(1973-08) Billboard - Quadrasonic Surge Soon

[kfbkfb]

https://books.google.com/books?id=K...v=onepage&q="star drive" "quadradisc"&f=false

I didn't know that the WEA group had been researching Quad for discs for 2 years prior to the early 1973 announcement about selecting CD-4.


Kirk Bayne

 

[4-earredwonder]

https://books.google.com/books?id=K...v=onepage&q="star drive" "quadradisc"&f=false

I didn't know that the WEA group had been researching Quad for discs for 2 years prior to the early 1973 announcement about selecting CD-4.


Kirk Bayne

STILL waiting for that SURGE, Kirk

The closest I got was Porcupine Tree's IN SURGENTES!

 

[kfbkfb]

I wish the big record cos. had stayed with Quad, NBC TV continued to increase their color TV shows every year from 1954 to 1966, even as late as 1964, color TVs were in a low single digit % of USA homes.

Maybe do what NBC did, highly rated shows were in color, maybe only the biggest selling artists would have their albums in (single inventory) Quad vinyl with everyone else in stereo.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Q-Eight]

Maybe do what NBC did, highly rated shows were in color, maybe only the biggest selling artists would have their albums in (single inventory) Quad vinyl with everyone else in stereo.

It always struck me as funny ("ha-ha" peculiar not "ha-ha" hysterical) that, when you ask the average bloke in the street about Quad, most have no idea what it is or was. Somebody who grew up about that time might recall it as a "flash in the pan" type of deal that came and went without any fanfare. Now granted, there wasn't a whole lot but having these vintage magazines to look back at; what articles there were about the format - you could really get the sense that they were trying their damnedest to get this thing to launch. The same goes for Quad-FM and how the people behind that tried in fits and starts for a couple years. Still, I can't help but think they didn't try hard enough. Like you say, probably only the heavy-hitters should've had Quad albums and rightly so. I mean, I also understand the need to get a healthy amount of product out; but let's begin with the mass-appeal stuff - stuff that we KNOW everybody is going to dig. I know they used to advertise music on TV and Radio; ditto the hardware! And yet, I don't think - to date - a single TV commercial mentioning Quad has ever surfaced. The few radio adverts I've collected over the years from Columbia and RCA artists - even when the album they're talking about got a Quad release - there's no mention of it in the ad. Heck, even some of the ads in magazines don't even mention that a particular album is also getting a Quad product.

And the "trades" magazines only reach so far. Your average music listener probably didn't buy Billboard, Creem or even Rolling Stone unless it specifically showcased something they were interested in.

And you think about the Big Boys in the 70's: Elton John, James Brown, The Who, Led Zepplin, Stevie Wonder, The Rolling Stones, Queen, David Bowie. Might as well be a list of "Who didn't get any Quads?" And then acts like the Eagles who only got 2; Pink Floyd - 3 and Marvin Gaye with a single, abridged live Q8.

So, that's the Top 10 acts between 1971-1978 and only 3 saw Quad product. Not the greatest batting average, is it? And I'm terrible with basketball metaphors.
But then again, we're sort of seeing it today. I've never seen anything advertising ATMOS, I still don't know what RA360 is even supposed to be, and people keep telling me SACD's are dead, when I've done the bulk of my SACD purchasing in the last 5 years.

 

[Doug G.]

As the years have passed, I have become more and more convinced that the chief reason for quad's demise was not the several formats or lack of record/tape releases or any of that. It was because, in the pre-mancave days, the wives were not about to let their husbands take over their living rooms with all that quad gear, not to mention the money spent on it. Heck, the guys were lucky enough to be allowed to have a regular stereo in the living room.

The men just succumbed and settled for two channel and that was it. Single guys buying quad gear and records wasn't enough to sustain it.

Doug

 

[4-earredwonder]

Factoring in ALL of the above .... the wife factor, lack of TV advertising, dearth of BIG A+ Rock/Pop acts in QUAD, et alia, if ONLY TVs in those days had bigger screens and developed surround sound [like the theaters] it probably would've accelerated the growth of QUADRAPHONIC sound. But alas, the screens were small, everything was panned and scanned and if one was lucky enough to own a projection TV [big bulky affairs in those days], it might've caught on.

One literally had to go to the movie theaters to enjoy Surround. But even blockbuster flicks like The Godfather had monaural soundtracks in those days.

And we all have to remember that 'portability' was a big factor as well. The walkman's, the STEREO cassette which piqued the public interest more than bulky QUAD receivers which necessitated four bulky speakers and unsightly wires and crappy SQ/QS decoders as well as finicky CD~4 demodulators .... WAAAYYY too complicated for the average joe.

ANYTHING that wholeheartedly embraces the public interest has to be simple, have that WOW factor and most importantly, be CHEAP ..... like the Hula Hoop which sold in the millions ...way back when!

 

[kfbkfb]

I wonder if the changeover from mono (home systems) to stereo was affected by this type of problem?

Perhaps a wireless (maybe the audio sent w/FM via the home AC power wiring) satellite/subwoofer Quad speaker system would have helped.

The speakers could have built in amps and only need to be plugged into a nearby AC outlet to both receive the audio and power the amp in the speaker, I think 1970s tech could have done this.


Kirk Bayne

 

[4-earredwonder]

I wonder if the changeover from mono (home systems) to stereo was affected by this type of problem?

Perhaps a wireless (maybe the audio sent w/FM via the home AC power wiring) satellite/subwoofer Quad speaker system would have helped.

The speakers could have built in amps and only need to be plugged into a nearby AC outlet to both receive the audio and power the amp in the speaker, I think 1970s tech could have done this.


Kirk Bayne

Kirk, even the switchover to stereo had its growing pains. An additional speaker and stereo amplifier and a stereo cartridge for your turntable which had to be upgraded to accomodate two channels of output and even the software was problematic as in some of those re~channeled stereo LPs which sounded horrible.

As far as self powered speakers which of course would have to be 'wireless ..' to be plugged into a wall were still waiting in the wings to be invented.

And then of course some albums were recorded in three channels but the turntable/cartridges at the time couldn't handle it so it had to wait until the multichannel SACD came into vogue before we could enjoy it in it's full capacity...although there were some three channel Open Reel decks but again, they necessitated three speakers and a three channel capable amplifier...which was a rarity and probably way out of the reach of the 'average joe.'

 

[Q-Eight]

I still think it's a very complicated subject that you can't really put a finger on.
To start, it was "Too much, Too Soon" with RCA releasing 100+ titles on Q8 in 1970 when there were still a relative few quad-capable decks and receivers on the market.
CBS unloading a bunch of it's new titles in '71 to much fanfare but offering up SQ-boxes barely capable of 3 to 5db of separation.... QS barely having any market penetration....
So, you had a lot of Quad product on the market but not selling, and this early equipment of questionable quality not delivering and annoying the public who spent good money on these toys only to be entirely underwhelmed.

Add a couple years for the equipment manufacturers to actually deliver a functional product.... but now it's "Too little, Too late...."
'Cuz by that time, the record companies had their undies in a jam and massively scaled-back the Quad product programs.
And once again, people have invested in these great products that now could deliver them an enjoyable Quad listening session; but now can't get any of their favorite artists or groups in the format because the record companies couldn't sort things out.

Today, I think it's even worse. A lot of us are perfectly capable now of DVD and SACD multichannel playback because those formats have become cheap and reliable. But the record companies don't want to deliver those products anymore and want us to buy more equipment and although I have to eat a bit of crow because it seems Sony has jumped right into Tidal/RA360 with a healthy dose of releases including many I would be on top of. But their system - as good as it may be - doesn't really suit my lifestyle. I have no bippity-boo telephone thing; their system is not supported in my automobile, nor is it compatible with any equipment I currently own and I'm certainly in no position to go out and drop a wad of dough on something that applies not to me.

It's infuriating. I'd *LOVE* to support them. I want multichannel sound to finally gain acceptance and I want the companies to succeed. Hell, I bought several Audio Fidelity and Dutton-Vocalion releases I didn't really want because I want to support the effort. And now I wonder if any of the titles that have been released on RA360 are now off the table for re-release by Dutton-Vocalion. Many of those titles I'd have been on top of had they been SACD's.

 

[Doug G.]

You guys are mentioning all the secondary roadblocks, however. The equipment presence in the living rooms and the spouse resistance was, I believe, the big deal. Mono to stereo wasn't as bad because it really only involved one extra speaker. ;The rest of the equipment was already there. As far as quad, all those other "problems" would have been worked out had the guys been allowed to have the equipment and spend money on it. "Honey, we need new carpet and you want to buy more stuff when we already have a stereo." "Honey, I want to put my plant stand where you want to put yet another speaker and then another one on top of that." It's just the way it is.

And don't get me wrong. I adore females.

Doug

 

[Owen Smith]

I have Castle Harlech foorstanding left/right speakers. I live on my own, but when my mum and dad come to stay mum curses them and says why do I have such ugly things taking up half the spare space in the living room. Dad is more muted but still thinks they're a bit much. Neither of them like my rear speakers on wall brackets, they detract from the wallpaper apparently.

 

[~dave~~wave~]

As the years have passed, I have become more and more convinced that the chief reason for quad's demise was not the several formats or lack of record/tape releases or any of that. It was because, in the pre-mancave days, the wives were not about to let their husbands take over their living rooms with all that quad gear, not to mention the money spent on it. Heck, the guys were lucky enough to be allowed to have a regular stereo in the living room.

The men just succumbed and settled for two channel and that was it. Single guys buying quad gear and records wasn't enough to sustain it.

Doug

I found the 1963 Magnavox brochure with my mom's handwritten notes from when my parents bought the console "stereo" that sat in their living room for the next 55 years.

With four kids, stay-at-home mom, it was a luxury, but one the whole family could enjoy.

I recall they turned the corner after visiting friends who proudly showed theirs off with Andy Williams singing Moon River or something similar.
They were seduced by the "crankable" room-filling sound of the Space Age.

It was definitely the woman's choice of wood and cabinet style to fit her decor.
Walnut Mediterranean in this case.
Manufactured by craftsmen in Indiana before being loaded with vacuum tube electronics & speakers that look like a joke today.

The secret of the massive sound field with speakers only arm's width apart was front-firing woofers with side-firing tweeters (no crossover, only a series capacitor) aimed 180 degrees from each other along the wall.

The price was in the $250-300 range, which multiplies by ten in today's currency.
A big investment, but backed by a 10-year guarantee on the Diamond-tipped Stylus.

It seems the only guys who could afford quad ten years later were single professionals living the Playboy bachelor-pad lifestyle, or like out founder, serving military during the war in Southeast Asia with disposable income & good access to Japanese gear.

 

[4-earredwonder]

So here it is 2022 and only 50 years too late we're FINALLY getting access to the Beatles and some Stones in Surround...and still NO Led Zep. We have NO control what is released in surround and now we're asked to pay up to $300+ dollars for a BD~A 5.1/ATMOS remix [with all kinds of paraphernalia]. And still SURROUND SURROUND remains the niche market IT ALWAYS WAS.

You can wrack out your brains why SURROUND SOUND never became a household commodity but the real truth remains, only zealots like us really care about its existence.

When one considers ALL the music across all genres that has been released over the years and what SCANT few have actually had a surround release, it's a pithy number and for anything to succeed in this fickle society, I think we should have embraced that simple reality by now!

Let's just be grateful we have what we have in surround and stop lamenting the past! We cannot alter HISTORY!

 

[Owen Smith]

I'll point out things are increasingly going from stereo to mono, what with mono DAB radio channels in the UK and some smart speakers being mono unless you buy a second one.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I'll point out things are increasingly going from stereo to mono, what with mono DAB radio channels in the UK and some smart speakers being mono unless you buy a second one.

But if what you say is true, buying a second speaker will only give you double MONO!

 

[audiomaster]

I'm still waiting for a four channel analog in to HDMI Dolby encoded out converter to plug in my receiver. Fortunately my Marantz has discreet analog ins. But if we can have a bunch of hardware that "synthesizes" mono to stereo and stereo to quad, why can't we have one that synthesizes quad to Atmos?

 

[4-earredwonder]

I'm still waiting for a four channel analog in to HDMI Dolby encoded out converter to plug in my receiver. Fortunately my Marantz has discreet analog ins. But if we can have a bunch of hardware that "synthesizes" mono to stereo and stereo to quad, why can't we have one that synthesizes quad to Atmos?

VERY wishful thinking on your part but if your dream synthesizer converted QUAD to ATMOS it would be nothing more than a glorified UPMIX .... hardly the REAL deal!

 

[Doug G.]

I found the 1963 Magnavox brochure with my mom's handwritten notes from when my parents bought the console "stereo" that sat in their living room for the next 55 years.

With four kids, stay-at-home mom, it was a luxury, but one the whole family could enjoy.

I recall they turned the corner after visiting friends who proudly showed theirs off with Andy Williams singing Moon River or something similar.
They were seduced by the "crankable" room-filling sound of the Space Age.

It was definitely the woman's choice of wood and cabinet style to fit her decor.
Walnut Mediterranean in this case.
Manufactured by craftsmen in Indiana before being loaded with vacuum tube electronics & speakers that look like a joke today.

The secret of the massive sound field with speakers only arm's width apart was front-firing woofers with side-firing tweeters (no crossover, only a series capacitor) aimed 180 degrees from each other along the wall.

The price was in the $250-300 range, which multiplies by ten in today's currency.
A big investment, but backed by a 10-year guarantee on the Diamond-tipped Stylus.

It seems the only guys who could afford quad ten years later were single professionals living the Playboy bachelor-pad lifestyle, or like out founder, serving military during the war in Southeast Asia with disposable income & good access to Japanese gear.

Oh yes, the ubiquitous console was an entirely different proposition. Wives loved them because they were a piece of furniture. Much more acceptable than some "ugly" separates sitting on a table or cabinet and speakers taking up the corners of the room where other "decorative" items could be placed.

Doug

 

[MidiMagic]

I was following quadrasonics (the original name) from the beginning. And I knew what I wanted. I wanted compatibility with what I already had.

When they went from mono to stereo, the phonograph record and the compact cassette were made so that the mono recordings played on the stereo player, and (with a small modification), the stereo recordings played in the mono players. That is compatibility.

Reel-to-reel tape was another mess of incompatible formats:
- Full track mono
- Half track mono
- Half track stereo offset
- Half track stereo inline
- Quarter track mono (4 programs)
- Quarter-track stereo

The first quadrasonic things offered were 4-track tapes with all 4 tracks recorded in the same direction. That was not compatible with anything. They could play stereo tapes, but nothing could play the 4-channel tapes except a 4-channel player. And there was no way to put 4 channels on a disc record.

We also had a bunch of head-in-sand marketing "experts" who could not see what was really going on.

The 4-channel reel-to-reel recorders were flying off the shelves. The players were not.
And the 4-channel reel tapes were not selling as much as expected. The experts concluded that people were waiting for "their kind of music" to appear in 4-channel.

The next development was matrix, in the form of the Scheiber system and Dynaco diamond. Not only were these systems totally compatible with stereo, but they were totally compatible with each other. Within a month, I had built my own Dynaco diamond, compatible with everything I had.

People started finding hidden surround information in the stereo records they already had.

Then the EV, Dynaquad, and QS matrix systems appeared. There was still compatibility. There were only minor differences between these systems and the already existing systems.

But sales were mediocre. The marketing "experts concluded that people wanted discrete, because the 4-track recorders were still selling quite well.

When the not-so-compatible SQ and CD-4 systems appeared, compatibility went out the window. The executives wanted each company to develop its own system so the company would not have to pay royalties.

And the sales were still dismal. Then TEAC figured out that the 4-track recorders were not being used for quadraphonic sound. They were going into home-brew recording studios. TEAC (through their TASCAM brand) started selling PortaStudios and the record companies dropped 4-channel recordings.

Then Dolby Surround picked up the slack. It was also a fully compatible system. Beginning with Star Wars, movies were increasingly being encoded in Dolby surround. The matrix is almost identical to the Dynaco diamond. For 20 years, we had a single surround system compatible with all 2-channel media.

Now the compatibility is lost again, as several discrete systems incompatible with each other have appeared.

 

[hafquark]

After devouring all the articles I could find on Quad in the early seventies, it was clear to me the only truly discrete hi-fi format was reel-to-reel tape. That was simply an impossible purchase on my budget, and I suspect cost was the deal-breaker for many others. As far as wife approval factor, my better half has never denied my purchase of speakers, players, AVRs, etc.

The first thing I always did on moving into a new place was to scope out the living room for best speaker/receiver placement, and my wife would work out how to place furniture around the room so as not to interfere with sound dispersion. Love my gal

So for me, it was the budget busting prices beyond anything else that brought my Quadraphonic dreams to a screeching halt.