Quad decoders

[KentTeffeteller]

Didn't EV have a system? The Metrotec was billed as a "universal" decoder.

Yes, EV did have a system. Even had LP discs encoded with it. Several labels offered EV-4 encoded LP disc content. Also Sansui's QS was excellent. Both systems also play back superbly in Stereo to boot. No audible artifacts.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

I'd really like to get me one of these.

https://involveaudio.com/product/surround-master-v3/

View attachment 2986464

I've enjoyed some Quadraphonic and do think it's fun. I still prefer Stereo, but don't dislike surround when done right.

 

[electronjohn]

If you're a cheapskate just connect a spare speaker to the "Speaker B" + terminals.

 

[f0427ea]

If you're a cheapskate just connect a spare speaker to the "Speaker B" + terminals.

 

[Bill Ashton]

Thanks for that @f0427ea

I think thats what Dynaco did, but with the addition of a rear level control?

I worked at Radio Schaak in the late 60's when the EV unit came out. Pleasant enough, but one needed a rear amp and speakers, which added a lot to the cost back then. Lafayette "adopted" the Dynaco system at the same time and put us at great disadvantage. Eventually, RS came out with a similar adapter, and most receivers had "Quatravox" added to their speaker switching to do the same.

 

[f0427ea]

Thanks for that @f0427ea

I think thats what Dynaco did, but with the addition of a rear level control?

I worked at Radio Schaak in the late 60's when the EV unit came out. Pleasant enough, but one needed a rear amp and speakers, which added a lot to the cost back then. Lafayette "adopted" the Dynaco system at the same time and put us at great disadvantage. Eventually, RS came out with a similar adapter, and most receivers had "Quatravox" added to their speaker switching to do the same.

Lafayette as a Dynaquad 4 channel adapter


later changed to a QD-4, 4 channel adapter for obvious reasons


Radio Shack Quatravox adapter

 

[Bill Ashton]

Yup, thats them! I had a Dynaco, sold it last year at Frankenfest. Prolly a mistake, it did add a nice touch (especially on Pet Sounds ), but I disliked the "umbilical cord" of all the speaker wires in and out.

 

[elvi]

I understand the opinion around "Quad" being a gimmic. ( I applaud Frank's comments )

We can recognize sounds all around us, and I speculate we all enjoy a movie in multi channel.

I own 6 or 7 decoders including the finest from Sansui, Sony, Pioneer ect.

One thing to ponder: once the recording studios installed their quad encoders, they typically left them "In loop"

Lots of lps are quad, and not marked Quad.

Additionally, modern DSP allows excellent decoding and pulling 4 channels out of two.

I have both generations of the Surround Master. These are DSP based.

It surprises me by pulling out very discrete audio from the rear channels on music that is not marketed as multi channel.

I have a traditional 2 channel in one room, and all of my Quad gear in rotation in the Quadratorium.

( Using a 7001 Sansui, but the Surround Master handling the decoding)

 

[Doug G.]

Calling quad a "gimmick" is no different from calling the first sound reproduction device, mono, or two-channel stereo a "gimmick".

Doug

 

[elvi]

Calling quad a "gimmick" is no different from calling the first sound reproduction device, mono, or two-channel stereo a "gimmick".

Doug

Agree strongly..
4 channel audio is great. And the Surround Master also decodes 5.1 and has a sub output.

( research SQ and see its is used in modern Surround technology .. nor naming names.. )

 

[f0427ea]

Yup, thats them! I had a Dynaco, sold it last year at Frankenfest. Prolly a mistake, it did add a nice touch (especially on Pet Sounds ), but I disliked the "umbilical cord" of all the speaker wires in and out.

Ever see one of these , a more modern version of the good old Dynaco Quadaptor, a QD-1 series II.
Insides are the same idea as the Quadaptor, in a new exterior aimed at the home theater crowd.
I don't think it took off like Panor thought it would, they weren't available on the market for very long.

 

[f0427ea]

Yes, EV did have a system. Even had LP discs encoded with it. Several labels offered EV-4 encoded LP disc content. Also Sansui's QS was excellent. Both systems also play back superbly in Stereo to boot. No audible artifacts.

You left out SQ
Lafayette's SQ-W

A really fine decoder for SQ and QS (or dam near anything you run through it) boarding on as good as a TATE II 101A.

 

[Kodaline]

A modern quad system, done right, uses separate equipment for all functions. Much of the 70s quad receivers were a compromise on power and features to get the quad stuff in, however, if you use a dedicated quad adapter device and sit it in a tape loop of a stereo preamp for the front channels, and the same for the back channels, you have superiority to a 2 channel system because you now have two 2 channel systems, linked. With enough stuff, you can do CD-4, modern 4 channel sources like SACD, Quad 4 R2R, Quad 8 8-track, all the record matrix formats, QS, SQ, RT, quad encoded digital files off a hard drive, and all the normal 2 channel sources. Even a quad scope out and a remote control.

I can put 670 watts over 4 channels to the floor, and I can listen to stereo stuff in mono, or just the front or rear stereos, or doubled stereo, or synthesized quad, or 3 different decoders, or just straight pass through of 4 channels. Sure, modern SACD sources beat 70s sources, but they all all still multichannel.

 

[JoeESP9]

You needn't talk to me as if I am relatively inexperienced. I have at least fifty years, too. More like sixty. Your "...some are offended..." little dig wasn't clever,either

I wasn't addressing you with my comments. It was the other guy who slapped us quad/.surround fans in our collective face by calling us fools.

He starts off with an attitude and you defend him.

Doug

I was defending no one. I was mistaken. I thought your post was directed at me. Can you please forgive me, older than I and exalted.

However, my major problem with most "Quad" recordings was and still is being surrounded by "the band". I feel the same way about 5.1 audio recordings of which I'm slowly collecting classical concerts. None of them attempt to put the listener in the middle of the orchestra. I also mentioned that I used a DIY Dynaco Quadaptor for a number of years.

For those who don't listen to classical there is an excellent 5.1 DVD of a Santana concert.

OTOH, there are posters here who take offense when their sacred cows are criticized.

Currently I have a two-channel system to which I added enough gear to have a 5.1 system. I'm enough of a fan to have five panels and five subwoofers. The fronts are in my signature. The surrounds are driven by a pair of Adcom GFA-545's with a dual subwoofer (Acoustat SPW-1) driven via an Emotiva UMC-200 and controlled by an electronic crossover.

FWIW: I bought my first gear (Fisher KX-90/Miracord TT/AR4x's) in 1967 while in the USAF. I still have and occasionally play the first two LP's I bought, Aretha Franklin, Runnin' Out Of Fools and Charles Lloyd, Dream Weaver.

 

[Doug G.]

OK, I can see why you thought I was addressing you but I wasn't. It was the original poster.

I have no problem with people criticizing something I like but he was insulting those of us who enjoy multi-channel, the original quad, to be specific, not the medium, itself. He was calling all of us fools. If he wants to call himself a fool, fine.

If you were in the Air Force in 1967, I am not older than you unless you lied about your age.

Doug

 

[Bill Murray]

And the insults continue. You come off thinking you are somehow superior. You're not.

There was no waking up to do. Why do you think 2 channels is somehow the magic number of channels?

Well, for beginners, I have 2 ears. But I do appreciate surround sound, and I used it for years before quad came along. I can even add an element to it by using stereo reverse on one of the amplifiers. The major difference is the quad gives you 2 added channels that add some kind of synthetic background sound that is generally nothing special. Of course the source material makes a lot of difference, but most quad sources were about as effective as mono "enhanced" to stereo, vs. true stereo. I think that the best argument to quads basic crappiness is the egg it laid in the marketplace, despite all the hype. Kind of like the Edsel of Audio.

 

[JoeESP9]

OK, I can see why you thought I was addressing you but I wasn't. It was the original poster.

I have no problem with people criticizing something I like but he was insulting those of us who enjoy multi-channel, the original quad, to be specific, not the medium, itself. He was calling all of us fools. If he wants to call himself a fool, fine.

If you were in the Air Force in 1967, I am not older than you unless you lied about your age.

Doug

I served in the USAF from 1966 to 1970 as a Medical Equipment Repairman - AFSC-40350

If it was medical equipment in a hospital I was expected to maintain and repair it. That included explosion proof HR monitors, dental equipment, autoclaves and even stills. There was no bottled distilled sterile water like today. Pharmacies distilled and sterilized their water.

Uncle Sam sent me a draft notice. So, I promptly enlisted in the Air Force. I was a military brat (Dad was a USAF E-9) and had no intention of being a walking gun platform in the Army in the Nam. Being drafted meant only two years of active duty, while the Air Force was strictly a four-year enlistment. After almost a year of schooling they sent me to Cam Ranh Bay. However, the base there was huge and had all the amenities. I slept in an airconditioned barracks ate in a "dining hall" and always had a clean uniform. The uniform for MER's was a white one-piece jumpsuit.

I was pretty much a maverick. No receiver for me. The Fisher was a kit and an integrated amplifier (tube), not a receiver. The AR-4's were a lot smaller than the Pioneer CS-99's and various Sansui speakers that most GI's bought. I had to special order them and the Fisher. It was worth the hassle because they sounded better than the Pioneers and various Sansui speakers.

If you're a cheapskate just connect a spare speaker to the "Speaker B" + terminals.

That results in a variation of the Dynaco "Quad" connection. With the right recording it will give you a good sense of ambience. Getting the levels balanced may be a problem as you can't easily adjust the rear speaker level to blend properly with the fronts.

 

[Bill Murray]

I served in the USAF from 1966 to 1970 as a Medical Equipment Repairman - AFSC-40350

If it was medical equipment in a hospital I was expected to maintain and repair it. That included explosion proof HR monitors, dental equipment, autoclaves and even stills. There was no bottled distilled sterile water like today. Pharmacies distilled and sterilized their water.

Uncle Sam sent me a draft notice. So, I promptly enlisted in the Air Force. I was a military brat (Dad was a USAF E-9) and had no intention of being a walking gun platform in the Army in the Nam. Being drafted meant only two years of active duty, while the Air Force was strictly a four-year enlistment. After almost a year of schooling they sent me to Cam Ranh Bay. However, the base there was huge and had all the amenities. I slept in an airconditioned barracks ate in a "dining hall" and always had a clean uniform. The uniform for MER's was a white one-piece jumpsuit.

I was pretty much a maverick. No receiver for me. The Fisher was a kit and an integrated amplifier (tube), not a receiver. The AR-4's were a lot smaller than the Pioneer CS-99's and various Sansui speakers that most GI's bought. I had to special order them and the Fisher. It was worth the hassle because they sounded better than the Pioneers and various Sansui speakers.


That results in a variation of the Dynaco "Quad" connection. With the right recording it will give you a good sense of ambience. Getting the levels balanced may be a problem as you can't easily adjust the rear speaker level to blend properly with the fronts.

I solved that by installing l-pads on the louder pair.

 

[turnitup]

Ok…back to our regularly scheduled program...

Acquired 2 vintage Pioneer “quadralizers” over the course of a short time, and had a hoot playing around with them. I’ve got a fairly large collection of vintage speakers and a man-cave space to play in, so I do just that. I have to say, before the 5.1 and above configurations for surround sound, this was a great (and virtually the only) way to economically expand your “listening surroundings” at the time (at home). As other have stated, it never got enough traction to survive, but really it’s a fun, historical event in the music replay timeline of the 70s to simply play with. Isn’t that at least partially what our hobby is about?

I completely get the arguments outlined above about quadrophonic‘s merits, nonetheless, “it DID happen”, “it largely failed”, and I still have the historical audio toys to play with from that timeline - lucky me? Yeah, I think so! I‘m just in this for the grins...

 

[Bill Murray]

Ok…back to our regularly scheduled program...

Acquired 2 vintage Pioneer “quadralizers” over the course of a short time, and had a hoot playing around with them. I’ve got a fairly large collection of vintage speakers and a man-cave space to play in, so I do just that. I have to say, before the 5.1 and above configurations for surround sound, this was a great (and virtually the only) way to economically expand your “listening surroundings” at the time (at home). As other have stated, it never got enough traction to survive, but really it’s a fun, historical event in the music replay timeline of the 70s to simply play with. Isn’t that at least partially what our hobby is about?

I completely get the arguments outlined above about quadrophonic‘s merits, nonetheless, “it DID happen”, “it largely failed”, and I still have the historical audio toys to play with from that timeline - lucky me? Yeah, I think so! I‘m just in this for the grins...

That is a beautiful attitude you have (assuming your wife can tolerate it). I try to behave the same way, but $$ and space inhibit it somewhat. You must have a limited number of quad music tho.