(1972) Matrix encoded CD-4 (proposal)

[kfbkfb]

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1972-07.pdf#page=32^^^
"What we are proposing here
(See also Edward T. Canby's Audio ETC article, page 64, June, 1972.)
is a rather obvious way out of the dilemma."


Kirk Bayne

 

[timbre4]

I now remember seeing that article when I was 14 but had forgotten its intention. Thanks for posting.

 

[rustyandi]

That's what UD4 was trying to do

 

[Soundfield]

That's what UD4 was trying to do

Yes, absolutely Rusty, and it did, in a rather more sophisticated hierarchical form than that article proposed. I guess a lot of us quaddies actually have one UD-4 disc in our collections - the one in the HFN&RR "Quadrafile" set - but I doubt any of us ever had any means of playing it back! Interesting that HFN&RR thought UD-4 was close enough to becoming mainstream as to be worth including in the set for comparison with the other main formats - little did they know!

 

[kfbkfb]

Maybe they could have used the Electro-Voice Universal Matrix,
then the content could be (partially) decoded with DynaQuad
speaker matrix, Stereo-4/QS/SQ basic decoders, logic QS/SQ
decoders or CD-4.


Kirk Bayne

 

[rustyandi]

Yes, absolutely Rusty, and it did, in a rather more sophisticated hierarchical form than that article proposed. I guess a lot of us quaddies actually have one UD-4 disc in our collections - the one in the HFN&RR "Quadrafile" set - but I doubt any of us ever had any means of playing it back! Interesting that HFN&RR thought UD-4 was close enough to becoming mainstream as to be worth including in the set for comparison with the other main formats - little did they know!

I have the UD4 Denon 100 and about 19 UD4 disc's
I have said in another post that the Matrix on the UD4 is very close to UHJ
I have a UHJ LP TARG one of the tracks the sound rotates one way and the other
I also have a UHJ decoder and when i played the both tracks 1 after the other
I looked and sounded the same on my Scope

 

[jaybird100]

Maybe they could have used the Electro-Voice Universal Matrix,
then the content could be (partially) decoded with DynaQuad
speaker matrix, Stereo-4/QS/SQ basic decoders, logic QS/SQ
decoders or CD-4.


Kirk Bayne

The EV Universal Matrix was an attempt to create a system that would decode equally well on SQ, old EV, or QS decoders. It didn't meet that challenge. EV wanted the decoder to handle SQ and QS records equally with its own EV-matrixed recordings. Too much compromise; not enough separation. You can't even include CD-4 in that group; it used no matrix.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

The EV Universal Matrix was an attempt to create a system that would decode equally well on SQ, old EV, or QS decoders. It didn't meet that challenge.

Ha true that. But I guess you could say that it decoded stereo or matrix encoded equally poorly.....

I've never heard the "new" EV decoder but I have the 1st version. I think it is by far the best simple non-enhanced decoder for playing stereo. And of course certain Enoch Light recordings knock your socks off with this.

 

[tom3]

I think what you guys are discussing is what killed quad in the first place. Nothing uniform at all. VHS and Beta systems makers learned from that maybe.

 

[par4ken]

Such an attempt although sounding like a good idea, might of actually produced the worst of both worlds. The addition of the carrier would necessitate limiting the audio bandwidth and the matrixing, regardless of what system was used could also impair the record somewhat for stereo users.

 

[bigbillquad]

Another aspect of what system was better or not was the fact that the FCC in the US that set the standards for the industry to go by, that all systems had to be able to fold down to stereo and mono with no lose of music. This really put a BIG restraint on all Quad systems in a big way...
BBQ....

 

[Q-Eight]

Another aspect of what system was better or not was the fact that the FCC in the US that set the standards for the industry to go by, that all systems had to be able to fold down to stereo and mono with no lose of music. This really put a BIG restraint on all Quad systems in a big way...
BBQ....

Was that the FCC? I thought that was just a Columbia Records, self-imposed necessity when it came to SQ - that it must have stereo and mono compatibility.

 

[proufo]

I think what you guys are discussing is what killed quad in the first place. Nothing uniform at all. VHS and Beta systems makers learned from that maybe.

Someone said that if the Tate system had been available at the launch of Quad or at least early, SQ would have been the clear winner. I agree.

Would a single system had been enough to make Quad survive?

 

[bming]

Someone said that if the Tate system had been available at the launch of Quad or at least early, SQ would have been the clear winner. I agree.

Would a single system had been enough to make Quad survive?

A single system would at least allowed Quadraphonic to be judged on its merits, without the fog of incompatible systems.

 

[jaybird100]

Was that the FCC? I thought that was just a Columbia Records, self-imposed necessity when it came to SQ - that it must have stereo and mono compatibility.

The FCC had nothing to do with that! They were, and are, the licensing agency for radio and TV stations, and they determine standards for broadcasting, not the record industry. The FCC approved a system for discrete quad to be broadcast on FM too late for there to be any real interest in it. Matrix quad didn't need special approval, since broadcasting an SQ or QS record was the same as airing a stereo record.

 

[MidiMagic]

There were two times we had a single standard for surround sound:
- When the EV matrix was the only one on the market
- When Dolby Surround 4.1 was the only system in production

The above is mixing up a few opinions that were versed for different purposes.

Columbia's proposal to the FCC was to have no discrete FM broadcasting system because SQ could do the job without changing the FCC rules.

The main reason there was no immediate FCC approval of discrete quad broadcasts was SCA (Subsidiary Communications Authority). Most FM stations broadcast background music for stores to use on a special SCA subcarrier. Most of the proposed quad systems either eliminated SCA or changed its frequency. As a result, most FM stations did not want discrete quad.

I found the EV Universal decode parameters useful for one thing: listening to different quad records (and stereo records) in one stack on a record changer.

SQ had two drawbacks:
- It was worse than any of the RM matrices for concert hall ambiance separation due to reduced separation between center back and either LF or RF.
- The RM matrices were compatible with each other. SQ was not compatible with anything else.

The biggest drawback of CD-4 and UD-4 was the inability to cue up a record in the normal DJ manner of cuing a stopped turntable and then starting it. So DJs would not want Feldman's compromise.

 

[jaybird100]

There were two times we had a single standard for surround sound:
- When the EV matrix was the only one on the market
- When Dolby Surround 4.1 was the only system in production

The above is mixing up a few opinions that were versed for different purposes.

Columbia's proposal to the FCC was to have no discrete FM broadcasting system because SQ could do the job without changing the FCC rules.

The main reason there was no immediate FCC approval of discrete quad broadcasts was SCA (Subsidiary Communications Authority). Most FM stations broadcast background music for stores to use on a special SCA subcarrier. Most of the proposed quad systems either eliminated SCA or changed its frequency. As a result, most FM stations did not want discrete quad.

I found the EV Universal decode parameters useful for one thing: listening to different quad records (and stereo records) in one stack on a record changer.

SQ had two drawbacks:
- It was worse than any of the RM matrices for concert hall ambiance separation due to reduced separation between center back and either LF or RF.
- The RM matrices were compatible with each other. SQ was not compatible with anything else.

The biggest drawback of CD-4 and UD-4 was the inability to cue up a record in the normal DJ manner of cuing a stopped turntable and then starting it. So DJs would not want Feldman's compromise.

The original Dolby Surround was more a 3.1 system. Despite having two rear speakers, they shared the same signal. There was no real center channel, either.

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/70s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1972-12.pdf#page=40^^^
"Although the EVX-44's "universality" certainly has not compromised its SQ performance,
it proved to be something less than ideal when decoding the Sansui QS Matrix."


Maybe QS encoded CD-4 would have been better.
(CD-4 decoding would still yield discrete Quad)


Kirk Bayne

 

[MidiMagic]

Dolby Surround was 4.1 - left, right, dialog, surround, (subwoofer).

Some decoders left off the dialog channel.

 

[jaybird100]

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/70s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1972-12.pdf#page=40^^^
"Although the EVX-44's "universality" certainly has not compromised its SQ performance,
it proved to be something less than ideal when decoding the Sansui QS Matrix."


Maybe QS encoded CD-4 would have been better.
(CD-4 decoding would still yield discrete Quad)


Kirk Bayne

This process, using a proprietary matrix, was already tried, with Denon's UD-4 system. It's possible a similar approach could have been done combining RM with CD-4, , but the complications of competing patents might have made it difficult. UD-4 didn't infringe on any patents; the carrier-based part of it was similar to, but not identical to, that of CD-4.