Enoch Light format?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It was once said to me by someone "If the number ends in SQ,QS or CD-4 then it's quite obvious what they are. And if it ends in QD it's EV-4, it's that simple."

It's that simple.

Except, there was never clarification as to what the status was with QS in regards to Project 3. What the deal is with the stickers. And the argument that, you need to go by the label, ignores the fact that no QS catalog numbers exist, while QS stickers clearly exist, implying there were actual QS encodings.

But now that we see some real evidence that Project 3 was just slapping QS stickers on EV4 records, because they considered them to be compatible, which means that, perhaps that statement was right all along. If it ends in QD it's EV-4, it's that simple.

But that leaves me with the question of.....where did the data in the quad label listing come from?

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Project3.htm
According to that list, 5051 is the last EV4 release. But QS releases continue up to 5080. However....I do have a copy of 5062, Tony Motolla - Superstar Guitar, which has a QD on the label, and a generic 4 channel stereo sticker on the cover. Which suggests EV4.

My guess is that at some point they stopped referring to EV4 and pushed them as QS more as time went on, so at a certain point they stopped being marketed that way....but I'm wonder what data, or listings, or source, that list was compiled from, to go back to look at those sources and see what further insight that might offer.

Because I also can't help but wonder, what titles have different mixes? As we've found with many of these, the QD records often have different quad mixes from the later SQ/CD4/tape releases, that's certainly the case in permissive polyphonics. But do all QD releases have a different earlier mix from the later SQ/CD4/tape releases? Or at some point, do the QDs contain the same mix as the later encodings?
 
But that leaves me with the question of.....where did the data in the quad label listing come from?

I'd assume that the list was transcribed from the Project 3 order form scan linked on the same page. However, that form does not denote EV-4 vinyl releases - only QS, SQ, and CD-4. It also mentions tape formats, which were not included in the table.

According to that list, 5051 is the last EV4 release. But QS releases continue up to 5080. However....I do have a copy of 5062, Tony Motolla - Superstar Guitar, which has a QD on the label, and a generic 4 channel stereo sticker on the cover. Which suggests EV4.

I'm not sure how to definitively prove it, but I think they started using actual QS encoding rather than EV-4 for 5056 through 5080. I have a few from that run (Big Hits Of The '20s, The Brass Ring, Charge!) and they decode remarkably well with the Surround Master. I A/B'd my Charge! reel with the QS LP and could barely tell the difference.
 
I remember, back in the day, some matrix proponents and manufacturers claimed that even one playing of a CD-4 record on a turntable with a regular stereo cartridge would wipe out the carriers. Such were the competition and lies.

And that's how inferior systems get pushed to the forefront.

Doug

RCA and JVC developed a harder kind of vinyl after the softer regular vinyl was ruined by one play with a stereo cartridge.
 
The quality of the vinyl is important, too. Atlantic used less than stellar vinyl, most of which was recycled. It was pretty much the same they used for their stereo records. Arista was the worst for CD-4.

It seems that JVC had specified a particular type of vinyl for CD-4 records, but the American record companies claimed it wasn't available to them. That was one reason why MoFi did their record pressing in Japan. The Japanese-pressed CD-4 records were far more durable, and much quieter. They obviously took greater care there on all the records they sold over there. It would seem they were more concerned with quality over quantity.

They could not get new vinyl because we were in an oil shortage due to the embargo. They were often required to recycle.
 
In my limited exposure to CD-4, most of the bad CD-4 records had either play damaged carriers (sandpaper quad) or grooves contaminated by particles (the pencil-snapping effect). The carriers were detected in every case, but things not in the original recording were also detected.

I saw it happen one time in an electronics store. I was listening to the music of a CD-4 disc on a demo system (the side-panning issue was quite noticeable) when a woman walked up to a mirror next to the turntable and put powder on her face. Immediately I heard the pencil-snapping effect. Then the manager ran over and asked what I did (as though I had caused it). I told him about the woman and he turned purple.
 
I'd assume that the list was transcribed from the Project 3 order form scan linked on the same page. However, that form does not denote EV-4 vinyl releases - only QS, SQ, and CD-4. It also mentions tape formats, which were not included in the table.

I'm not sure how to definitively prove it, but I think they started using actual QS encoding rather than EV-4 for 5056 through 5080. I have a few from that run (Big Hits Of The '20s, The Brass Ring, Charge!) and they decode remarkably well with the Surround Master. I A/B'd my Charge! reel with the QS LP and could barely tell the difference.

The encoded stylus vectors are so similar that it is very difficult to tell EV from QS.
 
I remember, back in the day, some matrix proponents and manufacturers claimed that even one playing of a CD-4 record on a turntable with a regular stereo cartridge would wipe out the carriers. Such were the competition and lies.

And that's how inferior systems get pushed to the forefront.

Doug
They weren't far off the course, regarding CD-4 pressed on substandard vinyl. While it may not have happened as quickly as some said, it still happened. As for matrix being "inferior" to discrete, discrete separation is nice, but not completely essential to create a cohesive surround effect. More sophisticated decoders, like the Tate, Vario-Matrix, and Surround Master, minimize the difference considerably. It's my feeling that, if a decoder like the Surround Master had been available back when quad was being marketed, things might have been very different. Just my opinion...
 
All I know is, if I had/have a choice of buying a matrix version or CD-4 version of a disk, I took/will take the CD-4 version, every time.

Doug
 
Back
Top