QS albums that are actually only plain stereo

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I used a CD release. I really can't even start to believe there's more than one mix of this album. Also, how are you decoding it? No hardware decoder can come even close to what is now possible, AND i'm not saying it is quad, as i do't think it is, but i'm more than willing to allow people to make up their own minds.........
 
I used a CD release. I really can't even start to believe there's more than one mix of this album. Also, how are you decoding it? No hardware decoder can come even close to what is now possible, AND i'm not saying it is quad, as i do't think it is, but i'm more than willing to allow people to make up their own minds.........

Didn't WEA and RCA announce their allegiance to CD-4 sometime in 1972?
 
Well, if that's the case then that's put this thread to bed.............
 
here is the link to list of CD-4 released by Werner and associated labels.
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/WB.htm

quick search in Google revealed this info.
in 1973 Asylum joined WEA distribution group but still retain ownership on their catalog.
in second half of 1973 Asylum was sold by Geffen to Werner and in 1974 was merged by
Werner with WEA's subsidary label Electra.
 
here is link where Wendy Carlos talked about CBS and CD-4
http://www.wendycarlos.com/surround/surround3.html

One thing she's wrong about is that "Switched On Bach" in SQ was withdrawn or deleted from the CBS quad catalog. She may have requested it be deleted from the catalog, but CBS never did it. And she does admit that CBS got their SQ encoders to the point where it was the hardest matrix system to trip up with unconventional mixing or recording. RCA and CBS were the giants and once they got behind SQ and CD-4, Sansui never had a chance - had quad survived (and I do think both SQ and CD-4 would have survived together since each compliments the other, or the systems would have been merged into USQ or something similar), QS would have been dropped eventually - it had too little support, what I consider to be poor stereo compatibility, and too many defects when broadcast via Stereo FM.

Of course, CBS botched the SQ system by introducing it too early, with too little understanding of how we hear and localize sound (ALL the companies were guilty of that), and then by haphazardly introducing a new 'perfect' SQ decoder type every 6 months that was an attempt to fix this or that defect of the previous SQ decoder, all the while enforcing no standards of decoding on licencee's (SQ's main inventor and quad champion at CBS, Dr. Ben Bauer, really, really believed in quad and SQ and he wanted to be the 'Ray Dolby' of the quad world), while RCA botched CD-4 with their typical cheap manufacturing and no concern for the consumer "Consumers will be so thrilled they can hear anything at all from our CD-4 records they won't care that it doesn't sound good!". Companies like RCA really did not understand why American consumers preferred more expensive imported European and Japanese pressings of albums to RCA's own "pristine" American Made LP's which were warp-riddled and thin, made of poor quality recycled vinyl and with sound quality mastering meant for AM radio and poorly set up 'console' stereo's.

I remember in the early 80's buying Cyndi Lauper's "She's So Unusual" LP (which was a CBS release) and having to return it SIX times before I got a copy that didn't have some defect or wasn't full of ticks and pop's. Then, when on vacation in LA that summer, I found a UK import of it at Licorice Pizza and literally couldn't believe how much better it sounded, with better stereo separation, dynamic range and frequency response - and how different it was in the quality of the vinyl and care with which it had been mastered and pressed - and it was perfectly flat to boot! I never found an American made version of Duran Duran's "Arena" LP that would play properly on my Technics SL-V5 - I had to buy the UK import. And the mass-market pre-recorded cassettes, all except for Capitol/EMI's "XDR" tapes, were not even worth bothering with - they sounded like 8-tracks and used the cheapest tape possible. I could make a Dolby C or dbx II cassette recording from my imported LP or new CD that was indistinguishable from the original - while pre-recorded cassettes had channels that faded in and out of alignment, high frequencies that came and went - vocals wandered back and forth across the soundstage or changed in phase - all due to the cheapness of the studio's manufacturing, materials and super high-speed copying.

BTW, I ask, because I really don't know, has Wendy Carlos ever issued any of her recordings in multi-channel on DVD-A or SACD? She gives so much space to surround sound on her site that I'd love to own or even hear some of her albums in surround, but I've never ran across any.
 
SOB 2000 was a Dolby Surround CD.

I'll take exception with the remark about Japanese pressings. While they're usually better, I never saw them in Chicago or Milwaukee in the days of Quad. There were lots of European imports. I lived in record stores then.

Quad Lnda

One thing she's wrong about is that "Switched On Bach" in SQ was withdrawn or deleted DON from the CBS quad catalog. She may have requested it be deleted from the catalog, but CBS never did it. And she does admit that CBS got their SQ encoders to the point where it was the hardest matrix system to trip up with unconventional mixing or recording. RCA and CBS were the giants and once they got behind SQ and CD-4, Sansui never had a chance - had quad survived (and I d o think both SQ and CD
-4 would have survived together since each compliments the other, or the systems would have been merged into USQ or something similar), QS would have been dropped eventually - it had too little support, what I consider to be poor stereo compatibility, and too many defects when broadcast via Stereo FM.

Of course, CBS botched the SQ system by introducing it too early, with too little understanding of how we hear and localize sound (ALL the companies were guilty of that), and then by haphazardly introducing a new 'perfect' SQ decoder type every 6 months that was an attempt to fix this or that defect of the previous SQ decoder, all the while enforcing no standards of decoding on licencee's (SQ's main inventor and quad champion at CBS, Dr. Ben Bauer, really, really believed in quad and SQ and he wanted to be the 'Ray Dolby' of the quad world), while RCA botched CD-4 with their typical cheap manufacturing and no concern for the consumer "Consumers will be so thrilled they can hear anything at all from our CD-4 records they won't care that it doesn't sound good!". Companies like RCA really did not understand why American consumers preferred more expensive imported European and Japanese pressings of albums to RCA's own "pristine" American Made LP's which were warp-riddled and thin, made of poor quality recycled vinyl and with sound quality mastering meant for AM radio and poorly set up 'console' stereo's.

I remember in the early 80's buying Cyndi Lauper's "She's So Unusual" LP (which was a CBS release) and having to return it SIX times before I got a copy that didn't have some defect or wasn't full of ticks and pop's. Then, when on vacation in LA that summer, I found a UK import of it at Licorice Pizza and literally couldn't believe how much better it sounded, with better stereo separation, dynamic range and frequency response - and how different it was in the quality of the vinyl and care with which it had been mastered and pressed - and it was perfectly flat to boot! I never found an American made version of Duran Duran's "Arena" LP that would play properly on my Technics SL-V5 - I had to buy the UK import. And the mass-market pre-recorded cassettes, all except for Capitol/EMI's "XDR" tapes, were not even worth bothering with - they sounded like 8-tracks and used the cheapest tape possible. I could make a Dolby C or dbx II cassette recording from my imported LP or new CD that was indistinguishable from the original - while pre-recorded cassettes had channels that faded in and out of alignment, high frequencies that came and went - vocals wandered back and forth across the soundstage or changed in phase - all due to the cheapness of the studio's manufacturing, materials and super high-speed copying.

BTW, I ask, because I really don't know, has Wendy Carlos ever issued any of her recordings in multi-channel on DVD-A or SACD? She gives so much space to surround sound on her site that I'd love to own or even hear some of her albums in surround, but I've never ran across any.
 
One thing she's wrong about is that "Switched On Bach" in SQ was withdrawn or deleted from the CBS quad catalog. She may have requested it be deleted from the catalog, but CBS never did it. And she does admit that CBS got their SQ encoders to the point where it was the hardest matrix system to trip up with unconventional mixing or recording.

Like most labels, CBS pretty much deleted catalog items as it saw fit, and likely without any artist input whatsover (where would it be contractual that an artist could make such a demand in the '70s? Later contracts might have such a stipulation, but hard to imagine any artist with that kind of clout back then). And since the quad titles were deleted by 1977 (and allowed to go out of print, since they were not repressed), a moot point.

Interestingly, in Japan the Carlos album used the original cover pic (Bach sitting) as opposed to the revised cover (Bach standing) which is the better known photo and the one used for the US quad cover.

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand...which we should get back to, perhaps? :D

ED :)
 
SOB 2000 was a Dolby Surround CD.

I'll take exception with the remark about Japanese pressings. While they're usually better, I never saw them in Chicago or Milwaukee in the days of Quad. There were lots of European imports. I lived in record stores then.

Quad Lnda

I didn't even know you could get imported LP's, or that they were better, until that fateful day at Licorice Pizza in Los Angeles - I just knew most records were junk. Then, back in Albuquerque, I found a small record store near the University of New Mexico that had UK pressings of Bronski Beat's first album "The Age Of Consent" and oh, wow, was it better than the MCA Records pressing. I love the "feel" of the vinyl used for UK pressings at that time - and that wonderful loose-fitting cellophane - no warping shrink-wrap. I started buying UK 12-inch singles and any album I wanted to own, I looked for an import first - interestingly, I found that with CD's, it was usually the opposite - the American release sounded better while the Japanese or UK release was made from wrong speed or incorrectly EQ'd 2nd generation tapes, etc... which was so weird. But, that was the only way to buy a CD such as Yazoo's "Upstairs At Eric's", or Marc Almond's Marc & The Mamba's two CD's.
 
you're talking about this one?


attachment.php

That would be the one. It doesn't answer the questions (i) why would this be released in a different system to the other two and (ii) why would this have been a "secret" or "unofficial" quad release anyway?

Also, how convinced are we that this is an genuine release, and not a pirate copy with a dummied up label? It wouldn't be the first time pirates or bootleggers have faked a label to create a rarity.

And does the Q actually denote quadraphonic, anyway? Couldn't it indicate something else about the release or pressing? (It'd be neat if WEA of Canada were in Quebec, but it would appear they are in Ontario.)
 
Last edited:
Neb-Maat-Re
i have knowledge about this print no more than you or anyone else.
LP record are old and in pretty much wear condition but seems like
absolutely typical retail piece with nothing to distinct it from any others.
same Q after number engraved on vynil. neither record or sleeve stated
format, i mean stereo, mono or whatever else. upon comparison with
CD rip and another vinyl rip from LP in decent shape, spectral analysis
revealed some differences. could be different master mix used for this one.
b.t.w. streams from CD and another LP record also didn't gave satisfactory result.
as for why Asylum didn't release it in CD-4...
first Asylum's CD-4 came out in 1974 after label was taken over by Warner and merged
with Electra. we all know that discrete 4 channel mix have been already in vault.
maybe there was planed matrixed LP but changes in the status have impact on the plans too.
but who knows.
 
I haven't been here for a while, but I'm sort of back. My job kept me too busy to do much else, and I also got married.

I know the answer to the Tommy Soundtrack album:

The early pressings were in QS. Then Polydor (the label carrying the album) signed with JVC to make CD-4 recordings. They remixed it to remove the QS. I had an early cassette album of it (in QS). Unfortunately, a car tape player ate it.

I also know about the Star Wars soundtrack albums:

The parts that were taken directly from the film are in Dolby Stereo. The parts recorded in the concert hall are in normal stereo.
"The Story of Star Wars" is entirely in Dolby Stereo, though it is not marked as such. All of the film effects presented are in surround.
 
As i said on another post it's too fanciful and would have not been worth the expense. The album was never qs, the mix for the album is different from the movie, just have a listen.
 
Isn't the original Star Wars soundtrack LP release supposed to be "unmarked" QS?

Actually, it is the first soundtrack album in Dolby Stereo. Parts are taken directly from the film. Of course, QS decodes Dolby Stereo quite well.

I've always wondered which soundtrack they used for the original Pan/Scan LaserDisc transfer of Tommy - was it the Quintophonic mix with the discrete Center mixed in, in which case the QS would still be there, or was it a Dolby Stereo remix? Or just plain stereo?

Since it came out two years before Star Wars (the first Dolby Stereo film), it could not be Dolby Stereo/Surround unless they released it after 1977. Since I don't have one, I don't know whether the quintophonic was included. I had an early cassette album that had the QS. Later ones do not, because Polydor signed to use CD-4. They remixed the album from the masters to honor the agreement, but copies had already been sold. I bought mine the day after I saw the opening of the movie here. My VCR tape of it is Dolby Surround, but the effects are the same.

Here's weird - the April 19, 1986 issue of Billboard has an article about stereo for home video and claims that CBS/Fox remixed "Return Of The Jedi" for home video in the SQ matrix for a "4-channel surround sound effect" Here's the link. I don't believe it.

Nope. I have it. It's marked Dolby Surround on the tape. The DVD also has Dolby Surround for the 2 ch output.
 
Back
Top