Quadradisc list

[4x4audio]

Can anyone tell me is there a list anywhere online that shows all the albums that were ever released
in either CD4 format, or QS??
Seems this would be handy to have when wondering if something is out there.

Chris

 

[larryclifton]

Take a look at the Quadraphonic Discography. There Mark Anderson has posted the contents of my 1979 U.S. quad discography QUAD Incorporated, plus a few more quad releases discovered since and a smattering of international quad releases. The international listings are far from complete. I had planned to produce a worldwide quad discography, but never got to it.

Elsewhere at Mark Anderson's site you can find listings of Ambisonic, DTS, Circle Surround and other types of surround sound releases not included in my discography.

Larry

 

[Marcsten]

Hello Larry -
I seem to recall getting CD4s from you in the dark early 80s. You were a devotee of cd4 and I had just bought a tate, and you know what that means. Good to see you are still around (surround?). Then we had a falling out over that Evolution thing. Anyone else out there from those days, and recall evolution 4quad? I found my menbership card the other day. I'm still matrix.
Marc

 

[JonUrban]

I remember those days.

I seem to recall that I too really pissed of Jay Frank when he started selling quad reels, as it meant he was competing directly with the guy in the midwest "Four Reel to Reel Sound". Since 4 Quad was a MEMBERSHIP driven "club", I thought that he would be hurting one of the few actual businesses that still sold quad recording. He took it the wrong way, and away he went......

Anyway, that was years ago. I don't remember when he got ticked off at Larry. Larry is a freaking saint, and did more for the quadraphonic crew than anyone I can think of.

There was quite a group back then, some are here...

Larry
Brian Moura (our SACD flag bearer)
Nick Perugini
Ron Brian (Australia - he posts here)
Gerhard Thilgen

These are a few of the oldtime names that come to mind, I am sure that there are many more taht I forgot....

If you are lucky enough to have a copy of Quad Incorporated, you can see a list of names of some of the contributors there on the title page.

As I recall, the British Speaker company "QUAD" actually made larry change the name of his publication! Can you believe that???


:-jon

 

[larryclifton]

QUAD, the British speaker manufacturer, did threaten to sue me over my use of the word "quad" in the name of my discography, but they never followed up. I pointed out to them that "quad" had passed into the language as a generic term for quadraphonic sound and cited the dozens of other uses of the term by record labels and audio equipment manufacturers. I heard from them once again and then they either forgot about me or decided not to pursue the matter.

I actually initiated the name change of the newsletter. It was The QUAD Quarterly during its first two years, from 1979 through 1981. Then it changed to MCS Review, "MCS" being an acronym for "Multi Channel Sound". Remember that the publication discussed not only SQ, QS, CD-4 and UD-4, but also Ambisonics, which, as Bill Sommerwerck tooks pains to emphasize, is not a quadraphonic system. Bill convinced me then, and I remain convinced, that it is far superior to any of the matrix or "discrete" systems of the '70s or digital systems of the '00s. These depend on pair-wise mixing to produce their surround effects, and pair-wise mixing just does not work for the sides and rear! But that's another discussion.

Regarding preference for the quad systems of the '70s, I actually inclined toward Sansui's QS, and certainly not to CD-4. Even so, I was interested in all the quad LP technologies and so attempted to acquire the best decoding/demodulating equipment I could afford for each (and thus have a JVC CD-4/50 demodulator despite my tepid enthusiasm for CD-4). None of the systems of that era produced an accurate psychoacoustic presentation of any artist or engineer's intention, but CD-4, in so emphasizing the importance of separation among channels, was probably the worst.

Regarding Jay Frank, I suspect he and I just had different goals. I believe he was trying to establish a business, while I was just a very enthusiastic amateur. Related to my work to assemble the discography QUAD Incorporated, I began writing a column reporting new quadraphonic releases for his Evolution newsletter. Jay was not a gifted writer, but he insisted on editing my work heavily, not for length but for content. The results were frequently hideous (or laughable, except my name was on the byline), for example, using the phase "another words" when he meant "in other words". In addition, I recall that he inserted brief ads within the text of my columns to promote his sale offer of new titles I had mentioned. I asked him to stop or I'd withdraw my services. He didn't, so I did and started my own newsletter/magazine. Thankfully, I got huge helpings of assistance from the people Jon mentions and dozens of others.

As for saints, if there are any, one is Mike Robin. You could not meet a more generous fellow. He performed incredible labors toward assembly of the international quad discography, which I never found time to edit or publish. Mike died about five years ago at the age of 57. Mike once revealed to me that he owned some 20,000 record albums and that he had been divorced twice. I asked if the albums were an issue in the divorces. His deadpan answer: "They didn't help."

Be careful what you acquire.

Larry

 

[bmoura]

Yes, Jay Frank and Evolution are still around. In this case, in the form of a Home Theater store and web site that sells DVDs and up til recently Laserdiscs.

Check www.eavlaser.com/ for a look.

 

[JonUrban]

Wow! I forgot about Mike Robin. Larry is correct, here was another of the great 70's quad community. Sorry to hear about his passing.

Just imagine if we had the internet back then........

:-jon

 

[The Quadfather]

4 Quad... I was a member of that. That's how I got a lot of my quad albums at the time. After awhile I couldn't find anything that I didn't have and wanted. I later found many on the internet. But back then that's all we had. I didn't go by the name "Quadfather" back then, but the name had already been applied to me by a friend who was teasing me about my affection for quad. When the internet came and I needed a moniker for myself, I remembered the name he gave me. I remember there was a lot of talk in four quad about CD-4 breakup, and I thought it was a fatal flaw. It wasn't and now it's my favorite analog format.

The Quadfather

 

[Marcsten]

Well after I started this, I went home last night and pulled out my original copy of Quad Inc., and discovered I WAS WRONG. I had confused Larry, who as we know wrote Quad Inc. with the gentleman who ran Quad First. I can't recall his name, but I spent many hours on the phone with him debating discrete vs matrix. Then when Jay started Evolution and leaned heavily towards matrix, the Quad First guy got really upset and quit. I never felt he took it out on me, but I always thought it was silly that groups this size with common goals would fight over format. Anyway, sorry for the screw - up Larry.
Since you raise Ambisonics, I was at their website yesterday. How does their decoder do with sq/qs? I gather it really wasn't designed for this, but as there is an sq setting, it must be pretty decent. Anyone compared it to the tate? Its awfully expensive, but the site makes it look as though its still available. Is this so?
Glad to be reunited with my surround past!
Marc

 

[larryclifton]

When you mention the Ambisonics website and their decoder in the same breath, I'm guessing you're referring to Cantares and its
SSP-1 Surround Sound Processor/Decoder. I've not heard the decoder and have had no contacts with the company, so I cannot speak with any authority about its performance. I'll have to defer to the Audio Media review of the Cantares decoder.

The review does not have a great deal to say about its SQ and QS performance. Nevertheless, we can probably assume that these are simple decoders which come no where near to matching the capabilities of the Fosgate Research Tate II or the Sansui Vario-Matrix units. If you were to buy it, it would be for the UHJ capabilities. And for that it is pretty expensive. Even the professional version of Minim's AD-10 Ambisonic decoder, built of hand-picked components, retailed for only $1000 in the mid-'80s. The standard version of the AD-10 went for $500 and the scaled-down AD-7 cost a mere $250. And I cannot imagine that the sales volume was that high for these units.

What impressed me about Ambisonics is the common sense of the approach. Quad systems from the '70s and latter day digital surround systems contain speaker feeds. That is, they encode signals meant to go to a particular speaker. If the arrangement of your speakers is not ideal for these feeds, you get a less than ideal presentation. Ambisonic recordings contain an omnidirectional signal and multiple directional signals. On the front of the Ambisonic decoder, you specify the layout pattern of your speakers. The decoder then creates speakers feeds that are ideal for your layout.

Probably Ambisonics failed to catch on because it did not come from a marketing behemoth like Dolby Labs. Capitalism, contrary to the opinions from some quarters, does not always bring us the best products, only adequate ones. Also, I think potential customers probably assumed that it could only produce ambience recordings. Nothing could be further from the truth. It can reproduce any sort of dazzling, swirling pan-pot effects you could desire. Regretably, I know of no commercial Ambisonic recordings that showed off this capability; if you're aware of any, let me know. However, I have heard live Ambisonic recordings, made with the Calrec Soundfield microphone, that provided the best surround imaging I've ever heard. I could distinguish the reactions of individual audience members beside and around me. Their location was specific and rock-solid, and this was from a UHJ-encoded LP. I never had that experience with SQ or QS, and I just haven't listened to live digital surround recordings. However, the digital recordings suffer from the same deficiency as SQ and QS, relying on pair-wise mixing to produce speaker feeds, and, as I stated in a previous post, pair-wise mixing does not work for side and rear images.

For those who want a quick Ambisonic tutorial and links to other Ambisonic information sites, feel free to visit the UHJ Ambisonic Encoding page at my site.

Larry

 

[sspsandy]

I agree with the sentiments about the different surround formats, I personally enjoy them all, and find each one to be interesting in how they implement their individual decoding strategies. I have never heard the Ambisonic format, but have read about it on various websites. So far my favorite system is the CD-4 set-up, but I like the distinct separation and overall sound quality of the Quadradisc, which compares to the Mobile Fidelity half speed master, the same guy evidently developed them both. I did read an interesting account of Ambisonics where there was a discussion of how, over a thousand years ago, the Dogon tribe (in Mali, I think) was contacted by reptilian space beings from Sirius, the dog star, who introduced them to ambisonic sound, or surround in general, it became an intregal part of their ceremonies and culture, and their communication with the afore-mentioned aliens. I'm reserving judgement, but that advanced beings appreciate good surround music comes as no surprise to me.

 

[JonUrban]

Yes, Jay Frank and Evolution are still around. In this case, in the form of a Home Theater store and web site that sells DVDs and up til recently Laserdiscs.

Check www.eavlaser.com/ for a look.

Hey, Jay should check us out and join! He has a great deal of Q-Fi knowledge and would be welcomed here...

I think I will send him an e-mail and invite him.

:-jon

 

[bmoura]

If you're interested in Ambisonics, checke out "Swing Live" by Bucky Pizzarelli on Chesky Multichannel SACD and DVD-A disc.

It's an Ambisonics recording and it does have an uncanny sense of "you are in the jazz club".

>>However, I have heard live Ambisonic recordings, made with the Calrec Soundfield microphone, that provided the best surround imaging I've ever heard. I could distinguish the reactions of individual audience members beside and around me. <<

 

[larryclifton]

Thanks for the tip. The Bucky Pizzarelli recording was on my mental list of DVD-A and SACD titles to get when I dive into these technologies. Though I was an early adopter of DVD-Video -- almost five years ago -- I've hesitated getting a DVD-A or SACD player. First, I wanted to see the prices come down. Well, that's happened. Next, I have limited shelf space for my audio system so I really wanted to find a combination player. Well, more and more of those seem to be appearing. Also, early reviews reported that DVD-A and SACD players lacked bass management. Hopefully, that's getting resolved. And, since my receiver's multi-channel analog inputs are occupied by outputs from my multiple quad decoders, I had hoped to employ a digital connection from the DVD/SACD player to the receiver. That's looking less promising.

As for the Bucky Pizzarelli recording, even if captured with Ambisonic technology, mastering it into a conventional pair-wise mixed digital recording has destroyed the benefits of Ambisonics. To take advantage of the facilities of an Ambisonic decoder, UHJ or B-format, requires delivering an Ambisonic recording to the listener. The digital channels of a digital disk could carry Ambisonic signals instead of speakers feeds, but, of course, the die is cast now. I doubt that we'll ever see that.

Larry

 

[bmoura]

I have the Bucky Pizzarelli "Swing Live" in Multichannel SACD. It's great - definitely has that "you are there" feeling.

 

[AllAroundSurround]

And, since my receiver's multi-channel analog inputs are occupied by outputs from my multiple quad decoders, I had hoped to employ a digital connection from the DVD/SACD player to the receiver.

Larry , do what I'm doing to get extra inputs - Get a db25 switch box and make or buy a set or so of wires to give you the extra inputs to the receiver. Cai sent me the pinout for the db25 but, you could make it any way you want . I need 8 inputs for my [2] 8 channel sound cards and the 5.1 for each -DVD-A/ SACD Multi channel. I can send you or post the link to a 4 input box from Cai, That he sent me a link to , about $70.00 for the box and then make the wires . I bought the db25 Metal connectors from Radio Shack , Or get the wires for 5.1 From M.S.B. $ 90.00- Cheaper to make them If good with a soldering iron! I used db25 shielded cable and shrink tube and might make some more if I get the time, very tidious soldering.
Rob0]

 

[larryclifton]

Rob -

Yep! That my alternative solution. Did you participate in the discussion of this clever solution that appeared on this forum at least a couple of months ago? I was already thinking about how to incorporate DVD-A and SACD into my system -- even without having the receiver's analog inputs occupied by quad decoder outputs, separate players for the two digital audio systems would pose a problem -- when the chat about the use of a DB25 switch box appeared. I saved the essential information, including Web links, in a local document so I could find it immediately.

Nevertheless, I'd prefer to use coax or optical connections. I've struggled with massive bundles of cables for 30 years -- I bought my first quad system in 1972 -- and each added component only makes the snarl worse. At least with quad it was only four cables between components. Now it's six! I use an optical connection from my 1998 DVD-Video player and, for DTS CDs at least, a coax connection from my 1987 CD player. Imagine, 1987! 2003 is almost upon us. I want simple and compact.

Larry

 

[AllAroundSurround]

Yes I did, but just getting to it now! I have 2-8 channel sound cards all the decoders and routers 3dbx 400's -8 channel Tascam r2r for Q8 work, snakes, switchers, and all kinds of other goodies going to my poor receiver, thats getting a complex. It's time to reorganize and simplify !
Rob

 

[JonUrban]

I sent an email to Jay Frank 2 weeks ago, inviting him to stop by and join. I guess he is still pissed at me/us. Geez, lighten up, Jay!!

 

[Marcsten]

Well, gang, I sent an email to Jay Frank C/O his Evolution outfit today, and he was terrific! He answered right away and promised to check out the board. Welcome, Jay.
Marc