(1972) CBS (not CD-4) Discrete Quadraphonic Vinyl Disc System

[kfbkfb]

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1972-07.pdf#page=20^^^
"...our initial work on quadraphonic disc systems at CBS Laboratories was based on the use of carriers."


IMHO, CBS Labs gave up too soon, maybe a dbx type NR system used on the carriers would
have helped to greatly reduce the distortion and made this system practical.


Kirk Bayne

 

[4-earredwonder]

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1972-07.pdf#page=20^^^
"...our initial work on quadraphonic disc systems at CBS Laboratories was based on the use of carriers."


IMHO, CBS Labs gave up too soon, maybe a dbx type NR system used on the carriers would
have helped to greatly reduce the distortion and made this system practical.


Kirk Bayne

In hindsight, Kirk, if all these major record company conglomerates with their various and frankly confusing matrix/CD~4 systems had actually used the 'consumer' turntables and matrix/CD~4 receivers of the day they would've realized it was a futile attempt at introducing surround sound into the home. I'm sure it all sounded great under studio conditions utilizing at the time state of the art equipment and 'modified' CD~4 decoders but coupled with poor pressings and inferior consumer grade components, it was indeed a BUST. Yes, tape based QR [7 1/2 ips] and Q8 [3 3/4 ips] was closer to the 'truth' but still was sorely lacking in reproducing the 15 ips QUAD master tapes and of course it was not until the introduction of DVD~A, SACD and BD~A that we were finally able to hear those QUAD master tapes reproduced in all their glory.

Doubtful even dbx could've saved the day unless they employed the equivalent of Quiex vinyl pressings to minimize all those anomalies which matrix/CD~4 encodes introduced into the mix. And from reading ALL the reviews of QQ posters who still collect old vinyl QUAD pressings ........ a newly minted QUAD SACD from the original analogue masters surpass those 70's Q8s, QRs and matrixed/CD~4 vinyl ...... in SPADES!

IMHO, those early attempts at QUAD was a clear cut case of NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME and curtailed further attempts at surround for MUSIC for almost 25 years.....and we can thank the motion picture industry for piquing a revival in surround with their Dolby Surround and Dolby Digital systems which prompted DTS Entertainment to start releasing DTS 5.1 surround discs in the late 90's.

 

[kfbkfb]

IIRC, other articles in Audio and elsewhere stated that Quad had to work on Vinyl records
in order to have any chance to become mainstream.

Maybe something dramatic like the introduction of Stereo on Vinyl records:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Fidelity_Records^^^
"...the first mass-produced American stereophonic long-playing record in November 1957..."

A small company broke the logjam and also caused the standardization of Stereo Vinyl records
(too bad something similar didn't happen with Quad Vinyl records).


Kirk Bayne

 

[JonUrban]

I was there and I can say unequivocally that CD-4 worked for me, and I had a pretty low grade system. A JVC 4-DD5, a Pickering XUV-4500Q (the one with the brush) and a Heathkit 4 channel receiver that I built. Of all of the quad LPs I bought at the time (I was in the military mind you), the only real LP's that shined for me and were worthy of demoing were CD-4 LPs and the Ovation Vector 4 QS Demo Disc. And back then, I had a LOT of friends (being in a squadron you automatically had many friends) who came over and they got the big demo. My favorites to use were "Gorilla", "Spinners", "Snowflakes are Dancing", "On the Border", "Machine Head" and "Paranoid".

I do remember making sure I adjusted those little potentiometers on the back of the JVC with the test 45 if I was going to have newbies over that night. Still, I never had huge issues with CD-4, and compared to the shit that was the SQ LP (without a real good decoder [pre-Tate], these were spectacular.

Again, I admit I was an electrical engineer so to speak so I could deal with the extra effort in setting things up that the average housewife/plumber might not have a grip on, but it was not as hard to get good CD-4 as some speak of today. Today, the hardware needed (Demod, Stylus) is all ancient, so it's going to be even harder to get it to shine, but in 1975 it was not a huge deal.

Really

PS - That's not to say they should have had a better approach and unity in the marketing. Same old story. Confused public = shitty sales.

 

[Q-Eight]

Today, the hardware needed (Demod, Stylus) is all ancient, so it's going to be even harder to get it to shine, but in 1975 it was not a huge deal.

I think that's where most of my issues came from. The fact that it took over a decade for me to really perfect my CD-4 setup came down to both an utter and complete lack of money, but also the same attitude towards the format. I just didn't care and I wasn't going to keep throwing paychecks at it. It wasn't that important. Not to mention it's not easy to find working demodulators and compatible cartridges 40-odd years down the line. It's not impossible, but there certainly are hurdles. Back in the day, when you actually had things like record shops and stereo stores, you probably could pop down to them and 45 minutes later have a working CD-4 setup.

But now that it works.... it truly has become "Set it and forget it". I rarely have to adjust my demodulator, I just throw on an LP and go. It's actually quite fun now and has made me expand my CD-4 library. My QS collection is next, and SQ - dead last. There's even a Tate in my setup and it still hasn't sold me on SQ.

If anything, I'll say SQ wasn't ready for prime time. CD-4 and even QS can destroy it. Maybe the idea behind SQ was sound, but the equipment to play it back and actually be convincing never materialized.