In retrospect

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Linda, if the American record companies that issued CD-4 LP's (RCA, WMG, Arista, etc.) had followed JVC's lead on the quality of vinyl used, things would have been different for the format. Sure, it was impressive in terms of separation, but poor pressings would have made for unimpressive demos. Were the CD-4 LP's you used all imports from Japan? Those, and some Korean pressings, were way better than the domestic pressings, most of which used substandard vinyl. And with CD-4, substandard vinyl means substandard sound. That can also apply to matrix as well, and even stereo. Also, because of carrier erosion, you really can't call a CD-4 LP compatible. A compatible LP could be played in stereo or quad at any time, without loss of information over time when the record was played on standard stereo systems. RCA's initial plans to go entirely single-inventory CD-4 would have been a disaster. I had also heard some quadradisc mixes that, while they made sense in quad, didn't make sense in two-channel playback. This was mostly obvious on tracks that put sound in motion around the listener. Those sounds moving rapidly side to side were reminiscent of RCA's "Stereo Action" albums, and you see where that idea went.
 
We used WEA CD-4 titles for demo. Stardrive - Intergalactic Trot, JVC Quadradisc demo album, Best of Doors, and Best of Bread. Later, Court and Spark was another. At that point, I was not aware of Japanese vinyl, even though we sold vinyl and I LIVED in every record store in Chicago. European imports were everywhere in Chicago, Quad, Electronica, Brit rock and Krautrock. Coincidentally, I discovered Japanese vinyl in '78. One store dove in all the way. The first Japanese LP I bought was Carnival - Sergio Mendes, which I special ordered. Imagine my surprise when it arrived and I found it was SQ!! A typical "live concert" mix, but one of my most cherished vinyl albums.

Linda

Linda, if the American record companies that issued CD-4 LP's (RCA, WMG, Arista, etc.) had followed JVC's lead on the quality of vinyl used, things would have been different for the format. Sure, it was impressive in terms of separation, but poor pressings would have made for unimpressive demos. Were the CD-4 LP's you used all imports from Japan? Those, and some Korean pressings, were way better than the domestic pressings, most of which used substandard vinyl. And with CD-4, substandard vinyl means substandard sound. That can also apply to matrix as well, and even stereo. Also, because of carrier erosion, you really can't call a CD-4 LP compatible. A compatible LP could be played in stereo or quad at any time, without loss of information over time when the record was played on standard stereo systems. RCA's initial plans to go entirely single-inventory CD-4 would have been a disaster. I had also heard some quadradisc mixes that, while they made sense in quad, didn't make sense in two-channel playback. This was mostly obvious on tracks that put sound in motion around the listener. Those sounds moving rapidly side to side were reminiscent of RCA's "Stereo Action" albums, and you see where that idea went.
 
We used WEA CD-4 titles for demo. Stardrive - Intergalactic Trot, JVC Quadradisc demo album, Best of Doors, and Best of Bread. Later, Court and Spark was another. At that point, I was not aware of Japanese vinyl, even though we sold vinyl and I LIVED in every record store in Chicago. European imports were everywhere in Chicago, Quad, Electronica, Brit rock and Krautrock. Coincidentally, I discovered Japanese vinyl in '78. One store dove in all the way. The first Japanese LP I bought was Carnival - Sergio Mendes, which I special ordered. Imagine my surprise when it arrived and I found it was SQ!! A typical "live concert" mix, but one of my most cherished vinyl albums.

Linda

I discovered Japanese LaserDisc's before I discovered European and Japanese LP's. But, oh, what joy when I finally found out how much better non-USA LP pressings were in both sound quality and fidelity of the vinyl - and lack of defects in the vinyl. Unfortunately, LaserDisc didn't share the same joys - while letterboxing started in Japan on LD in a big way, the transfers were often inferior to the US discs - so Japan LD's became only a way to get stuff that wasn't released here yet, not a way to 'upgrade' in audio/video quality as it was for LP's. And LaserRot in Japan was just as bad as the US, if not worse.

Any experience with Japanese pre-recorded cassettes? Were they as bad as most US releases?
 
Interesting that I have a large laserdisc collection, which I still play. They look like crap on a high definition TV, but they all still play just fine. No laser rot. Maybe I'm just lucky. The WEA quadradiscs, particularly those from the Atlantic/Atco division, were particularly bad pressings. The Warner-Reprise CD-4's were mostly better sounding, presumably from better vinyl. Elektra was hit or miss. Some RCA pressings were good, some were atrocious. Arista must have used some really bad vinyl. Their pressings had high surface noise and "bubbles". CD-4 was a great format on paper, but in actual use, it left much to be desired. It shouldn't have had to be so difficult to set up and calibrate the turntable and cartridge, and most demodulators at the time were extremely finicky. QS decoders, on the other hand, were a breeze to set up and enjoy. The pressings were also better. SQ decoders could sound better, too, but neither format could give truly discrete separation.
 
I've never had a problem with laser rot either. Perhaps that's because I got into the game fairly late, not too long before the introduction of the DVD. I have one disc that has excessive noise, and that's it. And while they are not High Rez, they're still not bad.
 
I"m still trying to find a list of those Capitol albums confirmed to be QS encoded. My local used record stores wouldn't know what hit them!

All the points about CD-4 are well taken. But so far, no one said they would have gone with SQ. What does that say for the system?

Is there any proof at all that Capitol issued any QS encoded albums, or is it just 'Myth & Legends' stuff like those albums thought to be QS encoded (Climax Blues Band, etc)

The problem with SQ is the lack of devolopment in the decoder designs before it was released. I'm sure that SQ could have won if CBS hadn't rushed it. And if it wasn't any good, why did Dolby rip it off?


OD
 
Is there any proof at all that Capitol issued any QS encoded albums, or is it just 'Myth & Legends' stuff like those albums thought to be QS encoded (Climax Blues Band, etc)

The problem with SQ is the lack of devolopment in the decoder designs before it was released. I'm sure that SQ could have won if CBS hadn't rushed it. And if it wasn't any good, why did Dolby rip it off?



OD
They didn't. The Dolby MP matrix is more closely related to QS than SQ. The SQ matrix isn't inherently bad, but I will agree that CBS put the system on the market prematurely. The decoders needed more work before releasing them to the public. SQ also needed better logic circuits to bring the separation up to near discrete levels than QS did, and that came too late to save the system. Another point is that when played in stereo, you hear more "phasey" effects from SQ records than from QS. SQ was never a bad system; it was just poorly implemented due to CBS's rush to get it on the market.
 
I'm sorry to disagree with you, but i've been working on an improved way of decoding DS, and as soon as you 'decipher' Dolby's attempts to hide what they did, you get "Reversed SQ"

It's a maths thing!


OD
 
I don't remember specifics now, but in the early 70's there was a lot of "junk" vinyl. As I was in Europe and SE Asia at the time and in the military I had easy access to most vinyl.
I was ordering some LP's through the PX and would often have to buy several copies to get a good one. IOW a lot of US vinyl was junk. Some came severely warped, others sounded like sand was mixed in and I even saw a record once that had what looked like a piece of paper sticking up from the surface.

But back to CD4; I loved it but tuning the demodulator was a PITA.
 
Thought i'd supply proof for those who doubt:

QS:
Lt = (0.924 Lf + 0.383 Rf) + (0.924 Lb j + 0.383 Rb j)
Rt = (0.383 Lf + 0.924 Rf) + (0.383 Lb k + 0.924 Rb k)
j = +90 degrees
k= -90 degrees

SQ:
Lt = Lf + (0.707 Lb j + 0.707 Rb)
Rt = Rf + (-0.707 Lb + 0.707 Rb k)
j = -90 degrees
k= +90 degrees

DS: Center channel removed for clarity
Lt = Lf + (0.707 Lb k + 0.707 Rb)
Rt = Rf + (0.707 Lb + 0.707 Rb j)
j = -90 degrees
k= +90 degrees


it's a maths thing


OD
 
I'm sorry to disagree with you, but i've been working on an improved way of decoding DS, and as soon as you 'decipher' Dolby's attempts to hide what they did, you get "Reversed SQ"

It's a maths thing!


OD

I go by what I hear. I've played SQ recordings through a Dolby PL II decoder, and the rear sounds seem to be ambiguous with regard to sound placement. QS recordings play with pretty accurate placement in the rears. If you own a copy of the "Quadrafile" LP, put out by one of the British audio magazines, and which has sides encoded in SQ, QS, CD-4, and UD-4, play "Money", by Pink Floyd. The sounds at the beginning are more accurately placed on the QS side than on the SQ side when played through DPL II. My point of reference is the BD-A version of "DSOTM" that's included in the Immersion box set of that album. Another example is Enoch Light's "Come On, Come On, Come On, Don't Be Timido", on the "Spanish Strings" LP. The harpsichord, which carries the melody of the song at the beginning, is supposed to bounce from side to side in the rear channels. The QS version, does just that on DPL II. The SQ version doesn't. Try it for yourself if you have these albums.
 
I go by what I hear. I've played SQ recordings through a Dolby PL II decoder, and the rear sounds seem to be ambiguous with regard to sound placement. QS recordings play with pretty accurate placement in the rears. If you own a copy of the "Quadrafile" LP, put out by one of the British audio magazines, and which has sides encoded in SQ, QS, CD-4, and UD-4, play "Money", by Pink Floyd. The sounds at the beginning are more accurately placed on the QS side than on the SQ side when played through DPL II. My point of reference is the BD-A version of "DSOTM" that's included in the Immersion box set of that album. Another example is Enoch Light's "Come On, Come On, Come On, Don't Be Timido", on the "Spanish Strings" LP. The harpsichord, which carries the melody of the song at the beginning, is supposed to bounce from side to side in the rear channels. The QS version, does just that on DPL II. The SQ version doesn't. Try it for yourself if you have these albums.

As you see above, i've proven it.

The changes Dolby made were obviously to get away from any legal issues with columbia, although i read the other day that they did end up paying CBS $250,000 for SQ.

The reasons QS plays as it does through a DS decoer is rather obvious when you look at the maths

OD
 
As you see above, i've proven it.

The changes Dolby made were obviously to get away from any legal issues with columbia, although i read the other day that they did end up paying CBS $250,000 for SQ.

The reasons QS plays as it does through a DS decoer is rather obvious when you look at the maths

OD

Dolby did buy CBS' matrix patents. I heard they only paid $100,000 for them.
 
Back
Top