Lists of Discogs item written "QUADRAPHONIC" that need to be know as QUADRAPHONIC FOR SURE

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

kvadro

400 Club - QQ All-Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
433
Location
France

DuncanS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
6,223
Location
UK
There are a lot of albums which were recorded at Quadraphonic Studios which get listed in a search even though they are stereo
 

kvadro

400 Club - QQ All-Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
433
Location
France
There are a lot of albums which were recorded at Quadraphonic Studios which get listed in a search even though they are stereo
YES BUT NOT THOSE PLEASE

(THANKS DuncanS for this reminder!)

Here are other ones:
 
Last edited:

Old Quad Guy

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,485
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
This reminds when looking for a surround SACD or DVD-A, and a title being confused with regular CD version.

Unless you see an actual photo of what you’re buying (not a stock photo), you need to contact seller and ask questions, knowing what the seller should look for. Sometimes a seller will know what surround is, or more often than not, won’t have a clue because they’re selling someone else’s collection. Ask seller before buying. And let them know what to look for.

Perhaps one could contact Discogs and report a mislabeled item. The problem I have with Discogs is that they’re trying to be an information source And a seller source, and the two don’t always go together all that great. Especially when you have 8 different versions of a title on record and CD.
 

steelydave

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Apr 21, 2002
Messages
2,464
Location
Toronto, ON
Discogs is a "community" site where users submit and maintain the entries and vote on their correctness (or incorrectness) so if there are errors, posting here will do nothing. You should edit the entries in question and remove the incorrect tags.

I've added something like 900 quad releases (and over 3000 images) from my own collection but I think I'm done with contributing to that site because there's a small but vocal cadre of dickheads there that are more intent on enforcing the letter of the law than the intent of the law. I wasn't looking for fame or fortune in doing all this - I just wanted to make discogs useful as a quad resource, which it wasn't before - but by the same token, life is too short to be harassed by a bunch of misanthropic keyboard warriors for trying to do a good deed, so someone else can take up the mantle if they want to.

1627244150504.png
 

timbre4

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
QQ Supporter
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
7,530
Location
College Grove, TN
Wow Dave, I thought QQ got pretty anal at times but we've got nothing on what happens on Discogs! You contributed an incredible amount of quad release data and images (from heavily vetted sources if not your physical copies) only to get slammed by some jealous trolls using the rules against you. Other than explaining to someone today what a Schwann Record & Tape Catalog catalog was, I don't see myself participating in this process. Again, hats off to you for your efforts there.
 

humprof

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
3,048
Location
NoCal
Wow Dave, I thought QQ got pretty anal at times but we've got nothing on what happens on Discogs! You contributed an incredible amount of quad release data and images (from heavily vetted sources if not your physical copies) only to get slammed by some jealous trolls using the rules against you. Other than explaining to someone today what a Schwann Record & Tape Catalog catalog was, I don't see myself participating in this process. Again, hats off to you for your efforts there.
Who made "fishbulb" the Discogs hall monitor, anyway? I see there's a section of his/her/their profile devoted to "Rules I'd Like To See Changed." Myself, I'd like to see Guideline (not "Rule") #1.1.1 ("You must have the exact release in your possession when you make a release submission") changed. Is it controversial to think that there are other ways of verifying the existence of a thing besides holding that thing in your hands and looking at it with your own eyes? That's not meant to be a metaphysical question (even if various branches of philosophy have had a thing or two to say about it over the millennia), but rather a scholarly and, erm, a discographical one. There's a difference between basing a discographical entry on rumor, hearsay, memory, a random website, etc., and basing it on one or more credible sources. And there are principles for distinguishing between credible and non-credible sources. Historians, researchers, and discographers don't only rely on sight and possession. Sheesh.
 
Last edited:

DuncanS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
6,223
Location
UK
............... and also people fake items for all sorts of reasons (normally greed!), so having something in your hand which isn't on a discography doesn't make it real
 
Top