• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Marantz Ad from 1974

Those big quads layed the groundwork for the monster recievers but they didn't get a lot of love 20 years ago, it was pretty easy to find a big one for under $100 on ebay. Luckily they've turned the corner, personally I think they look great, but I think the big issue was the format, they couldn't agree to a common standard. If I remember, even radio was going to go quad.

Stereo Microcassttes were very similar on a smaller scale, a ton of pre-manufacturing press and then a big thud when it was released.

Unfortunately I've never heard a real quad system, hopefully someday.
 
Steven Tate said:
Yep, it’s hard to imagine that so many people got it so wrong. It seems that everyone in the audio business jumped on the quad bandwagon, fearing being left behind. But it didn’t take long for the wagon to get stuck in a ditch. I remember being there, and being very engaged in the development of new equipment. I had a 2245 that I bought new in 1972, and tried to convince myself that I needed quad. But lots of showroom listening failed to convince me it sounded any better. And the prospect of buying a new receiver AND two new speakers AND new turntable or cartridge AND for true discreet four channel, a new reel-to-reel tape deck, just left me thinking the cost/benefit ratio wasn’t there. I believe this is at the core of why quad failed to catch on.
Click to expand...

Got it wrong? Never found myself listening to my system and thinking, "this wasn't worth the 2 extra speakers". In fact, just the opposite, "why aren't they putting everything out in quad"?
 
JJCalvillo said:
Got it wrong? Never found myself listening to my system and thinking, "this wasn't worth the 2 extra speakers". In fact, just the opposite, "why aren't they putting everything out in quad"?
Click to expand...
I was talking about from a marketing standpoint. To read the audio magazines in 1974, you would think it was a slam dunk that everything - FM, vinyl, tape - was going to go quad and leave stereo in the dust. It just didn't happen. Either people didn't perceive enough of an improvement in sound or the added cost just was too much for most people - or both. But for whatever reason, quad died on the vine.
 
It sounded exactly like stereo, with 2 extra channels. No difference in sound, just extra separation between instruments. It had to be well recorded/engineered to reach it's potential.Imagining the band, producer and engineer high/drunk and it was certainly a step where things could go wrong.

A second, bigger problem was the industry didn't make up their mind. There were 3 or 4 different types of quad; CD4, SQ, QS, etc. Marantz required extra decoders for their already expensive receivers if you wanted to be able to play everything. My Pioneer would play 2 or 3 types w/o any add-ons, but I don't remember if it played all types. You had to remember to look at the album cover to see how the album was recorded and then set the decoder to that type of quad.

The brands sort of formed groups behind one type of encoding/decoding or another. If the industry and gotten together and picked one, quad would have continued to develop. Imagine if there were different Phono curves so your receiver could only play records from 2 or 3 record companies well, and you had to add extra decoder/s to play records from any record company. Why the industry fixed this for phono curves, but wouldn't for quad is beyond me.

If you enjoy stereo, the separation between channels and movement from one side to the other and maybe back again (Pink Floyd, etc.) you'd like quad even more. Imagine the different clocks chiming in four different speakers on Dark Side of the Moon.
 
Last edited:
JJCalvillo said:
It sounded exactly like stereo, with 2 extra channels. No difference in sound, just extra separation between instruments. It had to be well recorded/engineered to reach it's potential.Imagining the band, producer and engineer high/drunk and it was certainly a step where things could go wrong.

A second, bigger problem was the industry didn't make up their mind. There were 3 or 4 different types of quad; CD4, SQ, QS, etc. Marantz required extra decoders for their already expensive receivers if you wanted to be able to play everything. My Pioneer would play 2 or 3 types w/o any add-ons, but I don't remember if it played all types. You had to remember to look at the album cover to see how the album was recorded and then set the decoder to that type of quad.

The brands sort of formed groups behind one type of encoding/decoding or another. If the industry and gotten together and picked one, quad would have continued to develop. Imagine if there were different Phono curves so your receiver could only play records from 2 or 3 record companies well, and you had to add extra decoder/s to play records from any record company. Why the industry fixed this for phono curves, but wouldn't for quad is beyond me.

If you enjoy stereo, the separation between channels and movement from one side to the other and maybe back again (Pink Floyd, etc.) you'd like quad even more. Imaging the different clocks chiming in four different speakers on Dark Side of the Moon.
Click to expand...
Actually, in the 60's, it was common to have a switch for multiple phono equalization circuits. Here is a pic of the Model 7 where the second black switch from the left selected one of three equalization curves. Earlier 60's had even more choices. But by the later 60's, RIAA was winning out.
Marantz Model 7_1.png
 
Steven Tate said:
I get a kick out of browsing the Stereo Review Magazine archives now and then to remind me of what was happening with music and equipment at the time. Today, I looked at a couple of issues from 1974, and was reminded that in that year, it was quad, quad, quad. Half of the ads and many of the articles were about 4-channel stuff, and it was clear that everyone thought quad was going to be a tidal wave that would cover up stereo. If you want to browse issues from the 50's through the 70's, check out this archive site.
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/HiFI-Stereo-Review.htm

Many thanks for the link Steven.

The early 70s were my intro into the world of audio. I devoured all of the systems/specs, lusted at my local audio shop, and saved lawn cutting money for any equipment that I could get. I was able to buy a Marantz quad amp (used) w/SQ decoder in 1977, and have a few SQ records from the time.

Also subscribed to Stereo Review for a few years during that time.
The ironic parts are the record reviews for albums from the time. The following LPs were slammed by the reviewers:
Stones: Exile on Main Street
Bowie: Ziggy Stardust
Led Zep: ZOSA
Click to expand...
 
One of the most interesting things about those old Stereo and Hifi magazines were the music reviews. It was like they only had classical critics on staff who knew nothing about rock. They criticized almost every album that became a classic, and gushed over every unknown piece of junk. Basically, if you were a hit maker, they hated everything you did. Go back and read some of those reviews and have some laughs.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree with @Steven Tate.

I knew a guy that worked for that mag writing review’s and copy and it was all based on how much advertising the manufacturer was willing to commit to.

That said, the ads that were placed at that time continue to amuse me and bring back many great memories of what it was like to actually sell these products as “brand new” regardless of the the respective format that they were promoting,
 
Jamie Starr said:
Wow. That looks great. Chris, it seems like every time someone brings up particular model Marantz, you jump in and show us yours in great condition. Do you mind me asking how many Marantz receivers you have? Myself, I own 5.
Click to expand...
It's a running joke with Chris. He takes every opportunity to rub my nose in the fact that he has that beautiful quad amp and I'm too cheap to go looking for one. But I don't hold it against him. He helps everyone out enough that I can take some good natured ribbing. I just always make sure to give him one of these. :whip:
 
Steven Tate said:
Actually, in the 60's, it was common to have a switch for multiple phono equalization circuits. Here is a pic of the Model 7 where the second black switch from the left selected one of three equalization curves. Earlier 60's had even more choices. But by the later 60's, RIAA was winning out.
View attachment 2536018
Click to expand...

Then the industry figured it out and chose one curve. If they'd done the same with quad, it might have made it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom