Hello From Quadrophonic

[Quadraphonic]

Hi to everyone here, [I]'m Richard from Liverpool, into hi fi since I was a kid. I'm pretty vintage in some ways, I have a Quadraphonic set up downstairs and also in my loft, into classical and a lot of "pop", Pink Floyd (The old SQ version of Dark Side Of The Moon is superb....
All the best to you all, this looks a great site!!

Richard

[The Grand Wazoo]

Richard,
Thanks for the intro. I moved your words from Dave's thread to here. This way you get a whole thread to yourself!

Welcome to The Art of Sound!

[MartinT]

Welcome, Richard. Gosh - quadraphonic. SQ, QS, CD4 and all that. Do you still have a decent collection of material to play? Which of the systems sounds best?

[Quadraphonic]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the welcome, and to you Chris!!.....

Yes Quadraphonic!. An intersting one!! People say the conflicting formats killed it off, I think there were a few deciding factors. First, yes, which format to chose when most had barely got used to Stereo!!!. Add to that the ealy decoders which were very poor efforts with poor seperation, while at the same time EMI for example issued in both Stereo and excellent dedicated Quad SQ formats.....think how the quaddies were disapointed when the decoders then did next to nothing!!!, and so voted against...) so then we got "compatible Stereo/Quad" out of EMI, which caused phase problems in stereo, and several grotty reviews!! Other labels did also issue in Quad, CBS for example, even French Decca in QS!! By the time full Logic decoders emerged which could wonders, most punters had been thoroughly put off, and walked the other way. In other words, Quad was born too soon, before it had been refined. Had they waited five years I beieve it would have at least lasted as long as vinyl. Finally, digital made such a noise all around that companies saw a huge profit and jumped for it. Quad was left by the wayside. Sad but true.

I have hundreds of quad recordings, SQ, QS, and CD4. CD4 has the best seperation I suppose, but I still rate SQ very highly, which sounds more natural. I hear even today people comment on "bleeding" into other channels, but that happens even in plain stereo systems! Unless you want ^0s ping pong style, and even then there is bleeding!! If you get a good recording engineer, who knows his stuff, the results in SQ can be truly stunning. I personally rated quad very highly, having heard a mates, so I went for it two years ago, found a good decoder, full logic, a cartridge with excellent seperation so the decoder has a lot to work on!! and it's great. I love it to bits. You ask which I prefer, not sure. Probably SQ, and believe me bleed through is minimal. The ambience and clarity actually makes Stereo sound very fat. It really shocked me. So much damning, and you have to ask where their ears were!! That Pink Floyd Dark Side for example is incredibly discreet, unnerving at times!! :lol:

great to hear from you Martin, and thanks again for your welcome and interest!!

Richard

[Alex_UK]

Hi Richard - very interesting "I never knew there was so much in it!"

Welcome, and hope you enjoy the forum. :)

[Quadraphonic]

Hi Alex, thanks for the welcome!

Glad to see you use a SME arm, still one of the best if you ask me!!!

Richard

[keiths]

Hi Richard,

Welcome from me too. I can only find one quadraphonic LP in my collection - Mike Oldfield "Exposed" (SQ)

Enjoy AoS.

[Quadraphonic]

Thanks Keith, not got that but do have the "boxed" for record set in SQ.:)

R

[MartinT]

Fascinating, Richard. I sense that what is good for quadraphonic replay is also good for stereo replay and vice versa. Things like channel separation and phase preservation. Although I'm a staunch 'stereo man' this is interesting stuff.

I used to have an SME arm. In fact, I have owned series II, III and IV in the past.

[Quadraphonic]

Fascinating, Richard. I sense that what is good for quadraphonic replay is also good for stereo replay and vice versa. Things like channel separation and phase preservation. Although I'm a staunch 'stereo man' this is interesting stuff.

I used to have an SME arm. In fact, I have owned series II, III and IV in the past.

Not quite, there are phase alterations, ie plus and minus 90 degrees in sq, so that the rear channels are 180 degrees out of phase with each other. The front channels are basically unaltered, but a decoder removes the rear channel information and sends it where it should be. In other words a quad record was cut with these inherent phase shifts, which were cut as forward and backward circular motions in the groove. If you played an early purely Quad LP in stereo played hell with the front signals, as nothing was removed from the front, so the phase shifts cause all kinds of image and phase cancellations!!! Later, with the compatible issues, the rear channels were reduced somewhat to appease the stereoholics!! But even then.......
That all applies to SQ. With QS it was another matrix, and the front channels were treated differently also. CD4 used a carrier signal to redirect sounds, there were no phase shifts.
If you look at a Quad record as not being stereo on the front even, but left and right front, you will see what the issues were. All four channels were also full range so bass could be really ruined by stereo playback, and as i said, imaging. They used a entirely different way of miking too, particualrly orchestral stuff. I have one LP of Kings College choir, where in the stereo version it is jusat that, they issued it in two formats!! But, in Quad, qith the quad version, you can hear loads of birds singing on the west window sill, from the rear speakers, and the organ and choir sound far more in a huge chapel too.

Hope that interests you further!!!! LOL!!!

Richard

[Tarzan]

Hi Richard,

Welcome from me too. I can only find one quadraphonic LP in my collection - Mike Oldfield "Exposed" (SQ)

Enjoy AoS.

l just picked this up from the local thrift shop- new £2, a superb album in all respects!:thumbsup: