OOoooh, yeah, lots of elevator music on FM in the 70s and 80s.
RHINO QUADIO batch #6 - Speculation Extravaganza!
- Thread starter J. PUPSTER
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
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.
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
Member
Please note there are as many Crofts as there are Seals. It's "Seals and Crofts".
hdlistener
Member
Actually, the Quadio Seals and Crofts title is "Summer Breeze", not "Diamond Girl".
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
Kirk Bayne
Simon A
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2015
- Messages
- 3,167
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!
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.
Last edited:
Yes, and I'm am waiting patiently for "Diamond Girl" to be released, please Mr. Rhino.
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.
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
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2015
- Messages
- 3,167
Yet you chose to be Budwiser instead..Oh, what equipment I could have owned had I been wiser!
Last edited:
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.
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!Glad to hear! Some on this forum just buy, buy buy and then complain about the album & how they don't like it.
Crazy!
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!
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.
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.
(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
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
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)!
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 25,808
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?
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?
Similar threads
