What's the fuss 'bout Quad?

GibsonLesPaul

Well-Known Member
I remember back when Quad amps came out and I thought, " big
deal quadraphonic stereo, who cares!" So, why should I care?
I wasn't impressed then and I'm still not. I'm thinking " the Who",
Quadraphenia, but again... :scratch2:

Please tell me why I would even be tempted to shell out mucho
denero for something I wasn't even impressed with in the day?.. :smoke:
 
Same reason everyone is doing the HT thing, because you can. I use a Sansui QRX7001 quad amp for my front and rear channels and a seperate amp for center and sub.
As far as quad for the sake of quad.....DSOTM is cool to listen to once in a while on SACD and Allison Krauss in 5.1 is always good. my .02
 
The fuss about Quad

GibsonLesPaul,

Now it is not just Quadraphonic it is 5.1! I know that multi-channel music drives some people up the wall. They feel that it does not add anything to the original performance and is not as pure as two channel stereo. Well, I like the multi-channel (two channel, three channel, four channel, five channel and 5.1 channel) sound. The new formats finally allow one to hear what the music industry was trying to do back in the "Quad" era. There are new recordings specifically being made for multi-channel and some artists have gone into their back catalog to rework their past recordings to allow us to hear them as we never could before. Not every multi-channel recording is great, but, there are some really outstanding ones.

So, What is all the fuss about? Let me just say that if you were to hear a well set up multi-channel system playing some of the better recordings that are currently available, you would know what all the fuss is about. I can not guarantee that you would like it, but, I am sure that you would be able to understand why some people think that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm one of them. ;)

Good listening,

tcdriver
 
I have two surround setups in the same room, 10 speakers, but I could add 6 more. Surround is perhaps not as dramatic an improvement as mono to stereo was, but done right, it's a much fuller sound, better than just adding a second stereo pair.

-Ed
 
I'm totally surprised that one of you hasn't tried to recreate "Sensurround" like in that movie Irwin Allen did in the mid-seventies :scratch2:
 
cabinover said:
Same reason everyone is doing the HT thing, because you can. I use a Sansui QRX7001 quad amp for my front and rear channels and a seperate amp for center and sub.
As far as quad for the sake of quad.....DSOTM is cool to listen to once in a while on SACD and Allison Krauss in 5.1 is always good. my .02

Up until now we have beaten the high$$$ HT people by getting relatively inexpensive quad of any flavor and using the discrete 4-channel tape jacks with DVD gear. Unfortunately, the dogs of war have figured it out and now it's big business :cry:
 
All I want to know is..in order to truly appreciate quad, does the music
have to be recorded in a pure quad format, true to form and with the
intent of being played on a quadraphonic system for exclusive quad
enjoyment or does any ol' music sound good in this format?
 
GibsonLesPaul,

I have found that music mixed and sold as multi-channel will give the best results. In my experience the best formats are DVD-A, DVD-V, SACD, DTS-CD, and open reel. All those formats are capable of providing multi-channel music with discrete information in all channels.

In the "Quadraphonic" era there were several matrix formats that in my humble opinion, never worked very well. One could play back a two channel stereo music signal through one of the matrix decoders and get a "pseudo-quadraphonic" effect. Sometimes the results were even better than what one got with recordings made specifically for quadraphonic playback. Among the better decoder/synthesizers of the quadraphonic era were the QS decoders found in the QRX series of Sansui receivers and the Tate SQ decoders. Today one can buy receivers with Dolby Surround IIx, DTS Nero 6, and Circle Surround decoders/synthesizers that can rival the best decoders of the quadraphonic era.

The short answer to your question is that with one of the better decoders of the quadraphonic era or one of the modern decoders one can get very respectable results synthesizing four channels from two channel recordings. However, the results vary based on the specific recordings fed into the decoders. Some recordings will sound much better than when played back in two channel and some will sound worse. The results will also vary with each of the different decoders. I find that I prefer to listen to some recordings in two channel and others played through the Circle Surround decoder built into my receiver.

I hope this is helpful.

Good listening,

tcdriver
 
Four channel was just appearing in the early 70's when I was graduating beyond portable phonos. Any time I could, I wired up the Hafler circuit to use four speakers with just two channels of amplification. This basically just sent out of phase sounds to the rear. Ambience definitely came from that direction.

In 1973 I bought a Radio Shack receiver with true quad inputs, although all I had to to play was standard two channel fare through the built-in decoder. I can still remember listening to Yes going 'round my head at age 18. My older friends had better jobs and thus afforded the Marantz and Sansui 4 channel rigs and fed them with CD-4 and 4-channel 8-track, one of them also had 4-ch 8-track in his car. Clockwork Orange had just come out and he had the soundtrack.

Yeah, it worked!

I now have a Fosgate DSL Two, a high-end decoder from the early 90's. Between the many settings on it and 10 different outputs, plus the "box store" 5.1, there's almost an infinite number of ways of "interpreting" the spatial information at my command. Main singers and other instruments do come from different channels and move around, depending on the settings you choose. And it's a great way to put three or four or five amps and umpteen speakers to use instead of sitting in the garage "future ebay" pile!

You're only about 30 years late, but it's better now than ever. Jump in!

-Ed
 
Always liked having 4 speakers!

I run four speakers on my livingroom. Been this way over 25 years :D Most of you know I run a Pioneer SX 8000 in my bedroom. Great sound. Just put my Dynaco A25s in there with my good on the inside ratty on the outside JBL L100's. Loads of good sound here :D Old stuff but great fun!!! Have prenty of toys but always keep an eye out for a decent 8000.

Eric
 
I am trying to acquire one right now to merge with my broken one, and pieces-parts of all will end up in an SX-525 and a 6000.
 
Back
Top Bottom