Record Stores - Dual Inventory - Mono/Stereo/Quad

[kfbkfb]

I bought my first record in 1972 so I mostly missed the Mono/Stereo dual inventory situation
(although I did inadvertently buy a Mono 45 in 1973).

From what I've read, Record Stores were able to manage the Mono/Stereo dual inventory
situation from about 1960 to 1968 (USA), Stereo albums were $1 more than Mono albums
and both versions were stocked in the same (artist) bin.

Along comes Quad (SQ in 1971, CD-4 in 1972) and suddenly, many of these same Record
Stores separate all the Quad albums into a separate bin, even though the Stereo/Quad
dual inventory situation is virtually the same as the Mono/Stereo situation ($1 more for
most Quad albums, except for the 1st year of single inventory RCA QuadraDiscs).

Any idea as to why the Record Stores did this (IMHO, this was a significant factor in
slowing the acceptance of Quad LPs)?

Kirk Bayne

 

[4-earredwonder]

I bought my first record in 1972 so I mostly missed the Mono/Stereo dual inventory situation
(although I did inadvertently buy a Mono 45 in 1973).

From what I've read, Record Stores were able to manage the Mono/Stereo dual inventory
situation from about 1960 to 1968 (USA), Stereo albums were $1 more than Mono albums
and both versions were stocked in the same (artist) bin.

Along comes Quad (SQ in 1971, CD-4 in 1972) and suddenly, many of these same Record
Stores separate all the Quad albums into a separate bin, even though the Stereo/Quad
dual inventory situation is virtually the same as the Mono/Stereo situation ($1 more for
most Quad albums, except for the 1st year of single inventory RCA QuadraDiscs).

Any idea as to why the Record Stores did this (IMHO, this was a significant factor in
slowing the acceptance of Quad LPs)?

Kirk Bayne

Probably for the very same reason they separated the cassettes, 8 tracks, QUAD Open Reels and QUAD 8 tracks .........

It was a very confusing time with all these disparate formats and since QUAD LPs were $1 more than their stereo counterparts a way of not overcharging the 'unsuspecting' consumer for something they didn't want.

 

[holland123]

my guess is that it was easier for folks to find the Quad Lp's, I certainly appreciated the fact that stores had a separate bin for DVD-A and SACD (in it's heyday) so I didn't have to sift through everything else to find my multichannel hi res stuff. I remember looking through the Quad bins back in the day but I was young and too broke to purchase, in my area they were more than 1 dollar extra. I recall standard Lp's at 5.99, and Quads were up around 8.99 ,money was tight so i just oogled. Interesting thought but not really sure why the separation of stock would hamper sales?

 

[4-earredwonder]

my guess is that it was easier for folks to find the Quad Lp's, I certainly appreciated the fact that stores had a separate bin for DVD-A and SACD (in it's heyday) so I didn't have to sift through everything else to find my multichannel hi res stuff. I remember looking through the Quad bins back in the day but I was young and too broke to purchase, in my area they were more than 1 dollar extra. I recall standard Lp's at 5.99, and Quads were up around 8.99 ,money was tight so i just oogled. Interesting thought but not really sure why the separation of stock would hamper sales?

Perhaps another reason QUAD failed was if one recalls a lot of audio buffs had just made the transition from MONO to STEREO just a scant few years prior and it meant adding additional speakers and investing in new QUAD receivers. Unless one was an audiophile, the prospect of adding more of everything was hardly a justifiable priority. And people were still transitioning from B&W to Color TVs.

 

[DuncanS]

I remember when my father got rid of the mono radiogram they'd had since they got married and got his first stereo system (we went into London and he got it from Lasky's on Tottenham Court Road I think) he was overjoyed to find that a lot of the LPs he'd bought were already stereo, so he bought an album on whether he liked it, not its format (I have all his LPs & 78s). Even if he'd wanted to buy a Quad system, I doubt if he could afford it with us kids, and I can't believe my mother would have let him have two more speakers in the room! So I suspect that cost of the equipment was a big factor in why Quad never took off over here, the early/mid-70s were not a good time financially in the UK.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I remember when my father got rid of the mono radiogram they'd had since they got married and got his first stereo system (we went into London and he got it from Lasky's on Tottenham Court Road I think) he was overjoyed to find that a lot of the LPs he'd bought were already stereo, so he bought an album on whether he liked it, not its format (I have all his LPs & 78s). Even if he'd wanted to buy a Quad system, I doubt if he could afford it with us kids, and I can't believe my mother would have let him have two more speakers in the room! So I suspect that cost of the equipment was a big factor in why Quad never took off over here, the early/mid-70s were not a good time financially in the UK.

My father didn't buy a color TV until well after it became more mainstream in the states and the first one he bought [some NO name brand] was horrible. I used to go to my friends house to watch Bonanza and truth be told, most of those early color TVs had a garish green tint.

And now I have a state of the art LG OLED 3D TV with that sexy curved screen....and the entire cast of Bonanza is six feet under!

 

[halbroome]

Speaking for myself, I was in the early years of college and couldn't afford a good stereo system, let alone a quad. I did know some dudes who shared a house and one of them had a dinky quad system, so I bought them the quad vinyl of BIRDS OF FIRE in appreciation of the fun nights there There was little else in the area to choose from, though, as I certainly would have bought one of the JA quad vinyls instead. Quad then fell off my radar almost immediately until recently.

Now I did have a friend around the same time whose father had a fantastic quad system (making the college house a dinky system with equally dinky sound). The big complaint of everyone awed by the giant speakers in each corner was that he only played country on it!!! I lived in a rural state, so he must have had access to some amazing quad vinyl of country. Wonder what happened to it. . . .

 

[JonUrban]

I remember it distinctly. The big record stores had a quad section, much like Best Buy and Media Play had a DVD-A/SACD section. However, just like with DVD-A and SACD, the selection was very limited. Back then there was no internet (duh), so what was in the store was what you could buy. (There were some mail order places, but these were used by wacko's like me, the average Joe could not be bothered)

The biggest complaint I would get whenever I would show off my quad system, or try and get others interested in quad was that the music they wanted to hear was not available, was not available in "their format", or just could not be bought.

I remember being on the ship (in the Navy) and getting the Sound Concepts catalog in the mail. They listed almost every quad title for sale at the time (1975-ish). My shop mates would get sort of interested (since many of us would buy audio equipment either on the ship, from the Mail Order Catalog, or at exchanges throughout Europe. After looking through that catalog, so many of my ship mates would say "Is that it?" "What about....."

We know all of those quad titles by heart by now, which label put out what, but when you think of all of the music that was NOT available in quad, that's the main reason many did not make the leap.

Sure, it cost more, and it took up more space, and the systems were all different and some didn't work great. That is all true. But what drives sales is product and when you can't get Elton John, Fleetwood Mac, David Bowie, Stevie Wonder, Hall & Oats, and other artists of the time in quad, you take a hit. And just like SACD and DVD-A (at retail), many times the good stuff would be in the store and get sold, never to be replaced in the racks.

The Q8 stock in many stores was far greater and diverse than the LP stock, mostly because there were many more titles available in Q8 only, plus Quad 8's actually worked and played decent quad.

Reels were far and few between in stores, and those that stocked them had then in the way back of the store, and usually priced over $10 (which was a lot back then)

Anyway, I used to love to go to Peaches and Tracks and King Karol and other big record stores and look for the quads. Always hoping to find something good that I did not know existed.

Once the quad sections went away, the remaining quad LP's ended up in the regular racks, or appeared in the cut out bins. That's why so many quad records you find today have the saw mark or cut corner.

I'd say the original reason they had the separate sections was they wanted to highlight that they had quad stuff. IF they just put it in the racks with the stereo stuff, it would go unnoticed and not entice prospective buyers to make the leap. Most SACD's did not start out mixed in with the CD's in the early '00's. Same reason.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I remember it distinctly. The big record stores had a quad section, much like Best Buy and Media Play had a DVD-A/SACD section. However, just like with DVD-A and SACD, the selection was very limited. Back then there was no internet (duh), so what was in the store was what you could buy. (There were some mail order places, but these were used by wacko's like me, the average Joe could not be bothered)

The biggest complaint I would get whenever I would show off my quad system, or try and get others interested in quad was that the music they wanted to hear was not available, was not available in "their format", or just could not be bought.

I remember being on the ship (in the Navy) and getting the Sound Concepts catalog in the mail. They listed almost every quad title for sale at the time (1975-ish). My shop mates would get sort of interested (since many of us would buy audio equipment either on the ship, from the Mail Order Catalog, or at exchanges throughout Europe. After looking through that catalog, so many of my ship mates would say "Is that it?" "What about....."

We know all of those quad titles by heart by now, which label put out what, but when you think of all of the music that was NOT available in quad, that's the main reason many did not make the leap.

Sure, it cost more, and it took up more space, and the systems were all different and some didn't work great. That is all true. But what drives sales is product and when you can't get Elton John, Fleetwood Mac, David Bowie, Stevie Wonder, Hall & Oats, and other artists of the time in quad, you take a hit. And just like SACD and DVD-A (at retail), many times the good stuff would be in the store and get sold, never to be replaced in the racks.

The Q8 stock in many stores was far greater and diverse than the LP stock, mostly because there were many more titles available in Q8 only, plus Quad 8's actually worked and played decent quad.

Reels were far and few between in stores, and those that stocked them had then in the way back of the store, and usually priced over $10 (which was a lot back then)

Anyway, I used to love to go to Peaches and Tracks and King Karol and other big record stores and look for the quads. Always hoping to find something good that I did not know existed.

Once the quad sections went away, the remaining quad LP's ended up in the regular racks, or appeared in the cut out bins. That's why so many quad records you find today have the saw mark or cut corner.

You certainly hit the nail on the head Jon when your friends [and my friends, as well] questioned the LACK of their favorite or even current popular artists of the time as available in ANY Quad format. No Beatles, Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc. but I'm surprised none of those artists embraced QUAD Open Reel as the best medium to release their albums as I'm sure a lot of them heard the matrix systems and the Q8s and said .....NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.

Of course, investing in QUAD Open Reel was a bit pricey at the time and the reels did cost more than the LPs or Q8s but, IMO, they were SO MUCH BETTER but the unfortunate downside was lack of titles with Columbia Records being the conspicuous hold~out.

You'd think when they launched SACD/MLP DVD~A multi in the early 2000s they'd learn that 'valuable' lesson ...... but obviously NOT. In fact, a lot of the pre~announced titles [never released] were more desirable than the ones they did release.

Which brings us to the present ........ We're finally getting the Beatles, Led Zeppelin [well, not their core albums] and some tasty titles on a fairly regular basis which is, when you think of it, sort of a minor miracle.

And NOT to toot your horn, Jon, but you can take responsibility for a lot of those new releases. I think without QQ and the unbridled enthusiasm of its posters [call us surround geeks.....WE don't mind] we may be a few years overdue....but it is HAPPENING.

As the saying goes......BETTER LATE THAN NEVER!

SIX SPEAKERS ARE CERTAINLY BETTER THAN TWO!NERD ... ever hear of contacts?

 

[holland123]

it seems to me that the entire marketing strategy of Quad was severely flawed. the target market should have been more like the 18-28 year olds instead of what appears to to be 30-50 year olds. almost all of the quad demo lps were filled with classical, show tunes, montovani, elevator music and the like. If you were lucky 1track on the album was a Lawrence welk doing the carpenters. I would hang out at my local Lafayette electronics store and beg them to put something good on but more often than not it was one of those demo discs filled with music my grandma liked. If i got a younger salesperson they would play something that moved, but the older guys just wanted to throw me out. Lp was definitely the goto medium of the decade for Audio enthusiasts, yes R2R was exceptional and the ultimate quad medium but it was way too expensive and I don't remember any pre recorded R2R's in that store whatsoever. 8 track was already gasping it's last breath as cassette was on the scene with superior sonics and no annoying click-bang every few tracks. By the time i finally saved up and bought a Lafayette integrated quad amp with a whopping 25watts of butt thumping power it was very hard to find anything decent that wasn't chewed up and barely playable. bought most of my albums through the record clubs, I'm sure my US friends remember those, capital, Columbia, Record club of america. If you were an avid music buyer like myself they were a great deal. cut your album price down to 3 or 4 dollars per. And I do remember a tiny Quad selection there, but by the time I was ready to buy they were pretty much extinct.

 

[4-earredwonder]

it seems to me that the entire marketing strategy of Quad was severely flawed. the target market should have been more like the 18-28 year olds instead of what appears to to be 30-50 year olds. almost all of the quad demo lps were filled with classical, show tunes, montovani, elevator music and the like. If you were lucky 1track on the album was a Lawrence welk doing the carpenters. I would hang out at my local Lafayette electronics store and beg them to put something good on but more often than not it was one of those demo discs filled with music my grandma liked. If i got a younger salesperson they would play something that moved, but the older guys just wanted to throw me out. Lp was definitely the goto medium of the decade for Audio enthusiasts, yes R2R was exceptional and the ultimate quad medium but it was way too expensive and I don't remember any pre recorded R2R's in that store whatsoever. 8 track was already gasping it's last breath as cassette was on the scene with superior sonics and no annoying click-bang every few tracks. By the time i finally saved up and bought a Lafayette integrated quad amp with a whopping 25watts of butt thumping power it was very hard to find anything decent that wasn't chewed up and barely playable. bought most of my albums through the record clubs, I'm sure my US friends remember those, capital, Columbia, Record club of america. If you were an avid music buyer like myself they were a great deal. cut your album price down to 3 or 4 dollars per. And I do remember a tiny Quad selection there, but by the time I was ready to buy they were pretty much extinct.

That does seem to be the common mantra of why QUAD failed. The hardware manufacturers and Major Record Companies probably thought the 18~28 year olds were either strapped for cash, serving in Viet Nam or barefoot hippies who spent their dough on weed so the demographics were a middle, upper class of, as you surmised, 30~50 year olds. ALL the best albums of the era were never released in QUAD in any format so the pickings were slim [read B O R I N G] and the skimpy ampage of most receivers of the time hardly generated any real excitement [25~50 watts per channel rms was the average]. And if you were in college, portable all in one systems were de rigger with those detachable stereo speakers custom made for those 2 by 4 dorm rooms.

Ah well, the past is past and here we find ourselves in the present with state of the art digital mediums capable of giving us as many as 9.1 discrete channels of sound with mega watt receivers/5.1 channel amps/subwoofers and more efficient speakers of every conceivable design and FINALLY, some choice music to play on them although I'm sure there are still hundreds, if NOT thousands of favorite LPs which will never get that much coveted surround treatment. But the fact also remains that a lot of those guilty pleasure LPs from the past, likewise, were never released on a digital medium so the ole saying you can't always get what you want is still currently in vogue.

But the real excitement, I feel, lies ahead as more and more artists are realizing that not only does their music sound better when remixed for 5.1 [you CAN hear things you never did via the stereo mix] but they're also introducing their music to a newer generation in much higher res formats.

The only regret .... newer artists are still conceiving their albums for STEREO which is kind of a head scratcher for me .......... will they ever wake up that conceiving albums for 5.1/7.1/9.1 would make their brainchildren that much more enticing?

Doesn't mixing 48 .... 36 ...... 24 tracks of audio information into 2 tracks seem a bit COUNTERPRODUCTIVE....almost PRIMITIVE?

Or maybe it's time the Grammys started giving out awards for the BEST SURROUND REMIX of a POP/ROCK/JAZZ album during the actual Awards ceremony in lieu of at a private [untelevised] one. Every egotistical record producer alive [ male divas one 'n all] would be tripping over each other to create the finest SURROUND remix for their artist clients!

WHO NEEDS A BRA?

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/qs-albums.1799/page-3
^^^
As a musician and record producer, Dick Schory, president of Ovation, was commited to multi-channel recording, but his, like other companies, could not ignore the common record store practice of segregating quad records in a special section where only quad enthusiasts would find them. So, he obscured this feature in the later releases.


Too bad RCA didn't stick with single inventory QuadraDiscs,
with the logo in small print so they would likely be stocked
in the artist bin rather than the Quad bin.

Kirk Bayne

 

[4-earredwonder]

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/qs-albums.1799/page-3
^^^
As a musician and record producer, Dick Schory, president of Ovation, was commited to multi-channel recording, but his, like other companies, could not ignore the common record store practice of segregating quad records in a special section where only quad enthusiasts would find them. So, he obscured this feature in the later releases.


Too bad RCA didn't stick with single inventory QuadraDiscs,
with the logo in small print so they would likely be stocked
in the artist bin rather than the Quad bin.

Kirk Bayne

I think what led to the ultimate confusion was the insistence of the record companies to charge a dollar more for the QUAD LP. If they put the QUADS together with the standard LPs [at $1 more] it would've caused even more confusion. Had these same companies absorbed the $1 and put the QUAD logos in smaller, non descriptive lettering it might not have added to the confusion as the Surround discs were compatible with Stereo only turntables/cartridges.

A few years ago, Capitol Records released PF's multichannel SACD of Dark Side of the Moon in a plain CD jewel case and had the SACD logo and info in tiny lettering on the disc's rear. Supposedly it sold over a million copies. Costco even blew it out for $9.99. The public thought they were just buying an updated remastered version in better sound and of course it was hybrid so it played on ALL their CD compatible players. IMO, a GREAT marketing strategy.

 

[kfbkfb]

From what I've read about the Mono/Stereo dual inventory time,
Stereo was supposed to retail for $1 more than Mono.

I guess what I find puzzling is that Record Stores were able to intermix
the Mono and Stereo albums (in the artist bin) for about 8 years,
and the consumer was able to sort it out (for the most part).

Some of the current vinyl reissues of mid-60s albums reproduce the
rather large "STEREO" logo/information.

IMHO, the only thing more dramatic than the above mentioned Stereo
logo(s) were the early CBS SQ albums with the large gold border.

Maybe the Record Stores should have posted a list on the wall about
new Quad releases and instructed consumers to look in the artist bins
for the Quad versions.

Kirk Bayne

 

[4-earredwonder]

From what I've read about the Mono/Stereo dual inventory time,
Stereo was supposed to retail for $1 more than Mono.

I guess what I find puzzling is that Record Stores were able to intermix
the Mono and Stereo albums (in the artist bin) for about 8 years,
and the consumer was able to sort it out (for the most part).

Some of the current vinyl reissues of mid-60s albums reproduce the
rather large "STEREO" logo/information.

IMHO, the only thing more dramatic than the above mentioned Stereo
logo(s) were the early CBS SQ albums with the large gold border.

Maybe the Record Stores should have posted a list on the wall about
new Quad releases and instructed consumers to look in the artist bins
for the Quad versions.

Kirk Bayne

If the record companies were really serious about promoting new formats along with the hardware manufacturers they shouldn't have charged EXTRA for the software..........PURE GREED which led to ultimate confusion. The public would've eventually purchased the stereo version anyway and as pertains to QUAD ... well, we all known the outcome of that debacle.

 

[kfbkfb]

RCA seemed to understand the price/dual inventory issue with their (unique)
single inventory/same price as Stereo plan for their QuadraDiscs (which lasted
about a year), too bad they couldn't convince the WEA group to do the same.

Kirk Bayne