Would you agree?

[Q-Eight]

Just thought about this while posting my review for the Cat Steven's Greatest Q8. I called it a "surround" tape. And that got me to thinking.... what's the difference between "Quad" and "Surround"?

Here's my answer: (Tell me if you agree or disagree)

"Quad" : A song mixed with the 4 corners in mind. A different instrument in each channel, with vocals (more or less) centered in the front channels. Drums can be either front, rear, or stuck in a corner. Ping-Pong effects abound.

Good Examples: Sly & The Family Stone Greatest Hits, Indian Reservation, Eagles On the Border.

"Surround" : A song mixed with the idea of enveloping the listener in sound. Vocals will be front and rear, possibly in different stages of dub (dry or wet).
Drums will usually be in all four channels, possibly mixed higher in fronts or rears. There is a more pronounced left or right "image". The mix remains static, no bouncing effects.

Good Examples: Righteous Bros Give it to the People, Ringo's Goodnight Vienna, BTO I, II, Not Fragile.

Well, that's the way I see things. Opinions and Comments please!

 

[Lucanu]

Yes, I agree with you completely, and if I can add an example of a difference between quad and surround we could mention DSOTM.
AP mix is quad and Nick Davis is surround (even if here and there he puts a few "quad" effects).

I prefer a quad kind of thing when I try to impress my friends ; but generally I love both styles.

 

[Cai Campbell]

I don't agree with your definition of Quad. Quad or Quadraphonic implies four (and only four) channels of sound, regardless of mix considerations. Just like Stereo or Stereophonic implies two (and only two) channels of sound, regardless of mix considerations.

I believe the term Surround implies any multi-channel mix where speakers are purported to be placed behind or to the side of the listener. One could argue for Stereophonic Surround mixes in some cases, and I can buy into that to a certain extent, but I think such allowance detracts from the spirit of the definition. I mean, there are many technologies that offer "3D" sound from a stereo configuration but I think "3D Stereo" or "Wide Stereo" are better definitions and the term "Surround" should be reserved for multichannel mixes designed to have sound coming from behind the listener via physical speakers.

I believe you can call a Quad mix Surround but not visa versa. That is, Quad is always Surround but Surround is not always Quad. Quad, 5.1, 7.2, etc. are all implementations of Surround that explicitly define the number of channels. Surround is more generic and all-encompassing. If you want to get into more specific definitions of surround mixes then you need other terms (Ambient, discrete, dual-stereo, synthesized, fake, etc.)

 

[mtgc]

I think this discussion can quickly get down to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I agree with a lot of the statements made above, but not all of them. My idea of Quad is 4 channels of information, although this self same information might also be carried to a lesser extent in the other three channels. Surround, to me, is more than two channels of information, although any of those same channels might carry bits of the same information.
I think sometimes I qualify Quad and Surround in the same manner as a supreme court justice once defined pornography, to wit: "I cannot properly define it, but I know it when I see it", and I must say the same about Quad and Surround, I cannot properly define them, but I know them when I hear them".
My two cents worth.

MTGC (Michael)