To press or not to press...

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

par4ken

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
2,412
Location
NW Ontario
No CD, no sale! And I mean a standard CD.

I am sick of multiple products and formats. I want a standard format. I do not want special equipment to play the very few new releases.

I will buy only CDs and LPs.

Of course, with that CD or LP, I am limited to matrix. But again, I do not want a hodgepodge of multiple formats.

I want QS or DS (which are essentially the same encoding). NO CD-4.

And for reissues, I want the quadraphonic or Dolby Surround version if it exists.
Midi, I find it odd that you find something sacred about regular CD's. With much higher resolution sound formats it's time to move on IMHO!

Myself as a bit of an equipment junkie I love multiple formats. Based on your comprehensive website, I would of thought that you too thrived on that. Regarding LP's, each quad format had it's strengths and weaknesses.

That being said I often think that QS Surround Mode would of been a great quad format. Every stereo recording would automatically be encoded, 270° . An actual quad encode would only require a bit of out of phase information to fill in across the back. Sansui should of pushed that idea more, they (and all manufacturers) gave the impression that decoded stereo was simply synthesized (faux or pseudo quad) which really it's not, but an expansion of the stereo sound field. Had that been done the lack of program material would of not killed off quad so quickly.
 
Joined
May 16, 2016
Messages
22
Thanks to all for your perspectives - very helpful indeed! It does seem that there is still an interest in physical product, and a CD/Blu-ray package fits most of the stated preferences. I'm also looking into vinyl, but the wait times from various pressing plants is now 5-8 months! The FLAC download option is something I will continue to offer - IAA has been great to work with.

Given the high cost of prep/manufacturing, I make follow the suggestion of a pre-order campaign. If I can get enough to cover half the up front cost, then I think I can confidently move forward with a physical release. Will absolutely let folks at QQ know the details.

And I want to acknowledge the kind words about the music and the mixes. When facing the challenges of releasing music in the present day, it is easy to become overwhelmed and a bit pessimistic. Your words of encouragement have helped fire up the engine, and I look forward to sharing this new endeavor with you all.

Many, many thanks.

Alan
 

kfbkfb

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
1,461
Location
Midwest USA

One movie DVD I bought in 2016 was MOD, I bought another MOD DVD late last year, both play fine on my DVD/Blu-ray players (strangely, my UHD Blu-ray player won't play my home recorded DVDs, but plays MOD DVDs).

Maybe a region free MOD DVD w/DD,DTS and PCM(stereo - QS encoded) would cover most playback situations.


Kirk Bayne
 

MidiMagic

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
1,533
Midi, I find it odd that you find something sacred about regular CD's. With much higher resolution sound formats it's time to move on IMHO!

Myself as a bit of an equipment junkie I love multiple formats. Based on your comprehensive website, I would of thought that you too thrived on that. Regarding LP's, each quad format had it's strengths and weaknesses.

That being said I often think that QS Surround Mode would of been a great quad format. Every stereo recording would automatically be encoded, 270° . An actual quad encode would only require a bit of out of phase information to fill in across the back. Sansui should of pushed that idea more, they (and all manufacturers) gave the impression that decoded stereo was simply synthesized (faux or pseudo quad) which really it's not, but an expansion of the stereo sound field. Had that been done the lack of program material would of not killed off quad so quickly.
Like I said, I want my collection to be homogeneous. I do NOT want a hodgepodge of incompatible formats. This is why I totally ignored the Elcaset, the VHS digital sound recorder, DBx records, the MiniDisc, and many other "improved" formats. Everyone was making quick money from incompatible formats.

I don't want to have many different players depending on which format a particular product is released in. And when I put several recordings on a changer, I want them all to play without having to change settings for each one.

At least with the phonograph record, I have one player that can play most of them (I have two 16-inch records I have no player for). There are only two settings I have to make (speed and stylus size) to play any record. Mine can even take large 33 and small 45 records in the same stack. And QS/DS works fine on a record.

I don't need the pure UFO formats that provides super resolution when I don't hear any difference between the recordings. The incompatibility between these different super formats is more of a disadvantage to me than any slight improvements in audio quality. And whether a format is "lossy" means nothing in analog. Just so the recording does not deteriorate with age.

And I do not want to have to mail-order from an unknown seller to get exotic formats. I want to walk into a store and buy the product.

I was hoping that Dolby Surround would become a single universal standard. Instead they came up with several incompatible discrete formats that don't even solve the side-imaging problem the way Dolby Surround does. Dolby Surround creates the sound image with 4 pr 5 speakers. They need 7 speakers to get nearly the same performance (and I still hear sounds cogging between speakers in what should be a smooth pan). And in 1978-1980, there was a version of Dolby Surround with height. I have two records encoded in it.

When I make a product, I want a single inventory. I want the format that the most people can play using what they have. That is the CD. Making any other format means a lot of people do not have the player. QS/DS is also the format most people can play. These recordings play beautifully in stereo, dichophony lets them decode in headphones, and most surround receivers can decode Dolby Surround, The Hafler system is easy tp set up. Those who want super-performance can get a Surround Master.

Q4 and Q8 failed because they required expensive players. Nothing else could play them. CD-4 failed for the same reason (as would have FM4 if it had become available).

I also want easy encoding of surround material. I use my Behringer 2442 4-bus mixer with an encoding circuit I made myself to encode QS/DS. No proprietary equipment required!
 
Last edited:

par4ken

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
2,412
Location
NW Ontario
Midi, I respect what you have to say but don't understand your reasoning. You can get a used universal player for as little as $50.00, then a disc is a disc is a disc. Given the sorry state with brick walled CD's the higher rez formats are usually well worth it, much more than a "slight" improvement IMHO.

I don't share you enthusiasm for Dolby Surround, an abomination in my opinion. They bastardised quad to make a surround system for movies. The link between surround and movies rather than for music has never yet been broken. What you describe as QS/DS would better be described as RM, true RM can properly place images around the room without regard for specific "channels" and can be referred to as a kernel system rather than a matrix one. I understand your fondness for it. While I would agree about the connection between QS and DS our friend OD would insist that DS is related to SQ instead. Both SQ and DS do share the same Lf, Cf, Rf and surround encoding after all.

As for not wanting to purchase mail-order, if I had such an attitude I would only have maybe a half dozen surround releases in my collection. It's even getting hard to find regular CD's locally and those that are for sale are not the ones that I want for my collection.
 
Last edited:

LuvMyQuad

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
4,404
Location
Western NY
Like I said, I want my collection to be homogeneous. I do NOT want a hodgepodge of incompatible formats. This is why I totally ignored the Elcaset, the VHS digital sound recorder, DBx records, the MiniDisc, and many other "improved" formats. Everyone was making quick money from incompatible formats.

I don't want to have many different players depending on which format a particular product is released in. And when I put several recordings on a changer, I want them all to play without having to change settings for each one.

At least with the phonograph record, I have one player that can play most of them (I have two 16-inch records I have no player for). There are only two settings I have to make (speed and stylus size) to play any record. Mine can even take large 33 and small 45 records in the same stack. And QS/DS works fine on a record.

I don't need the pure UFO formats that provides super resolution when I don't hear any difference between the recordings. The incompatibility between these different super formats is more of a disadvantage to me than any slight improvements in audio quality. And whether a format is "lossy" means nothing in analog. Just so the recording does not deteriorate with age.

And I do not want to have to mail-order from an unknown seller to get exotic formats. I want to walk into a store and buy the product.

I was hoping that Dolby Surround would become a single universal standard. Instead they came up with several incompatible discrete formats that don't even solve the side-imaging problem the way Dolby Surround does. Dolby Surround creates the sound image with 4 pr 5 speakers. They need 7 speakers to get nearly the same performance (and I still hear sounds cogging between speakers in what should be a smooth pan). And in 1978-1980, there was a version of Dolby Surround with height. I have two records encoded in it.

When I make a product, I want a single inventory. I want the format that the most people can play using what they have. That is the CD. Making any other format means a lot of people do not have the player. QS/DS is also the format most people can play. These recordings play beautifully in stereo, dichophony lets them decode in headphones, and most surround receivers can decode Dolby Surround, The Hafler system is easy tp set up. Those who want super-performance can get a Surround Master.

Q4 and Q8 failed because they required expensive players. Nothing else could play them. CD-4 failed for the same reason (as would have FM4 if it had become available).

I also want easy encoding of surround material. I use my Behringer 2442 4-bus mixer with an encoding circuit I made myself to encode QS/DS. No proprietary equipment required!
Rips to FLAC will do everything you are asking for.
 
Last edited:

GaryG

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Messages
250
Location
Colorado
Put me down for physical media every day day of the week. I own both of the previous releases in the CD/BD format and would immediately purchase the new release in the same CD/BD format.
Thank you for showing interest in what the listeners want. And best of luck with your new endeavor.
 

TVB

300 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Rocky Mountains
Hi Alan. Its a pleasure to meet a producer of surround music. I bought both of your albums and prefer physical discs. I have never purchased a flac download but have been thinking about it because im getting tired of buying expensive sets for one surround disc. I listen to the atmos streams on discs that are folded down to 7.1 as that's my limit and I'm perfectly happy with it. God bless you and your family and thanks for all you do.
 

MidiMagic

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
1,533
Midi, I respect what you have to say but don't understand your reasoning. You can get a used universal player for as little as $50.00, then a disc is a disc is a disc. Given the sorry state with brick walled CD's the higher rez formats are usually well worth it, much more than a "slight" improvement IMHO.

I have not seen such a "universal player", or it was not touted as such. Exactly what players do this? What do they play and what do they not play? And what about playing the disc in the car.

I don't share you enthusiasm for Dolby Surround, an abomination in my opinion. They bastardised quad to make a surround system for movies. The link between surround and movies rather than for music has never yet been broken. What you describe as QS/DS would better be described as RM, true RM can properly place images around the room without regard for specific "channels" and can be referred to as a kernel system rather than a matrix one. I understand your fondness for it. While I would agree about the connection between QS and DS our friend OD would insist that DS is related to SQ instead. Both SQ and DS do share the same Lf, Cf, Rf and surround encoding after all.

I really favor RM. I play back in DPL2 because it fixes the side-image location problem.

I have some classical music in DS.

All of the following are RM: D-diam, DQ, EV4, Scheiber, QX, QS, DS, DPL, DPL2.

All of them are effectively the same system. The only differences are the speaker locations, the front and back separations, and the delays in DS playback that fix the side location problem. The recordings of any of them can be played back on all of the others. These recordings are not centered on specific channels. The 4-corners encoders may specify certain channels, but you don't need a 4-corners encoder to encode sounds to any position.

I encoded a sound effects recording for a stage play in the D-diam system in 1970. I placed sounds in practically all positions in the circle around the listener. So it can be done with any of the RM systems listed above. It is discrete that needs specific channels.

No, DS is not really related to SQ. It has the same encodings the D-diam system has. The only SQ coincidence is the speaker locations and the encodings for those exact locations. But the locations of other sounds in SQ are encoded in totally different ways. And ALL of the RM formats listed also share nearly the same Lf, Cf, Rf and S encodings (other than the holes the basic 4-corner encoders leave in CB).

Don't look at the encoding equations. Note that if the only difference in the encoding is the phase of the signal with relation to other signals, it still decodes the same way. Look at the Poincare sphere loci of the encoding points, not the encoded phases.

There is no difference between the encodings for DS. Only the decoders differ for DS, DPL, and DPL2.

With the RM encoder I use, sounds can be placed in any position in a circle around the listener. And (other than the side location problem) all of these systems will place the sound in the same place. DQ and EV4 will place the images slightly differently from the others, but moving the speakers puts the images where they would be with the others.

As for not wanting to purchase mail-order, if I had such an attitude I would only have maybe a half dozen surround releases in my collection. It's even getting hard to find regular CD's locally and those that are for sale are not the ones that I want for my collection.

I do mail order from well known companies. But they don't sell these special formats discussed here. In fact, I don't encounter them anywhere other than eBay.
 
Last edited:

par4ken

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
2,412
Location
NW Ontario
I have not seen such a "universal player", or it was not touted as such. Exactly what players do this? What do they play and what do they not play?
I've responded to this before. All the models that I have were available on eBay the last time I looked. The $50.00 price is common but may go for more. I have the Pioneer Elite DV-45A, my favourite until it couldn't recognise all the new DV discs. The Samsung CD-HD841, Oppo DV970-HD also. They all play CD, SACD, DVD-Audio, DVD-video. I know they don't do Blu-ray but for that there are players from Sony, I bought a BDP-S5100 just to rip SACD's (also for $50.00). It's good for SACD and Blu-ray, CD, DVD-Video but is HDMI only
.
The best bet would be an Oppo Blu-ray player but they go for crazy prices, I use the BDP-103 and also have a BDP-95. Those machines play all the previously mentioned disc types.
 

par4ken

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
2,412
Location
NW Ontario
No, DS is not really related to SQ. It has the same encodings the D-diam system has. The only SQ coincidence is the speaker locations and the encodings for those exact locations. But the locations of other sounds in SQ are encoded in totally different ways. And ALL of the RM formats listed also share nearly the same Lf, Cf, Rf and S encodings (other than the holes the basic 4-corner encoders leave in CB).
I agree with you on that but I had a bit of a heated discussion with OD about in the past about it. He is adamant that DS came from SQ not QS.
 

sjcorne

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
4,997
Location
Washington, D.C.
The best bet would be an Oppo Blu-ray player but they go for crazy prices, I use the BDP-103 and also have a BDP-95. Those machines play all the previously mentioned disc types.

Denon's DBP-2012 has almost all the functionality of an Oppo (analog 7.1 output, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray, etc) at a fraction of the price. There are a few sitting on eBay right now for around $120. Sony's UBP-X800 adds Ultra-HD Blu-Ray playback on top of all that, but it only has HDMI.
 

par4ken

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
2,412
Location
NW Ontario
Denon's DBP-2012 has almost all the functionality of an Oppo (analog 7.1 output, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray, etc) at a fraction of the price. There are a few sitting on eBay right now for around $120. Sony's UBP-X800 adds Ultra-HD Blu-Ray playback on top of all that, but it only has HDMI.
That Denon is a rather cool unit. I love rack mount equipment, and professional equipment is usually built a bit tougher. Separate stereo and multichannel outputs as well. Does it do DSD natively? If I had of seen that before I might have got it rather than my second Oppo!
 

par4ken

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
2,412
Location
NW Ontario
Came across another model also going for about $50.00, but it doesn't do Blu-ray. "Denon DVD-1920 DVD Audio-Video Super Audio"

And another that does Blu-ray $150 "DENON DBP-1611UD DVD/CD/Blu-ray Universal AV Player Burr-Brown" This one only has stereo analog outputs, for surround you would have to use HDMI.

Another model "DENON DVD-1940CI DVD AUDIO / SACD Player" $65.00
 
Last edited:

jaybird100

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
2,008
Location
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Put me down for physical media every day day of the week. I own both of the previous releases in the CD/BD format and would immediately purchase the new release in the same CD/BD format.
Thank you for showing interest in what the listeners want. And best of luck with your new endeavor.
Another vote for physical media. I'll take a disc in hand, over a digital download, any day. Digital servers can crash, and unless you've taken the time and trouble to meticulously back up the system, everything can be lost. Physical media doesn't crash! Sure, discs can fail, but I still feel it's less likely than a catastrophic hardware failure. And, when you have the discs, you can rebuild your files.
 

par4ken

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
2,412
Location
NW Ontario
So I've been watching the listings for "Denon's DBP-2012". One seller had three for sale (originally five), labelled as "Professional" due (I guess) to the inclusion of rack mounting. Those 3 sold very quickly so I'm just wondering if anyone here snagged one? There is another available from another seller but it looks beat to s*#t! One more without the rack mount that looks very nice but is going for a higher price. I've been so tempted to grab one myself but I really don't need any more players.

If I was in the market I would snag one of these before thinking about a new Reavon.
 
Top