Does a real existential threat exist to Quadraphonic?

[JimofMaine]

Is there an existential threat to this forum now that mono can be mixed in Atmos?

Innovations such as Peter Jackson's DeMix means mono and stereo can be reimagined spatially. Whatever your personal definition of 3D, quadraphonic, multi-channel and spatial audio is, everything can now be that. What does it mean when we start discussing the Atmos remix of the Beatles mono Revolver album? Is everything now spatial?

In other words what use are Quadraphonic discussions when everything is or can be spatial presentations?

I personally do believe this forum is a valid space where the fascination with aural illusion thrives and can be talked about with common underpinnings.

But this forum's common underpinning and our base assumptions are being questioned and seriously challenged in ways unlike anything in the past. For some time now this forum has accepted that the quadraphonic sound of the 1970s means more than just 4 speakers. But what unique discussions belongs here? Are we now Quadraphonic in name only, having the name being utterly reduced to meaninglessness?

 

[GOS]

I'd say for the majority of members here, the name QQ Quad is just a name. It's pride. Yet, the tagline says; Quadraphonic Quad, Multi-Channel Sound, Past, Present, Future.

 

[GOS]

Not to mention the historical archive of information contained on this site can be found no where else. We're not going anywhere.

 

[Fourplay]

The focus of the forum is listening to music that has been spread out beyond the nominal single or pair of speakers. And the discussion of whether that is well done or not. As new technologies revisit old material, our role becomes more important, not less.

I saw one of the Zappa holographic concerts. It was interesting but not impressive. Have not seen many more such tours forthcoming. New technologies will have to impress the world based on their merits. QQ will continue to help evaluate those successes and failures.

 

[jimfisheye]

Hearing the current results of those science projects should put all worries to rest.

 

[mandrix]

I started upmixing stereo to surround in the same year I joined the forum. The tools available now are very impressive.
A forum member shared with me a recent stereo SACD that he had upmixed to 5.1, and I must say it is very, very good.
So for one who started in mch as an early adopter of Quad, for me the quest has always been just "mch" no matter what flavor it's in.

 

[DrKlahn]

I guess at a fundamental level mono to me means a single sound channel that is intended to be heard on a single speaker. Once you take the information in that mono signal, separate it into it's component parts (tracks), and mix it into 2 or more channels it isn't mono anymore. Really no different than the majority of modern music which is derived from multiple tracks and mixed by the engineer into the target format.

As far as the Quad part, I was born to late to get into the format. But I was onboard with the SACD/DVD-A 5.1 surround formats. When I found the forum and joined it was obviously focused on immersive audio in all it's forms and the name paying tribute the start of moving beyond 2 channels.

 

[Fourplay]

Most mono mixes were more a function of available technology of the time. Notable exceptions were some Beatles mixes, where the band spent more time on the mono. Note that when stereo became the prevalent format you will find very few intentional mono mixes.

 

[sjcorne]

What does it mean when we start discussing the Atmos remix of the Beatles mono Revolver album?

You make it sound as if the Atmos mix was created from the mono version, which isn’t the case. It was remixed from the 4-channel multitrack masters. One song, “Eleanor Rigby,” didn’t even require the stem separation tech.

 

[ar surround]

Innovations such as Peter Jackson's DeMix means mono and stereo can be reimagined spatially.

I demixed / remixed a few Beatles mono tunes: Love Me Do, P.S. I Love You and I'll Get You into 5.1 using DeMix Pro. The instrumentation on these songs is not complex, so the separations came out rather well. And I liked the more 'spatial' presentation that I was able to achieve in 5.1 vs mono. Of course, another alternative would have been to remix them into stereo and see if the Surround Master could do its upmixing thing.

I would love to hear what could be done expanding songs like that into Atmos. But that would be a task for someone with a lot more training and expertise than a hobbiest such as myself.

 

[JimofMaine]

You make it sound as if the Atmos mix was created from the mono version, which isn’t the case. It was remixed from the 4-channel multitrack masters. One song, “Eleanor Rigby,” didn’t even require the stem separation tech.

Shooting a little bit broader of a topic. Pointing out that definitions are blurring.

 

[Simon A]

The threat is real...

 

[DrKlahn]

Shooting a little bit broader of a topic. Pointing out that definitions are blurring.

I guess I would ask is how are they blurring? The thread title itself doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Quad (or 4.0), as a format, isn't really actively done anymore. Sure you have some 5.1 mixes that are mostly 4.1 and you have some older Quad mixes being reissued (yay), but Quad (for the most part) has been superseded by more channels. But there's no real threat to the format any more than there is for 2ch, mono, 5.1 etc. The material out there will continue to be played and enjoyed.

De-mixing tech opens the door to different creative interpretations. Tracks created using the technology aren't really any different than tracks captured on modern equipment. Sure the fidelity of say a drum track de-mixed from a 60 year old master may be lacking compared to something you would record today, but you can do the same things with it.

I think the key thing is formats like Quad or Atmos are like recipes that use the same ingredients in different ways. Steven Wilson could make a mono mix of The Harmony Codex if he wants to. But there's nothing about a song or album mixed to mono that makes it married to the format. Re-mixing music regardless of its roots is simply a reinterpretation and doesn't really threaten anything.

 

[furui_suterioo]

I don't see this as a threat. In fact, it seems like quad and mch music is getting more popular than ever these days. More multichannel mixes means more content and users on this forum. I would say the forum is safe.
Even if it is ai-derived from mono and convwrted to Atmos, i will simply mix it into quad! (If its any good)

 

[quicksrt]

But this forum's common underpinning and our base assumptions are being questioned and seriously challenged in ways unlike anything in the past. For some time now this forum has accepted that the quadraphonic sound of the 1970s means more than just 4 speakers. But what unique discussions belongs here? Are we now Quadraphonic in name only, having the name being utterly reduced to meaninglessness?

No, currently quadraphonic sound of the 70's still means four speakers, same as it did in the 70's. Quad will always mean 4 channels with 4 speakers.
The name of the forums was created to honor and respect that original launched consumer surround format.

 

[JimofMaine]

There are a few old-school, hardliners on this forum where Quad means 4 speakers. Then some who say, to be on point, audio reproduction must simply be more than 4 speakers. Then some on here who say discussion of audio reproductions over headsets or bluetooth aren't worthy of discussion and misses the mark of this forum's intention. So what does it mean to, "honor the surround format?"

In light of the fact that original mono and stereo music is remixed in multi-channel formats, have we reached a technological and cultural tipping point?

Is it spatial? If so, Ambisonics, binaural and WFS, Wave Field Synthesis have been around forever and are the spatial heavyweights in the room, yet seldom are discussed.

What does Quadraphonic Quad mean to you in 2024?

 

[milt]

Umm, the name of this forum?

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...4-demodulator-archive.9035/page-14#post-74028
^^^
Setting up an evaluation system for the proposed quad FM broadcasting systems.

IMHO, quad was the result of Vanguard records, in 1969, evaluating what was possible (consumer open reel tape systems) and possibly what was likely to be practical in home audio systems - quadraphonic sound was the result.

I'd be interested in reading about double blind listening tests to find out how (NQRC type) quad setups compare with 7.1.4 Atmos setups, according to the link, the 7.1 part should sound (imaging wise) pretty much the same as 4.0.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Doug G.]

For the time I have left alive on the earth, I'll just ignore all that crap.

Doug

 

[DrKlahn]

There are a few old-school, hardliners on this forum where Quad means 4 speakers. Then some who say, to be on point, audio reproduction must simply be more than 4 speakers. Then some on here who say discussion of audio reproductions over headsets or bluetooth aren't worthy of discussion and misses the mark of this forum's intention. So what does it mean to, "honor the surround format?"

In light of the fact that original mono and stereo music is remixed in multi-channel formats, have we reached a technological and cultural tipping point?

Is it spatial? If so, Ambisonics, binaural and WFS, Wave Field Synthesis have been around forever and are the spatial heavyweights in the room, yet seldom are discussed.

What does Quadraphonic Quad mean to you in 2024?

Well Quad does mean 4 speakers. More than 4 will have a different name 5.0, 6.1, Atmos, etc.

I don't see a piece of music as being defined by the original target mix. Just because a song was released in mono, doesn't make it a mono song. Taking the elements that make up said song and mixing them for Atmos, means you can hear it Atmos. It's not lesser because it was released originally in mono or stereo.

Spatial or immersive to me is going beyond stereo. Others may have a different definition, but that's how I define it. A song mixed to meet that criteria, makes it spatial. It's roots don't matter to me.

As far as the formats that you mention that are seldom discussed, it's just a product of not being formats that most of us use.

This forum to me is a place that discusses and appreciates spatial audio.