No Mercury, Phonogram, Polydor QS, SQ albums?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

journstyx

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
23
Hello all,

I was wondering if anyone knows why there are no QS or SQ albums released in the seventies by Mercury, Phonogram, Polydor. They certainly had the bands (Rush!!!) for the format.
I know there are some Q8's done on Bachman Turner Overdrive ( I believe in Japan).
Just curious if there's an explanation.
Best regards,
Journstyx
 
The status of the Phonogram-related quad is simple:
- early days (71-72): in Japan they acted actively for the phase-matrix quad, using their own CM-4 system. Polydor Japan released some album with that format, all japanese acts afaik.
- later, Nippon Phonogram choosed CD4 as the quad system and started releasing some titles; this time they went for international catalogue, so they did both Japan-only titles of western acts (Paul Mauriat Orchestra, for example) and pressed cd4 for titles release in USA as Q8. Some CD4 of japanese acts do exist on Polydor, 6 or 7 releases, no more.
- Phonogram Hong Kong did use something matrixed, labelling their album as "4channel" - kind of matrix unknown, probably SQ. Lucanu has one such title (the "Bar Girl" soundtrack), maybe he can shed some light on it.

USA Phonogram quads are limited to 8 titles, all on Q8 only:
Bachman-Turner Overdrive
BTO II
Not Fragile
Four Wheels drive
Head on

Ohio Players - Fire
Ohio Players - Honey

Kraftwerk - Autobahn.

All these Q8 but Kraftwerk were released as CD4 in Japan. Status of Q8 or QR for Nippon Phonogram unknown, probably never done. Tapes were more expensive than LP in Japan (3000 yen for a Q8 vs. 2300 yen for a lp; 6000 yen for a QR).

Unfotunately, here the story ends. Very little quad output.
 
Thanks for the quick update. A real shame Mercury USA didn't do some Rush albums. They may have sounded awesome in quad. Anyway, thanks for the overview. Much appreciated. Best regards, Journstyx.
 
Even if Phonogram had put out some more quad titles, hard to imagine what they'd have issued, at least in the 1971-76 time frame (as one can see, they didn't put out any catalog stuff, it was all contemporaneous). Given the odds of selling any significant copies, the only other choices they might have had was probably with their country roster: Jerry Lee Lewis, the Statler Brothers, Tom T. Hall, Johnny Rodriguez. As for pop/rock, who did they have? Paper Lace ("The Night Chicago Died") comes to mind, Rod Stewart (EVERY PICTURE or NEVER A DULL MOMENT would have made great quad's!), Uriah Heep (DEMONS AND WIZARDS), but can't think of any others offhand.

The company's interest in vinyl was about as much as London/Deram's: pretty much nonexistent except for a few Japan titles.

ED :)
 
Although Polydor is part of the same group today, I recall it being a separate company in the '70's. Many of it's titles were leased to US companies back then. Clapton and Hendrix, for example were on Atco and Reprise in those days. Chick Corea and Return to Forever "Hymn" in '73 was one of the first domestic Polydor titles. Polydor had no US quads that I'm aware of.

Linda
 
There were two Rod Stewart Q8's announced, one was "Smiler" - can't recall the other on off hand. There were supposed to be two more Q8's by the Ohio Players 'Skin Tight' and 'Contradiction' but I've never seen a copy. Was "Island" records under this umbrella? Because Bob Marley's 'Natty Dread' was another title that was vapourware.

I get the feeling that Mercury/Phonogram got into Quad late in the game and gave up too early. Shame too as the B.T.O. albums are mixed VERY nicely. I and II are personal favorites.
 
Island was another label that had licensed its' titles to other labels in the US. It was not part of Mercury in those days. Traffic was licensed to United Artists. Cat Stevens was licensed to A&M. Island was just beginning to distribute some of its' own artists in the US, mainly reggae such as Marley, Toots and Jimmy Cliff.
Quad reggae would have been blissful. Natty Dread was not vapourware, it was smokeware! :smokin

Linda
Sweet and Dandy

"Walking down the road with a ratchet in your waste. Johnny, you're too bad."


There were two Rod Stewart Q8's announced, one was "Smiler" - can't recall the other on off hand. There were supposed to be two more Q8's by the Ohio Players 'Skin Tight' and 'Contradiction' but I've never seen a copy. Was "Island" records under this umbrella? Because Bob Marley's 'Natty Dread' was another title that was vapourware.

I get the feeling that Mercury/Phonogram got into Quad late in the game and gave up too early. Shame too as the B.T.O. albums are mixed VERY nicely. I and II are personal favorites.
 
I would have LOVED to have a double Q8 of Goodbye Yellow Brick Road back in the day. I mean it's great having it on SACD/DVD-A, but imagine having it on Q8 in 1974.75, while it was still fresh, new music.
 
I felt the same way! MCA, who distributed Elton in the US back then, totally ignored quad altogether. Elton and the Who would have been awesome quad titles. Yes, I know "Tommy" was in quad, but it was the symphonic one on Ode (QS/Q8.) How many times did you hear someone say, "the only quad album I have is Quadrophenia!" LOL!!

Linda
Quad Silly

...and quad lies bleeding in my hand.

I would have LOVED to have a double Q8 of Goodbye Yellow Brick Road back in the day. I mean it's great having it on SACD/DVD-A, but imagine having it on Q8 in 1974.75, while it was still fresh, new music.
 
There were two Rod Stewart Q8's announced, one was "Smiler" - can't recall the other on off hand. There were supposed to be two more Q8's by the Ohio Players 'Skin Tight' and 'Contradiction' but I've never seen a copy. Was "Island" records under this umbrella? Because Bob Marley's 'Natty Dread' was another title that was vapourware.

I get the feeling that Mercury/Phonogram got into Quad late in the game and gave up too early. Shame too as the B.T.O. albums are mixed VERY nicely. I and II are personal favorites.

I believe the other Rod Stewart title announced but never released was Atlantic Crossing but that was WB.
Phil.
 
that is the one Phil, i remember asking for it at the record shops. Damn, information was difficult back then, saw it on a coming soon list. just communicating with fellow quad folk was still mostly phone till the early ninties. The King Biscuit Rod Stewart title has all the great stuff, but as king bis mix for radio, it is tame for my taste. But it is the original band with him.
I believe the other Rod Stewart title announced but never released was Atlantic Crossing but that was WB.
Phil.
 
Although Polydor is part of the same group today, I recall it being a separate company in the '70's. Many of it's titles were leased to US companies back then. Clapton and Hendrix, for example were on Atco and Reprise in those days. Chick Corea and Return to Forever "Hymn" in '73 was one of the first domestic Polydor titles. Polydor had no US quads that I'm aware of.

Linda

A bit off-top, but worth recounting:

In the USA, Polydor got its foot in the door in the '60s via imports. But starting around 1966, the first actual US Polydor Lp's were released through the Columbia Record Club, and were--surprise!--compilations of Bert Kaempfert material. Apparently Bert's deal with Decca was non-exclusive vis-a-vis record clubs, since Decca's product was released by the Capitol Record Club (the usual album releases, just different serial numbers), while Columbia had the Polydor comps, which were not available anywhere else.

In 1969, Polydor finally established an office in NYC and began signing US acts. Their first hit was "Good Old Rock'n'Roll" by Cat Mother & The All Night News Boys (you might not remember them, but you do remember their producer--Jimi Hendrix). Polydor was also bolstered by the signing of John Mayall (previously with Decca UK and London USA) and also signed Arthur Fiedler & The Boston Pops away from RCA.

During the '60s, some of Polydor's pop/rock masters were leased to US labels. For instance, anything involving Robert Stigwood (Bee Gees, Cream, Clapton) wound up on Atco; so did Fat Mattress' two albums. (Interestingly, the Bee Gees' albums were on Atco in Canada, but Cream and Clapton on Polydor).

Bottom line, though, is that Polydor as a label had no real interest in quad, even though some companies it distributed, like Vertigo (Kraftwerk) did, however briefly. As one of the biggest international record companies on the planet, it could have done something big to promote the format, but well, ya know...

ED :)
 
A bit off-top, but worth recounting:


In 1969, Polydor finally established an office in NYC and began signing US acts. Their first hit was "Good Old Rock'n'Roll" by Cat Mother & The All Night News Boys (you might not remember them, but you do remember their producer--Jimi Hendrix).
Hey I've got the album that's on! Cat Mother and the All Night News Boys "The Street Giveth The Street Taketh Away" Never knew that was (I guess) the first US Polydor release. Number 24-4001
 
I felt the same way! MCA, who distributed Elton in the US back then, totally ignored quad altogether. Elton and the Who would have been awesome quad titles. Yes, I know "Tommy" was in quad, but it was the symphonic one on Ode (QS/Q8.) How many times did you hear someone say, "the only quad album I have is Quadrophenia!" LOL!!

Linda
Quad Silly

...and quad lies bleeding in my hand.

MCA ignored quad because all their resources were being poured into their MCA DiscoVision Laser Videodisc format. They signed the co-development deal with N.V. Philips in September 1974 and and pulled all their best mastering/pressing engineers as well as the tech's responsible for maintaining the record presses, etc... and reassigned them to the MCA DiscoVision labs in Torrance (across the street from the Del Amo Fashion Mall!) MCA sent Philips a prototype player (since Philips hadn't gotten that far in development yet) and while Philips worked on engineering a consumer player that could be mass-produced and sold for a profit, MCA was responsible for the entire disc mastering and replication side of the format. (as it ended up, the final LaserDisc format was about 80% MCA/Universal Studio's invention with the remaining 20% being divided between Philips and Zenith)

For a short time, until they saw the handwriting on the wall that Quad was a non-starter on the market, they were engineering the LD format to use four FM audio carriers for quadraphonic reproduction and allow CinemaScope films with 4-track magnetic sound to be reproduced correctly in the home. Once they dropped that, to hedge their bets, they gave the FM audio carriers 80 kHz of bandwidth so additional channels could be added in a compatible manner if desired (Pioneer actually did utilize that industrally in the late 80's). In mid-1978, MCA and Pioneer, who had a joint company, Universal Pioneer, worked on a digital 4-channel laserdisc - it was a 14-bit format originally, then they changed to a 16-bit format. Because the Philips CD format seemed to be gaining momentum and Philips was courting Sony as a co-developer, MCA and Pioneer dropped all work on a 12-inch PCM disc.

So, MCA/Universal Studio's stayed out of the quad wars simply because they were working on the laser optical videodisc format. (As a side-note, I find it amazing that most people think either Philips invented the LaserDisc or that it was a Japanese invention, when in fact it was invented by Universal Studio's as a way to sell thier movies to the public at a low cost. Every optical-based disc we use today owes its existence to MCA/Universal Studio's - Discovision Associates http://www.discovisionassociates.com, owned by Pioneer now, still exists as a patent licensing company and still collects royalties from Blu-ray discs and DVD's that employ, in some way, MCA DiscoVision technology. While the early patents have all expired, MCA kept a small team going to both buy relevant patents and work on extensions of existing patents to keep the optical disc covered by patent rights.)
 
Great overview, Disclord! Way back when at Pacific Stereo, my store was host to several Pioneer demonstrations of Laser videosdisc, long before we or anyone else had product to sell! Heady stuff.

Linda
MCA ignored quad because all their resources were being poured into their MCA DiscoVision Laser Videodisc format. They signed the co-development deal with N.V. Philips in September 1974 and and pulled all their best mastering/pressing engineers as well as the tech's responsible for maintaining the record presses, etc... and reassigned them to the MCA DiscoVision labs in Torrance (across the street from the Del Amo Fashion Mall!) MCA sent Philips a prototype player (since Philips hadn't gotten that far in development yet) and while Philips worked on engineering a consumer player that could be mass-produced and sold for a profit, MCA was responsible for the entire disc mastering and replication side of the format. (as it ended up, the final LaserDisc format was about 80% MCA/Universal Studio's invention with the remaining 20% being divided between Philips and Zenith)

For a short time, until they saw the handwriting on the wall that Quad was a non-starter on the market, they were engineering the LD format to use four FM audio carriers for quadraphonic reproduction and allow CinemaScope films with 4-track magnetic sound to be reproduced correctly in the home. Once they dropped that, to hedge their bets, they gave the FM audio carriers 80 kHz of bandwidth so additional channels could be added in a compatible manner if desired (Pioneer actually did utilize that industrally in the late 80's). In mid-1978, MCA and Pioneer, who had a joint company, Universal Pioneer, worked on a digital 4-channel laserdisc - it was a 14-bit format originally, then they changed to a 16-bit format. Because the Philips CD format seemed to be gaining momentum and Philips was courting Sony as a co-developer, MCA and Pioneer dropped all work on a 12-inch PCM disc.

So, MCA/Universal Studio's stayed out of the quad wars simply because they were working on the laser optical videodisc format. (As a side-note, I find it amazing that most people think either Philips invented the LaserDisc or that it was a Japanese invention, when in fact it was invented by Universal Studio's as a way to sell thier movies to the public at a low cost. Every optical-based disc we use today owes its existence to MCA/Universal Studio's - Discovision Associates http://www.discovisionassociates.com, owned by Pioneer now, still exists as a patent licensing company and still collects royalties from Blu-ray discs and DVD's that employ, in some way, MCA DiscoVision technology. While the early patents have all expired, MCA kept a small team going to both buy relevant patents and work on extensions of existing patents to keep the optical disc covered by patent rights.)
 
Great overview, Disclord! Way back when at Pacific Stereo, my store was host to several Pioneer demonstrations of Laser videosdisc, long before we or anyone else had product to sell! Heady stuff.

Linda

Lynn Olson, inventor of the Shadow Vector decoder for SQ, worked at Pacific Stereo in the early/mid 70's - apparently, he spent his days off from Pacific Stereo at the local patent office where the employees helped advise him on how to do thorough prior-art searches as well as write a good patent application. Only Audionics showed any interest in a 2nd generation "holistic"* SQ decoder so he quit Pacific Stereo and moved to Oregon to work for Audionics and bring Shadow Vector to market... which, of course, never occurred. I've always wondered if Charles Wood or maybe Jim Fosgate still has the only Shadow Vector prototype ever made? Apparently, none of the major companies were interested in Shadow Vector due to the "not-invented here" syndrome - plus the fact that advanced cancellation decoder design is not a trivial matter - many companies patented various decoder designs that relied on crosstalk cancellation, but none brought them to market - the vast majority either employed non-logic matrix decoders or used the low-cost (and low-performing) Motorola Full-Logic 3-IC set for SQ. And except for Sansui, no other company employed the Vario-Matrix for QS decoding even though the IC's were very low in cost, performed excellently and Sansui had incredibly generous terms for potential licensees. The quad market was so weird in that respect.

*I believe it was Tate DES inventor, Martin Willcocks, who first used the term "Holistic" for a certain kind of logic-based surround decoder. He uses the term in the Tate DES patent, indicating a decoder that considers every dominant sound as well as all sub-dominant sounds in a 360 circle and processes them so that all are reproduced at their correct levels with appropriate phase, decoded to within 2 degrees of the originally encoded position and with no variation of the total quadraphonic output power in the listening room (TQP = Total Quadraphonic Power). It's a strict definition, but a useful one, I think. And one that a decoder should meet if it hopes to compete with discrete reproduction. That means gain-riding decoders are cut from consideration from the get-go. The CBS Paramatrix was not a holistic decoder because it didn't enhance side-to-side signals (Center Left/Center Right) - itonly decoded the 3 front positions (Left Front, Center Front, Right Front) and the 3 rear positions (Left Back, Center Back, Right Back) and everything else was completely ignored by the decoder! Since side-wall sounds were not processed, total quadraphonic power could vary depending on how the side signals were encoded. The QS Vario-Matrix, at least Sansui's various implementations of it, was not Holistic either (but just barely) because, depending on encoded signal direction, etc... it could have TQP level errors of over 5db and non-dominant sounds were not always decoded at the correct level leading to further erosion of TQP - and sub-dominant signals were not always in the correct phase (performance in that respect depended on the specific QS encoder). Certain versions of Dolby Pro-Logic are holistic while others are not and exhibit up to 6db pumping of surrounds in relation to dialog. Shure's Acra-Vector, at least the final version embodied in the HTS-5300, was holistic. As for Fosgate decoders, depending on the model number or line-up, certain versions of the DSL & 360 Digital Space Matrix decoders were holistic. The Fosgate Six-Axis decoder was holistic although the Six-Axis name was a sad joke - it was only a 2 axis decoder (F-B/L-R), like ALL decoders meant for Dolby Stereo decoding. Circle Surround I & II is mainly a gain-riding decoder so it is definitely NOT holistic - in most respects, it's decoding technology is little changed from the Full-Logic SQ decoders from 1973. [/SIZE]
 
Thanks for all of that GREAT info, disclord. Posts like yours makes me feel that keeping QQ around is well worth it!
 
Funny how companies work. RCA, who pioneered the CED Videodisc, had a working prototype with a half-hour capacity per side of each disc in 1973, but didn't feel confident enough in the product (among other reasons) to pursue it further. Yet they wen't whole-hog into Quad!

And let's not get started on how the original designs for the Compact Disc featured a four-channel mode!
 
Yes, Disclord, please keep posting and sharing your knowledge. I should get extension credit for reading your posts here at QQ!
 
Back
Top