poster-petagno-1972-saladin.jpg

 

[sjcorne]

Many of the titles we seek and love today only exist because Columbia was behind the SQ system, and all of its flaws, and wanted to rule the marketplace.

Very true. And I think it's also important to remember that the reason Columbia quad mixes are so aggressive (to the point of often featuring individual instruments solo'd in each rear speaker) is because they were designed to decode well in SQ.

The columbia quads are my all-time favorites and they are the way they are because of SQ. If Columbia chose to use another (more effective) system, they wouldn't have had any incentive to put out experimental/aggressive mixes.

 

[Q-Eight]

Well, where Quad was ahead of it's time, CED/Selectavision was WAY behind the times. Had it been ready by .... 1972.... it might have enjoyed a short time in the sun. Japan went a step further with their VHD system that seemed to cure all of CED's faults. But by the debut of optical media (CD/LD) for sure, the "contact media" was done.

I love history so, I enjoy tapes, LP's and yeah, even my skippy CED's. It just takes me back. It's like when I hop in my AMC Gremlin. I do not have a modern stereo or anything really modern in it. So when you jump in the bucket seat, you're transported back to 1970. I love that feeling.

 

[atrocity]

Well, where Quad was ahead of it's time, CED/Selectavision was WAY behind the times. Had it been ready by .... 1972.... it might have enjoyed a short time in the sun. Japan went a step further with their VHD system that seemed to cure all of CED's faults. But by the debut of optical media (CD/LD) for sure, the "contact media" was done.

CED and LD coexisted for a time with various titles exclusive to one format or the other. CED did well enough that MCA (a force behind LD in the early years) began releasing discs using the system.

Clearly, LD was always capable of better performance than CED, but there were MAJOR quality control problems in the early years with both discs and players.

CED was mediocre in comparison, but reliable within its limitations. I returned far fewer defective CEDs (always for skipping) than LDs (which almost always had noisy analog tracks and/or video crosstalk). LD finally did get much better once digital audio became standard, but the format was lucky to have so many forgiving fans.

 

[JonUrban]

I pulled these posts from Bill Brent's thread about his #2 Broadcast. It wasn't fair to clog up his thread with the about topics which have nothing to do with his broadcast.

This thread can keep on going indefinately if you feel like jumping in

 

[TVB]

I am thankful for all of my SQ quads because they ARE different from their Q8 counterparts! They are very immersive in their surround sound capabilities, its like music is coming out of the ceiling at times. So they actually give you two different ways to enjoy your quadraphonic system-double the fun. Plus, Its always a thrill to find that rare SQ vinyl album to add to the collection and mark another off your "to get" list (anybody print a list of SQ titles from this website to keep track)? So now we are getting the best of both worlds, many of our Q8s in SACD from AF and Vocalion plus all our SQ vinyl. I just listened to the SQ of Toys in the attic (recorded to Q4 decoded by Lafayette SQW decoder) and it sounded pretty impressive to me... and I have the Sony "Toys" SACD disc. I do use equalizers for both front and back channels for all my Q8s and SQ discs to get the sound I enjoy.

 

[JonUrban]

...... (anybody print a list of SQ titles from this website to keep track).......

I created a list of all Columbia/CBS SQ quad releases here

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Columbia.htm

You would have to check the other internet sources for SQ releases from other labels (EMI, A&M, Vanguard, etc)

 

[mandrix]

I created a list of all Columbia/CBS SQ quad releases here

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Columbia.htm

You would have to check the other internet sources for SQ releases from other labels (EMI, A&M, Vanguard, etc)

Jon, I may have spotted a mistake in the Columbia SQ quad list...I see a "From" Nothingness to Eternity, when my copy reads ""Between Nothingness & Eternity" Mahavishnu Orchestra Live".

Not a big deal, just thought I'd show off my street creds.....Not! I just happen to own it. lol.

Sadly, after much moving and several divorces I only have this one SQ record, two Quadradiscs; the RSO Quadradisc of "461 Ocean Blvd", & the Warner Bros Quadradisc of "One Man Dog".
The Mahavishnu record was actually a very belated "welcome back to the world" gift from an old school bud.

 

[JonUrban]

MISTEAKES?? TYPEO'S??
IMPPOSSIBLE!!!

You guys know I never fuck up!




PS - I fixed it

 

[mandrix]

MISTEAKES?? TYPEO'S??
IMPPOSSIBLE!!!

You guys know I never fuck up!




PS - I fixed it

LOL. If it didn't happen to have been one of the three surround discs I own, I doubt I would have ever noticed!

 

[4-earredwonder]

MISTEAKES?? TYPEO'S??
IMPPOSSIBLE!!![/U]

You guys know I never fuck up!




PS - I fixed it

Sounds like TWEETS from ....well, you know WHO?FAKE NEWS!

 

[surround.sound.enthusiast]

...Plus, Its always a thrill to find that rare SQ vinyl album to add to the collection and mark another off your "to get" list (anybody print a list of SQ titles from this website to keep track)?...

I printed out Mark Anderson's quad discography and put it in a three-ring binder once I started collecting seriously, I check it off as I go, and almost never go on a record pick without it. The only thing is it's a little out of date with recent corrections...