• QuadraphonicQuad welcomes you and encourages your participation! Treat all members with respect. Please keep all discussions civil, even when you have a strong opinion on a particular topic.

    Do not offer for free, offer for sale, offer for trade, or request copies or files of copyrighted material - no matter how rare or unavailable to the public they might be. We do not condone the illegal sharing of music. There are many places on the internet where you can participate in such transactions, but QuadraphonicQuad is not one of them. We are here to encourage and support new multichannel releases from those companies that still provide them and as such the distribution of illegal copies of recordings is counter-productive to that effort. Any posts of this sort will be deleted without notification.

    Please try to avoid discussions that pit one format against another. Hint for new users: make liberal use of the search facilities here at QuadraphonicQuad. Our message base is an incredibly rich resource of detailed information on virtually all topics pertaining to surround-sound. You will be surprised at what you can find with a little digging!

Thoughts on ideal speakers for quadraphonic

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

jimfisheye

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,341
I'm afraid you've made the fundamental mistake of assuming I know what a DAW is!
The term used for Digital Audio Workstation
Apps like Reaper, Logic, etc. for all things audio. Record, mix, master, process live audio, run live sound, etc. There are super limited versions of this kind of app out there (like Audacity or Garageband) that you might have seen.

There's a setting for how long you give the computer to process audio. It's the lag of the system.
Needs to be below human perception for live sound work. (Make the computer scream a bit.) Moot point for playback of pre-recorded anything. (So... relaxed setting and no "computer screaming".)

You can "insert" a DAW app between your favorite media player and system output. So... Tone controls? Meh. Complete DAW app! Go from zero to 100 there. :D
 

Soundfield

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
745
Location
Essex, UK
The term used for Digital Audio Workstation
Ah, I suspected it might be some software thingy!
I don't really trust anything audio that isn't realised in hardware! I prefer using thermionic components but understand that solid state devices are becoming quite popular with the youngsters.
 

jimfisheye

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,341
Just a quick thought experiment:
If I had only ever seen low budget analog gear, I might make the mistake of generalizing that all analog gear is low budget cheapness. That would be quite the mistake, eh? One can make the same mistake with digital tech. The CDs and mp3s and the grifter fare in stores like Worst Purchase and all that are the toyish end of things. Don't be too quick to assume a pro end doesn't exist here.
 

par4ken

500 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
597
Location
NW Ontario
Good comment from Lou but I really cannot understand how that configuration recommended by RCA works
View attachment 45373

As the negative is common on most amps, you would get a left reinforcement, aside from no actual separation of the center. Oh center separation is mathematically impossible but we do it in the SM by a wacky path.
To make it work for centre the L&R speaker negatives terminals should connect together and then go to the centre speakers positive terminal with the negative connecting back to the amplifier, negative terminal. The pot could go across the center speaker to lower it's level.
 

Sonik Wiz

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,065
Location
Kansas City
To make it work for centre the L&R speaker negatives terminals should connect together and then go to the centre speakers positive terminal with the negative connecting back to the amplifier, negative terminal. The pot could go across the center speaker to lower it's level.
Yes indeedy that works surprisingly well. Too bad there isn't a diagram of this as it's hard to visualize in text. Another way to describe this is the front speakers are hooked up in differenceing mode a la Hafler/Dynaco rear ch then the center front hooked up in between brings the connection back to ground with stereo L/R & a pretty solid front. I'll stress that the pot is wired in parallel across the center front terminals, not in series to ground.

I used this before I had "real" HT center front & it blended very nicely.
 

chuckflhp

Well-known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
112
Location
Reading,Pa
You have never heard a quadraphonic setup which didn't have four matching speakers that sounded great? It really isn't a must from my experience. Even identical speakers will sound different in a different part of the room unless you are listening in a cube and your furniture is perfectly symmetrical.
OF course I have. They don't have to be identical models or even brand. But IMHO they must sound the same. The same type of voice or presentation, if you will. If they don't, panning and movement within the image will be screwed up. It won't be seamless and encompassing. At least for me...
 

gene_stl

Well-known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2019
Messages
147
Location
St.Louis
Actually I did do that in the late sixties for a short while (while waiting for new spikkers to arrive). It was better than mono. Your brain does not like the balance control being keeled over to one side. Back then mono stuff was available used. Of course you knew that. Welcome Sal. You will like this group.
 

himey

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
1,388
^^^
Agreed. Would you consider using two different sounding speakers for a stereo system?
Different speaker make...maybe. Completely different sounding, no. Like everything else it depends. Two or four MATCHING crappy speakers are still crappy. Higher quality non matching speakers with same or similar tweeters will sound great with a proper placement in the room and balance adjustment. Until you realize how much a room colors the sound of matching speakers you may never understand. Again, no one I know listens to their setup in a cube with symmetrical furniture. An offset it built into the room.
 

Sal1950

Well-known Member
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
192
Location
Central FL
Actually I did do that in the late sixties for a short while (while waiting for new spikkers to arrive). It was better than mono. Your brain does not like the balance control being keeled over to one side. Back then mono stuff was available used. Of course you knew that. Welcome Sal. You will like this group.
Hi Gene, good to see a friend. ;)
 

chuckflhp

Well-known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
112
Location
Reading,Pa
My biggest problem has always been placement of the surrounds. Relative to the listening position, is it to the side? Or more to the rear? In the 45 to35 degree range. Quad rear placement versus 5.1 or 7.1 surround. Drives me nuts. That in turn, begs the question, what was the placement of the rears for the engineer who mixed this particular album? Is there a good compromise? Do you think this would make a decent thread of it's own?
 

par4ken

500 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
597
Location
NW Ontario
My biggest problem has always been placement of the surrounds. Relative to the listening position, is it to the side? Or more to the rear? In the 45 to35 degree range. Quad rear placement versus 5.1 or 7.1 surround. Drives me nuts. That in turn, begs the question, what was the placement of the rears for the engineer who mixed this particular album? Is there a good compromise? Do you think this would make a decent thread of it's own?
Both configurations, rear or side were suggested for Quad back in the day. Most rooms would dictate surrounds go to the side, assuming a couch placed along the rear wall. Such placement is perfect for enhanced stereo, where the stereo image is stretched 270°. Think of the fronts as providing stereo as we usually know it and the rear speakers providing stereo more like what you get with headphones but all simultaneously. If you have a big enough room surrounds could be placed more to the rear, but if too far apart the image collapses. Kind of contradictory, rear placement in a small room can work well (especially with discrete sources) but who wants to have to sit in the middle of the room? For 7.1 speakers would go to the sides and the other set to the rear if you have the space. And what about 6.1? I know there were some releases in this format, does anyone want a speaker placed directly behind your head? Dynaco originally suggested using a single back speaker placed behind your head, but latter switched to two using two rear speakers. You can toe in your speakers a bit, the angle would depend on your listening position, I would angle them toward your listening position, don't worry about an exact angle. The best advice is to experiment and pick the configuration that works best for you. I do think that this topic would make a good thread on it's own.
 

Beefalo

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
1,955
Location
Sunny SoCal
Both configurations, rear or side were suggested for Quad back in the day. Most rooms would dictate surrounds go to the side, assuming a couch placed along the rear wall. Such placement is perfect for enhanced stereo, where the stereo image is stretched 270°. Think of the fronts as providing stereo as we usually know it and the rear speakers providing stereo more like what you get with headphones but all simultaneously. If you have a big enough room surrounds could be placed more to the rear, but if too far apart the image collapses. Kind of contradictory, rear placement in a small room can work well (especially with discrete sources) but who wants to have to sit in the middle of the room? For 7.1 speakers would go to the sides and the other set to the rear if you have the space. And what about 6.1? I know there were some releases in this format, does anyone want a speaker placed directly behind your head? Dynaco originally suggested using a single back speaker placed behind your head, but latter switched to two using two rear speakers. You can toe in your speakers a bit, the angle would depend on your listening position, I would angle them toward your listening position, don't worry about an exact angle. The best advice is to experiment and pick the configuration that works best for you. I do think that this topic would make a good thread on it's own.
I use bipolar surrounds which really fill the room with sound. The speakers are about a foot in front and to the sides of the listening position. I don't like too much sound behind my head. I use Atmos Upmix to add effects to the rear speakers when needed.
I listen to alot of stereo with Atmos Upmix and it really broadens the soundfield with surrounds on the side.
 

himey

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
1,388
My biggest problem has always been placement of the surrounds. Relative to the listening position, is it to the side? Or more to the rear? In the 45 to35 degree range. Quad rear placement versus 5.1 or 7.1 surround. Drives me nuts. That in turn, begs the question, what was the placement of the rears for the engineer who mixed this particular album? Is there a good compromise? Do you think this would make a decent thread of it's own?
Integrate the rears like you would the fronts as much as you can, meaning smaller speakers closer to walls for more bass and give large speakers more room to breathe. Forcing your speakers into a layout that doesn't take the room into account isn't the best way to go. Most setups in a non dedicated listening room will be furniture dependent anyways, so options will be limited.
 
Top