RHINO QUADIO batch #6 - Speculation Extravaganza!

[barfle]

In my home town there were multiple competing easy listening radio stations into at least the 1970s. It was both on AM and FM.

OOoooh, yeah, lots of elevator music on FM in the 70s and 80s.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Don't beat me up, but it seems that many of you buy these discs without knowing the albums at all. Why is that?

Well, speaking for myself, I was never into Jazz much back in the quad days.
Mostly just Rock n Roll , and electronics .

But I've come around since then , so the Duke Ellington and Bette Midler quads , two I've never heard , should satisfy my quad lust.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

A quick search as found within Wiki:
"The United Artists catalog is controlled by Capitol Records, now part of Universal Music Group (who also owns the non-soundtrack catalog of MGM Records, once owned by UA's current parent Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer).[15][16] Capitol Records also has the rights to soundtrack albums UA Records released under license from MGM Music.[17] The catalog of most British acts who were signed to the British branch of UA Records is today controlled by the Parlophone unit of Warner Music Group,[18] with North American distribution by Rhino Entertainment."

Artists known quad releases detailed at Discogs include:

• Amon Düül II
• Paul Anka https://www.discogs.com/artist/312014-Paul-Anka?format=Quadraphonic
• Shirley Bassey https://www.discogs.com/artist/5492-Shirley-Bassey?format=Quadraphonic
• Electric Light Orchestra https://www.discogs.com/artist/112154-Electric-Light-Orchestra?format=Quadraphonic
• Bobby Goldsboro https://www.discogs.com/artist/104732-Bobby-Goldsboro?format=Quadraphonic
• Hawkwind Atmos released
• Gordon Lightfoot https://www.discogs.com/artist/306305-Gordon-Lightfoot?format=Quadraphonic
• Ennio Morricone https://www.discogs.com/artist/15900-Ennio-Morricone?format=Quadraphonic
• Popol Vuh https://www.discogs.com/artist/81882-Popol-Vuh?format=Quadraphonic
• Johnny Rivers https://www.discogs.com/artist/183949-Johnny-Rivers?format=Quadraphonic
• Traffic unreleased John Barleycorn Must Die
• Ike & Tina Turner https://www.discogs.com/artist/81138-Ike-Tina-Turner?format=Quadraphonic
• War https://www.discogs.com/artist/9707-War?format=Quadraphonic
• Dottie West https://www.discogs.com/artist/577288-Dottie-West?format=Quadraphonic All three quads rereleased
• Bobby Womack https://www.discogs.com/artist/10463-Bobby-Womack?format=Quadraphonic
• Frank Zappa https://www.discogs.com/artist/92623-Frank-Zappa?format=Quadraphonic Both rereleased

I would sincerely request that you also check out all the artists within the Rhino catalogue. You will find that some of the one time quad artists are now on another label, which is a shame.
It will provide anyone with an accurate listing of artists they now carry, and the possible quads .
I was not aware that Amon Dull had a quad album ?
Thankyou for that info.

 

[hdlistener]

Just because it's quad (or Atmos, 5.1, etc.,) it doesn't mean you're going to like it. I'm grateful there are as many "surround audio" purveyors as there are, but that can't at all oblige me to buy Seals & Croft, Donny Hathaway, Doobie Bros, Graham Central Station reissues. BUT good for any other quad fan who likes those artists.

I think part of the many reasons original quad didn't catch on was the shortage of top-shelf artists & releases that people could experience firsthand & really dig the spurs in to make them want quad in their own home. Most of these were second-tier artists, and essentially "contractual obligation" releases, and that's just not gonna catch fire to make quad the "next big thing" we all hoped it would be. Add to that the "format war" of multiple decoding vinyl releases AND the extra cost & hassle of setting up & calibrating a quad system, and I think you're already into niche "propeller head" geek territory (not as if there's anything WRONG with that)!

I have been beguiled to repeat buy MANY archive faves over the decades, first as CD re-releases came out, plus maybe a few Mobile Fidelity reissues. At my advanced stage of, um, maturity, I CAN still shell out to buy new SACD or deluxe reissues, but I just plain have to be REALLY selective, given their COST and, I confess, the cold, unflinching likelihood that I probably can't squeeze $50+ more enjoyment out of re-experiencing these thoroughly familiar recordings anew. Still, I'm on board IF it's a title/artist that was somehow "central to my existence" back in the day. Again, my bottom line is I'm GRATEFUL we get as much as we do for these pristine audio resurrections. I'd DEFINITELY grab Traffic's "John Barleycorn" in a surround remix given the chance!

Please note there are as many Crofts as there are Seals. It's "Seals and Crofts".

 

[hdlistener]

Interesting analysis, but I don't really agree with the premise that quad failed because most of the albums mixed were "second-tier" artists. While the case may be (and certainly is) that as many top-selling artists had quad albums released as didn't, labels were absolutely in the business of making music that sold, so they weren't commissioning quad mixes (which cost something in the neighborhood of $50k in today's money) as some kind of box-ticking exercise - no one was contractually obligated to issue a quad LP.

You certainly see some albums mixed for, and released in quad that were duds, but that's just the random nature of trying to sell any kind of art - if there was a simple (or even complicated) formula for commercial success in selling music, movies, or books you can bet that every company would employ it as they have no interest in sinking money into enterprises that don't merit it. The music industry back then was moving at a lightning pace, with pretty much every artist releasing an album a year (with some notable exceptions) and the albums that you do see released (again, with some exceptions where the few artists who had the power to exercise artistic control did so) represent what the labels saw as lottery tickets with the best chance for hitting the jackpot.

There's also historical revisionism at play, as the popularity of certain styles and genres waxes and wanes over the decades. I think for example, soft rock of the style that Bread and Seals and Crofts has fallen down because of its overly earnest style and lack of 'cool' cache, and rock fans seem to discount the importance of the acts that charted highly on the R&B charts (or "Top Soul LPs" as the Billboard chart was called back then) at the same time that rock acts were at the top of the Billboard Albums Chart, whereas bands like Black Sabbath, who were selling similar numbers of LPs as any of those bands back in the day have seen their profile rise in recent years because of the critical reappraisal of their historical significance and influence on younger generations.

Just a sample of some of the chart positions of recent rock and R&B Quadio releases:

Bread Baby I'm-a Want You - Billboard #3
Graham Central Station Self-Titled - R&B #20 (Can You Handle It #9 R&B single)
Bette Midler Divine Miss M - Billboard #9
Seals & Crofts - Diamond Girl - Billboard #4
Roberta Flack - Killing Me Softly - Billboard #3, R&B #2
Joni Mitchell - Court & Spark - Billboard #2, Hissing of Summer Lawns Billboard #4
War - The World is a Ghetto - Billboard #1, R&B #1
Average White Band - AWB - Billboard #1, R&B #1
The Spinners - Spinners - Billboard #14, R&B #1
Gordon LIghtfoot - Sundown - Billboard #1
America - Holiday - Billboard #3
Alice Cooper - Billion Dollar Babies - Billboard #1

...and the list goes on, three of the four Doobie Bros. quad albums were top-5, and five of the nine Chicago albums were #1, and the others were all in the top 10, just to name a few more.

Actually, the Quadio Seals and Crofts title is "Summer Breeze", not "Diamond Girl".

 

[kfbkfb]

I don't recall a statement by Rhino that each Quadio release would be 4 titles, maybe release group 6 will be 3 titles...(could still do the 4 Quadio discount with so many Quadio titles now available).


Kirk Bayne

 

[Simon A]

I don't recall a statement by Rhino that each Quadio release would be 4 titles, maybe release group 6 will be 3 titles...(could still do the 4 Quadio discount with so many Quadio titles now available).


Kirk Bayne

I somehow doubt that. If they released three albums, they would be called Threeo instead of Quadio and would only be from three track tapes instead of Quad.

I doubt these would sell as well.

Gots to be four albums!

Gots to be!

 

[quicksrt]

I think part of the many reasons original quad didn't catch on was the shortage of top-shelf artists & releases that people could experience firsthand & really dig the spurs in to make them want quad in their own home. Most of these were second-tier artists, and essentially "contractual obligation" releases, and that's just not gonna catch fire to make quad the "next big thing" we all hoped it would be. Add to that the "format war" of multiple decoding vinyl releases AND the extra cost & hassle of setting up & calibrating a quad system, and I think you're already into niche "propeller head" geek territory (not as if there's anything WRONG with that)!

Most of us have come to the conclusion that the reasons quad failed in the 70's was mainly due to poor or inconsistent playback quality. SQ LPs did not have the discreet "wow-ness" that the master mixes actually contained, CD-4 LPs were not as easy as dropping a needle on the LP and flipping the selector switch to CD-4, not by a long shot. 8-tracks were low-fi hiss ridden, poor examples of fidelity - also not fully showing off the potential of those great mixes being performed on top albums of the era.

The reason that quad masters reissued today have any marketability on high-resolution discs is because the artists and albums chosen back then were often commercially successful chart-toppers. And the mixes have proven to be more often than not carefully considered and executed.

Quadraphonic was a wonderful idea which was beautifully executed by the artists, producers and studio engineers, but not delivered adequately at the consumer electronics / playback end of the chain.

We are very fortunate that now we are able to hear these mixes in their full glory while avoiding those flawed formats and much of the expense incurred in quad's past life. Quad's recent resurrection would not have happened at this level without the albums and the mixes being fairly strong artistically and commercially to begin with.

 

[ar surround]

Actually, the Quadio Seals and Crofts title is "Summer Breeze", not "Diamond Girl".

Yes, and I'm am waiting patiently for "Diamond Girl" to be released, please Mr. Rhino.

 

[ar surround]

Most of us have come to the conclusion that the reasons quad failed in the 70's was mainly due to poor or inconsistent playback quality. SQ LPs did not have the discreet "wow-ness" that the master mixes actually contained, CD-4 LPs were not as easy as dropping a needle on the LP and flipping the selector switch to CD-4, not by a long shot.

Well, no one can blame me for the failure of quad. I had a part-time job, worked full time during school breaks and the summer, and I spent every spare nickle on hi-fi equipment to get a nice quad setup. quicksrt did hit some nails on the head:

1) "SQ LP's did not have the discreet (sic) "wow-ness"." Yes, even with the Lafayette SQ full logic wavematching decoder the separation was phantom at times.

2) "CD-4 LP's not as easy as dropping a needle on the LP and flipping the selector switch to CD-4." That was so true, even with two turntables. Plus a number of discs suffered from spurious noises.

It would have helped if the later Beatles albums had been released in quad. If there was one mega act whose popularity spanned multiple generations, it was the Fab Four. Perhaps releasing that material would have been the kick in the pants quad needed. Perhaps not. Given the amount of time it took to get Beatles albums on CD, we know that EMI / Capitol were not early adopters.

 

[ar surround]

Well, no one can blame me for the failure of quad. I had a part-time job, worked full time during school breaks and the summer, and I spent every spare nickle on hi-fi equipment to get a nice quad setup.

The only mistakes I made during that period, which cut deeply into my quad equipment / LP budget, were a having full-time girlfriend and beer bills at my animal house (frat) that were larger than the monthly room rent. Oh, what equipment I could have owned had I been wiser!

 

[Simon A]

Oh, what equipment I could have owned had I been wiser!

Yet you chose to be Budwiser instead..

 

[par4ken]

Don't beat me up, but it seems that many of you buy these discs without knowing the albums at all. Why is that?

While I "know" most of these albums the unknown ones can be a pleasant surprise. I'm not a gambler but shooting for these unknowns gives a bit of the same experience! As a long time "Quadrophile" I'm so glad to get most any vintage quad in a modern format.

These are limited editions, the duds can always be listed for sale on eBay or Discogs, their value can only increase. You save money by purchasing the bundle, something like getting one free so why not?

All of these so far produce amazing sound quality and most feature an amazing surround mix.

Most of these titles can be sampled or listened to in their entirety (in stereo) via YouTube or Spotify, if you don't want to gamble.

Glad to hear! Some on this forum just buy, buy buy and then complain about the album & how they don't like it.
Crazy!

Crazy , perhaps but all are entitled to their opinion. I would suggest that if they don't like the music at all it is best not to vote in the poll, or at least weight their vote more toward sound quality and mix. Even negative comments can be useful. If somebody says that I don't like the drums in the rear I know that I will love it!

 

[par4ken]

A pity their SQ format for LP's was "fake" quad, aka "round mono."

Incorrect, SQ was by far the best system at the time. Even without separation enhancement you retained full left to right separation, front to rear separation is far less important! Then with the Tate super decoders, you would be hard pressed to tell that the playback is not discrete!

 

[par4ken]

Most of us have come to the conclusion that the reasons quad failed in the 70's was mainly due to poor or inconsistent playback quality. SQ LPs did not have the discreet "wow-ness" that the master mixes actually contained, CD-4 LPs were not as easy as dropping a needle on the LP and flipping the selector switch to CD-4, not by a long shot. 8-tracks were low-fi hiss ridden, poor examples of fidelity - also not fully showing off the potential of those great mixes being performed on top albums of the era.

Yes sadly the industry (hardware and software) gave up far too soon. If they had hung in there a few more years quad could have been saved first by the Tate DES system and then ultimately by the discrete Compact Disc.

You could argue that the industry jumped in too soon before the technology had been perfected. While I don't dispute that statement, and those early efforts were a bit premature but still it worked for me, turning me into a lifelong believer! I look back to those early days with great fondness!

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Failure was also a lack of product. I remember getting my QRX-999 in Naples and dragging it onto the ship and into my shop. Many of my friends were interested in Quad as they had little experience with it. I had just received one of the "Sound Concepts" quad booklets listing all of the quad stuff that was for sale.

The guys looked through it and said "Is this it? Are these the only things you can get in quad?"

They were looking for Led Zeppelin, Elton John, Fleetwood Mac, and other stuff like that. They were interested in the Zappa's and Eagles and Aeromsith's, but there just wasn'e enough to motivate them. Plus, this was at the tail end of the quad years, and most of the current stuff wasn't available.

Price was the main reason, but availability of what was out there and what wasn't out there was important as well

Jon, how? Where? Do you play quad on a ship? Was your "shop" a work area onboard? What was the speaker layout like? Who was allowed to use it?

My cousin got quite a bit of PX sourced 70s marantz quad gear, but he was army and kept a lot of it in his locker when he had to. After a while he was on a base, repairing army PCs in a repair shop, with a few other like minded audio guys, and his and their audio systems were all set up in one place. Each of them taking turns playing and trying to impress the others.

 

[ar surround]

Incorrect, SQ was by far the best system at the time. Even without separation enhancement you retained full left to right separation, front to rear separation is far less important! Then with the Tate super decoders, you would be hard pressed to tell that the playback is not discrete!

Yes sadly the industry (hardware and software) gave up far too soon. If they had hung in there a few more years quad could have been saved first by the Tate DES system and then ultimately by the discrete Compact Disc.

You could argue that the industry jumped in too soon before the technology had been perfected. While I don't dispute that statement, and those early efforts were a bit premature but still it worked for me, turning me into a lifelong believer! I look back to those early days with great fondness!

Tate II: Too late and extremely pricey. The Lafayette SQ-W was quite good, but I distinctly recall playing 25 or 6 to 4 for a friend in SQ. We both thought it sounded very good, but then we looked at the Lafayette decoder and saw that it was set to Composer A (QS non-logic) and not SQ full logic. So things were not so good before the Tate.

Jumped in too soon: You could have taken those words right out of my mouth. But if I had a dollar for every technology that was brought to bear slightly before its time, I'd be challenging Musk for worlds richest person.

 

[kfbkfb]

(I suggest a new thread - "Why Quad Failed in the 1970s" containing many of the recent posts in this thread)

Perhaps we should send Dolby Laboratories thank you cards (the Hallmark world headquarters is here in town, maybe they could design a special card) for saving surround sound with Dolby Surround.


Kirk Bayne

 

[par4ken]

Tate II: Too late and extremely pricey.

Had "the industry" hung in there, with most of them adopting the technology the price of Tate would have dropped. It was expected to sell for about the same price as those "full logic decoders". Problems with the chip design resulted in an interface circuit being required, that added cost. Being championed only by a couple of small "Audiophile" companies resulted in high prices. I would have paid almost any amount that I could manage at the time (yes I was/am that hooked)!

 

[4-earredwonder]

All this chatter about how QUAD failed in the early to mid 70's carries over into AD 2024. With the current advanced technology in place, have we EVER had more of an incentive to delve into multi channel? And yet, statistically, the world still hangs on to their DVD players failing to even upgrade to Blu Ray much less 4K and it has been said even in tech savvy Japan, the majority of its youth prefer to listen to their music via earbuds!

And even big box retailers like Best Buy have NO interest in multichannel so it narrows its awareness even more! And how does one sample the technology ONLINE?

One would've thought with the intro of Dolby ATMOS newbies would've scrambled to adopt the new technology ...but nay ...they're content to enjoy the technology at their local cinemas instead.

And I find it more amazing that the major record companies and even artists despite the niche market surround encompasses ... continue to support it via hi res downloads and physical discs.

2024 is turning out to be a banner year for all things surround and I, for one, am grateful that so many choices are available and as long as we at QQ forum continue to support their efforts it will continue unabated for at least a few more years.

And with Warner/RHINO fully on board, how far behind can UMG and SONY be?