Losing then Regaining Interest in Quad/Surround Sound

[kfbkfb]

My first audio related mag was the 1972-01 issue of Stereo Review, it had an article about "Quadrasonics", throughout 1972 I photocopied/bought mags with news items/articles/whole issues about Quad.

From 1972 to late 1976, I bought/read as as much as I could about Quad.

My interest began to fade around the time of the 1976-11 High Fidelity mag article about Quad fading away.

In ~1976, in the USA, there began to be a lot of publicity about the (soon to be introduced) Laser Videodisc System, a vinyl record with 2 FM carriers paled in comparison to a videodisc played by a laser.

The 1982-06 issue of Video Review contained a reader question about using a SQ or QS decoder to retrieve the Dolby Surround encoded in the stereo soundtrack of movies (cable TV/VHS linear audio/LaserDisc), that question began my renewal of interest in Quad/Surround Sound, the appearance of the SSI-360 home Dolby Surround decoder further increased my interest and I began following developments in home surround sound methods and systems closely.

What was your experience with your interest level from the introduction of Quad in 1969 (USA) to the present?


Kirk Bayne

 

[par4ken]

My first audio related mag was the 1972-01 issue of Stereo Review, it had an article about "Quadrasonics", throughout 1972 I photocopied/bought mags with news items/articles/whole issues about Quad.

From 1972 to late 1976, I bought/read as as much as I could about Quad.

My interest began to fade around the time of the 1976-11 High Fidelity mag article about Quad fading away.

In ~1976, in the USA, there began to be a lot of publicity about the (soon to be introduced) Laser Videodisc System, a vinyl record with 2 FM carriers paled in comparison to a videodisc played by a laser.

The 1982-06 issue of Video Review contained a reader question about using a SQ or QS decoder to retrieve the Dolby Surround encoded in the stereo soundtrack of movies (cable TV/VHS linear audio/LaserDisc), that question began my renewal of interest in Quad/Surround Sound, the appearance of the SSI-360 home Dolby Surround decoder further increased my interest and I began following developments in home surround sound methods and systems closely.

What was your experience with your interest level from the introduction of Quad in 1969 (USA) to the present?


Kirk Bayne

I never ever lost interest in quad. My interest and devotion only increased as quad slowly faded away. I still to this day feel bitter toward the industry that brought us something so great and then abandoned us! Had that been done to colour TV ( it took 10 years or more to catch on) we would still be watching everything in black and white!

We had the chance of a revival with the CD, originally it was designed for quad as well as stereo but the quad version never materialised. Then came DTS CD's another possible revival but then Brad Miller died and new DTS releases stopped!

Dolby Surround being used in movies and TV shows did provide a new source of encoded material that was compatible with quad but tended to shift peoples interest away from music to movie sound effects! Many/most people still listen to music in stereo but watch movies in surround!

Once exposed to quad I don't understand how anybody could ever, ever go back!

 

[kfbkfb]

We had the chance of a revival with the CD

I picked up a Philips CD system brochure at the 1981 SCES in Chicago, it stated the Quad was possible with the CD and that Digital Quad could reawaken a big, new interest in Quad (if I can find it, I'll post scans in the QQ lib).


Kirk Bayne

 

[Doug G.]

I also never lost interest but other things in life got in the way of being able to afford it or set it up.

However, in the late 1990's - early 2000's, I was able to delve back into it, obtaining equipment to reproduce quad records in quad again. The ability to play CD-4 records successfully was particularly rewarding.

For some reason, I avoided digital surround, though, and only recently have bought a Blu Ray player to play all the discs I have received as gifts over the years, mainly from my daughter and son and daughter-in-law, mainly Led Zeppelin and Beatles boxed sets.

It is absolutely wonderful. I also don't understand how anybody could ever go back to two channel unless forced to.

Doug

 

[Soundfield]

Many/most people still listen to music in stereo but watch movies in surround!

I doubt most people watch TV / movies in surround at home. In my experience most people who buy a big new TV don't even bother to upgrade to a sound bar, let alone know or care about surround sound! Can't find any published figures to support my theory but I'd be amazed if it were more than a tiny fraction of all tv sales worldwide that find themselves being deployed as part of a surround sound system.

 

[par4ken]

I doubt most people watch TV / movies in surround at home. In my experience most people who buy a big new TV don't even bother to upgrade to a sound bar, let alone know or care about surround sound! Can't find any published figures to support my theory but I'd be amazed if it were more than a tiny fraction of all tv sales worldwide that find themselves being deployed as part of a surround sound system.

Sometimes while watching movies (or TV) I like to turn on the audio system for the full surround audio effect. More/just as often I simply use the TV speakers. I should clarify that most people (with surround systems) use it for movies rather than for music. Most people in general don't bother but the same majority of people don't even have a descent audio system, they don't care about sound quality.

 

[proufo]

I doubt most people watch TV / movies in surround at home. In my experience most people who buy a big new TV don't even bother to upgrade to a sound bar, let alone know or care about surround sound! Can't find any published figures to support my theory but I'd be amazed if it were more than a tiny fraction of all tv sales worldwide that find themselves being deployed as part of a surround sound system.

I think it is progress that a significant portion of consumers get a soundbar. It is a sign of increasing awareness of the importance of sound in movies, TV and music.

I'm curious about this system (I would wait, though, for a second- or third-generation system with a center speaker):

<HT-A9 Home Theater System | Sony US>

I believe than once someone is exposed to immersive sound, he would be enlightened. I went back to Quad after getting into ambiance recreation, as the gear for it could be the same (if you don't get too anal about it). Ambiance recreation is (to me) a form of immersive sound, more similar to the current trend of immersive multichannel mixes than to the old Quad paradigm of simply distributing individual sounds among the speakers.

 

[ar surround]

I first got interested in quad circa 1972 with Dynaquad. Then I advanced to SQ and CD4 as funds allowed. My interest went on the backburner about 1978 when I bought my first big floorstanding speakers and a 200 wpc amp. I delved back into surround sound in 1989 when I bought my first processor, a Lexicon 7.1 CP1.

 

[RustyStatic]

When the pandemic started I picked up a really basic set of Fluance surround speakers for the living room (as opposed to what I've got going on in my dedicated listening space in the attic), and now we watch absolutely everything in surround by default, and my kids (9 and 11) are converts! That has been fun to see... luckily the Yamaha AVR I have down there is pretty smart so it usually wakes up and knows what we're trying to do, but here and there when it doesn't my little guy asks for help to get the surround on—he insists on it for the Star Wars series, but also for things like baseball and basketball games!

 

[MidiMagic]

I never ever lost interest in quad. My interest and devotion only increased as quad slowly faded away. I still to this day feel bitter toward the industry that brought us something so great and then abandoned us! Had that been done to colour TV ( it took 10 years or more to catch on) we would still be watching everything in black and white!

Dolby Surround being used in movies and TV shows did provide a new source of encoded material that was compatible with quad but tended to shift peoples interest away from music to movie sound effects! Many/most people still listen to music in stereo but watch movies in surround!

Once exposed to quad I don't understand how anybody could ever, ever go back!

It DID happen to color TV. It also happened to TV itself.

- In 1939, the FCC approved two television channels. They were briefly used before the US entered World War II and the FCC rescinded all TV uses of airwaves.
- They then gave what was channel 1 to the military for RADAR use. Now you know why there was no channel 1.
- In 1947, they reinstated TV, although a much better system was used. They provided 5 channels numbered 2 through 6.
- 1n 1951, they approved the CBS field sequential color TV system. This system used a rotating color wheel in front of the camera and the TV tube.
- Then the Korean War happened and the FCC rescinded all color TV to keep manufacturers from retooling during a war.
- In 1953, the FCC approved the RCA compatible color system.

Color took about 10 years to catch on for two reasons:
- The color sets were very expensive (the picture tube cost over $100).
- Most TV stations did not convert to color until the early 1960s.

On the other hand, stereo took about 2 years to catch on.

After I played with quad, I never went back!

- I built the Dynaco diamond in July 1970.
- I discovered that many of my stereo records decoded in the Dynaco system.
- I recorded a sound effects soundtrack for the Dynaco diamond for a school play in 1970. The play was in February 1971.
- As more systems were introduced, I built a flexible decoder to play them.
- I very rarely listen to something in 2 channel stereo unless I am driving.

- When record companies stopped making quad, I was not too worried, because I kept buying soundtrack albums that played in QS.
- When I found out about Dolby Stereo, I bought a Dolby Surround decoder and continued on.
- I even have some CDs in Dolby Surround.
- When I record live bands, I usually create a stereo/QS/Dolby Surround compatible mix.
- I keep Dolby Surround on when watching TV and when listening to records, radio, and CDs..

 

[MidiMagic]

I think it is progress that a significant portion of consumers get a soundbar. It is a sign of increasing awareness of the importance of sound in movies, TV and music.

I'm curious about this system (I would wait, though, for a second- or third-generation system with a center speaker):

<HT-A9 Home Theater System | Sony US>

I believe than once someone is exposed to immersive sound, he would be enlightened. I went back to Quad after getting into ambiance recreation, as the gear for it could be the same (if you don't get too anal about it). Ambiance recreation is (to me) a form of immersive sound, more similar to the current trend of immersive multichannel mixes than to the old Quad paradigm of simply distributing individual sounds among the speakers.

This is the reason I got into Quad. My goal in quad is to recreate the space the performance occurred in. This was one of the original uses of quad with classical music. And in my experiments with the Dynaco diamond, I heard quite a few records intended to be stereo that had this ambience effect. And I discovered methods to record such effects.

My experiences with discrete quad were disappointing. Most of the demos gave me what some called "puddles of sound at the speakers" Add the noises made when CD-4 malfunctions and discrete was quite disappointing.

 

[par4ken]

On the other hand, stereo took about 2 years to catch on.

Not really, most radio was AM which was mono. TV was mono. Records were dual inventory mono and stereo until the late sixties. Singles 45's were mono until the early seventies. Stereo coexisted with mono for a long time before really catching on. Listener shift to stereo FM, the eventual discontinuation of mono LP's completed that gradual shift to stereo. That shift over to stereo was nearly (but not totally) completed when quad was born. So quad was born too soon for many who had only just accepted stereo (but just the right timing for me).

Stereo survived because the transition from mono was easier than the transition to quad. Stereo was more compatible with mono. "Stereos" were big consoles originally, so not much different if mono or stereo. As stereo became more popular separate components became more popular, but still many/most people placed the speakers side by side to save space, not really getting stereo.

 

[MidiMagic]

Not really, most radio was AM which was mono. TV was mono. Records were dual inventory mono and stereo until the late sixties. Singles 45's were mono until the early seventies. Stereo coexisted with mono for a long time before really catching on. Listener shift to stereo FM, the eventual discontinuation of mono LP's completed that gradual shift to stereo. That shift over to stereo was nearly (but not totally) completed when quad was born. So quad was born too soon for many who had only just accepted stereo (but just the right timing for me).

Stereo survived because the transition from mono was easier than the transition to quad. Stereo was more compatible with mono. "Stereos" were big consoles originally, so not much different if mono or stereo. As stereo became more popular separate components became more popular, but still many/most people placed the speakers side by side to save space, not really getting stereo.

AM and TV were mono because the FCC didn't provide for stereo for them until years later.

The main reason for dual inventory records was that mono pickup cartridges would damage stereo records. A secondary reason people bought mono was that the mono records were a dollar cheaper. But stereo equipment was available at comparable prices within two years and replacements for mono pickup cartridges were cheap and easily installed on old equipment.

Color TV was much more expensive than black and white because the color picture tubes cost much more to make. In 1960, a good black and white TV was under $200, while color sets were in the $400 range. And TV stations were reluctant to convert to color when there were only a few hundred color TVs in the market area. My family was one of the first in the area with a color set (my father was a television engineer and had one for testing) and we had to really hunt to find color programs until 1965 (when NBC went all color).

By the way, NTSC color TV is a matrix system.

 

[par4ken]

AM and TV were mono because the FCC didn't provide for stereo for them until years later.

The main reason for dual inventory records was that mono pickup cartridges would damage stereo records. A secondary reason people bought mono was that the mono records were a dollar cheaper. But stereo equipment was available at comparable prices within two years and replacements for mono pickup cartridges were cheap and easily installed on old equipment.

Color TV was much more expensive than black and white because the color picture tubes cost much more to make. In 1960, a good black and white TV was under $200, while color sets were in the $400 range. And TV stations were reluctant to convert to color when there were only a few hundred color TVs in the market area. My family was one of the first in the area with a color set (my father was a television engineer and had one for testing) and we had to really hunt to find color programs until 1965 (when NBC went all color).

By the way, NTSC color TV is a matrix system.

Even once fully adopted it wasn't widely accepted right away. Most people I knew didn't get colour until the early to mid seventies!

 

[Doug G.]

I remember stereo being pretty rapidly accepted. My dad brought a portable stereo player home in 1960, along with some stereo records ("Freedomland" and George Robert's "Bottoms Up!"). I myself would have started buying stereo records as soon as they appeared if I hadn't only had a monophonic record player until the mid sixties, at which time, stereo records were well-established.

Our first color TV was a table model in 1967.

Doug

 

[kfbkfb]

Interestingly, several Music Industry people (Ben Bauer, Louis Dorren, Brad Miller) became converts to Quad/Surround Sound sound in the early days and continued to fight for it throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s.


https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Stereophile/80s/Stereophile-1988-04.pdf#page=5Even in the 1980s, the Colossus Quad Digital recording system was developed by Louis Dorren, I bought one Telarc (stereo) title that used this system for the master recording.


Kirk Bayne

 

[par4ken]

Interestingly, several Music Industry people (Ben Bauer, Louis Dorren, Brad Miller) became converts to Quad/Surround Sound sound in the early days and continued to fight for it throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s.


https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Stereophile/80s/Stereophile-1988-04.pdf#page=5Even in the 1980s, the Colossus Quad Digital recording system was developed by Louis Dorren, I bought one Telarc (stereo) title that used this system for the master recording.


Kirk Bayne

Too bad the world didn't listen to them. I never heard of "Colossus" before.

 

[par4ken]

I remember stereo being pretty rapidly accepted. My dad brought a portable stereo player home in 1960, along with some stereo records ("Freedomland" and George Robert's "Bottoms Up!"). I myself would have started buying stereo records as soon as they appeared if I hadn't only had a monophonic record player until the mid sixties, at which time, stereo records were well-established.

Our first color TV was a table model in 1967.

Doug

Yes stereo was around for quite awhile, but I would hardly say that it was pretty well accepted, (by the industry maybe). The public didn't care all that much. Although It was just as easy to sell a console with two sets of speakers rather than one set, notwithstanding that the average person didn't actually get it (stereo vs mono). As I have repeated over and over most listening including music was primarily mono until the early to mid seventies. Large cities may of had FM stereo from an early date, but that usually was reserved for "serious music". The masses stayed with AM largely until the mid to late seventies. TV went stereo sometime in the eighties. Now today people are listening to their smartphones, Alexa or Google devices, so what is happening to stereo?

 

[ar surround]

The main reason for dual inventory records was that mono pickup cartridges would damage stereo records. A secondary reason people bought mono was that the mono records were a dollar cheaper.

And that dollar premium for stereo was like a 33% hit over the price of the mono version. We had a console stereo. Dad's records of his favorite crooners were stereo. However, he would send me back to the racks when I showed him a stereo Beatles album. "Put it back and get the mono version." Smart man as paying a 33% premium for duophonic was a ripoff.

 

[MidiMagic]

Even once fully adopted it wasn't widely accepted right away. Most people I knew didn't get colour until the early to mid seventies!

That's because the color tube always cost much more. There was no way to dispense with the extra electron guns, the shadow mask, and the extra parts needed to align the three primary colors on one screen.