Earlly (ca 1971-74) Fisher Quad Receivers--share what you love/know about 'em!

So where does this 895 fall? I haven't found much mention of it anywhere I've looked.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7207.jpg
    IMG_7207.jpg
    65.5 KB · Views: 62
  • IMG_7209.jpg
    IMG_7209.jpg
    77.7 KB · Views: 50
tcdriver,

I just hooked up four little surround sound speakers to my 404. Just the 2-channels into 4 speakers effect is rather nice. Pressing the SQ button gives perhaps a slightly enhanced sense of presence, though perhaps at the expense of some of the definition in the sound of different instruments--but then that is only the simulation of quad. I may prefer the 4-speaker stereo--sounds awfully good on "Within You Without You" from Sgt. Peppers. But I would expect a decoded SQ record to sound better than the simulated quad from stereo. I might have a quad record somewhere.

The 4-speaker feature I have been most interested in, however, was the joystick all-way balance control. I have found that if you are sitting too close to one of the speakers, you can't in effect move that speaker farther away from you and still keep the others in good balance.....darn. I would have to rearrange the room to set up the system properly.

Just realized I have a 4-track cassette deck!!!! A Tascam Porta 02 Ministudio that I picked up cheap a few years ago and have really never done anything with. Drat, it's only got 2-channel line output.
 
Last edited:
The 4-speaker feature I have been most interested in, however, was the joystick all-way balance control. I have found that if you are sitting too close to one of the speakers, you can't in effect move that speaker farther away from you and still keep the others in good balance.....darn. I would have to rearrange the room to set up the system properly.
Yes, you discovered the limitation of the joystick control.

Speaker setup is important for the best sound. Be willing to experiment with placement. One configuration that I have found to work well is to place the "surround" speakers at the sides instead of behind the listening position. e.g. with respect to the seating position: left surround at -90˚, left front -45˚, right front +45˚, right surround +90˚ with all speakers equal distance to the listening position.
 
Yes, you discovered the limitation of the joystick control.

Speaker setup is important for the best sound. Be willing to experiment with placement. One configuration that I have found to work well is to place the "surround" speakers at the sides instead of behind the listening position. e.g. with respect to the seating position: left surround at -90˚, left front -45˚, right front +45˚, right surround +90˚ with all speakers equal distance to the listening position.

I'm gonna try the SQ quad effect, if I find an SQ lp where I think I might have one, but then, I think I will go back to stereo, this time hooking the 404 up to a pair of my larger, better speakers. I want to get a better sense how good the bass and treble are, what I can't really tell with the little speakers that were more convenient for the first tests. Eventually, I may cycle it into my main system and make that a 4-speaker stereo/convertible to SQ quadraphonic outfit. Right now I'm having too much fun listening to my recently acquired Kenwood KR5150 receiver to bump it out of my main system, but the good news about the Fisher 404 is that it doesn't seem to be in need of some kind of major repair (recapping, transistor or module replacement, or gawdnoze what) as I had been thinking. Must have just been that I hadn't cleaned the volume slider as well as I have now. When I got it off the shelf to test it, I was thinking it was time to figure out if I could get it working or should I consider getting rid of it. But, no, now it's a keeper, and definitely worth learning much more about.
 
Last edited:
So where does this 895 fall? I haven't found much mention of it anywhere I've looked.
Thank you for your question. A quick investigation led me to the service manual for the Fisher 4020 in the AK database:

http://akdatabase.org/AKview/displayimage.php?pos=-2240

It reveals the 895 to be essentially the same receiver as the 4060 and the 674. Also note that the 4020, 4025, 474 and 495 are also electrically identical. All these models appear to date from mid-season '74 or the '75 model year - the manual copyright date is 1974. The differences between the different model numbers seem to be cosmetic - note the chassis parts list on page 6. All of these models are 4-channel receivers.
 
Last edited:
Note the errors in my chronology below. I had the 495 as a '73 model when it was more likely a '74-'75 model. The same is true for the 474. Much of my dating for the later and more obscure models not covered in Fisher's sales literature comes from newspaper ads. However, as I have noted, Fisher seemed to be having a hard time moving many of these models which meant they were frequently being advertised years after they were originally introduced often at substantial discounts.

1973

There was also a 4-channel 495 which I believe was from 1973 but all the ads I have seen for it were from later at significantly reduced prices. The whole 195/295/395/495 series is a bit of a mystery. As far as I can tell Fisher never promoted it themselves and it may have been a low-cost line sold only through high-volume retailers. The MSRP and wattage are unknown.

1976

There was also a 4-channel 474 model that appears to be an entry-level model. It was sale priced below the 234's sale price. It may have been part of a budget '74' series but my information on 1976 is very sketchy.
 
TheRed1,
Great to see you updating the chronology. This is turning into the kind of thread that can be a resource for early Fisher quad owners in years to come.

tcdriver and others,
I FOUND an SQ quadraphonic record after rummaging through about half of my classical LPs: Angel S-37287; Bruckner, "Symphony No. 9 in D Minor"; Carlo Maria Giulini, Chicago Symphony Orchestra (1977). Nowhere on the front does it explicitly say it is a quad album, but a little note on the back says: "All Angel SQ albums are identified by the Angel trademark in a double circle" which IS SHOWN on the front.

Then to the right on the back it goes on, "This is an an Angel Stereo/Quadraphonic album which is compatible with both stereo and SQ quad equipment, and does not require a new stylus or cartridge." So apparently "SQ" is the abbreviation for this doubly-compatible format: "Stereo/Quadraphonic."

Further quoting: "Angel's SQ disc offers richer, more spacious sound with greater separation. For the quad listener, Angel's SQ recording surrounds the listener with spectacular, more realistic sound." I've just been listening to side one, and I have to say that it was a rather concert hall type experience...until the stylus hits those little flecks of dust my pre-play cleaning missed. Very pleasant and rich, and without the loss of definition I heard when I played a stereo record with the SQ button pressed. I could see how people would go for quadraphonic...if they could have afforded it in the mid-70s.

I have a Decca "Phase4" record, too, but an old AK thread points out that this is a very pre-quad label for a group of recordings mixed to enhance certain qualities, achieved through a great many microphones and other technical hijinks. Some people really hated them, some say they don't sound that bad, especially with 21st century ears. But Phase4 ARE NOT quadraphonic. Still an early poster in that thread said one sounded good on his quad system. I found a couple of other LPs I thought would be fun to try the "SQ" button on.

Back to my 404. I wasn't quite sure whether to leave the machine switched to 2-channel or change it to 4, when playing an SQ record. Is 4 only necessary when playing an auxiliary source using 4 inputs? Is just pressing SQ enough. In practice, so far, I can't tell any or much difference between whether I'm set on 2 or 4 channels if I have already pressed the SQ button, but it would be interesting to know what I should be doing??????
 
Illinoisteve, here's what you need:

TheFisherTestRecord.jpeg


Also, here's one from '72 I overlooked, the Fisher 40:

1973Fisher40.jpg


And some Fisher 4-channel accessories from 1974:

The Fisher DR-14 CD-4 Disc Demodulator

The Fisher CP-40 4- and 2-Channel 8-Track Tape Cartridge Player

The Fisher QP-44 2/4-Channel Headphones

1974QP-44CP-40DR-14.jpg
 
Last edited:
tcdriver and others,
I FOUND an SQ quadraphonic record after rummaging through about half of my classical LPs: Angel S-37287; Bruckner, "Symphony No. 9 in D Minor"; Carlo Maria Giulini, Chicago Symphony Orchestra (1977). Nowhere on the front does it explicitly say it is a quad album, but a little note on the back says: "All Angel SQ albums are identified by the Angel trademark in a double circle" which IS SHOWN on the front.
The majority of Angel records released were single inventory SQ encoded during the quadraphonic era. Some decode very well and others not so much.


I have a Decca "Phase4" record, too, but an old AK thread points out that this is a very pre-quad label for a group of recordings mixed to enhance certain qualities, achieved through a great many microphones and other technical hijinks. Some people really hated them, some say they don't sound that bad, especially with 21st century ears. But Phase4 ARE NOT quadraphonic. Still an early poster in that thread said one sounded good on his quad system. I found a couple of other LPs I thought would be fun to try the "SQ" button on.
Yes, London Phase 4 were not quadraphonic encoded, however; they may sound good played back through the SQ decoder as do many ordinary two-channel stereo records.


Back to my 404. I wasn't quite sure whether to leave the machine switched to 2-channel or change it to 4, when playing an SQ record. Is 4 only necessary when playing an auxiliary source using 4 inputs? Is just pressing SQ enough. In practice, so far, I can't tell any or much difference between whether I'm set on 2 or 4 channels if I have already pressed the SQ button, but it would be interesting to know what I should be doing??????
It has been too long since I used my 404. For quadraphonic operation the speaker selector switch should be in the 4 channel position.




My Fisher 701 awaiting repairs:
 
Illinoisteve, here's what you need:....

Also, here's one from '73 I overlooked, the Fisher 40:....

The Fisher QP-44 2/4-Channel Headphones....

TheRed1,

That's a cool Fisher test record. Unfortunately, the model 40 looks like a lot of rather crappy all-in-one units. I wonder how it sounded? I wouldn't mind having a pair of those headphones to try out on my 404.
 
Unfortunately, the model 40 looks like a lot of rather crappy all-in-one units. I wonder how it sounded?
For $500, (1972 dollars!) I would expect at least decent performance. I've always kind of wanted one of these all-in-ones, though perhaps not a quad one.
 
How about 4-channel consoles? Incredible as it may sound, Fisher was that committed to the quadraphonic concept. Introduced in 1972, this was the last hurrah for Fisher in their long and illustrious history of radio-phonographs stretching all the way back to 1937. What a way to go!

'72 President 4 $3500 - equipped with a Fisher 701
'72 Executive 4 $1995 - equipped with a Fisher 601
'72 Squire 4 $995 - equipped with a Fisher 40
'72 Philharmonic 4 $899.95 - equipped with a Fisher 125 & Fisher TX-420 4-Channel Converter

Note that the claimed watts are even higher than the IHF "Music Power" stats for the stand-alone receivers. I don't know what to make of that.

72Fisher4-ChannelConsolesA.jpg


72Fisher4-ChannelConsoles.jpg
 
For $500, (1972 dollars!) I would expect at least decent performance. I've always kind of wanted one of these all-in-ones, though perhaps not a quad one.

That's a bit more than the 404 which came out at the very end of that year. The crappy knock-offs were probably selling for $79.

The consoles pictured in your next post are @#$%& incredible!
 
Now have the 404 hooked up as stereo to a pair of big 3-way speakers (my cheapo, but tried and true Dracos) to get a much better sense of frequency response out of the receiver, than I could tell from the little speakers I was initially testing with. Also, had to forget about using a cassette deck as a source in this test. Testing with a CD that has a lot of crisp and tinkly highs and clear bass and percussion. The 404 is sounding very good. Nothing seems to be missing that I've heard before.

Now for an odd discovery. I just realized that, among the tape recorder connections on the back of the 404, there are only: "tape monitor: right front, left front, right rear, left rear," the 4-channel inputs for playback of tapes. There are NO output to tape connections indicated on the receiver!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never saw that before. In fact, unless I am going blind, the only RCA plug sockets I see on the back are marked "output" are the left and right outputs to RCDR. I wonder if they are line-level and could be used as stereo outputs to a tape deck?
 
Steve; RCDR are the output's to the tape decks. I think FISHER pretty much assumed that the average user would be able to figure it out, even tho the Japanese "dumbed it down" a bit.

Larry
 
Steve; RCDR are the output's to the tape decks. I think FISHER pretty much assumed that the average user would be able to figure it out, even tho the Japanese "dumbed it down" a bit.
Larry

I am certain that I read earlier that the RCDR connections were expressly for the external quad decoder that could take you beyond the SQ level. But now, duhhhhhh, I see that it's an abbreviation for ReCorDeR. Maybe it is that, to employ an external decoder, you connect to the 4-channel tape ReCorDeR outputs and the 4-channel tape monitor inputs.

So if you have the mode switch set to "Stereo" would you get all you needed from the Front/left and Front/right of those RCDR outputs, if you wanted to record on a stereo recorder or needed stereo line-out for any other reason? I've been using the Front L/R inputs to connect stereo sources to the 404 receiver.
 
Yep. You've got it right. All the Decoder output's and inputs are , are another line level tape loop, for all intents and purposes. I've connected multiple 2 channel R2R and cassette decks to them (when I had a PIONEER QX 9900 and 747A) and ran them in 2 channel mode with no problems. Kind of neat having 3 R2R and 2 cassette decks connected and all able to run independently and together.
 
Fisher 801

Hi,

I still have a Fisher 801 that I purchased new in 1974. I remember it being expensive back then (at least for me!). It was my first upscale audio purchase.
I still laugh now because I could have spent that money on Mac and at least retained some value. Oh well, you live and learn. I still have the schematics, decoder explanation sheet, warranty card etc. I remember the small remote control for the Tuner section. I might still have it somewhere. I always had trouble with the volume sliders as I believe they probably corrode and can be dodgy. Fisher was a good name in HiFi before Avery sold out.
The 801 is a heavy unit and I would suspect had a measure of quality to it.
I guess "Quadraphonic" sound just didn't resonate at the time.
Anyways it is great to read about the "Oldie Moldies" of yesteryear!
Thanks!
 
I've been thinking about SQ and have realized that I like and philosophically support the idea of it. I like bridging technologies that enable a new way, but don't discriminate against the old. A lot of bridging technologies in audio are in the equipment area, for example, a multi-speed turntable that lets you play 16, 33, 45, and 78 rpm records or a cartridge that accepts microgroove and earlier wider styli and even the flip-over stylus cartridge. People designing them, consciously said to customers, 'we're not going to make you give up on a format of record you want listen to, and we definitely aren't saying throw away your old records." SQ records are like that: playable on a stereo system or on an SQ quad system, and the SQ quad system plays in stereo or quadraphonic, too.

Bridging technologies aren't always what is chosen. Think of the battle between VHS and Beta in the video tape cartridge wars! The originators of each format were determined to triumph over and destroy the other one. Had someone made an adapter to let one kind of cartridge play in a machine for the other one they probably would have gotten sued. There was a bit of a struggle, when LPs were new, over what size they would be, 10" or 12", but record players with 10" platters could in most cases still play a 12" disk, for if they included the 78 speed they needed to accommodate 12" 78s.

If enthusiasts for MP3 and other digital formats want to drive out earlier audio formats, it isn't really working...though it may eventually seem to. Still, I think there will continue to be somebody continuing to play lacquer 78s and vinyl LPs and audio cassettes and reel-to-reel tapes, and CDs. Somebody's gonna be playing an SQ record.
 
Back
Top Bottom