The Difference Between Quad People and 2 Channel People

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Doug G.

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
2,894
Location
Austin, Minnesota
I know this has been discussed before but I thought I would bring it up again to bug 2 channel people if they happen to find this thread through a Google search. :D

Anyway, I'm sure several of us have gotten into arguments on other forums about whether or not quad is worth it as far as adding an extra dimension to music enjoyment.

The encounters always devolve into the 2 channel people declaring things like they only have two ears and so they only need two speakers. Obviously an unthought-through and ridiculous argument.

Or that they find sounds from the back unsettling or distracting.

And there is the true difference between "them and us". They find sounds from the back unsettling. We revel in them. (y)

Doug
 
there's also:

"quad only" versus "five channel."
"only want to listen" versus "want to create."
"HT listener" versus "on the go"

I could probably come up with others. There's plenty of divisions out there. Each group cannot be easily defined, and there's plenty of overlap. I strongly prefer 5.1, like to create my own mixes rather than even listen to a professional mix (Steve Wilson being the exception), but the majority of my music listening, in general, is stereo, on an IPod, on the go. Hard to pinpoint me.
 
Firesign Theatre!!! Man that brings back some great memories from back I was an undergraduate at Mercer in Macon Georgia. My best bud had an entire collection of Firesign Theatre 33 1/3 records. I can still remember kicking back with a Crown and Coke and listening to Firesign Theatre with most of my psych class.

Many thanks for reminding me of a great time in my life.

MTGC
Michael
 
I think the real difference between quad (or surround) people and 2 channel people is that 2 channel people simply have not discovered surround music or if they have then they refuse, for a number of reasons, to buy into it.

Stereo is so accessible. It's everywhere in a variety of formats. Surround demands that you go seek it out. Most people are not going to do that. I think we all will agree that when someone actually hears surround music they really like it. But it is expensive to get into and it's hard to find content. I think people make the "two ears" comments because they have made stereo their choice and get tired of surround types (like ourselves) telling them that stereo is inferior.

I guess another difference is that surround people are losers for putting up with poor selection, expensive product, and ever-changing standards that necessitate continuous hardware upgrades. Of course, we think we are winners so we can choose to ignore the previous sentence.

Sorry for changing the topic slightly from Quad people to Surround people but I'm a 5.1 listener. Can't really understand why the Quad guys find that center speaker so unsettling. ;)
 
You remind me of a ficticious Firesign Threatre chap named Joey Demographico.

"Joey, how old are you?"

"18 to 35"

While a few other guys on here could have claimed that for a while now, Tim, at this point, I can also no longer claim to be in that demographic. :)

I do wish someone would take me up on my point, though.
 
....
Sorry for changing the topic slightly from Quad people to Surround people but I'm a 5.1 listener. Can't really understand why the Quad guys find that center speaker so unsettling.
Many 5.1 systems are just 5 stick speakers and a so-called sub-woofer. That would be unsettling to me.
 
While a few other guys on here could have claimed that for a while now, Tim, at this point, I can also no longer claim to be in that demographic. :)

I do wish someone would take me up on my point, though.

I can be pinpointed easily. 95% of what I listen to is classic rock in DVD-A, SACD or DTS-HDMA surround format. To support the format I will (or have) buy/bought anything that meets that criteria at a retail price (most silverline discs excepted). My system is equally adept at 4.0 or 5.1. Not saying it is all that great, but I got lots and lots of woofer.
 
Sorry for changing the topic slightly from Quad people to Surround people but I'm a 5.1 listener. Can't really understand why the Quad guys find that center speaker so unsettling. ;)

I think there's three types of surround enthusiasts that I've come across. There's "preservasionists," for whom the main goal is to preserve, bring to new formats, etc., quad recordings of the 1970's. They go through great pains to acquire reels, maintain their old decoders, etc. I applaud what they do, but, because of where I fall in demographically, they're the group I can relate to the least (sorry, guys.) I think there's "strict listeners," for whom listening to surround, no matter the source, year, etc., is the biggest things. These are the guys who invest in their HTs and could never imagine listening to music anywhere other than the sweet spot. I think the last group is the "creationists" (certainly not in the religious/political vein). These are the upmixers, the people chasing down multitracks, the people who sit there and try to crack formats, etc. That's the group I fall into. Just listening, or sticking to past recordings and technologies, doesn't do it for us. We get more enjoyment out of the process when we are involved in it.

My goal has always been to find common ground between all three groups. We all have a TON to learn from one another. Sadly, for every one person who agrees, there's another sticking their fingers in their ears and going "na na na, i can't hear you." :)
 
My goal has always been to find common ground between all three groups. We all have a TON to learn from one another. Sadly, for every one person who agrees, there's another sticking their fingers in their ears and going "na na na, i can't hear you." :)
Please, please, please. It was a bit of kidding (a pun of sorts in reference to the OP). There is no cause for sadness.
 
Please, please, please. It was a bit of kidding (a pun of sorts in reference to the OP). There is no cause for sadness.

whatever you thought you said went so far over my head i had to go back and re-read the thread to even figure out what it was you were referring to. no worries. :)
 
My goal has always been to find common ground between all three groups. We all have a TON to learn from one another. Sadly, for every one person who agrees, there's another sticking their fingers in their ears and going "na na na, i can't hear you." :)[/QUOTE]

AMEN! I love 70's music, but also like to go out and make my own quad recordings. It's ALL good, and anybody that sticks stubbornly to just one category is really cheating themselves. As for the lack of software. that is why I keep my QS rig. I have very few actual albums in that format, but in the synth mode, ALL my stereo stuff takes on a new life.

Maybe the way to get multichannel into center stage would be (Sony, are you listening?) to make BluRay a common MUSIC format. Many people already have the hardware, and 8-channels of 24 bit/96 k. uncompressed audio would have a "WOW!" factor VERY hard to ignore...OK, just dreaming, I guess?

Ah, the 4.0 vs. 5.1 argument. All four of my speakers have decent woofers, so the point-one is useless...as for the center channel? I don't find it unnatural, or weird, just unneeded. So far, most of the movies I rent with digital 5.1 tracks also have Pro Logic II analog, and the QS rig does just fine with it. Center sounds DO appear to come from the TV screen...good enough for me.

To each their own, may our differences be opportunities for learning and sharing, rather than divisive among ALL who won't settle for one wall of sound!
(Oh brother, did that philosophical mush come out of ME? I HAVE been away too long!)
T-boy
 
Whoa...here is where my inferiority complex rears its ugly head...

My take is that us surround folks are more advanced mentally than "Stereo Only" folk..it sounds "holier than thou", but that's how it is..besides, we like taking risks, be more open, tolerant and sincere with our respective partners regarding the fact that , if they don't like it ,we don't judge them, BUT we have to draw the line somewhere regarding having OUR Surround System in OUR house.

A LOT of p*ssy -whipped guys don't have one cause their spouses "don't let them"(my apologies to Linda and other females in the Forum-but I guess you know where I'm coming from-maybe I'm chauvinistic, if I am, well , I can be called so and I don't mind-it all depends on every person's definition of Chauvinist).

My LOVELY wife is NOT into Surround , but since she loves me (and I ADORE HER!) and knows I enjoy it , she is totally tolerant to me having my FOUR HUGE (still haven't gathered the €€ for the Center Speaker!) speakers and HUGE receiver (along with my 500+ LP collection-which she LOVES, though) and my 200+ DVD-SACD collection, 50+ Lasediscs, etc in our TINY Living room...
It's a compromise, folks ; I like her RomComs , she likes my Surround setup, /Bruce Lee movies, etc.

Also, us Surround folk are more passionate about music itself, doesn't mean that we don't enjoy Stereo (even Mono...BEATLES ANYONE???)..we like the finer things in life...

NONE of my friends have taken the plunge and none have been moved (ENOUGH TO GET ONE)by the Surround stuff I've played for them over the years, so , to each one , his/her own!

As I have posted earlier, I don't even listen to PLAIN Stereo anymore in my system, (only in the car and headphones!), I always have it thru DPL II Movie setting...

And as my final reason, it's ALL TOO clear in my signature....
 
To me quad or 5.1 are both great but really the center channel is for movie dialog. Most of the people I know don't have clue what multi channel music really is and when I try to tell them what it is like they still don't get it. Seems unless you give them a demo they just don't get it. So now days when they ask why I spend $30 or $40 on a disc I tell them "once you own a color TV it pretty hard to go back to a black and white one" That gets their attention.
 
Or that they find sounds from the back unsettling or distracting.
And there is the true difference between "them and us". They find sounds from the back unsettling. We revel in them. (y)

Quad got a bad rap back in the days because it was really a mess - and this situation has been translated to the digital world, with dvd-a, sacd, dualdisc etc. Too many competing formats, too much hassle, nothing that you can buy with blinded eyes, pop in a player and just plays. Well, maybe Q8 or Dolby Digital, but these were the bottom end of the fidelity scale.
I've found very intresting the raving about the 4.0 mix of DSOTM included in the Immersion box set at SH (which is very stereo-related) by many people; apart from the classic initial "wow" effect, they had been able to appreciate the music in a different way. That's what the no-compromise digital world can do for mch music, if only the industry would settle to ONE delivery format. Buy a disc, pop it in, and enjoy. Good mixes, quad or 5.1, do already exist and releasing it in a 24/96/lossless version can make a lot of people happy - even to pay! - for true quality. New mixes are created right now (Rush...), so someone has seen the real potential of opening up a full musical landscape instead of a musical photoframe.
What many 2.0 people feel unconfortable is going out of the photoframe, when real life is always beyond the photoframe. You can always control a 2.0 world because it's two-dimensional; not so with 4.0 and above.
That with a *good* 4.0 or above mix, such as DSOTM. Lousy 4.0 or above mixes simply have non sense and does continue the bad rap about mch.

(big boo to Universal: doing a BR disc of Blues Brothers and put the soundtrack only in DD. Heck, "the quality of the music isn't important in a movie", even if it is a musical?)
 
To me quad or 5.1 are both great but really the center channel is for movie dialog.
i don't have real issues with physical center channel in 5.1 or absence of it in raw quad.
all depend on the mix. some 5.1 center is overdone with overfill by audio information and/or
loudness level which usually does flatten front line and with sound from rear build sort of
triangle instead wider sound panorama around listener. some issues with quads when almost
absence of virtual centre gives blurry picture, usually lead vocal.
 
...
What many 2.0 people feel unconfortable is going out of the photoframe, when real life is always beyond the photoframe. You can always control a 2.0 world because it's two-dimensional; not so with 4.0 and above.
That with a *good* 4.0 or above mix, such as DSOTM. Lousy 4.0 or above mixes simply have non sense and does continue the bad rap about mch.
EXCELLENT POINT, Winopener!!!!
I hadn't seen it that way...
Very true...so would that make us a little less control freaks than the rest?
 
I have always wondered why some people are/were instantly drawn to surround sound and most could care less.
When I first saw quad equipment I bought in (literally bought equipment) before I ever actually heard it! It just struck me intuitively that it had to be better.
Whether that was influenced by attending so many concerts, I'm not sure, but it just seemed "right".
 
Back
Top