"Quadraphonic Sound"

[humprof]

I don't know why I'd never seen this before; I was only now led to it by someone answering a question posted on the Quad Traders Facebook group. Really nice nutshell history of quad by @steelydave--but it's buried deep down on the Vocalion site. Next time you hear someone dismissing quad as a failed/dead/gimmicky technology, send 'em here:

https://www.duttonvocalion.co.uk/2016/11/

 

[ar surround]

I wonder if SACD would have become more mainstream had SONY produced all hybrid SACD's instead of those idiotic single layer discs that required SACD machines for playback. The first SACD players were expensive.

 

[JonUrban]

I wonder if SACD would have become more mainstream had SONY produced all hybrid SACD's instead of those idiotic single layer discs that required SACD machines for playback. The first SACD players were expensive.

Or if they didn't completely abandon the format for pop/rock and switch to dualdisc just when the momentum was building with the DSOTM, the SACD sampler in Rolling Stone's 500th issue, and the Dylan Box set. Morons.

The format and the 5.1 DSOTM were getting huge (for surround) press attention at the time, but once again, the suits in some office decided that it was a waste of money and pulled the plug at exactly the wrong time.

PS - The article linked above by our own steelydave is of course perfect in every way. What a great job done by him on that one. You know that took time and research, so a huge cheers to him for that

 

[4-earredwonder]

I wonder if SACD would have become more mainstream had SONY produced all hybrid SACD's instead of those idiotic single layer discs that required SACD machines for playback. The first SACD players were expensive.

Ironically, AR, that WAS Sony's original intent when they first introduced the hybrid SACD format but alas, never happened. First, Single layered STEREO SACD, then the hybrid SACD and SONY even toyed with the idea of including video on SACD [to compete with DVD~A] since SACDs ARE pressed on blank DVDs!

 

[Old Quad Guy]

I wonder how many rare single layer stereo SACDs were returned to the store when they failed to play on a regular CD player. Not so super then.

 

[steelydave]

Thanks guys - D-V asked me to write that to coincide with one of the first big batches of pop releases a few years back, to kind of "introduce" the history of quad and act as a little primer for the uninitiated to try and explain how easy it is nowadays for anyone to get involved with surround sound playback. Nice to know it's having something of a second life, not unlike quad itself!

 

[gene_stl]

I remember seeing an SACD setup at some big retail store. Probably a computer store. They had some airborne tiny speakers not bigger than computer speakers and a sub. I was sort of out of audio at that time (the late nineties or early 2000) but I remember after being interested in the medium and the sound I saw the price both of the player and the SACD. My reaction was never mind. It occurs to me that if they couldn't get me aroused , a degenerate addict, then they were pretty doomed unless they did something very differently. The price was VERY high such that I didn't even think about it again even though I loved my regular CDs and knew that sooner or later there would be CD or better quality multi channel.

 

[JonUrban]

I remember seeing an SACD setup at some big retail store. Probably a computer store. They had some airborne tiny speakers not bigger than computer speakers and a sub. I was sort of out of audio at that time (the late nineties or early 2000) but I remember after being interested in the medium and the sound I saw the price both of the player and the SACD. My reaction was never mind. It occurs to me that if they couldn't get me aroused , a degenerate addict, then they were pretty doomed unless they did something very differently. The price was VERY high such that I didn't even think about it again even though I loved my regular CDs and knew that sooner or later there would be CD or better quality multi channel.

As I recall, the first Sony SACD players were around $1000, and the earliest machines at that price did not do 5.1, they were stereo only, as were those early silver slip-cased discs.

 

[4-earredwonder]

As I recall, the first Sony SACD players were around $1000, and the earliest machines at that price did not do 5.1, they were stereo only, as were those early silver slip-cased discs.

The very first SACD player I ever saw was Sony's uber pricey STEREO ONLY SCD~1 which if I recall retailed at $5K. I also recall A~Bing it with Meridian's then newly released 800 DVD~A player and thought the Meridian sounded better.

Still own that Meridian DVD~A 800 after numerous repairs!

 

[gene_stl]

Yeah the price that comes to mind for the player was something like three or four thousand dollars. In fairness in the good old days when I was young and skinny the very first CD audio players were similarly high priced ie 1500 to 3000 dollars for the very first kewl ones. They did come down quickly.
I remember that Target started carrying one that was $180 and my pal and I bought a couple of them. They were essentially no-name.

 

[surround.sound.enthusiast]

Thanks guys - D-V asked me to write that to coincide with one of the first big batches of pop releases a few years back, to kind of "introduce" the history of quad and act as a little primer for the uninitiated to try and explain how easy it is nowadays for anyone to get involved with surround sound playback. Nice to know it's having something of a second life, not unlike quad itself!

You piece still appears in the Dutton banner at the top of the homepage, but they've got so many releases to talk about now (and that's a good thing!) that it gets buried in the scroll of the banner.

 

[riknik]

Seems Sony/Columbia like to sabotage their own technology/formats. I remember when that Sony SACD player came out. I was flabbergasted that it was so expensive and 2 channel only. To me the exciting thing about SACD was 5.1 channels of HI-Rez audio. I waited for the multi-channel units to appear. Of course the Sony/Columbia SACD's were 2 channel single layer. I just could not believe they undermined their own format. Interestingly, they did the same with SQ quad. They spent many advertising dollars on the advantages of SQ and its stereo compatibility and then they put put dual inventory of quad and stereo LP's. I have wondered if they just put out the compatible quads only, if the format would have faired better. Same with SACD, they should have released a multi-channel version of discs and players. Makes one wonder about companies that ignore their own advertising claims. Unbelievable!

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I love that top load design... and built like a tank....

 

[par4ken]

Seems Sony/Columbia like to sabotage their own technology/formats. I remember when that Sony SACD player came out. I was flabbergasted that it was so expensive and 2 channel only. To me the exciting thing about SACD was 5.1 channels of HI-Rez audio. I waited for the multi-channel units to appear. Of course the Sony/Columbia SACD's were 2 channel single layer. I just could not believe they undermined their own format. Interestingly, they did the same with SQ quad. They spent many advertising dollars on the advantages of SQ and its stereo compatibility and then they put put dual inventory of quad and stereo LP's. I have wondered if they just put out the compatible quads only, if the format would have faired better. Same with SACD, they should have released a multi-channel version of discs and players. Makes one wonder about companies that ignore their own advertising claims. Unbelievable!

I fully agree with you, and don't forget the Betamax, a bit better format than VHS and highly touted by them, then finally dropped.

Personally I didn't mind the single layer discs but it would of been upsetting if you had only CD playback capability, and then tried to play one. I suspect that they didn't originally have the ability to make hybrid discs.