Official SQ Questionnaire (Scans)

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Unlike some of you, I prefer matrix over discrete. I also like phonograph records over any other format.

I decided to answer the survey (leaving out ID data) for when I bought my first SQ record in 1972:

SQ Survey

Frequently, we like to ask our customers to help us by giving their opinions about various topics. Would you please rake a few minutes to give us your opinions by filling in this questionnaire. Just fold it so that the address is on the outside and mail it back to us.

1. First, please tell us the name of the artist and title of the SQ record you just bought:
Artist: Sly and the Family Stone
Title: Greatest hits

2. In what type of store did you buy it?
Hi-Fi store
Record store
Discount store
Department store X
Other

3. What were the main reasons you bought this record? Was it because: (check as many as apply ):
I own SQ playback equipment
I plan to buy SQ playback equipment
It was the only four-channel record I could get
I wanted to see how it would sound on my stereo equipment X
I wanted this particular record and it happened to be in SQ X
I was looking for this record but couldn't get the stereo version
I wanted a four-channel record X
Other reasons ( write in ) Find out how it sounds on Dynaco diamond

4. How did you first learn about this particular SQ record? Found it in the store

5. Did this SQ record meet your expectations?
Yes

6. There are now several different types of 4-channel records available.
Would you please check in the boxes below those that you have heard of,
the ones you have actually listened to and the number of each type of 4-channel records you personally own, if any.

SQ Own
EV Own
QS Own
RCA CD4 no

7. Of those that you listened to and checked above, which do you think sounds best?

SQ
QS
EV X
RCA CD4
Why do you say that? Better hall ambience

8. We'd like your opinions of the SQ system compared to other four-channel systems on the market.
For each of the characteristics listed below, please tell us whether the SQ system has a great advantage over the other systems, a slight advantage or none at all.

Equipment cost: none
Equipment availability: none
Equipment quality: equal
Equipment compatibility with stereo equipment you own: none
Equipment compatibility with four-channel equipment you own: slight
Records cost: More expensive
Records availability: none
Records quality: Same

Compared to other four-channel systems, SQ has a:
None Advantage

9. Do you think four-channel sound represents an improvement over two-channel (stereo) sound?
Yes

10. Do you have any 4-channel records that are the same as stereo records you own, that is, the same album title by the same attist?
No

11. If yes: How would you say the four-channel version compares to the stereo in terms of:
4-Channels
Overall sound
Channel separation
Instrument identification
Sound clarity/no distortion
Bass response
Sound level

Much Better
Somewhat Better
About the Same
Somewhat Worse
Much Worse

12. Would you prefer 4-channel recordings which feature: ( check one )
Separate sound from each of the speakers
Ambient sound, primary sound from front, with 4 speakers
concert hall echo from rear speakers X

13. Do you own any four-channel playback equipment?
Yes

If yes: Please enter below the four-channel equipment you own. Please list the brand, model number and approximate date purchased.
Approximate Brand: Homemade
Model #
Date Purchased

4-channel receiver
Stereo receiver
4-channel amplifier
Stereo amplifier ( for front channels )
Stereo amplifier ( for rear channels)
Decoder
4-channel compact system
Front speakers
Rear speakers

14. Do you plan or expect to buy any four-channel equipment:
In the next 3 months
Over a year from now
In the next 6 months
Don't know when I'll buy
In the next year
Do not plan to buy

What type of equipment do you plan to buy? ( Receiver, amplifier, etc.)

22. How would you say your record collection breaks down, that is, about what percentage is:
(please try to make it add to 100%)
Classical 10
Popular 20
Rock 49
Folk 0
Show 0
Country 1
Jazz 20
Other Types
Well I am with you. I know this will not make me popular with some, but I always believed quad foundered because no LP system worked for crap for the first four years or so, and for the common man in 1975, CD-4 never really was viable. It was just too costly and too finicky. Even today, I probably play one of my CD-4s less than once a year and even then its almost always a disappointment. Menmawhile, an SQ though a tate or a QS through my QSD-2 is quite satisfactory. IS it "discrete"? Sometimes closer than others, but generally no. Is the localization still very good? Definitely. Am I sitting with a joystick checking for discrete-ness? Nope. Listening to the sound having it be less "four corners" in my fairly large living room is actually better. And the matrix records just sound better. First of all CD-4 is limited by using the pre-amp built into the demodulator, and while my Marantz CD-400 was a decent pre-amp for the time, its pretty awful compared to my modern pre-amp. Adding to that many CD-4s have a very compressed sound to my ears. Always have. I am not sure what causes this effect. They are better running through the demodulator than in stereo, but its always there. Again, some are better than others. The Electra/Warners are the worst. I love Late for the Sky but the bass is wretched, muffled, and thumpy. The highs are rolled off as with many CD-4s. Now I admit that CBS SQs had some compromises in fidelity, such as boosted midrange and thinner sound, but I can compensate for that with EQ, somewhat, not so with CD-4. Partly this is the peculiarities of my setup that there's less EQ in the CD-4 side of things, since it doesn't run through the same pre-amp. Oh, and I can't use my moving coil cartridge, because its too low output for a CD-4 preamp. So I still need a separate TT and cart. And on and on. So while SQ in particular bears a lot of the fault for quad's failure because it was rushed to market before the decoders were ready, CD-4 was just as bad, just for other reasons. I knew folks with Panasonic and other cheap CD-4 systems that loved it the first few weeks, then the records stopped working and they threw them away and gave up, same as folks who got their SQ record home and played it on their basic decoder and tried to figure out what was wrong. If either system had come to market mature and working, say QS with Vario or SQ with full logic, they would have succeeded. Or so I think from talking to many early adopters that abandoned quad in the early years. Sorry this is so long! Feel free to delete!
 
Matrix record technologies I also find to be the most interesting, but I do think cd-4 had soooooo much potential maybe because I've had pretty good luck with it from the start. Since the technology is so complicated and interesting it's that much more awe inspiring when it still works perfectly after almost 50 years. Also, some cd-4s seem to have really strong bass peaks, the kind that startle you and you can feel in your chest, more so than sq.
 
Back
Top