Quad Speaker Setup

[kjs2447]

Hey Quad guys:

My first surround sound listening experience was quad, and still I think it was the more creative (vs. 5.1). But before I listened to my Quad DVD-As, I looked up how to position the speakers in relation to the listener. So I have a few questions:

-Depending on the size of the room, should you put the speakers as far into a corner as possible? Or keep a close distance?
-I have seen that early quad mixers put the speakers like so: one in front of them, two directly to their left and right, and one in the rear. How do the listeners know how to set up the speakers accordingly (as per the mixer's setup)?
-And what is your preference of speaker position?
-And does it matter? If so, how much?

Thanks again guys, it's almost been a week and I've really enjoyed myself so far!

-kjs

[rustyandi]

If you look up
Show us your gear
My system is on the bottom of the 1st page
that's how I listern
Ron

[LizardKing]

If you look up
Show us your gear
My system is on the bottom of the 1st page
that's how I listern
Ron

Nice stack(s) Ron.
http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/foru...ll=1#post45840

[kjs2447]

I see...
Now thats a setup appropriate for 5.1, but I have seen ones with a front, a left and right, and a rear. Has anyone seen this, and is this practical?

[fredblue]

I see...
Now thats a setup appropriate for 5.1, but I have seen ones with a front, a left and right, and a rear. Has anyone seen this, and is this practical?

the standard layout for properly reproducing Quadraphonic mixes is to have 2 pairs of stereo speakers.

a front pair, setup just as you would your conventional stereo pair and a rear (or "back") pair also in a regular stereo layout, positioned behind you.

whether you toe them in, set them square, or diagonally, or whatever, is dependent on your speakers.

centre information is phantom, derived from the mix when you sit in the "sweet spot" (i.e. in the middle of all 4 speakers).

[John Svensson]

Ye old Diamond pattern....... you'd have the phantom center either off 45 degrees to your left front or right front, not very condusive to how anyone has actually mixed a record. So No, I wouldn't recommend that. John

[fredblue]

Ye old Diamond pattern....... you'd have the phantom center either off 45 degrees to your left front or right front, not very condusive to how anyone has actually mixed a record. So No, I wouldn't recommend that. John

weren't all 4-channel mixes from the Quad era (no matter what format, SQ, QS, CD-4, Q4, Q8, etc..) intended to be played back in a "double-stereo" layout, with a front pair and a back pair, John?

are there any notable exceptions which were mixed and called for 3 speakers across the front and a single rear speaker?

i know there were 3-channel mixes (RCA Living Stereo/Mercury Living Presence etc) but that's a different kettle of iTuna..

[John Svensson]

Ah, I thought the OP was describing what would amount to the speakers arranged as a "diamond", with 1 in front, two -on each side, and one in the rear. Yes, many (or all?) the Living Stereo mch releases are 3.0 as far as I know. I think there has also been discussions on here that the early 90's Dolby Digital 1st generation surround releases were basically 3.1....three independent speakers across the front and 1 in the rear (or 2, but with identical signals).....or is it 3.1.1, I don't recall if those actually have a sub channel on them or not. I have several in the collection, should give them a listen once again.....Mancicni, orchestral Yes, Tomita.... John

[fredblue]

Ah, I thought the OP was describing what would amount to the speakers arranged as a "diamond", with 1 in front, two -on each side, and one in the rear. Yes, many (or all?) the Living Stereo mch releases are 3.0 as far as I know. I think there has also been discussions on here that the early 90's Dolby Digital 1st generation surround releases were basically 3.1....three independent speakers across the front and 1 in the rear (or 2, but with identical signals).....or is it 3.1.1, I don't recall if those actually have a sub channel on them or not. I have several in the collection, should give them a listen once again.....Mancicni, orchestral Yes, Tomita.... John

thank you for the info John
I don't own any 3-channel SACDs but I'm going to get some Nat King Cole 3-Ch stuff eventually and see (or rather hear!) how they are.

just one thing, "pedantic me" (apologies in advance for being an old bore!)
but.. 3 speakers up front and 1 rear would be expressed/abbreviated as 3/1 rather than 3.1.
3.1 would refer to 3 speakers (in any configuration) and a sub (or .1 channel).

my universal player & amp both readout any of the following combinations on their on-screen displays in each given surround configuration/situation..

3/4/.1 = 7.1 channels (Front L&R, Centre, Surround L&R, Surround Back L&R & Subwoofer),
3/2/.1 = 5.1 channels (Front L&R, Centre, Surround L&R & Subwoofer),
3/2/0 = 5 channels (Front L&R, Centre, Surround L&R, No Subwoofer),
3/1/.1 = 4.1 channels (Front L&R, Back L&R, Subwoofer),
3/1/0 = 4 channels (Front L&R, Back L&R, No Subwoofer),
2/2/.1 = 4.1 channels (Front L&R, Back L&R, Subwoofer),
2/2 = 4 channels (Front L&R, Back L&R, No Subwoofer).

interesting side note, one of the Rhino Quadio DTS reads as 3/1 on my DVD player,
whereas the other Quadio DTS reads as 2/2 on my DVD player.

I can't recall which off the top of my head is the Chicago and which is the Aretha but it doesn't appear to affect the sound field of either mix in any way, they're both "conventional 4-channel" mixes with front L&R and back L&R, at the end of the day.. just a bit kooky I thought, that's all.

[Quad Linda]

Not kooky at all. They're Quadio and the original Quad mixes transferred to DTS DVD-V.Although I would prefer hi-res, I'm perfectly content to resurrect these wonderful old Quad mixes. Miller Nevada did the same with most of their DTS CD's.

thank you for the info John ...interesting side note, one of the Rhino Quadio DTS reads as 3/1 on my DVD player,
whereas the other Quadio DTS reads as 2/2 on my DVD player.

I can't recall which off the top of my head is the Chicago and which is the Aretha but it doesn't appear to affect the sound field of either mix in any way, they're both "conventional 4-channel" mixes with front L&R and back L&R, at the end of the day.. just a bit kooky I thought, that's all.

[fredblue]

Not kooky at all. They're Quadio and the original Quad mixes transferred to DTS DVD-V.Although I would prefer hi-res, I'm perfectly content to resurrect these wonderful old Quad mixes. Miller Nevada did the same with most of their DTS CD's.

i didn't mean the mixes themselves, Linda

i meant the way the discs are authored.. and how one Quadio DVD reads out as 2/2 channels on my setup (in other words 2 Front channels and 2 back channels) and the other Quadio DVD as 3/1 channels (i.e. 3 front channels and 1 rear channel) yet they both are the correct quad mixes, thats kooky!

[LizardKing]

i didn't mean the mixes themselves, Linda i meant the way the discs are authored.. and how one Quadio DVD reads out as 2/2 channels on my setup (in other words 2 Front channels and 2 back channels) and the other Quadio DVD as 3/1 channels (i.e. 3 front channels and 1 rear channel) yet they both are the correct quad mixes, thats kooky!

They report as DTS 4.0 on my Oppo.. what I hate about the authoring is the the CTA defaults to DTS and is 16:9 whereas the Frankin disc defaults to Dullby and is 4:3!!!!! Consistency would be nice....

[fredblue]

They report as DTS 4.0 on my Oppo.. what I hate about the authoring is the the CTA defaults to DTS and is 16:9 whereas the Frankin disc defaults to Dullby and is 4:3!!!!! Consistency would be nice....

too right! not just consistency but continuation of the Quadio "series" would have been nice too..

[proufo]

At least one manufacturer (not content originator) suggested putting the rear speakers to the side.

My view is to put the rear speakers to the side and a bit to the rear, just enough to distinguish between centered sounds in the front and centered sounds in the rear.