StereoMonic - some Mono/Stereo vinyl LP history

[kfbkfb]

https://www.rarerecords.net/record-info/stereo-records-or-mono-records/#incompatibility^^^
...for the first few years that stereo records were available, they sold in tiny amounts compared to mono pressings.


(interesting parallels to the [attempted] stereo -> quad LP transition)

Anyone know if any of the major record cos (in the late 1950s to mid 1960s) considered bailing out of the stereo LP market due to low sales and just releasing mono LPs until stereo caught on in the late 1960s?


Kirk Bayne

 

[par4ken]

It's maddening that even though it took years for stereo to finally catch on, the format was never abandoned; that the same consideration was never given to Quad!

 

[Doug G.]

As a kid in the early to mid sixties, I was well aware of stereo LPs and boy, I wanted to buy the stereo versions. We had a console stereo and a portable stereo but I usually had to play records on my mono record player so I kept buying the mono versions. My original SPLHCB is mono as well as others bought around the same time.

It wasn't until 1968, when I finally got a stereo of my own, that I exclusively switched to buying only stereo records. The Doors stereo 45s were a revelation!

Doug

 

[kfbkfb]

I exclusively switched to buying only stereo records. The Doors stereo 45s were a revelation!

How do they sound in synthesized surround sound?


Kirk Bayne

 

[Doug G.]

How do they sound in synthesized surround sound?


Kirk Bayne

Actually, I'll have to listen to them again for a fresh perspective, starting the the Stones album, shortly.

Doug

 

[atrocity]

Anyone know if any of the major record cos (in the late 1950s to mid 1960s) considered bailing out of the stereo LP market due to low sales and just releasing mono LPs until stereo caught on in the late 1960s?

This isn't quite a direct answer to your question, early on in the stereo era there were stereo 45s that never quite caught on and were eventually abandoned:
Early Stereo Singles Discography (1958-1961)

 

[Doug G.]

I got a chance to listen to HT&GG (Stones) last night and it does sound a lot better using my Sony SQD-2050 in either SQ or 2-4 mode. Without it and in 2 channel stereo, the bass is all on the left and the right is very trebley and just has an unnatural sound like being in a barrel.

Through the decoder, the elements are more mixed so the fake stereo isn't as apparent even though it is still fairly left-centric. It is more cohesive than in plain stereo, however.

Now I have to try to remember which other records I have that are "reprocessed for stereo".

Didn't two threads get mixed together, somehow or some posts missing?

Doug

 

[kfbkfb]

Didn't two threads get mixed together, somehow or some posts missing?

Kinda mixed together, although it's useful info to know that synthesizing surround sound from reprocessed for stereo content makes the content more listenable.


Kirk Bayne

 

[barfle]

It's maddening that even though it took years for stereo to finally catch on, the format was never abandoned; that the same consideration was never given to Quad!

Unfortunately quad had a format war. The 45 degree stereo was never really challenged by other formats. Yes, I've seen pictures of the two-headed tone-arms, but I can't imagine anyone ever took that seriously.

 

[kfbkfb]

True about the quad on vinyl format war, although it seemed that the record companies were moving toward making CD-4 the standard, a few record companies switched from a matrix system to CD-4, but no record company switched from CD-4 to a matrix system.

IMHO, the new more durable, more antistatic RCA Quadradisc vinyl that was introduced in late 1974 and the Technics quad receiver with automatic front/back CD-4 channel separation adjustment went a long way toward making CD-4 easy to use.


Kirk Bayne

 

[barfle]

True about the quad on vinyl format war, although it seemed that the record companies were moving toward making CD-4 the standard, a few record companies switched from a matrix system to CD-4, but no record company switched from CD-4 to a matrix system.

IMHO, the new more durable, more antistatic RCA Quadradisc vinyl that was introduced in late 1974 and the Technics quad receiver with automatic front/back CD-4 channel separation adjustment went a long way toward making CD-4 easy to use.


Kirk Bayne

I recall that Rick Wakeman’s “Six Wives” was SQ and “King Arthur” was CD-4. I believe “Journey to the Centre” was available in both, but I’m not sure. I had cast my lot with SQ at the time, and didn’t have the inclination nor the funds to buy another turntable, etc. in order to use CD-4 at the time.

 

[par4ken]

The format war didn't help but I refuse to believe that it killed quad. There was always some degree of compatibility between matrix systems and with regular stereo. CD-4 pulled things in another direction but IMHO was far too finicky to ever succeed. If the industry would've held on longer for Tate to become available, or even pushed on with Vario-matrix things might've started to take off. The introduction of the quad compact disc could've been a game changer! Surround could of thrived based on audio rather than video!

 

[Doug G.]

I agree. I don't believe the different formats killed quad either. It was wives saying, "Oh no you don't" and others just not being wowed enough to spend the extra money, even if they had room. Most people don't even really care if their music is in 2 channel stereo.

Doug

 

[MidiMagic]

What killed quad was the fact that the marketing experts were wrong from the start. The 4-channel reel recorders with high sales they thought were being used for quadraphonics were actually going into home recording studios. When the record companies found this out, they dumped quad as fast as they could.

 

[par4ken]

What killed quad was the fact that the marketing experts were wrong from the start. The 4-channel reel recorders with high sales they thought were being used for quadraphonics were actually going into home recording studios. When the record companies found this out, they dumped quad as fast as they could.

Midi, you have made that statement before but with all due respect I can't for the life of me understand how you came to that conclusion?

Quad reels were perhaps the first surround format, but were still more of a curiosity. They were quickly eclipsed by 8-track tapes (spurred on by automotive use) and by quad records, both matrix and discrete. Few people, only us audiophiles or equipment junkies would want a big clunky reel to reel machine sitting in our living rooms. Sales of 4-channel recorders were inconsequential to quadraphonics as a whole. The fact that 4-channel recorders started to have a secondary purpose (which became their primary purpose) was actually a positive thing. Such sales ensured a supply of new recorders for a number of years after quad in other formats disappeared how did that harm Quad in any way?

The dumping of quad was just a bad industry decision based entirely on their bottom line, no forward thinking. The industry jumped in full force expecting it to be the next big thing and to make them a ton of fast money. Sales weren't as expected so they quickly dumped the whole idea instead of giving it half a chance.

 

[Cyber 1]

There is a recent video from analog productions with Chad talking to Bernie Grundman and he mentioned that when he was starting there was some music being recorded in stereo but
only being pressed and released in mono due to production abilities at the time.

 

[MidiMagic]

I read this about the 4-track recorders. in articles in High Fidelity, Stereo Review, and Audio magazines (I do not remember which, and I don't have the magazines anymore).

What it was is that the 4-track reel machines had much higher sales compared to stereo than the sales of other formats compared to stereo.

When the matrix systems did not have the quad-to-stereo sales ratio the 4-track recorders had, the marketing pencil chewers concluded that people wanted the better separation of discrete. Many companies switched to or added CD-4 as a result. But the CD-4 sales had lower sales ratio than the matrix systems had.

Meanwhile (as a TASCAM engineer told me), TEAC and subsidiary TASCAM found out from user questions on using the machines that most of their recorders were being used to build home recording studios. They switched their efforts toward home studios. They even made an 8-track 1/4-inch reel-to-reel multitrack with an integrated mixer (TASCAM 388).

When the record companies learned this, they dumped quad.

My own experience as a stereo repairman in the '70s showed me that every 4-channel reel machine I serviced was being used in a home studio. Most of the owners were not interested in quadraphonic sound and were surprised that I was. The only Q8 players I repaired were original equipment in automobiles. And the only matrix quad systems I repaired had damaged power amplifiers or bad transistors in the phono stage.

Most of the home systems I repaired that had a quadraphonic anything had a Dynaquad or similar device placed after the amplifiers.

I have a TASCAM 246 4-track in my studio. I have used it to assemble matrix quad, but never discrete. Anyone can play the matrix tapes/CDs I make, but nobody had anything that could play discrete. I chose single-inventory compatibility over elitism.

 

[kfbkfb]

It's interesting that the (late 1950s) record companies were able to use their fairly primitive market research to figure out that a good way to transition from mono to stereo LPs was to record content that higher income people would likely buy in stereo (in the early years) with popular music remaining as mono only releases until the mid-1960s.

I don't know what the incremental cost of preparing a quad mix in addition to a stereo mix was but the album cover, advertising, shipping costs were the same, it seems like the big record cos could have carried quad thru the lean years with some high profile quad releases every year until quad caught on (and the bugs were worked out of the hardware).


Kirk Bayne

 

[MidiMagic]

It's interesting that the (late 1950s) record companies were able to use their fairly primitive market research to figure out that a good way to transition from mono to stereo LPs was to record content that higher income people would likely buy in stereo (in the early years) with popular music remaining as mono only releases until the mid-1960s.

I don't know what the incremental cost of preparing a quad mix in addition to a stereo mix was but the album cover, advertising, shipping costs were the same, it seems like the big record cos could have carried quad thru the lean years with some high profile quad releases every year until quad caught on (and the bugs were worked out of the hardware).


Kirk Bayne

In the case of stereo, the main problem in the changeover from mono to stereo was getting a good stereo recording to put on the record.

The big problem that made the record companies stop producing quad was the sudden realization that the market for quad was much smaller than the marketing people originally thought.

In addition, the record stores were putting the quad records in special QUADRAPHONIC bin instead of putting them with the other records made by the artist.

If a matrix recording is to be sold, there is no reason why the matrix version could also be the stereo version. Most of the matrix recordings I made were also intended to be played in stereo. The same mixdown works for both.

Actually, I know of many albums in the late '70s that were mixed with this in mind. But the record companies just put the stereo info on the product.

The costs increased when they were making a discrete version for Q8 and also a matrix version for records, cassettes, and FM.. There were three ways to to do it:

1. Create a discrete mix for Q8 and then encode it for the record. This was the cheapest, but often made a less than optimum matrix mix.

2. Create a matrix mix for records, cassettes, and FM, and the decode it for the Q8. Essentially, everyone got the matrix mix.

3. Make two mixes, one optimum for discrete for the Q8, and one optimum for matrix for records, cassettes, and FM. This cost a lot more in engineer and studio time.

 

[MidiMagic]

Back to stereomonic:

Several different methods were used to create stereo records from mono.

- Treble on left, bass on right.
- Added reverb on one side
- Mono in center, with reverb on the sides.
- The Haeco system, which removed the oversize center soloist.

Note that the Haeco system applies 90-degree phase shifts to avoid the oversized center solo in mono play. These play in the back channels of SQ!