Does a real existential threat exist to Quadraphonic?

[James Hoffmann]

Is there an existential threat to this forum now that mono can be mixed in Atmos?

Innovations such as Peter Jackson's DeMix means mono and stereo can be reimagined spatially. Whatever your personal definition of 3D, quadraphonic, multi-channel and spatial audio is, everything can now be that. What does it mean when we start discussing the Atmos remix of the Beatles mono Revolver album? Is everything now spatial?

In other words what use are Quadraphonic discussions when everything is or can be spatial presentations?

I personally do believe this forum is a valid space where the fascination with aural illusion thrives and can be talked about with common underpinnings.

But this forum's common underpinning and our base assumptions are being questioned and seriously challenged in ways unlike anything in the past. For some time now this forum has accepted that the quadraphonic sound of the 1970s means more than just 4 speakers. But what unique discussions belongs here? Are we now Quadraphonic in name only, having the name being utterly reduced to meaninglessness?

There is upmixed and there are multitracks; hasn't it always been this way?
I value this (and similar) forums for ferreting out the good mixes from the bad (and even fake). As for the "fake" mixes, I'm happy to give them a listen as well, as listening is such a subjective experience. BUT, I very much prefer discreetly mixed and nicely separated multitrack mixes, generally - I want it to sound as though I'm listening to a VERY carefully performed and mixed live event (again and again).
There is a wealth of multitrack material that has yet to released - some older, but the vast majority is brand new/being recorded as I type this. Every week on Apple, Amazon, Tidal and other streamers there are more titles being added, and very little of it appears to be upmixed - why should it be, when they have mutitrack digital masters of newly produced material?

 

[4_everyman]

What does Quadraphonic Quad mean to you in 2024?

An ever-present threat to my wallet.

 

[jimfisheye]

Haha! It's not an existential threat to Quadraphonic. It's an existential threat FROM QuadraphonicQuad!
(I'm not in here with you... You're in here with me!)

 

[Quad Linda]

When I began buying adult records, mono 78's were all there was. In the late 50's, 2ch arrived along w/33 & 45 rpm. 1962, stereo came to our house and I got a 7" reel. Stereo was a quantum leap.

Perhaps in '69, 2 Chicago FM stations ran a QUADRAPHONIC broadcast of Vanguard reels. One station ran the fronts, rears on the other station. Brought Dad's receiver and speakers to my room. Coupled with my 2ch system, VOILA! Instant Quad! I was hooked!! Immediately, I did a DY setup by adding 2 spare 6x9's I had. Three years later, I began buying Quad gear and Q8's. Soon added full-logic SQ, QS and CD-4.

Is multi-channel music on the wane? With so many home theater systems in use, people are discovering "new" ways of listening to music, multichannel. Well, new to them, though most familiar to all of us Quaddies. They thought sound effects in the rears were all they could do!!

Whether mixed from dozens of tracks, or upmixes or instruments/voices extracted from a track, It's all good. The more discrete the mix, the more enjoyment! Call it whatever you choose, anything more than 2 channels is some form of QUAD!

 

[mandrix]

When I began buying adult records, mono 78's were all there was. In the late 50's, 2ch arrived along w/33 & 45 rpm. 1962, stereo came to our house and I got a 7" reel. Stereo was a quantum leap.

Perhaps in '69, 2 Chicago FM stations ran a QUADRAPHONIC broadcast of Vanguard reels. One station ran the fronts, rears on the other station. Brought Dad's receiver and speakers to my room. Coupled with my 2ch system, VOILA! Instant Quad! I was hooked!! Immediately, I did a DY setup by adding 2 spare 6x9's I had. Three years later, I began buying Quad gear and Q8's. Soon added full-logic SQ, QS and CD-4.

Is multi-channel music on the wane? With so many home theater systems in use, people are discovering "new" ways of listening to music, multichannel. Well, new to them, though most familiar to all of us Quaddies. They thought sound effects in the rears were all they could do!!

Whether mixed from dozens of tracks, or upmixes or instruments/voices extracted from a track, It's all good. The more discrete the mix, the more enjoyment! Call it whatever you choose, anything more than 2 channels is some form of QUAD!

Yeah, I remember simulcasts in the Tampa area. Video and sound. Tune the tv and the tuner and watch and listen.

 

[DrKlahn]

This is a bit off topic, but one of the things I've enjoyed about this forum is there is basically no format war. You want to stick to Quad? Cool. You don't want go past 5.1? Enjoy. Atmos? Again, great. Me personally as much as I love Atmos, I will jump at any good immersive mix of music I love. You want to put out a band's album I enjoy in Quad? I'm in. Take my money. A lot of other forums out there have a sizable contingent that holds fast to the idea that 2ch is the only format that can be discussed and anything spatial is a "gimmick". I don't get it at all, but I don't have the energy to talk to a wall when it comes to spatial audio.

As far as the topic of upmixing, me personally I just haven't had a great experience with it. My latest processor has Auro3D and I tried it. But I still find for the most part I prefer to listen to material in its original format. Granted, there are those few cases where I feel it does improve things. The latest was trying the ELO concert (Wembley or Bust) with the Dolby upmixer applied to the stereo track. Worked really well to my ears.

I guess I'm glad we have the option for all the various upmixers. And if you enjoy what they do more than I do, I don't see any harm done. I'll keep messing around with them to see if they are benefit to whatever I'm listening to.

 

[jimfisheye]

I'll say it again. Even after listening to 12 channel Atmos mixes on a full 7.1.4 system, a 4 channel quad mix is still "on"! Immediate night meets day surround sound.

 

[mandrix]

This is a bit off topic, but one of the things I've enjoyed about this forum is there is basically no format war. You want to stick to Quad? Cool. You don't want go past 5.1? Enjoy. Atmos? Again, great. Me personally as much as I love Atmos, I will jump at any good immersive mix of music I love. You want to put out a band's album I enjoy in Quad? I'm in. Take my money. A lot of other forums out there have a sizable contingent that holds fast to the idea that 2ch is the only format that can be discussed and anything spatial is a "gimmick". I don't get it at all, but I don't have the energy to talk to a wall when it comes to spatial audio.

As far as the topic of upmixing, me personally I just haven't had a great experience with it. My latest processor has Auro3D and I tried it. But I still find for the most part I prefer to listen to material in its original format. Granted, there are those few cases where I feel it does improve things. The latest was trying the ELO concert (Wembley or Bust) with the Dolby upmixer applied to the stereo track. Worked really well to my ears.

I guess I'm glad we have the option for all the various upmixers. And if you enjoy what they do more than I do, I don't see any harm done. I'll keep messing around with them to see if they are benefit to whatever I'm listening to.

I hear what you're saying. A matter of like/dislike, and I personally don't have Auro3D capability. The Dolby Surround upmix function and the DTS as well on modern AVR's don't impress me.
But upmixing also encompasses more than the built in codecs in an AVR. Quite a few people on this forum have been "upmixing" stereo to surround via various methods for many years. More so since the recent spate of AI tools came to be.

 

[jimfisheye]

Wait... someone is sad that quad still makes the cut even after hearing more channels? I'm not taking speakers down or anything!

 

[mandrix]

Wait... someone is sad that quad still makes the cut even after hearing more channels? I'm not taking speakers down or anything!

Huh? lol.

 

[Sal1950]

I guess I'm glad we have the option for all the various upmixers. And if you enjoy what they do more than I do, I don't see any harm done. I'll keep messing around with them to see if they are benefit to whatever I'm listening to.

I'm big on upmixing 2ch to 5.1 multich using one of the softwares in my AVR most always. But for whatever reason I haven't found any yet that upmix 2ch or 4/5.1 to "overhead Atmos" to come across right? To me whatever gets sent up to the overheads just seems to confuse the mix and sound a bit overloaded.
YMMV

 

[timbre4]

I’ve processed 100 albums through Penteo and thrilled with the results. Fubar 2000 through a surface pro tablet and Asus USB interface into six channel amps.

Current view during playback

 

[Sal1950]

Is there an existential threat to this forum now that mono can be mixed in Atmos?

Here's hoping that the boom in all sort of 4+++ channel formats and music releases
brings QQ a wealth of intelligent, non-aggressive new members. Ones that chose to contribute
in a positive manner including financial support of the website.

 

[mandrix]

I’ve processed 100 albums through Penteo and thrilled with the results. Fubar 2000 through a surface pro tablet and Asus USB interface into six channel amps.

Current view during playback

Is that downhill slope how you get your car started? J/K
For some reason it made me think of my stick shift truck that has an intermittent short that drains the battery.
Hills are good!

 

[timbre4]

Is that downhill slope how you get your car started? J/K
For some reason it made me think of my stick shift truck that has an intermittent short that drains the battery.
Hills are good!

All good, it’s a 5 speed and running well. this is a “hill” that has been blocked off for months. Happy it was open on a sunny day.

 

[MidiMagic]

This is a bit off topic, but one of the things I've enjoyed about this forum is there is basically no format war. You want to stick to Quad? Cool. You don't want go past 5.1? Enjoy. Atmos? Again, great. Me personally as much as I love Atmos, I will jump at any good immersive mix of music I love. You want to put out a band's album I enjoy in Quad? I'm in. Take my money. A lot of other forums out there have a sizable contingent that holds fast to the idea that 2ch is the only format that can be discussed and anything spatial is a "gimmick". I don't get it at all, but I don't have the energy to talk to a wall when it comes to spatial audio.

As far as the topic of upmixing, me personally I just haven't had a great experience with it. My latest processor has Auro3D and I tried it. But I still find for the most part I prefer to listen to material in its original format. Granted, there are those few cases where I feel it does improve things. The latest was trying the ELO concert (Wembley or Bust) with the Dolby upmixer applied to the stereo track. Worked really well to my ears.

I guess I'm glad we have the option for all the various upmixers. And if you enjoy what they do more than I do, I don't see any harm done. I'll keep messing around with them to see if they are benefit to whatever I'm listening to.

There is an existential threat to the older formats.

Other than Surround Master, nobody is making equipment to play the older formats. And they have stopped making most of the replacement parts needed to fix the old equipment. So when that equipment breaks down and can't be repaired, it's gone. The amount of equipment available to play the old formats is continuously dwindling.

They have for the most part stopped making receivers that accept discrete 4ch inputs and decode matrix recordings.

And most manufacturers don't care about people playing their old recordings. They want you to replace them with new copies in new formats.

 

[kfbkfb]

Going OT...MidiMagic - how about designing a Hafler/DynaQuad passive speaker matrix decoder circuit that rolls off the treble in the surround channel at about 7kHz and also somehow simulates the modified Dolly B NR decoding (perhaps a mild fixed shelf filter that's an average of sliding band frequency range of Dolby B and a cut that's an average of low level treble boost of Dolby B)?


Kirk Bayne

 

[barfle]

I recall several albums being “rechanneled for stereo,” so upmixing is as old as 2-channel audio. Some simply put lows on one side and highs on the other, I figured some used a graphic equalizer and alternated bands between the channels.

Whether the results are pleasing to you or not is a matter of personal preference.

 

[Quad Linda]

Duophonic or electronically rechanneled for stereo is BS! Two channels of slop. Not DY or added Hall effects, which often do a reasonable job of simulation.

IMHO, mono beats electronic stereo.

 

[Aging quadie]

To my brain, DES stereo from a mono source never sounds natural. Impressive at times, but still artificial. I cringe at what Atmos "improvements" may yield.