The Difference Between Quad People and 2 Channel People

[Doug G.]

Should I then assume that no Quad fan would position all four speakers across one side of a room?

Absolutely not!



Actually, that would defeat the purpose of quadraphonics or surround.

Doug

 

[Quad Linda]

Stack all your speakers in a pile, and, voila! You're back to mono. @:

Absolutely not!



Actually, that would defeat the purpose of quadraphonics or surround.

Doug

 

[Hepcat]

I don't want mono. It's stereo that I love. As a result, I want more of a good thing - three or even four channels all with hard, distinct separation. I don't have the space for five.

 

[Quad Linda]

Quad doesn't need five. 5.1 can be done with four, simply select "no center" or "phantom center" on your 5.1 receiver or preamp. So long as you have full-range speakers, a subwoofer isn't necessary for 5.1 either. A quality sub will extend the bass response of full range speakers, so I would highly recommend that, if the space and budget allow. This is a different type of sub from those intended for sub/sat systems. IMHO, 5.1 IS Quad!!

I don't want mono. It's stereo that I love. As a result, I want more of a good thing - three or even four channels all with hard, distinct separation. I don't have the space for five.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Quad doesn't need five. 5.1 can be done with four, simply select "no center" or "phantom center" on your 5.1 receiver or preamp. So long as you have full-range speakers, a subwoofer isn't necessary for 5.1 either. A quality sub will extend the bass response of full range speakers, so I would highly recommend that, if the space and budget allow. This is a different type of sub from those intended for sub/sat systems. IMHO, 5.1 IS Quad!!

My system is Quad with only four JBLs that go down to 36 Hz (+/- 3 dB) and they work perfectly for 5.1, except for a few discs that have something "scwewy"(Thank you Elmer Fudd) in the center channel, mainly,the "Layla" ES mix , but with the rest of the stuff I have no phase problems...
that, and like our new fellow quadhead "hepcat" ("I know I got a rep, for being kinda hep for doing the latest step when we're daaaaaancing"-yes, I'm a Looney Tunes freak, just in case you haven't noticed-it's what the cat sings in the classic Robert Clampett LT "The Hep Cat"),
BTW, welcome to the forum, and great avatar!,
I don't have the space for a center since my mac and recording gear/receiver is in front center(it's an appropriately named Ikea desk called "Jerker")-against the wall, and my apartment is a matchbox(probably not even 8 feet in between the fronts and rears!)....

 

[Hepcat]

Quad doesn't need five. 5.1 can be done with four, simply select "no center" or "phantom center" on your 5.1 receiver or preamp.

1. When you select "no center", do you find that the center channel ends up being played in both the right and left channels, presominantly in one channel or the other, or is it relatively evenly divided up between the right and the left channels?

2. Do most 5.1 channel receivers also have an option for no rear channels wherein the rear channel input would be routed to the front speakers? Have you ever tried this option?

 

[Doug G.]

Hepcat,

1. The way it works in any properly set up quad (or stereo) system is any sound meant to come from front center is reproduced through the two front channels in such a way that it appears to be centered in between the two front speakers. It has always been this way since the advent of stereo in the fifties. Try it yourself with a mono source. It will apear to be right in the middle of the two front speakers (if everything is correctly set up.

2. I don't know the answer as far as 5.1 receivers but what would be the point? We want multi-channel n'est-ce pas?

Doug

 

[Hepcat]

2. I don't know the answer as far as 5.1 receivers but what would be the point? We want multi-channel n'est-ce pas?

I'm trying to make sure that operating a system with only three speakers would not result in some of the music being lost. Hopefully the music from the rear channels just gets directed to the appropriate front channels.

 

[quadsearcher]

I'm trying to make sure that operating a system with only three speakers would not result in some of the music being lost. Hopefully the music from the rear channels just gets directed to the appropriate front channels.

That would be stereo with a center, or 3.0. Similar to 50's amps with a derived center channel output (mono) to connect to a mono amp and speaker to "fill in the gap" between left and right. With 5.1 recordings, the center would be discrete, but still the rears are folded into the fronts, creating stereo with center. I had that set up (stereo with derived center) for a while, it was in a workplace (shop) so nobody listened critically, but I thought it did fill in nicely. Mostly because it was a big room perhaps.
With surround (quad) I've found the separation from all four "main" speakers to be far more involving than stereo with derived center. Haven't tried it, but I would expect stereo with discrete center to certainly be more interesting than stereo, but not at all the same experience as surround (quad). Quad or surround is a 360 degree soundfield.

That said, I don't know of a setting on my Sherwood or Onkyo receivers to do a fold-down to stereo + center, but if one would do that, I don't think there would be a loss of music, just a loss of the surround experience. And not hearing it as the mix engineer/producer/band intended.