Just found this in the Old School Quad FB Group (original post by Cykomf Harley):
Kirk Bayne
Kirk Bayne
(1975) CBS Quad LP Insert
- Thread starter kfbkfb
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Doug G.
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
I guess there were just too many people with "only two ears".
Doug
Doug
CBS and their sneaky insults to CD-4: 
Full dynamic range
Full frequency range
Quiet
IIRC, Sony did similar things when promoting (SQ) quad.
Kirk Bayne
Full dynamic range
Full frequency range
Quiet
IIRC, Sony did similar things when promoting (SQ) quad.
Kirk Bayne
Doug G.
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
I always noticed that about CBS, too, and they really weren't alone in taking digs and sometimes, stating out-and-out lies about CD-4. They all ganged up on CD-4 because they knew it was superior.
Doug
Doug
MidiMagic
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,249
Sup(pop)er(crash)io(sssss)r????
That was the truth, not "digs".
CD-4 has a limited frequency response, is easily damaged, can be noisy, and can't be broadcast in quad on standard FM radio.
I read that Walter (at the time) Carlos was unhappy with the SQ encoding of “Switched-on Bach,” and regretted not being able to use the discrete CD-4. Personally, I thought it was groovy as all hell, but I didn’t put in the work that he did.
IIRC, JVC justified the 15kHz (baseband/sum) frequency response limit by stating that the RIAA EQ for phonograph records wasn't defined over 15kHz (at least in the early 1970s when CD-4 was developed).
(one CD-4 release [dual inventory - WEA group] has the baseband/sum cut 2dB louder than the stereo release)
Kirk Bayne
(one CD-4 release [dual inventory - WEA group] has the baseband/sum cut 2dB louder than the stereo release)
Kirk Bayne
I have to fully agree with CBS and their CD-4 "digs". I have always been an SQ supporter! Even if you get CD-4 to play properly it suffers from an audible rolled off high end and higher distortion.
Now with real discrete formats such as SACD we don't have to mess around much with CD-4!
There was absolutely no way that the average person would be able to make a go of CD-4, far too finicky!
Now with real discrete formats such as SACD we don't have to mess around much with CD-4!
There was absolutely no way that the average person would be able to make a go of CD-4, far too finicky!
It's really too bad that the phono cartridge and turntable makers didn't come up with the P-mount tech in the 1960s, there's really no reason phono cart installation and alignment has to be so complicated (and P-mount tech would have solved the CD-4 cart alignment issues [there wouldn't have been any]).
I haven't researched the early years of stereo LP playback systems, perhaps in comparison, the teething problems of CD-4 aren't all that unusual (for recovering more info from a standard record groove).
aside: CBS had been mastering CD-4 for various clients since 1973.
Kirk Bayne
I haven't researched the early years of stereo LP playback systems, perhaps in comparison, the teething problems of CD-4 aren't all that unusual (for recovering more info from a standard record groove).
aside: CBS had been mastering CD-4 for various clients since 1973.
Kirk Bayne
On her website, Wendy Carlos even hinted that QS would have been better. I don't know if she had the right to refuse Columbia to release the SQ without her first hearing it, but she should have been able to approve it prior to release.
MidiMagic
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,249
I have researched the early years of stereo. The only serious problems with stereo were:
- Mono pickups with no vertical compliance ruined stereo record groovess.
- Many older mono records had noise in the vertical stylus motion direction.
- Skating was a problem with trying to make low-tracking-force stereo pickups.
- Vertical groove modulation had to be limited to prevent groove skipping.
- A few early stereo records were recorded with the stereo phase reversed.
The solutions were:
- Replace the mono pickup in your arm with a stereo pickup wired for mono.
- The stereo-mono switch was introduced to quite the noise in old mono records.
- Most turntables have antiskating for this purpose. Linear tracking was introduced.
- Deep bass (which is nondirectional anyway) must be panned to center.
- Quality control prevents phase error. Some players have phase-reverse switches.
Even the P-mount can't make a pivoted tonearm track with no tracking error. Where on the record the tracking error is greatest depends on the design of the tonearm.
Some tonearms are designed for DJ scratching (manual moving the turntable back and forth) and would have serious tracking error on inner grooves. CD-4 could not be used with these.
I would not buy a P-mount arm, because I usually set the arm up for all of the records I have instead of optimizing for 12-inch records. Since many of my records are small diameter records, I optimize the inner grooves.
Last edited:
With just a few exceptions, most record companies chose, and used, one system for their quad releases. Although CBS mastered CD-4 for other companies, they wouldn't even think about anything other than SQ for their releases. RCA was stuck on CD-4. The Warner group was originally going to use QS, until Brad Miller, of MoFi, threatened to pull his catalog from Warner. There were other examples, too, but there were two companies that were, either undecided, or wanted to be all things to all systems. A&M started with QS, having announced 5 initial releases, but delivering only one before switching to SQ. After a series of releases in that format, they went CD-4. Project3 tried to be all things for all systems, offering select albums in all three formats.
Then look at Japan. While JVC, and CBS/Sony only released in their own systems, many other record companies used whichever system best suited a particular recording.
Last edited:
Doug G.
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Let's not pretend that SQ, QS, or any of the other matrix systems were without problems, the biggest being the limited separation before much effort was put into modifications, circuit improvements, workarounds, etc. The basic performance, in that respect, was vastly inferior to CD-4. Hearing a working CD-4 system certainly HAD to have impressed a newcomer to quad a heck of a lot more than any matrix system. I know it did me.
What about the claims by matrix adherents that a CD-4 record was ruined in one play on a regular stereo system? Patently false.
Doug
What about the claims by matrix adherents that a CD-4 record was ruined in one play on a regular stereo system? Patently false.
Doug
Yet, isn't it interesting that the sole survivor of all those analog systems is RM, aka QS?
CBS used to hammer Sansui about the QS mono downmix (LB and RB are down ~8dB), I guess they didn't consider QS much of a competitor by 1975 since they just have the one "insult" stating that SQ has Complete...compatibility.
Kirk Bayne
Kirk Bayne
Only SQ "survived" well into the eighties and with the proper backing of the Tate system it could have thrived. It's so sad that all the money was with Dolby. Dolby drew on both SQ and QS and created an inferior "bastard" system. They also took the backdoor into audio via movies/video!
QS didn't really survive at all. Involve simply picked up the pieces of long abandoned technology but I am thankful that they did that.
This is turning into a fight of system vs system! As I recall one of Jon's rules was not to do so. I will attempt to refrain from saying any more for now other than repeat that I am a firm believer in everything that CBS was saying! Quad is my religion and SQ my denomination!
Dolby drew on both SQ and QS and created an inferior "bastard" system. They also took the backdoor into audio via movies/video!QS didn't really survive at all. Involve simply picked up the pieces of long abandoned technology but I am thankful that they did that.
This is turning into a fight of system vs system! As I recall one of Jon's rules was not to do so. I will attempt to refrain from saying any more for now other than repeat that I am a firm believer in everything that CBS was saying! Quad is my religion and SQ my denomination!
It's not like we have to worship a particular system. I just get into a lotus position, in the vortex of my 4 or 5 speakers, and chant! OMMMMMMMMMMMM........Only SQ "survived" well into the eighties and with the proper backing of the Tate system it could have thrived. It's so sad that all the money was with Dolby.
QS didn't really survive at all. Involve simply picked up the pieces of long abandoned technology but I am thankful that they did that.
This is turning into a fight of system vs system! As I recall one of Jon's rules was not to do so. I will attempt to refrain from saying any more for now other than repeat that I am a firm believer in everything that CBS was saying! Quad is my religion and SQ my denomination!
Doug G.
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
When it gets down to it, I love ALL quad systems as long as they are quad. I just feel the need to defend CD-4, sometimes, from what I feel are unfair criticisms of the system that works so well for me.
Doug
Doug
Blessed are the cheese-makers?
Similar threads
