Why did bands like Yes and Led Zeppelin not have Quad releases back in the day?

[par4ken]

You raise a discussable but rhetorical question. The only points I'll touch on is:



It is well known that Aqualung & War Child was released in Quad.



Released in quad I presume you mean. Hell American sales of Led Zep 2 alone was 12,000,000 copies with 400,000 of that being in advance orders. In stereo. Quad sales would have paled by comparison.

Those of us that bought Led Zeppelin II (and all the others), would of shelled out more for Quad versions!

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Those of us that bought Led Zeppelin II (and all the others), would of shelled out more for Quad versions!

Of course we would! Me too! A question might be "how much more?" $5>$10 more in 70's cash? Then the other 90% of music buying public would say: "quad music is too expensive. " Yeah... I purchased so many Laserdisc's at $30+ and when DVD's were at half the price so many complained it was too expensive, compared to VHS.

The original post asked why did some (big rocking bands) bands not have quad releases back in the day, not if we would shell out more for them. The answer is obvious; when you have 10,12,14 million sales who needs another incremental boost from quad?

Before posting this I tried to look at a breakdown of sales say between all 2 ch stereo original releases of DSotM & the quad versions. I could only find the most superficial of sales records. Are the stats we would care about only for stereo vs quad LP, or include Q8, Japanese RM, etc. Maybe someone here sharper than me can take a look at big time groups & find quad percentage of sales vs stereo.

 

[Steve Schoultz]

Maybe......but we’re still searching out EBay and the like for the rock titles and not for stuff like Doc Severinsen and Charley Pride. I bet back then that the serious listeners who made high fidelity what it was (jazz and classical listeners) thought of Quad as gimmicky or “fad”.

Heck, I even have anecdotal proof of that. A few years back I came across a guy who was tasked with selling off the estate of a long time audiophile who even ran his own national audio publication combined with a radio show devoted to home audio. I was, and am still, a collector of audiophile cassette tapes and I agreed to help him sort through everything to help him determine market value if I could get first shot at a few things that I wanted.

It was like a virtual treasure trove of old audiophile records, cassettes, reels, you name it. His house was packed literally floor to ceiling with valuable recordings and gear, including the garage. Not a quadraphonic title in site. I was like a kid in a candy store as I found some things that I had been looking for for years. I was not greedy though I could had easily been.

Interesting I’ve read reviews at that site for years. Occasional reviews of multichannel titles, but mostly classical.

 

[doity]

Interesting I’ve read reviews at that site for years. Occasional reviews of multichannel titles, but mostly classical.

Yes, he had loads of classical titles and a good amount of jazz but almost no rock. Apparently he had bought out the whole unsold catalog of Audiosource, a Japanese Audiophile label, as he had boxes and boxes of new LP’s and cassettes from them in many multiples of copies. But as a music reviewer he had tons of small label stuff that is almost impossible to find and I found stuff that I had only heard about but had never seen before. I think his friend must had thought I was mental as I came across this stuff.

 

[doity]

Of course we would! Me too! A question might be "how much more?" $5>$10 more in 70's cash? Then the other 90% of music buying public would say: "quad music is too expensive. " Yeah... I purchased so many Laserdisc's at $30+ and when DVD's were at half the price so many complained it was too expensive, compared to VHS.

Well considering the push for all things quadraphonic back then (equipment, software, radio broadcasts) you think that the labels would had been pushing to get in on “The next Big Thing”. And remember how much everything was word of mouth back then. If you had heard “WOW, you just have to hear Led Zeppelin IV in Quad” or any other big album that would had translated well to the format it would had sold itself. And maybe the format would stuck around a bit longer who knows. Like I said, back in the day I heard a lot about quad but mostly in conjunction with Pink Floyd. I guess that they got it and knew that the kids wanted more from their listening experience.

 

[Quadmon]

Really cool observations. Fun reading your experiences and opinions. Many of my best memories involve music. Lots of concerts and way too much time spent between the speakers. Not!
Music is my rock. Pun intended. It is the constant that is always there when other things I cared about came and went.
Was hooked on quad (surround sound) after about 30 seconds of Long Train Running by Doobies in a Lafayette store.
Many of my Q8's are not available in new formats so feel fortunate that I can still enjoy them. Most are new old stock tapes that have only been used by myself.
Yes I have Sacds and blu-rays, etc. and enjoy them also.
As to what gets released in what format probably falls under simple twist of fate. Right place, right label, backing of producer and of course money. Agree that back then the quad was considered audiophile. That kinda narrowed the consumers. Big labels had mucho releases. Smaller labels just released greatest hits. Tommy James, Chi-lites, Staple Singers, Country Joe etc.

 

[Quadmon]

Also

Really cool observations. Fun reading your experiences and opinions. Many of my best memories involve music. Lots of concerts and way too much time spent between the speakers. Not!
Music is my rock. Pun intended. It is the constant that is always there when other things I cared about came and went.
Was hooked on quad (surround sound) after about 30 seconds of Long Train Running by Doobies in a Lafayette store.
Many of my Q8's are not available in new formats so feel fortunate that I can still enjoy them. Most are new old stock tapes that have only been used by myself.
Yes I have Sacds and blu-rays, etc. and enjoy them also.
As to what gets released in what format probably falls under simple twist of fate. Right place, right label, backing of producer and of course money. Agree that back then the quad was considered audiophile. That kinda narrowed the consumers. Big labels had mucho releases. Smaller labels just released greatest hits. Tommy James, Chi-lites, Staple Singers, Country Joe etc.

Interesting that after Beatles broke up we had John in quad, Paul quads, Ringo quads but no George quads.

 

[Quadmon]

Also
Interesting that after Beatles broke up we had John in quad, Paul quads, Ringo quads but no George quads.

Oops, forgot Wonderwall. Don't want a QQ spanking!

 

[doity]

Also
Interesting that after Beatles broke up we had John in quad, Paul quads, Ringo quads but no George quads.

Think how many quad copies of just Sgt. Pepper’s and MMT they could had moved if Apple would had let George Martin mix the masters for quad releases. Not sure if it would had been possible with the technology that they used but the Moody Blues released “Days of Future Passed” in quadraphonic and that was recorded just months after Sgt. Pepper’s. And that would had been before Mobile Fidelity remastered that stuff so there would had been a big market for new versions of those.

 

[Quadmon]

Think how many quad copies of just Sgt. Pepper’s and MMT they could had moved if Apple would had let George Martin mix the masters for quad releases. Not sure if it would had been possible with the technology that they used but the Moody Blues released “Days of Future Passed” in quadraphonic and that was recorded just months after Sgt. Pepper’s. And that would had been before Mobile Fidelity remastered that stuff so there would had been a big market for new versions of those.

I have the Canadian Q8 of DOFP. It is one of my favorites.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I invariably believe if QUAD REEL to REEL [QR] had caught on it would've changed the tides of QUADRAPHONIC acceptance altogether. But the cost of the hardware coupled with the higher cost of QR duplication would've made it prohibitive at the time. But at least you had a format which delivered DISCRETE four corner QUAD without the need for finicky matrix systems, demodulators and poorly aligned turntable/tonearm/cartridge combos.

And with the addition of DOLBY B QR Tape duplication, it also established it's superiority over LPs, Q8 and MOST especially 1 7/8 Cassettes.....but was still too rich for most folks especially a teenaged target audience.

I'll never forget when Sgt. Pepper was released on Open Reel. I ran to the local Sam Goody's and plunked down my money only to discover APPLE had released it at a measly 3 3/4 ips and boy, was I MIFFED! So in effect, the Majors even screwed up the possibility of rendering Open Reel as the dominant 'audiophile' format of the time by 'chinzing' on magnetic tape!

But still somewhat perplexed that bands like LED ZEP and The Beatles didn't at least offer a single release in DOLBY B QUAD OPEN REEL which might've effectively boosted the format's acceptance when much lesser acts indeed had Dolby B QR releases!

But the ole saying goes: It's NEVER TOO LATE so with QUAD/5.1 and especially DOLBY ATMOS gaining MORE [but NOT widespread] acceptance in the first quarter of the 21st Century .... I have a feeing that old stand outs, especially LED ZEP will eventually SEE THE LIGHT but the question remains WHEN...'cause us surround~o~philes ain't getting any younger!

 

[Doug G.]

Unfortunately, as good as open reel is, most home users didn't want to have to fiddle with threading the tape through the mechanism and all that. I believe that's the reason it was never popular with the general public.

Most people want music with minimum effort.

Doug

 

[4-earredwonder]

Unfortunately, as good as open reel is, most home users didn't want to have to fiddle with threading the tape through the mechanism and all that. I believe that's the reason it was never popular with the general public.

Most people want music with minimum effort.

Doug

Probably quite true, so what did we do before the advent of the venerable REMOTE CONTROL. Had to get up and change channels manually on our TVs and adjust the volume/inputs on our Stereo Systems!

Quite the CHORE!

 

[Doug G.]

I was thinking, the relative unpopularity of open reel tape was probably a combination of cost and inconvenience.

You bringing up changing the TV channel reminded me, so well, of my brothers and I arguing about who would get up and change the channel. I mean, there were never any knock-down-drag-outs or anything like that but it was, "I changed it the last time". "No I did." "No, I did!"...

And now, I have hopelessly deviated from the thrust of this thread.

Doug

 

[4-earredwonder]

I was thinking, the relative unpopularity of open reel tape was probably a combination of cost and inconvenience.

You bringing up changing the TV channel reminded me, so well, of my brothers an I arguing about who would get up and change the channel. I mean, there were never any knock-down-drag-outs or anything like that but it was, "I changed it the last time". "No I did." "No, I did!"...

And now, I have hopelessly deviated from the thrust of this thread.

Doug

Nay, Doug ... you just reinforced the advent of the not so venerable COUCH POTATO who never budges from his/her sweet spot to manually do ANYTHING!

 

[Doug G.]

Oh well, my seventies vintage quad system is comprised totally of unremote controlled equipment except for the CD/DVD player and it MUST have a remote control because the function controls on the unit, itself, are decidedly lacking.

So, whether I am listening to an LP of Yes, Zep, or whatever, it's get up and change or flip the record.

Oops, I just realized I lied. My BIC 1000 has a remote for cue up, cue down, and cycle but I rarely use it. It's just cool to know I can if I want to.

Doug

 

[4-earredwonder]

Oh well, my seventies vintage quad system is comprised totally of unremote controlled equipment except for the CD/DVD player and it MUST have a remote control because the function controls on the unit, itself, are decidedly lacking.

So, whether I am listening to an LP of Yes, Zep, or whatever, it's get up and change or flip the record.

Oops, I just realized I lied. My BIC 1000 has a remote for cue up, cue down, and cycle but I rarely use it. It's just cool to know I can if I want to.

Doug

Wish I could FLIC my BIC [lighter] remotely, Doug, as my thumbs are worn from the process!

 

[M-D-Z]

I was there in the sixties and seventies, I saw quad arrive, struggle and commercially speaking, fail.

If there was a good cross section of interesting titles available in discrete four channel on 1/4” or 1/2” tape at the time that I would have purchased, I would have bought a four channel tape recorder~reproducer, but there was so little music in that format to find.

Even if they had made ALL music available in discrete quad, and at a fair and reasonable uptick in price, I would have bought them, but let’s be honest with ourselves, whom ever had to make the marketing decision to commit to producing and distributing, stocking and selling these titles would’ve been voted against early on in house as being unprofitable to the extreme.

Look at this site: Music on tapes - RecordingTheMasters , and read down the list of currently available high end open reel tape makers offering good commercially viable titles, in the format that many audiophiles believe is the pinnacle of audio perfection, even today, and yet there is conspicuously NO quad of any type.
Check out this link:
Music on tapes - RecordingTheMasters ... and imagine if they had done this in true discrete quad on tape! YIKES!!!


I own five open reel machines that record and play back in four channels at 7.5 & 15 & 30 IPS, but I have to make my own quad tapes from live performance musicians or transferred from other sources because so few titles can be bought NOS, or used, or newly made, it is quite frustrating.

 

[M-D-Z]

I’ve got a mint TASCAM 234 Syncaset quad cassette deck that records and plays back with Simul-Sync and at 3 & 3/4” IPS.
A 90 minute tape yields 22 minutes of program.

It is not as hi fi as my Nak CR-7 or ZX-9, even at double the tape speed, but I still lament that this four track QUAD format was never developed for wide consumer success in 1 & 7/8” four channel, like an alternative to the questionable format Q-8.

They already had the tape formulas with enough bandwidth and existing machine architecture to have made it a reality! Oh well...

 

[MidiMagic]

Quad open reel was totally incompatible with stereo open reel (other than the quad machine being able to play the stereo tape). The reason they sold so well in the early quad days is that they went into home recording studios, not quadraphonic systems. All of the quad open reel machines I ever saw in homes were in home recording studios.

A 4-track quad cassette would have been just as incompatible. That is why Phillips demanded that all quad cassettes (if any) would play correctly on existing stereo and mono players. The result would be an 8-track cassette.

I have a TASCAM 8-track cassette machine. But adjacent tracks are linearly offset to each other, so this would not produce a compatible quad cassette.

I stopped using open reel when many of my tapes were damaged when the tape got tangled. None of my open-reel tapes are playable today because the brand of tape I used had a rubber traction face on the back and the rubber deteriorated and stuck to the oxide.

Cassettes also failed too often.

I used tape as long as I had to. I haven't done anything with tape in 10 years.