Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?

Subject: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: charcloth
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 07:54 PM

Back a few years quadraphonic sound was toted to be "the thing of the future," What happened?

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: honestfrankie
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 08:07 PM

Over the holidays I visited old friends who have had day jobs for a long time and one friend had a huge 37 inch or something like that TV with "Quad Sound!!" I kept turning around because I thought someone had come into the room and was talking to us. So maybe it's become part of Tv technology.

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 08:12 PM

Good question, Charcloth - I just spent a week at the Camp Harmony gathering of the San Francisco Folk Music Club. I had "omniphonic sound" for a week, usually choosing to sit right in the middle of the nightly song circles at the camp, completely surrounded in wonderful harmony. Until technology can come up with a solidly standardized format that can perfectly duplicate or surpass the sound of live, unamplified music, maybe stereo is good enough. The movie theaters have THX and DSS and all those other acronyms that create unbelievably wonderful sound - but they haven't been able to agree on a standard, and we in the home market can't afford to buy a new format of music until the price is reasonable and we're sure it's going to stick around.
Yeah, but what did happen to quadraphonic sound? Are quad recordings still being produced? How is "quad" different from "surround"?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 08:25 PM

"Surround" sound these days is pentaphonic or hexaphonic, speakerwise, at least. I don't know if the receivers are actually sending out different sound to each speaker, certainly not to all five or six: The pentaphonic is front and rear speakers and a subwoofer, which usually contains circuitry that sends the low frequencies into the subwoofer itself and sends the higher frequencies to the other four; the hexaphonic adds the center channel speaker, which I assume is just what you'd get if you played it on a mono system, left and right combined. I don't know how it's supposed to improve on stereo.

I have a three speaker system attatched to my computer--two tiny channel speakers and a subwoofer: I like the addition of the subwoofer: the whole thing makes music I play from my Mac's CD drive sound better than it does on my living room two speaker system: deeper bass response, more transparent midrange and treble--and the speaker system cost me about 30 bucks.

--seed

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: charcloth
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 08:33 PM

the strongest difference Ive seen in surround sound & Quad is that surround has to have extreamly high volume levels to sound good while quad. didn't. & yet you could still catch every musical nuance.

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: jeffp
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 09:00 PM

I think one of the things that killed quadraphonic sound was the inability of the industry to agree on a single standard. I remember at least 3 different strategies--discrete, QS matrix and SQ matrix. The two matrix quads were at least semi-compatible, but neither was compatible with discrete quad. This led to a fragmentation and dilution of the market.

Also, the improvement over stereo sound was not significant enough to capture enough of a market. After all, it required significant investment to reap the benefits (a quad-compatible receiver and 2 more speakers) at a time when hi-fi components were rather expensive. If memory serves me correctly, which it sometimes does, it coincided with a downturn in the economy, which skewed the acceptable cost-benefit ratio beyond the point which would make the technology viable.

It's kind of a shame, really. I remember a broadcast of quadraphonic sound which I listened to with my parents sometime in the late 70s. It required 2 stereo systems, as it was simulcast on 2 FM stereo stations (PBS of course). It showcased a variety of styles designed to show off the benefits of the new medium. Apparently, too many people decided it wasn't worth the investment. I'm not real impressed with the replacement. It isn't enough of an improvement over stereo sound to make me spend my money on it. FWIW, that's my take on the subject.

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: John in Brisbane
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 11:59 PM

In the mid 70's I bought a quad tape deck (initially for recording) and quad receiver and speakers.

For a short while there was a reasonable selection of 4 channel reel to reel tapes on the market and I still have a Judy Collins and an 1812 Overture which I play every ten years or so. Even with the inherent tape hiss of the era they are still qhite stunning to listen to.

Again there was a market for 4 channel LP's. My receiver could decode CD-4 (my favourite because the separation between channels was qhite high) plus a couple of others standards which were less convincing. I bought a small number of discs, but the quality was somewhat problematical, and the price was considerably higher than conventional stereo. I recall a Herbie Mann disc (Hold ON I'm Coming) where the music was excellent - but it sounded as if Mr Mann's mike had been turned off. My memory also is that there was unacceptable levels of intermodular distortion. This was the primary turn-off from my perspective.

The VERY BEST part of this Quadraphonic era was the ability to record four separate channels of live music. I had a good stock of AKG mikes at the time. By placing four AKG D190's facing outwards in the centre of a circle of fellow musicians the playback results were often stunning. I don't know whether any of the current crop of Digital PC Studio software will allow you to record with 4 channels. If anyone has the technology to give it a try I would recommend it.

Regards, John

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 12:30 AM

I believe that Quadraphonic sound never became viable because the improvement over stereo from a dimensionallity standpoint was never significant. The advantage of multiple speakers is only significant when direction is the goal of the sound. After the original novelty wore off(cannons fired from all sides in the 1812 Overture), listeners were more at ease with the fidelity and three-dimensional sound dynamic that is easily provided by stereo.If 360 degree sound emission is desired, a second set of speakers firing on the B channel achieves an equivalent effect without the need for Quadraphonic recording.

Directionality became more than a gimmick with Surround Sound: since sound was now integrated with pictures, the 3 dimensional movement,flow and focus of sound was essential. I disagree with Char that Surround Sound is less effective at low volume level than Quad. The major improvement with Surround is the ability to fine tune the sound through use of complimentary speaker sets, enabling the widest possible dynamic, or range of listening.Powered sub-woofers have further improved the dynamic, giving powerful bass even at low volume. And because the Sub contains it's own amplifier,all power from the primary receiver is still available for the rest of the speakers, maintaining brightness and clarity.

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Hagbardr
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 01:30 AM

I'm a former stereo salesman, so I can provide a little help here. Dolby Surround is a 4 channel system with five speakers - Left, right, center, two rear. The rear speakers share a channel. Subwoofers are handled by crossovers in either the reciever or the subwoofer. Dolby Digital is a 5.1 channel system. Each rear speaker has it's own channel and the subwoofer has it's own unpowered channel. Neither does you much good unless your source is recorded in surround sound.

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Alan of Australia
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 02:46 AM

G'day,
VHS vs Beta only worse. There were at least 4 different formats, SQ, QS, RM and CD4 (discrete). The only "true" 4 channel was CD4 but technically it was a problem, modulating the two rear channels onto a 50kHz carrier which didn't stand up well to record wear.

I'm sure manufacturers of Hi-Fi gear would like us to forget that it ever happened.

At the time I was a design engineer with EMI Australia working on an SQ 'radiogram'. SQ was possibly the least convincing & the result probably wasn't a financial success. (None of it was my decision - I just designed what I was told to).

As one who loves listening to music but seldom sits still to just listen to it, it offered very little enhancement to stereo at considerable extra cost. Even now I have no plans to invest in surround sound.

Cheers,
Alan

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: charcloth
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 06:43 PM

weren't there some sort of problems with some recordings worked while others wouldn't even though they were supposed too-----DURNED CRS!

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 09:46 PM

I have been totally deaf in one ear since 1956 so I have never heard stereo. I missed half of the music. Then quad comes along and I miss 3/4 of the sound. This can't be considered progress.

Don

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Bert
Date: 05 Jan 00 - 09:43 AM

Stereo is one of the biggest con jobs of the century. I think that users have finally wised up and realised that the difference between these hyped up systems and a good mono system is so marginal as to be generally unnoticable.

Bert

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Jan 00 - 09:55 AM

Hey!!! What's all this??? I love quad sound.....Just had it installed in my Edsel along with a TV and Betamax. Those 8-tracks never sounded better.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Alan of Australia
Date: 05 Jan 00 - 09:07 PM

G'day,
Actually with stereo you can sometimes hear an instrument playing quietly in its own 'space', but when you switch to mono it disappears, buried under the rest of the sound. I agree that quad, surround etc. is mainly hype - unless you're a kid playing computer games, or maybe watching a movie.

Cheers,
Alan

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Jan 00 - 09:11 PM

You mean I been had? Aw shoot Alan...now I don't know whethere or not to trust my mood ring anymore.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Easy Rider
Date: 06 Jan 00 - 10:33 AM

Quad was never very impressive, but I think Dolby Surround is. I had enough speakers in the house. so I bought a Dolby Surround receiver a few years ago. It sounds best with Videos recorded in Dolby Surround and with TV programs broadcast in surround. The Indiana Jones movies, Jurassic Park, Star Wars and a few of the more recent Disney animated movies are pretty good. I have not seen music CDs recorded in surround. Are there any?

The center channel is the most important difference from the old Quad standards. It is NOT the sum of Left and Right, but a distinct channel of its own. It usually carries the voices and action of on-screen characters, while the Left, Right and Rear channels carry ambient sounds and off-screen action. The important thing is to balance the levels of all the channels properly, for which an SPL meter and a white, or is it pink?, noise generator helps.

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Bert
Date: 06 Jan 00 - 11:31 AM

Yes Alan,

If you position your speakers correctly AND if you position your listener correctly in just that one spot in the room AND if your room doesn't have too many echoes from walls and furniture you can SOMETIMES hear some spacial quality to the sound.

BUT, if you push the little button that switches your system to mono NO ONE will EVER notice, I promise.

AND your expensive stereo receiver has to have a little light on it so that you can TELL if it is receiving in stereo.

...and for all this you are buying - TWO amplifiers - TWO speakers - a very complex pickup for your turntable - a very special turntable that is constructed to avoid vertical movement and - a Multiplex tuner which is so complex that if it breaks you have to throw it away because no one can repair it.

And the marketing people have done such a good job of foisting this crap on an ignorant public that it is now virtually impossible to buy a good mono system.

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Jan 00 - 11:44 AM

I wonder if that guy at "Crazy Bubba Joe's Sound Emporium" will give me a refund and reinstall my Philco AM?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Bert
Date: 06 Jan 00 - 11:51 AM

No chance of that, but it's great fun asking him what that little light on the tuner is for, and when he explains that it's so you know that you are receiving stereo. You ask him "You're telling me how great this system is, shouldn't I be able to HEAR the difference?"

and watch the look on his face.

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 07 Jan 00 - 03:36 AM

They should never have mixed Latin and Greek roots! It's either tetraphonic or quadrasonic. (Strictly speaking, I'm a know-all, not a pedant!)

A few years ago the BBC experimentally recorded one or two plays in a format I can't remember the name of; you had four sound sources in a tetrahedral arrangement; that is, three on the floor in a triangle and one on the ceiling - a three-sided pyramid.

There's an old trick you can use to create 'ambience': connect a speaker across the two positive terminals of your stereo speakers and put it behind you. You get a quiet but audible sound which is just the diference in the two channels. If you can delay the sound slightly you get a 'big room' kind of sound. You can also use this to fill the 'hole in the middle' effect you may get if your speakers are to far apart: this time you put the extra speaker between the main ones (no delay), and it reduces the stereo separation. Doesn't need to be a powerful expensive speaker, as the signal is quite low-power.

Steve (who prefers headphones!)

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Chris/Darwin
Date: 07 Jan 00 - 08:12 AM

I heard my first really good stereo system in about 1963 - a (rich) friend set up his 28W/channel valve amp/Wharfedale mega-box speakers/Shure magnetic cartridge stereo system in the Town Hall we were setting up in at the time. It sounded as close to a full orchestra as I have ever heard from a stereo system in a public hall.

It seems to me that stereo equipment companies have been trying to reproduce this sound in our living rooms ever since. In a large hall, you get all sorts or reflections and reverberations, which add to the whole experience of listening to a symphony orchestra in a concert hall.

Current "surround sound" systems try to capture the experience of watching Star Wars in a theatre. Space ships roaring past from the right. Somebody having a coughing fit on the left..!

The best systems introduce reverberation (with choice of room dynamics) and come close to the theatre experience. The rear speakers initially tried to capture the reflected sound off the back of a hall, but I am not sure what they attempt these days! The side speakers in the new formats permit film makers to bring action in from the side.

Quadraphonic did none of this. It broke a musical source into 4, and had a bit coming out of each speaker. Like sitting in the MIDDLE of Mingus's band! I am sure that being so close to Mingus was quite instructive, but after the novelty wore off, most people realised that there was something basically unnatural about sitting in the middle of a band. Most people liked the experience of sitting amongst lots of other music lovers listening to their favourite band/orchestra in a hall-type situation. Sitting in the middle of the stage was UNNATURAL!

Even if the greed of various companies hadn't killed off quad with different standards, it would have eventually died anyway. I suppose sensitive use of the technology could have resulted in accurate reproduction of theatre experiences, but the music produced at the time did not do that. What a waste! Why are music industry people such philistines!!

(stir!)

Regards Chris

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Easy Rider
Date: 07 Jan 00 - 09:41 AM

One of the problems with early Quad systems was that they did not have digital signal processing and fast computer chips back them. True surround sound has only become technically feasible in the last few years. We can thank Mr. Dolby, for pushing his ideas in the movie market, where it was much more successful than in records or FM radio.

To set up a quad system, with four speakers and a normal stereo amplifier, the rear speaker mus be the difference between Left and Right, as mentioned above, and the front, center speaker must be the sum of Left and Right, L and R positives to speaker Positive and speaker negative to amplifier negatives, which are bussed together. I tried it, and it wasn't bad.

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Alan of Australia
Date: 07 Jan 00 - 06:10 PM

G'day,
Easy Rider, I must be reading your second paragraph incorrectly, but it sounds as though you are connecting the L & R positive amplifier outputs together. This will result in all three front speakers giving you MONO. Worse, a sound intended for the left speaker only (or right only) will perceive this arrangement as a short circuit, resulting in distortion & probable damage to the amplifier.

The centre speaker needs a separate amplifier with its L & R inputs mixed together. Actually, unless your L & R speakers are far apart you don't need the centre speaker at all.

If you have 4 speakers a better arrangement is the rear speakers connected in series but out of phase & placed in the rear corners of the room. Connected like this:-

L amp out + _________+spkr-___________-spkr+_________+ R amp out

Chris, there were some recordings made in the '70s which had ambience recorded in the rear channels, but not many. Also, the matrix type systems (QS etc.) didn't do a very good job with this. As well, they weren't the types of recordings favoured by salesmen. They liked to impress by demonstrating sound from all directions.

Although I designed a system for EMI at the time I was never motivated to set up a system for myself.

Cheers,
Alan

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 07 Jan 00 - 11:00 PM

Alan, this is a question that people often ask me, perhaps you or someone else would know the answer. Is it possible to hook up 4 ohm speakers to an 8 ohm output device (ie auto speakers to a home stereo amp), or 8 ohm speakers to a 4 ohm output device without damaging components? If so, how?

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Chris/Darwin
Date: 08 Jan 00 - 07:29 AM

With solid state amplifiers you can safely add speakers with a higher impedance (e.g., 8 ohms or 16 ohms instead of 4 ohms), but the other way around has risks.

When you connect a 4 ohm speaker to an amplifier nominally rated with an 8 ohm load, the speaker will draw twice as much current (at full volume) as the amplifier is designed for.

Depending on the amplifier, this might have little or catastrophic effects. My amp has a thermal cutout, and connecting a 4 ohm speaker would cause the amp to cutout at high volumes. When it cools down it works again. At low volumes it would not matter, as the amp will not be overloaded. Even with a 4 ohm load, the amp will only be overloaded at the extreme of its output, because that last overload current (from rated output to double output)only gives you an extra 3dB of volume, which you can barely hear. If you don't play music loud you won't harm the amplifier.

Of course, if you overload any amplifier (so it is distorting) you risk damage to the both the amplifier and speakers.

The danger is that an amplifier without thermal protection could be burnt out if you run full volume into 4 ohm speakers. So, you are taking a risk.

You can connect 4 ohm speakers in series to give you 8 ohms, but make sure that they are in phase. A number of manufacturers (e.g., Bose, Wharfedale) use multiple speakers in series/parallel arrangements to give the correct impedance.

Regards
Chris

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 08 Jan 00 - 03:19 PM

Thanks, Chris!

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Alan of Australia
Date: 08 Jan 00 - 07:51 PM

G'day Leej,
Totally agree with Chris.

Cheers,
Alan

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 08 Jan 00 - 07:55 PM

Bert, I will defend to the death anyone's right to be a curmudgeon, having been one often; however, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of stereo. When I press the little button that switches from mono to stereo on an older amplifier, the sound suddenly changes for me, becoming much more "rounded" and rich (within the limits of the recording, of course). It sounds like the music is coming from a broad space that stretches from one speaker to the other, while in mono it sounds like it's coming from a small space in the center.

I added the words "for me" because it's possible (and this is meant seriously and with no derogatory intent at all) that your and my "internal wiring" may be different. Just as some people are color blind, it may be that some are "stereo deaf" and don't perceive stereo sound in that way. I'm talking about brain "wiring" here, the way the brain interprets and processes incoming signals, not simply having only one working ear.

This is actually a brand-new theory of mine that I just made up as I was writing this. However, I think it has some merit. Actually "stereo-impaired" may be closer to the mark, since this ability or disability may not be an all-or-none phenomenon. The mysteries of the brain are starting to yield to research, but they also yield still more mysteries. I'm going to look into this, maybe write to Dr. Oliver Sacks and see if he's aware of this phenomenon. If it makes any sense to you, Bert, or to anyone else, I'd be interested in hearing your response. By the way, in general, I share your opinion of marketing hucksters.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Jan 00 - 08:16 PM

Well gawd knows Bert's brain is a mystery and he is significantly affected by CRS, but I've enjoyed his and ALL the comments (save my own) on this thread.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Bert
Date: 11 Jan 00 - 12:58 PM

That's it Spaw, it's the CRS, by the time the sound reaches my right ear the left one can't remember whether it was listening to Pete Seeger or Neil Young.

Mark, Yes, if things are set up right, then you 'can' hear a difference. But for most home set ups if you switch to Mono, no one will notice. Try it and see how long it takes for someone to notice. Unless you have serious listeners, who sit in the correct chair then they never will.

That's what I did myself, I had a pretty good system, set up nicely and the only comments I got were on the line of "Why is that chair in such a funny place?". So I turned the system to mono and for five years no one noticed. Not even my wife who was so proud of 'her' system and argued it's merits just like you.

So, if you are a serious listener then use stereo, but if you are a casual listener then tough luck, 'cos you can't buy mono.

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 12 Jan 00 - 03:20 AM

I'm with Mark on this one. It's very noticeable if you listen on headphones; not only does stereo sound 'spatial', but it sounds more clear, as if you'd turned up the treble slightly.

There's a strange phenomenon where two melodies are concerned, with one on each side. I don't really understand it, so it's difficult to explain; but the tunes can ind of merge into one tune in the middle. There's a piece by Tchaikovsky that does this. In hs day, the first and second violins were on opposite sides of the orchesttra, instead of on the same side as they are today. They each have a different melody, but when you hear them, you only perceive one... Over to you guys for enlightenment!

Steve

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Easy Rider
Date: 12 Jan 00 - 10:12 AM

Alan of Australia:

Thanx for the correction. What I meant to say was that the center speaker is fed by connecting BOTH negative terminals of the Front speakers to its Positive terminal and its negative terminal to BOTH negative terminals of the amplifier. This puts the center channel in series with the Left and Right and makes it the Sum of Left and Right, or Mono.

The rear speaker is connected to the Left and Right Positive terminals of the amplifier, making it the Difference between Left and Right. Anything that is out of phase will appear in the rear speaker. Some records have more out of phase stuff than others.

You place the speakers in a diamond pattern, Left, center and Right in front and Rear in the rear center. Dynaco proposed this scheme, during the quad fad era.

Subject: RE: Quadraphonic sound, what happened to it?
From: Alan of Australia
Date: 12 Jan 00 - 11:16 AM

OK, that clarifies the setup (as long as the amplifier has a conventional ground arrangement).

Cheers,
Alan