Quad was geared towards home audio, for music listening.

It was a different era as those of us around and aware way back then are well-aware of.

Generally, folks viewed music and audio equipment differently in those days.

The Web assists in educating those seeking information about quadraphonics.

Remember to search using the various ways to spell quad;

quadrasonic, quad, quadrafonic, etc. As you scour the Web write down the various ways to spell “quad” and keep searching!!!

Also… try those terms using a search engine’s “picture” option such as the link below leading to Google’s “image search” using the “quadraphonic” spelling:

—>  CLICK ME

Some of the pics shown when followed also lead to Web sites related to quad and a few of them do not show up in a “regular” Web search in some of my past experiences using image searches.

YMMV (your mileage may vary).

Hey… I found an addition to an old site I never saw before!!!

CLICK ME

When my beloved Sansui QRX-9001 died I stepped out of the “quad scene.”

My income had plummeted after my ONE decent job was sent overseas along with 7,000 or so others employed there and has happened over the years to MILLIONS of USA citizens and with many MILLIONS of illegal aliens to compete for jobs, housing social services (using fake and stolen IDs) that has been especially harmful to USA working-poor and unemployed citizens.. well; note the plight of US citizens within the current economic affairs that I can only label a DEPRESSION since our “leaders” continue to LIE using fake data, statistics, etc. regarding unemployment rates and other data used to “measure” financial “stuff” in the USA.

Anyway… I saved my money and did not attempt to replace my super-neato but broken receiver.

I sold off most of my remaining quad goodies including LPs, etc.

Sigh……………..

And I did not enter the realm of home theater.

Sure, I finally bought an el cheapo CD/DVD player for 99 bucks and bought the occasional used or super-cheap new DVD or CD.

My TV is a flat-panel new-style lightweight TV to replace the old insanely heavy style of old. It cost slightly over 200 bucks but BIG enough for a Disgruntled Old Coot and the light weight is much appreciated.

And, a Sony for a mere couple hundred bucks at Wal-Mart and the TV can be carried with but one hand!!!

Compared to the Sansui QRX-9001 that was what? Pert-near a quarter-ton?

Just kidding. I think it was around 65 pounds but compared to today’s receivers, that was heavy!!!

I replaced the Sansui with a Sherwood a few years back Radio Shack had on a super-sale… it was either 45 or 65 bucks!!!

A hundred watts per channel. Weighs hardly nothing so easy to move. And plenty for this Disgruntled Old Coot who, for various reasons, has greatly reduced the amount of music listened to.

Not stopped entirely, though.

Quad on tape is usually a discrete-type quad. True discrete quad uses 4 individual audio sources from input to output.

The earliest attempts to obtain quad from vinyl records used the OOPS phenonenom… Out of Phase Stereo. To avoid excess technicality, OOPS extracted “hidden” sound from stereo recordings. The earliest quad decoders were based on the OOPS effect. A few vinyl records were purposefully recorded to maximize the OOPS effect. Purposely created encoded quad vinyl records hit the market in 1971 with some sources stating it was 1970.

Quad purposely encoded onto vinyl is often called matrixed quad. The earliest version was EV-4 with the “EV” standing for ElectroVoice… a hardware manufacturer. Later matrix quad types were CBS’s SQ, Sansui’s QS. Matrixed quad blends 4 audio channels into two channels for placement on a vinyl record. The matrix decoder separates the two blended-in rear channels of audio. CD-4 is handled differently, not being a true matrix-type quad. Many consider it a discrete-type though it suffers from some of the bleed-over problems inherent with the matrix-type.

Many quad decoders and receivers use circuitry designed by the manufacturer to synthesize quad sound from a stereo source. Though the regular decoder was capable of synthesizing quad, extra circuitry was often added to enhance the synthesized quad effects created from a stereo input. Sansui’s Vario-Matrix circuitry was one of the more succesful attempts while other brands functioned well to marginal at best. Here is a partial list of some of the names manufacturers used in naming their synthesizing circuitry:

2+2 4-D Adapter Ambiophonic Composer Dual Triphonic MultiSonic Quadaptor Quadio Quadralizer Quadrix Quatrasonic Quatravox Stereo-4 VariBlend Vari-Matrix Vario-Matrix, and more !!!!

SQ was created by the CBS Technology Center and was made available to the public in April 1971. Rear channel information was placed on a vinyl record by adding “…double helical groove modulations… alongside . . .vectored modulations…” that produced the sound for the front channels. The SQ decoder sensed the different signals and did its best to send the appropriate sound to the correct speaker.

One source says the SQ decoder “. . . uses sophisticated control of phase relationships between channels. . .” to produce the quad effect. The December 1976 issue of Popular Electronics magazine states, the “. . . non-symmetrical phase matrix using phase shift networks. . .” is what allows a SQ decoder to create a quad effect. Okay, I believe ‘em.

Early SQ decoders were capable of only around 3db (decibels) of channel separation between the front and rear speakers, creating only a small amount of quad effect. Later research produced “logic” decoders which improved channel separation to as much as 30-40db in some cases. From the start CBS wanted to maintain excellent Left/Right Front stereo effect to the detriment of the quad sound.

SQ-type quad is a ‘matrix’ quad, as are the QS (RM) and EV-4 types. Any matrix-type decoder will ‘decode’ a matrix-type encoded record. However, the sound coming out the speakers will usually vary from a little to a lot since each system used a slightly different approach at decoding encoded quad input.

My own experience has been that the QS (RM) decoder tends to synthesize quad from a stereo source better on around 90% of the music I play. The SQ system does a better job on the other 10%. The EV-4 system died out early and was never a big player in the quad market, though it was similar to the other matrix types.

Some reviewers proclaim the best SQ logic decoder types were “wave matching” and “variable blend”. These became available around 1974. Original non-logic SQ decoders only had about 3db separation between channels. That ain’t much, boys and girls. Tis better than nuthin’, though.

Supposedly, the Lafayette LR-440 was the first receiver with a built-in SQ decoder. Interesting, if true. Somebody had to be first

The very first 7″ 45rpm SQ encoded single record released by CBS records was by Art Garfunkel: Mary Was an Only Child b/w All I Know. Thanks to Curt Lundgren of WCCO Minneapolis for this info, along with the proof.

The April 1972 Hi Fi magazine says:

“. . . SQ opens up the sound . . .but can be gimmicky.” Bummer. But, those were the days of early decoders. Later ones with logic circuitry improved the quad sound.

Beware, though, not all logic decoders are equal in performance.

The famous Tate and Tate/Fosgate decoders are considered by some quaddies to be the ultimate SQ decoders and awesome quad synthesizers of stereo sources.

Like QS and other matrixed quad systems, SQ does not need a special stylus to convey encoded quad info on a vinyl record to your receiver or decoder.

SQ decoders using ‘cross blend’ logic decrease left/right separation while increasing it for the front/rear channels.

Decoders work on matrixed quad like QS, SQ, EV-4, etc. and synthesizes quad from a stereo source. Demodulators extract the high-frequency info from CD-4 Quadradisc records and do not synthesize quad from a stereo source.

The first preamp with a SQ decoder was the Pioneer QC-800A

One of the earliest full-logic decoders was the Sony SQD-2000, a SQ-type, with a price of $300 in 1972 dollars. That was a LOT of $$$$$ back then. Even the partial-logic units, which most were in 1972, were very expensive at the time.

The Nov. 1974 Stereo Review wrote a glowing report on the Tate SQ decoder. The writer compared it to discrete quad tape. He was also extremely impressed with the Tate’s ability to synthesize quad from any stereo source . . . even FM radio, which for some reason doesn’t synthesize into quad as easily as other stereo sources. So, if yah see a Tate, better grab it !!!

The April 1977 Stereo Review says the Deltek Super SQ Model One is the ultimate in SQ decoding. It better work good with a list price of $2,150 !!! That’s roughly the equivalent to $5,000 today !!!!

Inflation Sucks

SQ LOGIC TYPES

Front-Back Logic is designed to keep vocals positioned properly; generally at the front speakers. Wave-Matching Logic (also known as gain-riding) operates similar to front-back but operates individually on each speaker. Variable-Blend Logic senses signals from the front channels that are ‘leaking’ into the rear and electronically cancels out the leakage. Full-Logic combines two or more of the above to minimize signal leakage from one channel to another. Non-logic decoders suck but are better than nuthin’.

Some logic decoders operated ‘better’ than others. A common complaint with logic decoders was the “pumping” of sound . . . actually hearing the logic working on the sound and detracting from the sounds’ ‘naturalness.’

This discussion is greatly condensed due to the technical complexity of the info sources referred to. A look at the old audio magazines will better define the various aspects of logic circuitry and the pros & cons of each type.

Three commonly used IC chips for building SQ decoders were made by Motorola. The MC1312, MC1314, and MC1315. These are very hard to find. They gotta be out there somewhere, though. Perhaps sitting in a warehouse waiting for an inquiry to buy so you can build your own decoder. Perhaps a cross-reference catalog will list any other types which will also work. Any tech-types in today’s audience who can enlighten the masses????

In My Humble Opinion………

Okay, it isn’t THAT humble, but, it’s still my opinion. I’ve heard several Pioneer quad receivers. Some were high-end units made around 1976-77 with full-logic SQ decoders. I was not impressed. None of the Pioneer quad units decoded or synthesized quad as well as the Sony and Sansui units I’ve heard. Also, Pioneers seem to break down more than other name-brand units. I’ve noticed that many tend to get “noisy” in one or both rear channels. However, if you do run across a Pioneer quad unit, take a listen. It may be just what YOU are looking for.

Sansui introduced the QS quad encode/decode system in February 1972. Similar to SQ and EV-4, QS can decode any matrix-type quad encoded record along with synthesizing quad from a stereo source. Often, QS is shown on quad equipment with the designation “RM.” This stands for Regular Matrix. Supposedly, RM is the QS type without logic in the decoder.

I think Sansui’s grooviest invention was the famous Vario-Matrix circuitry. Various audio magazines described this circuitry in a most confusing manner. Some described Vario-Matrix as a “logic circuit” that improves channel separation. Another writer said it was specifically designed to synthesize a stereo source into a quadraphonic output. Whatever it was intended to do, it sure does sound good. Almost everything I play; FM, Compact Discs, records, whether it’s a quad or stereo version, is passed through my Vario-Matrix circuitry. Stereo sounds dull, lifeless, and boring compared to the sound of my quad receiver pumping out the tunes through its Vario-Matrix decoder.

One of Sansui’s first, if not very first, quad units was the QS-1 decoder with “Quadphonic” synthesizing circuitry. An ‘ampless’ unit, it required outboard amplification to power the rear speakers. The QS-1 used electronic delay, phase shifting, and reverb to produce a form of synthesized quad. With a list price of 200 American dollars in 1971, it was rather expensive for its time. $200 was a LOT of shekels back then!!!

The first mention of Sansui’s Vario-Matrix circuitry in the print media was found in a March 1973 Audio-related magazine, where the QRX series receivers were mentioned in an advertisement.

Magazine advertisements telling of the splendid Sansui QRX-8001 and QRX-9001 receivers were still appearing as late as May 1978. From 1976 on, advertisements about quad hardware decreased rapidly in number. Based on just the number of audio magazine advertisements mentioning new quad equipment, 1974 and 1975 appear to have been quad’s peak years.

The Sansui Vario-Matrix decoder decodes an SQ-encoded vinyl record at the equivalent of a ‘half-logic’ SQ decoder.

Don’t confuse Marantz’s Vari-Matrix with Sansui’s Vario-matrix (note the lack of an ‘o’ in the Marantz offering). One source states that Marantz licensed Sansui’s Vario-Matrix circuitry (at least part of it) for use in their Vari-Matrix decoder. Other sources state the two systems only share a basic functionality: decoding and synthesizing quad. Whatever the true answer is, just be aware that differences probably do exist, despite the similarities in the name and spelling of the two systems.

Popular Electronics magazine found Sansui’s Vario-Matrix to be “. . . fascination and interesting.” I gotta’ agree. It does an awesome job decoding my quad records, whether they’re SQ or EV-4 or QS encoded discs. And, words can’t describe how well it synthesizes a stereo source, especially those from a CD. Yah gotta get it !!!

Sources disagree on how RM relates to QS. Both appear to be used interchangeably. Some sources say that RM is QS without a logic-type decoder. Whether this is true or not is not known. How about it readers. yah know the answer??

The QS decoder is often mentioned in 1970′s audio magazines as being better than SQ when synthesizing quad from a stereo source.

The July 1975 Hi Fi magazine says that QS gives 20db front to rear separation and 10db from left to right.

Advertisements in the May 1978 Stereo Review magazine show that the Sansui QRX-8001 and 9001 receivers were still available. Their list price of over $1,000 most likely limited sales.

When buying a Sansui receiver be aware that the “QR” series did not have the esteemed Vario-Matrix circuitry. You need a “QRX” series receiver to get it.

This is the “odd man out” in the quad world. Extremely ‘fine’ grooves were etched onto the vinyl record to provide frequencies between 35,000 and 50,000 hertz. The CD-4 demodulator sensed these high frequencies then converted them to a range of around 100 to 15,000 hertz. These frequencies were then sent to the amplifier and on to the rear channels.

A matrix decoder can not sense the high frequencies on a CD-4 record, it can only synthesize the stereo output of a CD-4 QuadraDisc LP.

Conversely, a demodulator can only convert those high frequencies to the audible range, it can not synthesize quad from any source.

CD-4 is not my favorite quad medium for various reasons. Other quaddies prefer it. I guess you’ll just have to listen to both formats, the matrix-type and the CD-4 type to see which is best you.

Jerry Minter of Components Corp. suggested using a 38Khz carrier frequency to handle 2 extra channels of audio information waaaay back in the early 1960s. In May 1972, RCA introduced the CD-4 Quadradisc, using the high frequency method, to the buying public.

A review of CD-4 cartridges in the Feb. 1974 Radio-Electronics magazine found that the best tracking occurred at 2 or slightly more grams.

CD-4 required a special needle shape which contacted a larger surface area of the record, thus lessening the pressure on the vinyl. This helped preserve the high-frequency etchings which carried the rear channel info. The special needle style had various names. The first was “Shibata.” Some stylus/cartridge makers concocted their own name. MicroAcoustics called theirs a “Quadrapoint” stylus. Pickering ultimately called theirs a “Stereohedron,” after first using the “Quadrahedral” moniker. Stanton also used “Quadrahedral.” Bang & Olufsen, those fun-loving Swedes, called their CD-4 stylus a “Multi-Radial” type. On their M24H, Shure used the “Hyperbolic” name.

A Quadradisc plays in regular stereo when a demodulator is not present. Thus, a matrix decoder can operate on the regular stereo signal to synthesize a quad sound from the record. Realize that this synthesized quad sound will not be what would be created if a demodulator was present to extract the quad sound the recording engineers intended to be heard.

Opinion??? Sure, gotta bunch of em’

I don’t use the CD-4 demodulator in my receivers, nor my free-standing unit. I don’t care for CD-4. I let my matrix decoders synthesize the music from stereo that came out on Quadradiscs. Why?????………………..

Vinyl has a limited ability to ‘hold’ the high-frequency carrier signals.

The high-freq signals in vinyl are subject to wear.

Only new, untouched by a standard stylus LPs, are assured of having the high frequency grooves in the vinyl.

Not compatible with any other quad system.

Noise and distortion are common problems.

Poor carrier signal lock-on can cause audible distortion.

A cartridge/stylus combo capable of reproducing 25-45Khz is required.

Cartridge tracking adjustments must be near perfect.

Some turntable tonearms are incompatible with CD-4.

Anti-skating adjustments can be crucial to proper playback.

Some of the earlier records were inferior, wearing quickly.

Can only be recorded onto a 4-channel tape recorder.

Turntable leads, in some cases, need to be low impedance for CD-4 to function properly.

Channel separation of 30-35db max can be matched by a good matrix decoder.

I think CD-4 has an “artificial” sound.

The demodulator needs to be manually ‘aligned’ via 2 or 3 adjusters.

Because JVC, CD-4′s creator, never paid me to say something nice.

Buying Tip

In June 1974 a new IC chip for demodulating CD-4 appeared. Tests showed it did a better job than earlier chips. Try to buy a later-model demodulator that has the new chip. I can’t find a list of these improved demodulators, but, name brand units made after June 1974 are more likely to have it.

The earliest CD-4 records were limited to around 20 minutes playing time per side. Also, due to lax cleanliness standards at the pressing plant, many of the early LP’s (1972 to 1973 or so) had impurities that found their way onto the vinyl, which degraded the playback quality.

In 1976, a high-end demodulator was capable of 35db channel separation at 1Khz, and 25db at 10Khz

WARNING

Don’t feed a demodulator’s output into the turntable input on your receiver, the power level is too high. To avoid damaging your quad receiver, plug the demodulator into aux or auxiliary inputs or into the special 4-channel aux inputs. If your quad receiver doesn’t have 4-channel aux jacks, it’s an el cheapo and it’s time to find a better unit.

A demodulator can be used as a pre-amp. On new receivers without turntable jacks, you should be able to use a demodulator to amplify the turntables’ output and feed it into a receivers “aux” auxiliary input. This works on stereo systems. I’ve never tried it, so it may be a good idea to check with a technician first.

The Shibata-style stylus used on CD-4 cartridges was named after its inventor, a Japanese hombre named… Shibata!!!

A CD-4 cartridge measures at 100,000 ohms versus the 47,000 ohms of a stereo cartridge.

My own experience with CD-4 led me to stick with matrix-type quads. To hear a quad sound from CD-4 encoded vinyl I just send it through my Vario-Matrix decoder and let it synthesize a quad sound. However, there ARE those who use and enjoy CD-4. Cai Campbell is a quad expert with an opposing view. Here is his opinion:

Sorry that you don’t dig CD-4. I haven’t had much exposure to other quad formats but I LOVE my CD-4 setup. Here’s a bit of trivia for you about CD-4 records. What you say about high-frequency deterioration in vinyl records is true, which is a definite drawback to the CD-4 carrier signal approach. To account for this, JVC invented “super vinyl” which produced stronger, more resilient “walls” in the grooves on the record. All Quadradisc recordings were to be manufactured with this “super vinyl,” but my guess is that not all were (who knows how to tell?) Anyway, this is the same vinyl formula that Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab used for their first Original Master Recording releases! Cool, huh?

Anyway, audiophiles love the Quadradisc issues, not necessarily for their quad content, but because of the superior vinyl resulting in superior sound (played back stereo or quad.) This goes against what you’re saying about quality control with Quadradisc releases. In theory, the control would have been BETTER than with standard pressings and in my experience this has generally been the case, but there are always going to be quality control issues. I’ve had exceptionally good luck with CD-4 records and have only run into the problems you’ve mentioned when the previous owner trashed their records (idiots.)

Now, personally, I LOVE the fact that CD-4 offers truly discreet four channel sound. I read your argument about natural sound not coming from discreet pinpoints, and you’re right. But stereo is discreet and you can create 3D sound effects without blurring. An engineer has complete control over this effect in stereo and true discreet quad. Any bleeding must either be accounted for or ignored, in either case the end result will not be as the engineer had envisioned. Anyway, I’m sure you know all this, but all I’m saying is that I’ll take discreet multi-channel above a matrixed system any day! The downside is the method of delivery, but what the hey…

Discreet, matrix, or whatever, I’ll tell you what really ticks me off about quad (or early stereo, for that matter) is that most engineers had no clue what to do with it! “Uh, drums in that speaker, guitar over there, singer over there, um… and tambourine over there.” Yeah, that sounds natural. I’ve heard only a few really good quadraphonic mixes. Some of them are “almost there” but most are pretty laughable. When it is done right, it is really spectacular. In my mind, the very best quad disk ever mixed is Harry Nilsson’s “Nilsson Schmilsson.” This is a fantastic record in its own right but the quad mix will completely blow you away. Seriously, you MUST check it out. Best of the Doors was mixed very well, especially when you consider the songs were not recorded with quad in mind. I’ve got a couple of avant-garde (Edgard Varese) and jazz (Gil Evans) that were mixed extremely well.

Long story short, with quad, IT’S IN THE MIX!

Thanks for the feedback, Cai. So far, we have one for CD-4 and one anti CD-4. Is there somebody in the audience who can break the tie???

YES! Here’s the viewpoint of a long-time quaddie who is sadly no longer with us. Steve Wudtke passed-on in September 2000. Also known as Hood Crow and TWA Corbies on various discussion boards and newsgroups, Steve was a fount of quad information having been a quad advocate from the earliest days.

CD4…..a Gemini Moon perspective

Well, this is a schizo subject, so I’ll try to break the tie going on so far by saying “It was the best of systems, it was the worst of systems” w/ apologies to Mr.Dickens. CD4 had the most potential for its time, and sadly, the least achievements.Certainly, nothing *Sang* as well as a well-pressed CD4 Disc (Stardrive-Intergalactic trot comes to mind) or sang as badly as a poorly pressed and poorly mixed disc (Tubular Bells comes to mind). Why? Well, lots of reasons. The quality control (pardon the oxymoron) in the USA was non-existent, I heard tales of a CD4 pressing plant that had the windows wide open so the local coal mine dust could blow in. Compare this to Japan’s *clean room* pressing. If CD4′s had the same care as the later Mobile Fidelity releases in stereo, they MIGHT be still around..

The system was not designed with the casual fan in mind. Setting up CD4 can be very time consuming and tedious. I’m sure many listeners didn’t take the time and care to set it up properly, then complained about the sound. And of course, all demodulators, cartridges and cables are not created equal, but they should have been (Ala CD standards). This would have provided a quality measurement to judge systems against.

Much has been made of the wear factor. I believe after the very early discs this was a non-issue. I have discs I’ve beaten the s**t out of, and they still demodulate just fine. I think we can safely thank CD4 for giving us an awareness of proper tracking, which didn’t seem to matter too much before CD4. Of course, every audiophile knows about proper tracking, but how many casual listeners smeared their CD4′s with an El Cheapo Yorx cartridge waiting till they bought their first quad system?

So, anyway, I am still divided on the format, although I will say it has the widest separation I heard from a record at that time. Listening to my Vario-Matrix or Tates give me the same sense of discreteness. If it SOUNDS discrete, who cares if it’s a matrix?

Speaking of, and going into the subject of *Mixing*. I don’t think there’s ever been such bad mixing as on quad material. I had many SQ discs I saved for years just so I could hear them through a *proper* decoder (ie:Tate). Guess what? The Tate magnified the flawed mix on most of them, and I had to sit back and wonder just what the **** they thought they were doing. A lot of them were simply awful. The same is true of CD4, or even the undisputed King of Quad, the Open Reel. 50 db separation doesn’t mean diddly if it sounds like crap, and I find a lot of the most enjoyable quad mixes were NOT designed with quad in mind (Doors, Aqualung, Moody Blues). So were they trying too hard, or not trying enough? The jury is still out.

So, before this gets totally nauseating, my summation. I live with all the quad formats. I keep my CD-4 system ready for the occasional disc just longing to be put on reel to reel, or I fire my CDs, reels, and whatever else through a Vario-Matrix or Tate. The only thing you won’t hear in my house is stereo. I think CD-4 is worthwhile, but it’s not for everybody. I believe a degree of dedication is needed to pursue the rewards it can indeed give. And it still beats Quad 8 tracks. So, I guess I can break the tie with this: I Love it and Hate it. That’s what I get with a Gemini Moon.

Hooded Crow

Thank you Mr. Crow. That was an interesting and insightful argument uhhhhhh……. for AND against CD-4.

Decoders using ambiance recovery, such as early Dynacos, worked best on live recordings where the large area of the concert hall allowed natural reverberations and reflected sound waves to be recorded.

Radio-Electronics magazine in its March 1971 edition says the DynaQuad ambiance recovery unit first appeared in the spring of 1970. This product may have led the 70′s ‘quad craze.’

Remember folks, ambient recovery extracts naturally occurring audio info, it is not designed to retrieve specifically encoded quad info placed on a record; though the passive ambient recovery systems will extract some of the encoded quad info. However, passive decoders only detect part of the encoding on matrixed-type quad records (SQ, QS, EV-4, etc). On CD-4 records, passive decoders can only extract info from the front stereo info; the rear channels are encoded in frequencies the passive decoder can’t detect.

Two tracks on the Beach Boy’s Sunflower LP were recorded to increase their out-of-phase info to increase a passive decoder’s ability to extract rear channel info. These tracks are: Got to Know the Woman and Cool Cool Water.

The Electro-Voice EVX-4 decoder and the Heathkit Stereo-4 decoder use the same circuitry; just different names. I wonder how many other quad products are like this???

The Electro-Voice EV-4 system was the first encoded quad available on vinyl records. There are a few LPs floating around with the EV-4 designator on them. Since it is a matrix-type quad system, SQ and QS will decode them.

The April 1971 Stereo Review magazine shows how to hook up rear speakers to extract out-of-phase info. Since it involves connecting the left/right positive speaker terminals to the rear speaker(s), care must be taken (though I’ve never heard of any harm coming to the receiver/amp). In a blind test by an audio magazine, high-end full logic decoders produced a quad sound that most listeners could not differentiate from a true discrete quad source.

On Matrix-Encoded Records:

Vectored modulations in the records’ groove carry front channel information. Helical modulations carry rear channel info. Wheeeeew !!! Shake yer booty !!!! That needle must be rockin’ and rollin’. Guess a high-quality cartridge/stylus would help capture the quad info on a record. And, maybe, perhaps, and I’m just guessing…….. a little extra weight (not much) on the tonearm (if yours is adjustable) may improve the quad sound being scraped off the vinyl.

As with any cartridge/stylus, a better-quality one will help preserve your records. Cleanliness of the record and the stylus is also important. Some reports indicate that the rear-channel grooves on a matrix-encoded record can be worn down after repeated playing, just like stereo and mono recordings!!! So……. perhaps it’s a good idea to record those quad records onto tape.

Another tip from the pros is to not play a record twice without giving the vinyl a little time to cool off. The pressure of the stylus against the vinyl creates heat which slightly softens it. Playing the same record twice in a row is supposed to allow a higher rate of wear.

For REALLY cheap quad, you could have bought Radio Shacks’ Quartette ambiance recovery unit for $6 in 1973.

Electro-Voices’ EV-4 matrix system was the only encoded quad vinyl and matrix decoder format available as of September 1971

Attempts at creating a quad cassette deck led to the JVC 4CO-1680, which never made it to market, for various reasons. To see a pic of it, check out the Apr 1974 Popular Mechanics magazine.

The May 1988 Stereo Review magazine says (while retrospecting on the quad years) that

“. . .one of the joys . . .” of using quad equipment was finding the hidden ambient aspects of music recorded in stereo (Another way of saying that synthesized quad from a stereo source sounds neato).

More Assorted Thingys

CDs and matrix decoders are a nifty combination. My Sansui Vario-Matrix decoder slurps up CD stereo output and synthesizes some ultra funky quad tunes. The Barenaked Ladies Rock Spectacle CD sounds sooooooooo darn good in synthesized quad.

Perhaps it’s the excellent separation between left/right channels. Or, it may be the lack of audio compression in CD’s that other audio formats have that allow such excellent stereo to quad synthesization. Maybe it’s just good Karma!!! Whatever the reason, CDs and quad decoders go together like M&Ms and peanuts, potatoes and gravy, Sonny & Cher; you get the idea.

The Marantz 4400 has an onboard oscilloscope that showed output per channel. Other receivers by various manufacturers had similar looking devices but were not true O’scopes. Also, the 4400 was the ‘top dog’ of Marantz quad units, but it too used optional plug-in modules for SQ, QS, and CD-4 as many other Marantz receivers did.

Yamaha is considered by some to be a high-end manufacturer. I’ve found only one quad goodie by them: the CS70R receiver. Discrete or matrix. 4 X 12watts. 1974. $370. Ever see one??

Buying Tip

Several Marantz receivers were ‘quad’ types. They had 4 channels of output, etc. BUT, many models required an extra-cost add-on module to allow quad decoding. The module plugged into a receptacle on the bottom of the unit. If you buy a Marantz, check to see if it requires a module and if so, ensure it is included with the unit. These modules are VERY hard to find.

Marantz SQ Decoder Modules

SQA-1 has “Front/Rear” Logic, SQA-2 Full-Logic unit, SQA-2B a later Full-Logic module. These are the optional extra-cost plug-in modules that fit into the bottom of many Marantz receivers. Very hard to find. There was a CD-4 module, also.

There it is, sitting on the thrift store shelf; a quad 8-track home unit. Neato. Something to remember is that most of ‘em only played back in quad. The majority of home 8-track quad units did NOT record in quad. If you’re looking for a quad recorder, reel-to-reel units are easier to find. If you must have a quad 8-track recorder, look at the faceplate carefully to determine (hopefully) if it is a recording type. Some units do not explicitly indicate if they are quad recording units or not. Some would record in stereo but not quad; even though the unit plays stereo AND quad. Sometimes you have to make an educated guess by the controls and faceplate markings if the unit actually records in quad.

In 1988 the Fosgate company built a series of audio surround sound processors.

The Pro Plus series was designed by Jim Fosgate and Pete Scheiber. Scheiber was a key figure during quads’ prime years. He helped Electro-Voice design the EV-4 matrix system and was instrumental in the process which allowed quad to be encoded onto vinyl records.

The Pro Plus units have “360 Degree Space Matrix” written on their faceplates. Having never heard these units perform and unable to find a review of their output, their effectiveness in creating a quad-like surround sound field is unknown to me. Has anybody out there in World Wide Webland heard these things??? If so, send in a review and share it with others interested in quad and/or surround sound.

Two sets of quad headphones were reviewed in the July 1972 Popular Science magazine. The writer stated that on quad recordings where the rear channel output was mostly ambient sound, the phones weren’t that great. When the output in the rear channels was a more “direct” sound, the writer says that the phones worked better.

A few quad headphones had built in decoders, most of which were passive, ambiance recovery types. Most quad headphones simply used the quad source fed to the headphones via the receiver headphone jacks.

A large selection of quad headphones were available, though every review I read stated that the quad effects were inferior to the quad from 4 speakers.

Some super cheap quad components are not actually quad. A few cheapo units had a circuit to send front left/right sound to the rear speakers after a few millisecond delay. Somewhat akin to a reverb unit. Another gimmick was to use the passive ambiance recovery method and call it true quad.

There’s three, yes, count ‘em, three ways to provide a quad source to your super-duper quad hardware; reel-to-reel tape, 8-track tape, and vinyl record. Okay, you can use cassettes, etc that have quad recorded on them, but, I’m talking about original sources here.

Of the three formats, reel-to-reel tape is the rarest and it’s the most expensive to buy today. 8-tracks can be the cheapest if you find them locally at garage sales, thrift stores and used record/tape stores. I’ve bought quite a few quad 8-tracks for 10 to 50 cents each. Whadda’ deal!!! If you buy quad 8-tracks at Internet auction sites, be ready to pay top dollar. Records are the most commonly found quad software. Prices can vary greatly. Stuff that’s still-sealed gets the highest prices. For example, my still-sealed CD-4 Muscle of Love by Alice Cooper sold for 30 American dollars. Some quad records are readily available. The Doors Greatest Hits is a common one. There are oodles and gobs of ‘em out there. Others are harder to find. I hunted all over before finding my groovy Nashville Skyline by Bob Dylan.

If you live in a big city, finding software is a heckuva lot easier than if you live in the boonies. To ease the search, make friends with local used record store owners. It’s nice when you drop by and the owner reaches down and pulls out a pile of quad records he’s save for your perusal. Another good source can be record shows. These are usually held in a large hall or building and have dozens to hundreds of record sellers. The smart sellers categorize their goods. It’s easier to find quad stuff if there’s a section just for quad. Often, sellers lump quad goodies in the ‘audiophile’ section. If sellers at your local record show don’t do this, ask ‘em if they have any quad. Also, tell ‘em how much more you buy when you can go straight to a quad section. I’ve trained the regular sellers in Omaha Nebraska, all of ‘em have a separate quad section now; just to please “the Quad Guy.”

Some quad records are not obviously quad, at least when looking at the record jacket and/or the record inner label. Some records indicate quad via a small logo on the back cover. Some covers don’t mention quad at all, the indication is on the inner record label only. And, there’s a few records with absolutely no mention of quad anywhere yet they are quad encoded. “Phase 4 Stereo” is NOT quad. It was a recording technique that was supposed to improve stereo.

Some foreign quad pressings use alternative names for quad, but, most are decipherable. A few records mention that they are “quad compatible.” Some of these do not appear to be quad encoded. I think the term, in some cases, was a marketing gimmick to increase sales of a stereo record. For example, I’m turkey compatible, and mashed potatoes & gravy compatible !!! I can eat ‘em all day. But, just because I am compatible with that food doesn’t make me a turkey. . . . I hope!

Remember bootleg records and 8-tracks??? These were “underground” recordings. Usually, the bootlegs were direct reproductions of commercially available music. Thus, it was simple theft since the artist and manufacturer did not get any of the loot. Another bootleg-type music was NOT released by the record companies. These not-released-by-legitimate-sources music was usually recordings of live concerts. Once in awhile, a recording company employee would get hold of studio recordings that were not included in an artist’s legitimate release. These are known as outtakes. A few outtakes were from studio sessions that were taped in a quad style. Though rare, there are quad bootlegs floating around. Most are live concert recordings with only ambiance in the rear channels. Some only mention quad on the record cover; the sound output does not indicate any quad encoding. Rarest of all are outtakes in quad.

The recording engineer greatly affected how a quad-encoded record sounded when played. I’ve noticed that some quad records had sound that bounced around the room while others had a sense of “depth” to them.

Santana’s Black Magic Woman, when played through a good decoder, is a nifty example of sound jumping around. Bob Dylan’s Nashville Skyline record, when played through my various decoders, doesn’t bounce around. Instead, there is a sense of ‘realism’; as if I’m present at the recording session.

Unfortunately, some quad encoded records sound just like their stereo version. I yearn to hear Ten Years After’s I’d Love to Change the World in good quad sound. For some reason, I can’t get the quad version to sound any different from the stereo record. My decoders can’t even get any decent synthesized quad from that recording, even though 97% of all stereo sound is synthesized quite nicely by my Vario-Matrix units.

Bummer.

Poking through the Sept. 1969 Hi Fi magazine shows a full-page ad touting Vanguard Records “Revolutionary new 4-channel system.” for vinyl records. No mention is made of the encoding-type, but I assume it is the EV-4 system. Further along, the ad says reel-to-reel quad tapes and cassettes are coming soon. Well, they got most of it right. Though quad cassettes did not reach the masses, you can record matrixed quad onto cassette for later playback through your decoder.

Audionics Shadow Vector Analysis Unit. $1,300 in 1976. SQ with logic gave 35db channel separation.

Bang & Olufsen Beogram 4002 turntable with plug-in demodulator

Bose 4401 preamp optional SQ & CD-4 plug-in modules. 1974 $500. $75 for the SQ module.

Connaught Equipment Co. supposedly built a SQ decoder with 40db separation in 1974

Super SQ Model One by the Deltek Co. $2,150 in 1977. Stereo Review in its Apr ’77 issue called it the ultimate in SQ decoding

Heathkit; anything by these folks. They provided the parts and instructions. You slapped it together.

Integrex Ltd. Built a decoder up to 1981 that handled SQ, QS, UMX, Matrix H/HJ/UHJ.

Scott 499 amplifier. Supposed to be the first specific “quad component” other than a tape deck to hit the consumer market.

Sansui QSD-1 one of the ‘super decoders’

Any jukebox with built-in decoders. Wurlitzer is supposed to have built a few.

There was a list of rare and hard-to-find vinyl LP’s here, but, they have been removed. The Wild Wooly Wide Web of the World now allows the masses to communicate in many ways, one being the ability to offer quad goodies for sale and trade. The eBay auction site is a nifty place to find what were once rare quad records and hardware. It may take awhile for that rare goody to show up there, but, with patience, pert near anything quad you lust after will show up eventually..

Quad 8-tracks had the same limitations the stereo versions had. The worst being the tendency to be “eaten.” Gulp. Remember those glorious days of cruising down the road and seeing the tangled mess of tape blowing in the breeze? There goes another dead 8-track.

While home units had better specifications and a generally ‘cleaner’ sound output than quad players made for cars/trucks, the sound was not as good as a well-made vinyl record. But hey. Don’t let the drawbacks getcha down. The discrete quad sound WAS there, and on a good unit, the tape hiss, wow/flutter etc. was minimalized. Also, it’s easier to find quad 8-tracks than reel-to-reel quad tapes.

Even still-sealed 8-track cartridges are highly prone to jamming and being “eaten.” It’s best to record your quad 8-tracks onto quad reel-to-reel tape since 8-tracks can ‘die’ at any time.

A standard stereo 8-track player can not properly play a quad tape while most quad 8 players were capable of playing stereo cartridges.

The RCA company had to change the name of their quad tapes from “Quad-8″ to “Q-8″ after the Quad CO. of England claimed trademark infringement.

Buy a Ford and be Adored…………………

As late as 1979, the Ford Motor Company offered an optional quadraphonic in-car 8-track player. I’d rather have it in a Plymouth GTX with a 440 6-pak and a 4-speed, a 4:10 rear end, and an air-grabber hood scoop. Yeah !!!!!!!! Vrooooom!!!!!!

A common complaint during quads’ early years was a lack of software. There was plenty of hardware to be found (though not with the highest-quality decoders & demodulators) but record companies were rather slow in releasing quad records & tapes. On the whole, quad 8-track tapes were released quicker and in a larger variety than vinyl quad. A fairly large amount of quad released on 8-track was NOT released on vinyl while almost all vinyl quad was also available on 8-track. Wonder why????

Around 200 different quad 8-tracks were available in mid 1972 while approximately 50 reel-to-reel quad tapes could be found.

True discrete quad comes from 4-channel tape. Discrete quad is basically a quad sound with no, or extremely little bleedover between channels. All quad from records had some cross-channel blending.

When assembled at the factory, quad 8-tracks had a lubricant placed on the tape so it would slide smoothly on and off the center reel. With time, this lubricant was lost, thus making the tape prone to jamming and getting “eaten.” I’ve never heard of a “spray on” aerosol to restore the slipperiness. Seems there should be some sort of aftermarket consumer product to allow those rare quad 8-tracks to stay alive awhile longer

Whoops!!!! I may be wrong about the lubricant or lack thereof being a cause of the 8-track eaties !!

Regarding a comment I made on Q8′s (quad 8-tracks) this excellent advice is presented by an expert on the subject: the one, the only: Krnewman !!!!!! Thanks for sharing this !!!!!!!

1. With proper care and maintenance of both tapes and players, 8-tracks need NEVER jam or get eaten. But they do require care and maintenance. Without that, they will get eaten sometimes. Basically all it comes down to is: proper lube in the two posts for the pinch roller and spool. Fresh springy pads (I recommend Win-Gibs as the best), and making sure the sensing foil splice is strong by checking it and replacing/reinforcing, as necessary. For the machine, it needs to be kept clean. That’s all there is to it.

2. 8-track tape lubrication: specially lubricated on both sides, brittle tape is extremely rare in 8-tracks. I’ve repaired enormous number of tapes and would put loss of lubrication at around 1 in a 1000. Very rare, unlike with old reel tapes, where brittleness is a common problem. My opinion: don’t worry about tape lubrication with 8-tracks. Worry about properly lubricating the two posts inside the cartridge, for the pinch roller and spool; if they drag the spool can develop tension problems causing the tape to drag, slip, stop, or even break.

Excellent advice. With no more quad 8-tracks being made ( at least commercially ), we have to take care of the ones we have. I have seen Krnewman offering Q8s on the www.ebay.com auction site. He guarentees his product and has some of the best/funniest written descriptions of his products I’ve ever seen.