Quad records that sound great in stereo

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

ress4278

300 Club - QQ All-Star
QQ Supporter
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Sep 16, 2003
Messages
361
Location
Pennsylvania
I wasn't sure where to put this.

I have been going through my collection and finding great sounding stereo records played in stereo. Terrific soundstage, the volume can be turned up with no harshness or boominess, sweet and loud.

Do we have a list of any quad recordings that have these qualities? I'd play these in 4-channel and stereo.
 
Here's 4 that fit the category. Nektar A Tab In the Ocean QS, Down To Earth QS, Santana Hits SQ, and Gil Evans CD-4
 
Last edited:
As long as you use the Shibata stylus how would the record know if you're playing it in stereo?
 
It is the stylus <Shibata mentioned above> that is critical to reproducing the 4 channels from a CD4 record. There are several "What you need for CD4" threads in the archives, should be a Sticky if it is not already.
I don't know how much damage you do to a it from Not using a CD4 compatible stylus, but from my limited experience of having done that (Yikes!) I can tell you that the regular stereo editons sound better than the CD4
copy....so why would you want to do that?? John S.
 
CD-4 records can "safely" be played with a standard stereo cartridge, provided tracking force is less than 2 grams, and that you won't necessarily be playing it back anymore in four channel. The back channels will fold forward and display in the left and right speakers, along with the front information. You won't, however, get the "phase distortion" that you get playing a matrixed record on a stereo player.
 
CD-4 records can "safely" be played with a standard stereo cartridge, provided tracking force is less than 2 grams, and that you won't necessarily be playing it back anymore in four channel. The back channels will fold forward and display in the left and right speakers, along with the front information. You won't, however, get the "phase distortion" that you get playing a matrixed record on a stereo player.

I think I'm confused about which "phase distortion" you mean... Do you mean the basic distortion inherent in all matrix systems that use quadrature networks (which even modern systems, such as Pro Logic II encoding, still suffer from), or are you refering to some other phase distortion that comes about only from playing a matrix album without decoding?

It was only when I got the CD releases of certain SQ encoded albums that retained the original SQ coding on CD, such as the first issue CD of "Annie" (not the remixed '20-bit' monstrosity!) and Morton Subotnick's "Touch", that I was shocked to discover just how poor the LP really is as a high-fidelity format. Quad formats like SQ, that only used phase to encode the rear channels, were made worse in the long run by SQ's phase shift requirements.

CD-4's big compatibility problem was its 4/2 fold-down. Because the CD-4 system was based on a discrete 4/4/4 matrix, it had a straight-line fold, with all left-sided sounds going to the left side in stereo and all right-sided sounds going to the right side in stereo. The exhaustive NQRC FCC tests for quad FM showed that a down-mix like CD-4's was inferior to that of SQ's stereo playback soundstage. I think the optimum would have been a mix of CD-4 and SQ - which CBS called USQ (Universal SQ). It preserved all the advantages of CD-4, while eliminating its drawbacks - producing optimum sound no matter how the recording was played.

Both JVC engineers and SQ's primary inventor and corporate booster, Ben Bauer of CBS, were interested in creating just such a commercial format - and CBS had one of the most advanced and highest quality CD-4 mastering and playback systems in the USA. (They helped Consumer Reports to set up their quad tests and encode custom test material in CD-4) Plus, Ben Bauer never stopped working with CD-4 as the 'way forward' with SQ - for a while he thought that FM quad was to be SQ's savior, but went back to CD-4 with SQ until his death.
 
Matrixed quad recordings, whether QS, SQ, EV, or whatever, never really intended to be played in stereo. The phase distortion I refer to is the hollow-sounding, "in-the barrel" sound heard on those parts of the music that would normally appear in the rear channels. It's not apparent on all matrixed recordings; some are worse than others. It's also what caused the cancellation of rear vocals in the albums we discussed earlier.

I'm in full agreement about the 4-2 folddown of CD-4 recordings when they're played without the demodulator. When they mix for quad effects, these sound a bit odd when played as stereo. But they don't suffer from the phasiness the matrixed recordings do in stereo playback.

The "USQ" system you described is very much like the Nippon Columbia UD-4 system, which used a combination of matrix and carrier-based discrete technologies, depending on the sophistication of the playback system. Simple systems could be designed around the "BMX", or basic, matrix format for a low-cost system. The use of logic steering was optional, depending on the cost of the system. The full-blown UMX format could be played discretely. This was limited to top-of-the-line systems. But all UD-4 records offered the option for all playback modes.

I know that CBS Labs initially intended SQ to be a carrier-based, discrete system, but had encountered many obstacles when trying to make it work. JVC made it work with CD-4, but the only really good pressings for that format were those made in Japan. The American companies used vinyl that was fine for stereo records, but not good enough for good, noise-free discrete quad playback. Any surface noise on the record was made worse by the action of the demodulator. I have no doubt that, if vinyl had continued to dominate, and quad LP's were still viable, that the quality of the pressings, and the sound, would have improved immensely. It wasn't in the cards.
 
Matrixed quad recordings, whether QS, SQ, EV, or whatever, never really intended to be played in stereo. The phase distortion I refer to is the hollow-sounding, "in-the barrel" sound heard on those parts of the music that would normally appear in the rear channels. It's not apparent on all matrixed recordings; some are worse than others. It's also what caused the cancellation of rear vocals in the albums we discussed earlier.

I'm in full agreement about the 4-2 folddown of CD-4 recordings when they're played without the demodulator. When they mix for quad effects, these sound a bit odd when played as stereo. But they don't suffer from the phasiness the matrixed recordings do in stereo playback.

The "USQ" system you described is very much like the Nippon Columbia UD-4 system, which used a combination of matrix and carrier-based discrete technologies, depending on the sophistication of the playback system. Simple systems could be designed around the "BMX", or basic, matrix format for a low-cost system. The use of logic steering was optional, depending on the cost of the system. The full-blown UMX format could be played discretely. This was limited to top-of-the-line systems. But all UD-4 records offered the option for all playback modes.

I know that CBS Labs initially intended SQ to be a carrier-based, discrete system, but had encountered many obstacles when trying to make it work. JVC made it work with CD-4, but the only really good pressings for that format were those made in Japan. The American companies used vinyl that was fine for stereo records, but not good enough for good, noise-free discrete quad playback. Any surface noise on the record was made worse by the action of the demodulator. I have no doubt that, if vinyl had continued to dominate, and quad LP's were still viable, that the quality of the pressings, and the sound, would have improved immensely. It wasn't in the cards.

UD-4's drawback was the awful BMX matrix and its 90 degree phase shift of the mono (center front) image in stereo playback. UGH!

Too bad CD-4 wasn't around long enough to get the dbx treatment - I absolutely love the sound quality of the dbx LP's I own and can only imagine how well dbx Type-II noise reduction would have worked with CD-4.

Basically, anything with a 180 phase shift gets that 'hollow' sound - but, it's somewhat listener dependent - some people can hear it, some can't. To me, the pressure-on-my-ears sensation is irritating. The BBC's work in quad also showed that out of phase images are extremely fatiguing to listen to in the long run. One of the benefits of the CBS London Box for SQ encoding was that, besides making Center Back fully audible in mono, it spread the total phase shift into individual octave bands, greatly improving the sound quality. The "Center Back" position on the CBS SQT-1100 SQ test record was encoded with the London Box and doesn't have the phaseyness or hollow sound quality of 'conventional' Center Back SQ encoding. The SQT-1000 SQ test record used the standard CBS Position Encoder without any special encoding for Center Back and so it disappears completely in mono playback. QS had the same type of CB encoding, and Dolby Surround has the same exact problem too - that's why Dolby always recommended that surround pans didn't go all the way to the back - to keep some of the sound in the front channels and audible in mono playback.
 
Can you think of any commercially released SQ albums that used the CBS London Box encoder? It would certainly be interesting to compare one of those with a conventionally encoded SQ album.

When I mention phasey sounding matrix recordings, the worst offenders are those that try to make rear channel sounds move around, speaker to speaker. You can really hear it then. The hollowness tends to be minimalized, but not totally eliminated, on quad playback. Had today's digital technology been available back in the 70's, I think we'd be listening to a lot more surround sound today. Not that digital is perfect; it's not, as applied to CD's. But discrete is a lot more accurate than any matrix, and digital formats, such as SACD, DVD-A, or BD-A are able to convey it as intended. I still think QS comes closer than SQ to creating a near-discrete experience, but that's just my opinion. Discrete still rules.
 
Can you think of any commercially released SQ albums that used the CBS London Box encoder? It would certainly be interesting to compare one of those with a conventionally encoded SQ album.

When I mention phasey sounding matrix recordings, the worst offenders are those that try to make rear channel sounds move around, speaker to speaker. You can really hear it then. The hollowness tends to be minimalized, but not totally eliminated, on quad playback. Had today's digital technology been available back in the 70's, I think we'd be listening to a lot more surround sound today. Not that digital is perfect; it's not, as applied to CD's. But discrete is a lot more accurate than any matrix, and digital formats, such as SACD, DVD-A, or BD-A are able to convey it as intended. I still think QS comes closer than SQ to creating a near-discrete experience, but that's just my opinion. Discrete still rules.

A few live SQ broadcasts used the London Box - usually in conjunction with the Ghent Microphone. I think a number were done in Mexico... but as for SQ LP's that used it for encoding, I only know of the SQT-1100 test record. "Funny Girl" is one of the very few SQ recordings that has a Center Back signal deliberately encoded, but it was standard SQ code... i.e. non-mono compatible. Regardless of matrix or discrete, Center Back just wasn't a location most producers or artists cared about placing sources. In fact, until the London Box, CBS told mixers NOT to use the Center Back position at all - Sansui did the same for QS. It wasn't a big drawback because other mixing/encoding arrangements could be done that gave the same overall effect, but without loss of mono compatibility. And, of course, the London Box eliminated that final problem. I think it just came along too late in the game to get much usage. Same with the wonderful Ghent mic for SQ.

Oh, wait, I just remembered one SQ recording that used the London Box - the soundtrack to "Annie" - I can't believe I forgot that! While it has no specific CB vocals or instruments, it does have vocals and such that pan through that location, and the London Box was used for those - the SQ mix was made directly from the multi-track master elements into the SQ Position Encoder w/London Box connected for CB. Thus, no intermediate 4-channel master was made prior to SQ encoding and so much better results were obtained - and without the weird cancellation or compatibility problems that all square 4/2 codes have. The SQ encoded CD of "Annie" sure shows how good SQ could be without the phase anomalies of the LP format causing decoding artifacts.
 
Are you referring to the Broadway cast of "Annie"? If so, I have that CD and will give it another listen. Gotta check that out again.

Yes, the original CD release (full red cover) is SQ encoded. It was re-issued in the mid-90's in a remixed version and they went back to the original multi-tracks, so you need to make sure it's the very first CD release of the B'way album. "Hard Knock Life" is wonderful in SQ!
 
I've heard it, using a Tate II SQ decoder. You're right; it's excellent. The separation and overall fidelity were better on the CD than on the SQ LP, but I sure wonder why, since it was so good, Columbia didn't opt to release it on multichannel SACD. They did release "A Chorus Line" as such. I have the SACD and the SQ LP, and again, no comparison.
 
I've heard it, using a Tate II SQ decoder. You're right; it's excellent. The separation and overall fidelity were better on the CD than on the SQ LP, but I sure wonder why, since it was so good, Columbia didn't opt to release it on multichannel SACD. They did release "A Chorus Line" as such. I have the SACD and the SQ LP, and again, no comparison.

Who knows why they do what they do - Sony destroyed the SACD release of Bartók's "Concerto For Orchestra" - that recording is truly a surround spectacular - heck, the album cover even shows the listener how it's supposed to sound in full surround, yet it was remixed into 'ambient' surround, and that recording was NEVER meant to be heard that way. Even listening to it in stereo was just 'wrong'. I kept hoping that Sony would release Leonard Bernstein's "Mass" with its original discrete quad mix. That's another recording (and live performance) that was meant to be heard in quad and so any sort of stereo or ambient remix would destroy it. I hate the stereo version of it - the quad just adds so much to the entire thing, it surpasses itself and becomes great 'art' in quad, instead of just good 'music' in stereo. I wish someone had a DVD-A or DTS CD of the quad mix from the discrete 8-track of "Mass" - I've never been able to find a torrent.

The, ahem, "20-bit" remix/re-mastering of "Annie" is awful, and not just because it's stereo only - the re-master is missing certain backing vocals and instruments here and there throughout the entire recording. And the fidelity is fingernails-on-the-chalkboard harsh.

You know, we need to start finding out, and noting, which SQ albums have properly encoded side-images or incorrect (non-decodable) mixing, etc... Perhaps it should be added to the Quad Discography? Bootlegs are listed (and I don't think they should be listed at all - not that I'm criticizing the list) so info on actual encoders used or encoding problems of particular recordings would be a good add, I think. Anyway, as already mentioned, "Annie," being mixed with the Position Encoder and London Box is an example of what could be added, and another is the SQ "Company" - it was mixed with the original "square" SQ 4/2 Encoder and so side-images are encoded wrong - plus, it has some microphone/mixing problems in the discrete master that don't encode in SQ properly and make the decoder (even the Fosgate Tate II) produce image shifting and pumping (during the last verse of "Getting Married Today"). "A Little Night Music" has correctly encoded side images even though the first-generation "square" SQ encoder was used (to encode side images correctly 2 'square' SQ encoders had to be used, and only the left f/b inputs of each was hooked up to Left and Right of the 2 channel recorder to create the correct center-side encoding). Barbra Streisand's "Live In Concert (Forum)" seems to have no encoded surrounds at all - over the years I've bought 4 copies of that album and each is from a different generation of matrix and stamper, yet the results are the same - absolutely no surround except for minor leakage of sounds on the Fosgate Tate - My Lafayette SQ-W and Sony SQD-2020 actually make it sound better than the Tate because they have some spacious leakage! I've never heard the Q8 discrete quad release so I don't know if it's the same as the SQ. Neil Diamond's "Serenade" SQ LP seems to be encoded wrong on all my copies, with severe high-frequency sibilance of Center Front vocals to Right Surround. 3 copies are all the same - even careful L/R balancing doesn't fix it. It was either in the SQ 2-channel tape master or Neil's vocals were somehow messed up on the multi-track masters. The Paramatrix decoder demo album "Quadraphonic Gala" has a major level change during "The Way We Were" - the volume pumps way up and then back down, then up again before leveling off to normal - almost like an expander or compressor went crazy during the LP mastering. As a side note: The amount of 'stuff' that came in that LP's jacket was incredible - quad articles, sneak-peaks at Columbia's new quad liner inserts for STEREO LP's to promote quad, a listing of quad radio stations playing King Biscuit and BBC Presents, cut-sheet for the Paramatrix decoder, Schwann's quad guide for 1975 called "Some RIGHT Ideas About Four-Channel Sound" and a list of all SQ licensee's in America and the UK and a summary of the FCC listening tests that declared SQ a 'winner' against QS, BMX and discrete quad in both decoding (using the Paramatrix prototype) and stereo-only playback. I'd never picked up an album that was so heavy - it was still in its original shrink wrapping, so I didn't know what was in it, but the heft forced me to pay the 5 bucks for it! I think it's the only SQ album in the USA to have Pink Floyd's "Money" on it. Capitol Records was given a Paramatrix decoder, so perhaps that's why it ended up on the CBS album?

Kinda got off the main topic, but what do you think of my idea, and do you have any examples to add?
 
I checked my jpg's and this is all I have. You can't read the sticker, but it pretty much says don't play this record if you want to listen in stereo.
 

Attachments

  • aqualung sticker.jpg
    aqualung sticker.jpg
    49.9 KB · Views: 193
Back
Top