Once you hear a good quadrophonic setup and listen to a well-mixed album, like the classic quad mixes of DSOTM or Bitches Brew, then you become a believer.

surround sound for music makes sense in electronic music, i have quite a few surround recordings/mixes that really blow my mind allowing electronic sounds to really travel around the room, circling around the listener etc. Electronic music doesn't need to sound accurate, it's a great playground for surround systems.

Well, I'll tell you one good purpose I found for surround sound music with no picture. Had a system set up in my apartment living room back in college in the 90's. The system was a JVC surround sound receiver from the 80's (which I still use for my TV sound to this day), and the speakers were Pioneers of 80's vintage (long gone). Add a couple blacklights, pop in Dark Side of the Moon, and pull a few bongs, and prepare for your own personal spaceship ride. Oh yeah, good times many years ago.

Steve, you are to be congratulated ! You are the first person (out of all that are putting up audio blogs to my knowledge ) to actually mention Paul W. Klipsch's name !! And an old friend of yours at that ! I would have loved to have met the man... Ok, on topic, I STILL own my Sony QUAD reel to reel with it's MINT demo tape, and a Marantz 4140 quad integrated amp.... Both bought from a place called 'Lafayette Radio' back in 1973, I had to take a loan out to buy them, with four matching KEF speakers, it ran me $1300 ! Big money back in those days... I had a blast playing with making my own tapes and doing all kinds of interesting things with the rear channels (O:

I was introduced to Quadraphonic sound in the 1970’s when I acquired a Dynaco “Quadapter” that interfaced with my Dynaco PAT4 Preamp and Dynaco Stereo 120 Power Amp. I ran these through Dynaco A50 speakers in the front and Dynaco A35 speakers in the rear. The resulting sound IMO sounded fantastic, and I still use the Dynaco Quad system to this day. The Dynaco “Quadapter” routed in phase signals to the front speakers, and out of phase signals to the rear speakers. It is a passive unit that does not require an additional power amp to drive the rear speakers.

I've done both, I still am a firm believer in a strong 2 channel setup as long as you have it matches right and some amazing speakers that do everything well and an amp to juice em up that's all I've ever needed, can't beat the old school 2 channel setup with the right equipment.

My friend Harvey Friedman from brooklyn NY had the best Quad system I have ever heard regardless of price! He even arranged the furniture around the sound and put 2 of the speakers higher that they others. I loved it. He was listening to Quad albums but there just weren't enough quad records for me to jump onto the bandwagon and my room was too small for more speakers. I own an old Fosgate all analog surround processor. Incredible!!! Creamy luscious with a sibilance control, many people use it for a 4 channel stereo processor.

My Sansui QR 6500 is my daily driver.( ONE of, i have a couple systems working) I am in the process of restoring a Pioneer QX 626. I am also restoring an Akai 4 track quad reel2reel. I have 4 AR2AX speakers driven with the sansui. I also have 4 Pioneer CS 66That came as package with the sansui. I go back and forth between stereo and quad i love both. When i do listen to a good recording in quad it really gives me pleasure. Quad is relevant in my life today.

Tubular Bells and Wish You Were Here have always sounded great in Quad. I guess music of a more atmospheric nature works best. As a previous poster said electronic music works well. All the Depeche Mode albums were remixed in 5.1 for SACD around 2006 and this really got me to explore surround mixes wherever I can find them.

Steve, I recently watched you in an interview on Home Theater Geeks. You praised Steve Wilson for his 5.1 surround recordings. I bought his blue ray, The Raven That Refused to Sing. It is the best sounding music I have ever heard on my stereo. Thank you.

I have a Sansui quad 3500 It depends on the song really sometimes it’s nothing special but if you get the right song and right balance between the rear speakers. It’s magic. Drums come through better then two channel imo It’s definitely fun and engaging. But I love good 2 channel just as well

I found the "ambient" setting of the various quad adapters I've owned to be very beneficial, especially for conveying a sense of spaciousness in a small listening room. I had a wonderful Onkyo unit that, combined with a nice (Audiosource IIRC) graphic equalizer for my undersized (vintage Sansui LM-110s -- 6 1/2" woofers in a relatively tall ported box) main speakers, made my phone-booth-sized home office into a surprisingly nice place to experience well-recorded music.

The argument was always that most listening rooms are far different acoustically from a real recording studio or concert hall and that by moving some of the signals, tastefully selected to the side or rear channels you could sort of overpower your listening room and get more nearly a reconstructed sound experience associated with the original sound stage. That sort of ignored how a tremendous amount of recordings were really made by combining sound that never was created as an ensemble. Tastefully was another key parameter as many of the actual multichannel media was produced to show off the technology and not to make for a great listening experience. In fairness, there was also a deep cynicism that the point was to sell more crap without necessarily achieving the advertised objectives. The other problem was that all of that equipment cost money and took up space and was substantially more complicated to set up. In 1973 I had a wife and a child, a mortgage, and made $13,000 a year and frankly, it was a financially a stretch to scrape up the money for a pair of large Advents etc.

Incredibly ironic that this video just came out cuz I just picked up a Technics quadraphonic receiver sa 5400 x. The planets have officially aligned LOL. I'm absolutely in love with the phono stage on this thing. Pick it up at my local Salvation Army for 10 bucks.

Always loved the Audio Pulse Model One digital delay and used it with my Dahlquists on the front channels for many years. It could really "open up" small rooms if you used it correctly. Cutting-edge for 1977, and you didn't need quad source material.

As you well know the term Stereo is used to denote 2 channel reproduction ,but in fact Stereophonic sound is 2 or MORE Channels. Five is the best for reproduction of any type of music,that saying 5 full range channels and it maybe used for artistic use of channels or for realistic reproduction of Concert Hall ,Live Concert were orchestra in the 3 front channels and room ambience in the 2 side or rear channels. I have hundreds of SACD in the multi channel format and to be honest it's just best way to hear music period.

It's interesting you mention this. The timing is quite funny. I had a customer come in yesterday who was blind. He was looking for a preamp to run his two amps and four speakers that he had in the corners of the room. So essentially he listens to quadraphonic sound. It's interesting to note that a guy who can't see, who's ears are his main sense, prefers all channel stereo. For me I'm for sure a two-channel guy.

I never heard a quadraphonic home system but I did see Pink Floyd during the Animals tour. They had a quadraphonic PA. It was at Jeppesen stadium in the rain. I remember Gilmore holding a note as it zoomed around the stadium just over our heads. Wonderful effect. They played all of DSOTM, all of WYWH and then Animals. Memories.....

I have a Sansui 9001 that has been modified somewhat to give more separation. Along with albums . In my home quadraphonic still lives.

I thought about trying the halfler circuit in my setup but as simple as it may seem, you can fry everything if you miss the smallest detail, I'm gonna stick to stereo until I my home theater setup to play my sacds in full glory. Incidentally the Pink Floyd Dark side of the moon deluxe package has the quad version included on the sacd

Well, I’m a sucker for surround audio. I use Infinity IRS Betas for the front, Kappa 9.1 for wide. Have my eye on some Kappa 8 to upgrade the rear. I love the Steve Wilson 5.1 remixes on my Oppo UDP205, but I really enjoy seeing what my Denon processor does to the vinyl 2 channel signal- some material just sits in the front, but for some reason other material seems to find its way around the room, and I love the sonic experience. Rock music is synthetic to begin with, recorded in multiple takes and tracks, using direct boxes, etc. there is no such thing as a natural presentation, IMO. Bands attempt to imitate the sound the achieves on the recording when playing live, not the other way around. I don’t place an artificial restriction on the playback system, it just sounds great to me, I miss it now when I listen to just 2 Channels.

For me I have the whole Genesis SACD collection .And I listen to them in 2-channal SACD they are the best ever sounding SACDs I own the sheer dynamics is just incredible !!! Both standout albums to showcase this is Trick of Tail 1975 and Wind and Wuthering 1976 just sound incredible even on SACD . I own a fair amount of SACDs and DVD-Audio and 1 Yes Blu-ray Audio disk but did not like that Blu-ray Audio at all .for me it's SACD just so very analogue warm smooth and and serious bottom end .love it

Remember the quintessential quad recording? Edgar Winter Group - Frankenstein. The guitar solos swirled around you in the room like a whirlwind, enough to make you dizzy!

I used a matrix decoder for a while, until it broke. I ran my front channels straight through to my main speakers. I used some large bookshelf speakers (ADC 450A) through the matrix in the rear. I set the volume of the rear channels low enough that they were barely noticeable. I've got to admit that it sounded great! The walls seemed to disappear and the soundstage somehow widened. Maybe it was just compensating for deficiencies in the room.

I had a Pannasonic Quad set up in the 70's, even had my wife make macrame hangers for the speakers, each in a corner. Thought it was ok, but there was never enough 4 channel music to demo it properly. Still have it packed away, somewhere. It had a joystick so you could balance the sound to your preference.

I think surround sound can add ambiance to live (or the illusion of live) music. Reverb, delay etc. Gives a nice sense of space. Also music that is meant to be more of a spectacle than a performance could benefit.

why cant we have a channel for each microphone during the recording ? Surround sound in movies is simulated, right ?

The San Francisco Symphony releases SACD five channel recordings on their SF Symphony Media label. They sound fantastic. Really fantastic.

Movies are about life, and that goes on around us, so surround sound makes sense. if you watch a band, an orchestra, they are in front of you, our brain tells us that the music is suppose to be coming from that direction. That's all I have to say about that.

If you like Isao Tomita electronic music then you can obtain it in the surround sound version and it does work well at home. He made the recordings in surround and said that it was lacking in stereo , better to hear it in surround. So I did and it is!

Steve - have you ever heard/seen the Leslie 450 Plus 2 rear speaker system? I bought a pair from a high end audio store that was going out of business in 1982. They were designed for 4 channel but had a mode switch for augmented stereo. They have the spinning rotors in the bottom & the space generator to randomly shift the phasing. The mode button would disable these if you needed just straight normal rear speakers. They have two 50 watt solid state power amps (with separate L/R gain controls) & run off my preamp. They are really fun to listen to. With the flick of a toggle power switch you can decide if you want to listen to 1973 surround sound.

My first "real" stereo system consisted of a Pioneer QX 4000 Quadraphonic receiver with 4 Pioneer speakers that I bought way back in 1971. I lived at home with my parents back then and It was a cool novelty item to have in my bedroom and to share with my friends.

I had a Pioneer QX-4000 (receiver) for quite a while. It had 4 discrete channels from input to speaker outputs. Worked well with reel to reels & also had a matrix selection to simulate 4 channels from 2. Other controls included separate front & rear balance, fader, bass & treble levels, loudness, mono & stereo. Should have kept it! Oh well. From the mid to late 70's.

I usually listen to surround sound (multi-channel) through my Sony receiver. After using the room correction, I find it is a compelling audio presentation. It's not a quad. I did have a Sherwood Quad receiver with 4 (small) Advent speakers back in the 70's. It wasn't a good setup. I think the receiver only produced 25 watts RMS per channel in quad mode. I ended up selling two Advents and the receiver. I upgraded to a Pioneer integrated amplifier capable of putting out about 85 watts RMS, which drove those inefficient speakers better. As an aside, before I sold 1 pair of the Advents, I brought them over to a friends house with a Crown preamplifier and amplifier (DC 300). We drove all 3 pairs in a stack and thought we had died and gone to audio heaven. It's amazing that over the years I've listened to much better combinations, but still remember that setup more than some of the others.

Steven Wilson solo artists & from Porcupine Tree is doing some great remixes and original stuff in 5. 1 and check out his power and the glory from gentle giant and it has pretty pictures to look at to from the Blu-ray to go along with the great mix I think you'd be convinced hopefully.

If it makes sense for movie , Steve , why not just by itself , to enhance the lister experience ?

What about the work of Dr Mark Waldrep. Seems to make sense to extend the limited illusion of stereo to a more believable level.

steve..i just heard yesterday..a quad version on youtube of Charlie rich.".Behind closed doors" I couldnt ever believe that the stereo version of the song which always sounded so upfront and loud like a pop record..could instead sound so discrete and atmospheric in Quad What do you think about Lyn Anderson "Rosegarden " on youtube quad...its vastly sounds better mixed I think and lastly..surely you think the Carpenters quad mixes on youtube sound so much more professional..ambient and make Karens voice sound the vocal dynamics it always deserved?

I guess it's rare the music originates all around us. I remember the quad days that nobody seemed to understand. For me it's hard enough to get two channels to sound good. I have listened to SACD that put me on stage with the band playing around me on a stereo system.

Quad makes a lot of sense when you have a lush, full recording. A three-piece band isn't going to be a tremendous experience in Quad. But take something like The Raiders "Indian Reservation" album with lots of vocals, horns, strings, guitar overdubs, organs, pianos and percussion..... a lot of that will get lost in the stereo mix. But open up the mix in Quad and it can really make the recording come alive. I'm an amateur remix artist.... I play with the multitracks that float around the internet for my own satisfaction. I've come up with some FANTASTIC Quad mixes that would blow your mind. I do have a bit of a system though, where like you mention the music lacks a central anchor, I do that usually with the drum kit. The drums spread nicely across the front with clear separation of the pieces with just a hint of echo to the back automatically let's the listener KNOW which way to face. Bass normally front center. Guitars or Organs discretely in the corners. Strings across the front (or back), horns across the back (or front) in lovely stereo pairs. Percussion, like shakers, tambourines or congas in the rear to oppose the drums in the front. Lead vocals front center, backing vocals in the rear. Mix in a little reverb to flesh it out and you're jamming in Quad. This way, no speaker is left silent (I call that a Quad BLACK HOLE) because if everything is coming at you, instantly your focus gets sucked in to the quiet channel. When it's all going, you'll hear every piece of the music and not be distracted as you have these wonderful stereo sound stages in front of and behind you. It might sound unnatural, but the way I think about it: If you could sit in the middle of your favorite band and listen or play along..... Wouldn't you?? I know I would!

I remember when quad came out and it was impractical for most people I know.

I have several quad receivers and they sound awesome. We use to watch movies in simulated quad from my direct tv and people would go nuts. We were watching a tank battle movie one night and all the guys were excited as hell. They said it sounded like we were at war in the house. I had 4 pioneer cs99 2 front and 2 rear and it sounded way better than any new surround sound system they had in the mid 2000s. The 4-channel effects sounded great! The receiver was a Sansui qrx 5500.

I had a Sansui in the 90's that had the front and rear speaker setup (Not quad) and it had a built in delay, reverb "room expander" I think is what they called it and for live performances it was magic! Close your eyes and it's like your in the audience! Past that I never cared for it.

As once stated in a Sansui marketing blurb for their QRX line, "...2-channel illusions are strictly 2-dimensional..."

Yes I have heard a surround format that was absolutely killer 1973 Brain Salad Surgery tour ELP. Completely symmetrical JBL system strategically placed, where they actually took seats out of the stadium to have identical walls of speakers. All 4 sides were physically and acoustically identical with equal power and mix programming. That's the key THE MIX.

I have a Pioneer 949 qx receiver gives out great sound

When quad came out I had to have it. In fact I performed on a television program that was the world's first simulcast quad program. That was in EV Stereo-4 and the shifting of the levels due to the Optimod at the fm station made it unbearable to listen to. Jim Fosgate is a total genius. He had a Fosgate Tetra system in his car that was out of this world. If u want to enjoy good quad, listen to Bernstein's Mass on a Fosgate Tate 101A. Bernstein wrote the mass to be performed in quad and it's very enjoyable.

Hi dear, This is Archeer company. We have launched a new turntable currently. 2 features of this new product differing from others: 1.3 vinyl speeds 33, 45 &78 RPM 2.Vinyl-to-MP3 Recording. I am wondering if there is a chance to share your insightful opinions on our product.

Two ears two channels. Did own a quad...for about two months in the 70s. Took it back. Surround sound started with Fantasia not Wizard of Oz.

I have two stereos in a room, facing each other, some 10 feet away. One day I plugged two separate ipods and played the same song on both while I stood in the middle. That's the closest I've been to quad sound, haha.

The key is stack 2 speakers on each side. It turns into a hybrid stereo. You get more separation between the different frequency instruments than stereo. The instruments don't get in each other's way. Even when just synthesizing the radio or stereo lp through the Sansui 4 channel synthesizer. You don't even need quad recordings. Every instrument seems to have unbelievable presence thay way. Try it people. Yes, you ARE wrong. And right. Quad through 4 speakers, one in each corner IS weird. Front stacked on back (or the opposite) placed on the left and right side in traditional stereo position is the bomb. It helps to have a mode switch where you can shift the speaker feed around to different speakers. Alas the later old Sansuis models don't have that. The earlier ones do. Earlier ones don't have the IC decoders which are supposedly better. But I use the 4 channel synthesizer so I don't care. Early models are cheaper.

2:20 “No, of course that’s ridiculous” LOL

My grandparents had a Sony quadraphonic music centre in the 70s. I always wanted them to set it up properly, but they just weren't that bothered and only used two of the speakers. it felt like a bit of a waste. Then again, they didn't have any quad tapes or records in their collection.

Gotta go with the comments about Steve Wilson's work with XTC, Yes, Tears for Fears, Tull, Crimson and his own stuff shows the rest what Surround is for. Try the opening to Making Plans for Nigel for starters … love your videos, even if I'm not 100% .. good stuff

I like how a HD TV anchors a room and a good reason to go with a 4 speaker setup for FM radio for instance, it might be a psychological leftover from those quad years it is just the receivers now are so minimalist it works. Who wants to see a surround mentioned on a reciever's display to remind you it is a gimmick?

Quad was and is fantastic. Stereo sounds so flat and boring to me. Having drums in the front with percussion (like congas and tambourines) behind you is such a groovy feeling. Sitting in the middle of an orchestra or band is great - it's like actually being there! One of the greatest mixes of all time (to me) is the Soundtrack to the Movie "Shaft"! There's a song on there called "Be Yourself" and it is what I call the PERFECT Quad mix. Dig this: Bass Front Center Wah-Wah Guitar Front Left Rhythm Guitar Front Right Drums and Piano spread nicely across the front channels Organ Back Left Electric Piano Back Right Horns spread across the back channels There's something in each corner, the horns are spread nicely and the drums help keep focus. There's no need to have pictures help you maintain focus. If you need pictures to maintain focus on music, either you're not listening to the right music or you're missing a chromosome!

Yes, it's like photography. Who needs color? black and white totally covers everything a picture could be!

I would love three channels stereo sound have developed more, that would make a lot more social this hoby expanding a lot the sweet spot

I really feel like 3-channel would have been the best. Of course the big reason it didn't become the standard was the difficulty in storing and playing back 3 channels when records were the primary medium. It also required 50% more speakers and amplifiers, but that is minor compared to the fact that there was no easy way to put 3 tracks on a record in 1950. I know the argument "2 ears, 2 channels" but that really misses the fact that rooms aren't perfect AND the fact that the single ear actually can hear direction all by itself due to frequency response alterations created by the shape of the outer ear. 3 channels would have made imaging a whole order of magnitude easier and I believe that if 3-channel had become the standard, we probably wouldn't have moved past that in home audio to this day. Now with digital storage media it's easy to have 5, 6 or 7 channels of audio, but the purposes for that are muddled. Obviously movie playback is helped by surround sound, but music is generally not particularly well suited to a surround effect. What would be much better for music however is the vastly improved stereo imaging that could be easily achieved with a 3-channel setup. Yes I know that sitting in the sweet-spot between 2 perfectly aligned speakers achieves the same effect, but with three channels that can be done much more easily and for a much larger portion of a room. Bring back 3-channel!!! (back? it never really existed as a commercial format, did it?)

I happened to come across this clip by chance. I watch a lot of your stuff, Steve, but I never saw this one before. I live in London, UK and was a quadraphonic ‘addict’. In fact I did my thesis at Imperial College, London on the very subject (thankfully I got a good grade!). Quadraphonic failed for several reasons: firstly, most of the records were gimmicky - that is to say on many albums instruments went whizzing round the room. This is not what it was about. Secondly, who needs three rival systems (SQ, QS, and CD4… not to mention UD4). So you needed a new amplifier, four speakers, lots of wires around the room, etc, etc. And then to play CD-4 you needed a cartridge fitted with Shibata stylus such as the JVC X1 or X2, both of which I had, or even a Grado X3 which I also had (this was an excellent product). Too much hassle! And finally, availability of the records. There were only two shops in London that had good stock of 4-channel discs, but you had to get in quickly as they would go in a few days. In the end, after 5 years of 4 channel, I worked at a specialist hi-fi retailer in London at the time that Linn and Naim started. I purchased a tri-amp system with Isobariks and that was it. 2 channel for ever!

Had a quadraphonic system in the 70's. It was new, it was different, it faded fast. I do like SACD 5.1, especially symphonic recordings, but my real question is this: You said "My old pal Paul Klipsch". Since he is my idol when it comes to sound (and the maker of my speakers), I want you to come clean. Did you really hang out with the wizard of acoustics? Answer me true or I will apply Paul's favorite word to you. (And you know what that was if you were his friend). Good video Steve.

Quadraphonic sound is introduced and the crowd goes "Meh." I too was underwhelmed.

The big problem with quad is it required 4 equal speakers. Most people I knew could barely afford 2. Non starter I didn’t know anyone who could afford it. I have a 5.1 system for movies and my oppo plays sacd so I bought some and really likes the sound. Anyone who listened to Norah Jones 5.1 mix has to like it.

Friend of mines father had a Quadraphonic system we thought was cool as hell. Only quad album he had was a WWII war thing with bombs and machine guns going off all over.

Dude is begging to hear quadraphonic at his 'friends house' to tell him it does not make sense without a corresponding video.

I got a Panasonic quadraphonic record player and 8track. Sounds pretty sweet to me. But ehhh.... I'm not an audiophile

I remember as a kid listening to a train circling our lounge from the demo disc. Yawn. I was more interested in listening to the Sex Pistols as loud as I could before dad got home and broke out the Neil Diamond.

Yes I CD4 Format and Tomita's Snow Flakes are Dancing! Along with others in CD4

I have about 40 dvd-a and sacd surround sound discs which I enjoy but I prefer good ol 2 channel vinyl.

Steve, is it a valid point to make, that even two, two way speakers, within a simple stereo system, offer four different sources of sound, five with a subwoofer? Different frequencies are coming out of different places and the waves presumably converge upon the listeners ears. Now, if there was a different source for each instrument, would the outcome offer complexities, almost impossible to overcome, and be ultimately annoying and impractical in a consumer setting. Do you really want to be seated, so to speak in the the middle of an orchestra or band? I guess the more channels you add, complexities multiply exponentially and the more decisions must be made as to what comes out of which location. Why not throw some 3D glasses into the mix and create a truly throbbing headache?

At the time, I felt like it was a gimmick to sell more hardware. I still have my seventies two channel system.

I had a quad system in the 70s yes I got fooled just like I got fooled with CDs in the beginning but it's back to stereo two speakers it seems they've pretty much perfected that just couldn't do it with the other formats😎

I know there are still monophonic purists. Just as I'm sure there are folks who think more than one speaker driver is heresy. I'm pragmatic. I have heard amazing quad mixes and presentations. (As well as lots of garbage) Surround - done well - can transcend a less than ideal listening environment. I think when Bell Labs came up with "stereophonic" for Fantasia, they were thinking of an audio equivalent to the old "stereoopticons" of early photography to enhance audience immersion. I don't think they were stuck on two channels. In fact, didn't Fantasia have more than two? I do recall that later "hi-fi" film formats like Cinerama had up to 7. I try to separate "Quad" the crass marketing grab by music labels, from "Quad" the aesthetic quest by artists to expand their creative pallette. Therefore I can't & won't join the crowd crapping on Quad. Even though there is plenty of material still out there just begging for it. It's just an expansion of the audio medium.... a tool to be used or abused by the artist.

Steve, download some 5.1 tracks from www.itrax.com The recording engineer, Mark Waldrup, has both 5.1 "audience" mixes and 5.1 "stage" mixes (where it's like you're sitting in the middle of the band). He also has 5.1 Blu-ray disks available at www.aixrecords.com You'll need a 5.1 system to play these, of course. I particularly liked the album "Guitar Noir" by Laurence Juber. These recordings were done from the start in 24-bit, 96 kHz digital, and not just transferred to 24/96 from analog tape (which can't possibly capture the dynamic and frequency ranges implied by 24/96). These are REAL hi-def audio, not that fake stuff they sell over at hdtracks.com, or even most SA-CD stuff (taken from analog tape masters).

Fantasia was the first movie with surround sound in 1940. Not interested in surround sound even today. Did briefly have a Quad system in the 70s, the "picture to anchor it" is in your imagination. It was okay but stereo is better for the same reason.

THE 70's: Just saying ... TV was a small screen blurry mono experience ... types of vision disc were new, as was a "video game" and stereo TV was 10 years away, and composite inputs were 5 years away ... "video" was input on channel 3 or 4 with a little crappy encoder. SO, the point is, people talked and could sit on the floor and face each other in a room without a single phone in it ... quad isn't such a bad idea as everyone would hear both in front of them and behind, wherever you were sitting. 8 track tapes had 2 "channels" of 4 tracks each, but I recall reading an audiophile type magazine article comment about reduced bandwidth of records??? Any idea about how the records were encoded? Other comments get it right when they say many people didn't set it up or understand it, and some people had their furniture pushed against the wall ... only hippies sat on the floor in the middle of the room - LOL - anyway, quad made some sense considering the times that it came from. If two crappy transistor amps were better than one, then four crappy little amps and speakers should be better than two ... there was also AM stereo broadcast formats in the 70's; they too, lasted about 15 minutes before fading to obscurity.

What you "two ears, two speakers" guys are missing are the natural reverberations and out of phase signals present in our daily listening. Don't believe me? Spend the rest of the day with your ears cupped so you don't hear anything behind you. Then tell me how important those behind-the-back sounds are. Yes, I will admit that there were a lot of crappy quad mixes out there back in the 70s (drums in this corner, piano in that one, etc.), but as the format died record companies were starting to get a good grasp on making great surround sound records. But what matters is we do listen and rely on rear signals in our daily lives and after going the quad route, I'll never bother with flat, "wall of stereo" recordings again. Hell, I even run all of my standard stereo records through a regular matrix decoder to enhance them in quad.

I ride a GS scooter with my hair cut neat, Wear my wartime coat in the wind and sleet Quadrophenia... I've Had Enough

Some of those receivers were dogs to work on, poor access thru multi layers of pcb's, no connectors, tight wiring to pins, buried controls. Flash in the pan

There comes a point where too much separation becomes disorienting. Performers don’t perform around us either so it just doesn’t make a lot of sense even when it sounds really good...like a car with a 5th wheel...

AV seround is comprest so everyone can hear it thats the problem

I have experience with playback music in quad, surround, and stereo. I prefer stereo.

Backwards compatibility... In the videogame market, it's what loyalists look for. Having it is why Playstation consoles sold well, while a lack of it was why the far-more complex & advanced Atari 5200 did poorly. I imagine that a lack of it hurt Quadraphonic sales, in both hardware and recordings in all related formats.

Quadraphonic wave was born with the idea of offering a seat in the centre of the auditorium. So rear speakers had to play only reflected sound (of the orchestra). And for rock music? A mistery, invented spaces and sounds without reason. In the 70s to have a quadra equipment was a must for the living rooms of the middle class. Those ideas and ambitions now are dead, repleaced by equally disgusting fashion equipments (new middle pricey turntables of poor value included, sold to people without ears- and you know what I'm speaking about). During the 90s the surround fashion tried to give new life to quadraphonic equipment with scarce success and with the absurd endorsement of hi fi writers! Don't you remember words like 2 channel hi fi opposed to.... multichannel... nuthing?

You were definitely not a knob twiddler or a meter geek!

Rear speakers are no good. The center speaker is essential for good imaging.

Quadraphonic has always been a myth to me, my parents talked about it and that made me really curious, but never had the chance to experience it. Maybe some day, but now I'd have lower expectations.

Many of the 5.1 music were pure gimmicky. Like the piano in one of the back speakers. Or a singer's voice in back....just insane. I have DVD-A, SACD, BD but rarely play them. I prefer listening to a good stereo recording, producing a full soundstage, all in front of me. As for using a center speaker for music, I can go either way, with or without.

Ive seen people get Sick from listening to Quad ! It was Pink Floyd Ummagumma side 2 the Solo Songs. In this case tape 2 on the Quad RTR . I didn't like it much ,overwhelming weirdness . What about Stereo for Live music systems. Having run a PA biz in the 90's I know all the excuses , "You will never get to true stereo for most of the crowd !". It is 2018 and nothing is impossible.

Pro Logic II makes lots of old 60-70's sound nice on some but not all records (matrix quad or not), Steve. However with any modern AV box it's one button on the remote to go to unfettered 2 channel. Your too close minded Steve. I had quad systems in 70's and several surround sound Japanese boxes since. Pro Logic II music mode (narrow, med, wide settings), Like I said broaden your tastes. Videos do help to anchor but ones imagination can set up the multi-channel sound stage without video on a well recorded DTS master mix vs 96/24 two channel, IMHO.

It appears God is a two-channel man 'cause he only gave us one pair - either side of our heads. Now then, where did I leave my "back to mono" badge.......??

I thought it was awesome, instruments separation was wonderful when you used a reel to reel. I think your wrong on this one. Maybe you didn't smoke enough dope!

For surround 4 full range speakers,every time for me,IMO home theater missed the point ,4 fullrange are just killer for this and surround audio too 5.1, 7.1 sound gimmicky and unrealistic to me.

There is something undeniably cool about 2 channel. The lust after 2 speakers will never be surpassed

I really have to disagree with you in this one, Steve. You make the comment that surround sound for music is a dumb idea because there's no video to anchor it. In other words, it's just not realistic. Well, the same argument was made for stereo, when that first came out. Nobody has a symphony orchestra, a jazz combo, a rock group, playing for them in their living room, One speaker was more than enough. When quad first came out, that argument was made again, this time in behalf of stereo. It would appear to me you've fallen into that camp. I've been living with quad sound, for music, for over 50 years, and it's no more realistic than the symphony orchestra in your living room, but it gives the ILLUSION of that orchestra, playing just for you, in your favorite listening spot, just as stereo gives you the similar illusion, although only in front of you. With quad, the illusion also includes the ambience of the hall or venue where the recording was made. With popular music, the extra channels give you more of the music that was recorded, simply because having more channels to work with can allow more of the music that was actually recorded to reach the listener. Mixing 24, or more, tracks, down to fit into two channels delivered to the listener often means something has to be discarded in the process, to keep the sound from being cluttered. I've heard many quad recordings that did just that, and I think I got my money's worth that way. Yesterday's formats, such as the matrix systems (SQ, QS, et.al) were a compromise, for sure, but they were the most practical way to accomplish the task. The decoders of the day were far from perfect; we know that. I do believe that, had the format not gone into dormancy (it didn't die, as you can see by the advent of home theater), but they were a work in progress. You mentioned the Tate SQ decoders; they were able to deliver much better separation than previous models when playing SQ records. They could do nothing for records encoded in the QS or Regular Matrix systems. Sansui handled those with their QS Vario-Matrix decoders. Those decoders also provided for SQ, albeit at a reduced level. Today, though, we have a miraculous little box from Involve Audio, from Australia, which decodes both formats with very high separation, and can also extract surround information from regular stereo recordings! The Sansui decoder also did that, just not quite as well. This little box, also known as the Surround Master, sells for less than what the Tate and Vario-Matrix units did when they were new, and yet outperforms them both. You should take a look at their website; involveaudio.com, to see that little box, and the other great products they're offering. Also today, with SACD, Blu-Ray Audio, DVD-Audio, and the like, high quality discrete surround sound is now practical. Home theater systems are more than able to handle Blu-Ray Audio and DVD-Audio; many can also play SACD's in surround as well. Surround music may be just an illusion, but it's a pretty darn good one!

Quad died for a simple reason: too many speakers. Even today, it's hard to set up a room for 4-6 speakers. That's why sound bars are doing so well. I have a 5.1 setup, but I use Yamaha Speakers Front, which does a good enough job of faking having speakers around you.

Quad was one of those ideas like 3D TV and the Hexiplex circular film screen. If we had four ears then I could see the need to have quadraphonic sound.

You clearly haven’t heard classical music in multi-channel SACD. Awesomely realistic. Stereo is too flat. You need at least 3 channels to simulate reality, especially with large-scale music-making.

I love you man but you are so wrong, I listen to 5.1 SACD all the time and I wish it was more popular, it’s expensive to do it right and it takes up a lot of room , but it’s far better. I think Steve would admit to that . Real discrete multichannel is far better than stereo . It’s not even a debate

You should do a podcast. I feel that it would fit your format better. There is nothing you need video for.