Somewhat OT - Presonus StudioLive and recording at 192

[John Ludlow]

quadraphonic?

I remember there being the rare person with a quad rig. They were always the type to pay more than double for a stereo! Were the extra channels on a fm carrier frequency?

I didn't listen to it a lot, but I really liked the quadraphonic experience back in the seventies when I was lucky enough to get it. I think it's inconvenient socially though. There's only really one place in the room that's in the sweet spot. If you were in your listening room alone, and/or using quad headphones, it would be perfect (actually - I've never listened to quad headphones, I just think I'd like them) Otherwise, in a living room equipped with a quad system with a number of listeners: most of the listeners wouldn't be getting a quadraphonic experience. It would be like listening to stereo but not being in front of and in between the speakers: the music is still there but there's no placement of instruments and no sound stage. Instead, it's a distorted, mono, experience dominated by whatever's on the side with the speaker you're closest to.

I'm not sure how they encoded them, but my acquaintance's system played special vinyl and used a decoder. And the result, if you were sitting in exactly the right spot, was sometimes being in the middle of the musicians. Each of the speakers had it's own unique program. It was not at all like actually being on stage with real musicians though because in a real performance the musicians would be pointed to the audience and you often can only hear some of the other instruments via monitors. Whereas his quad records had them apparently surrounding you at a balanced equidistance and pointed toward you. Playing just for you. So, you could place and hear everything perfectly. Still though - move a few feet in any direction and the effect was gone.

[Dave Labrecque]

I didn't listen to it a lot, but I really liked the quadraphonic experience back in the seventies when I was lucky enough to get it. I think it's inconvenient socially though. There's only really one place in the room that's in the sweet spot. If you were in your listening room alone, and/or using quad headphones, it would be perfect (actually - I've never listened to quad headphones, I just think I'd like them) Otherwise, in a living room equipped with a quad system with a number of listeners: most of the listeners wouldn't be getting a quadraphonic experience. It would be like listening to stereo but not being in front of and in between the speakers: the music is still there but there's no placement of instruments and no sound stage. Instead, it's a distorted, mono, experience dominated by whatever's on the side with the speaker you're closest to.

I'm not sure how they encoded them, but my acquaintance's system played special vinyl and used a decoder. And the result, if you were sitting in exactly the right spot, was sometimes being in the middle of the musicians. Each of the speakers had it's own unique program. It was not at all like actually being on stage with real musicians though because in a real performance the musicians would be pointed to the audience and you often can only hear some of the other instruments via monitors. Whereas his quad records had them apparently surrounding you at a balanced equidistance and pointed toward you. Playing just for you. So, you could place and hear everything perfectly. Still though - move a few feet in any direction and the effect was gone.

I still have a pair of quad cans somewhere. I think the brand was Panasonic/Technics. Remember Technics? I guess they're still out there making turntables for the new breed of vinyl nuts. I never did have a chance to run the quad cans in quad mode. I saw them in the clearance pile at some Kansas-City-area audio shop back in the late 70s and had to buy them because a friend had a pair, and I thought there were super audiofile phones, even in stereo. Not sure that was actually the case. They sounded like most other headphones of the time IIRC. And I was skeptical that the front-to-rear imaging would work. I mean, the little speakers, though positioned slightly ahead of and behind each ear, couldn't do much with the physiological psychoacoustic workings of the outer ear, could they? At that proximity to the pinna? (first time I ever use that word )

Although, ya know what? Just rubbing my fingers together in the positions of those speakers right now does give me a sense of location. That hi-freq "shadowing" of the rear source (by the pinna) seems to be key. So maybe they kinda worked?

Here they are. Hmph. Wonder if I can make a million dollars?

[John Ludlow]

I still have a pair of quad cans somewhere. I think the brand was Panasonic/Technics. Remember Technics? I guess they're still out there making turntables for the new breed of vinyl nuts. I never did have a chance to run the quad cans in quad mode. I saw them in the clearance pile at some Kansas-City-area audio shop back in the late 70s and had to buy them because a friend had a pair, and I thought there were super audiofile phones, even in stereo. Not sure that was actually the case. They sounded like most other headphones of the time IIRC. And I was skeptical that the front-to-rear imaging would work. I mean, the little speakers, though positioned slightly ahead of and behind each ear, couldn't do much with the physiological psychoacoustic workings of the outer ear, could they? At that proximity to the pinna? (first time I ever use that word )

Although, ya know what? Just rubbing my fingers together in the positions of those speakers right now does give me a sense of location. That hi-freq "shadowing" of the rear source (by the pinna) seems to be key. So maybe they kinda worked?

Here they are. Hmph. Wonder if I can make a million dollars?

Can't advise you on your relative impending cash-bonanza, Dave. But, recall that 'quadraphonic' actually covered several very different technologies and only the later ones were actually discrete. Back in college, when I was living at the party house with the 'big' 'apartment', with the big stereo, where all my friends met (my pinnacle social nerd period...) I did get to borrow a little box that emulated 'quad'. I'm not sure exactly what it did, but it involved setting up two more speakers and making use of the 'B' channel on my Pioneer 828 stereo amplifier. It had a little knob that you could use to adjust the amount of the effect sent to the second set of speakers (Radio Shack bookshelf, in my case). It was not nearly as good as the system the other guy had, but it did give you the effect of being immersed somehow. Tales From Topographic Oceans became extra-trippy in the dark with flickering candles and joss sticks scented with something purported to be considered spiritual in Tibet. I remember that I was reluctant when my friend asked for it back. Hard to believe that's been almost fifty years ago.

I wonder what your headphones would do with 4 channel? SAW can record that - right? (no, I've never done it). Maybe you could rig up a test with a second stereo amp, mix something with multiple instruments in surround, plug the 'front' converter output set into one amp and the 'back' output set into the other, and one of the two cords from your quad headphones into each amp. Then adjust the relative volume on the two amps and - listen. You'd at least finally get to settle whether they work spatially or not. In your test recording you could use the virtual joystick to cause a source to move around the center position in a circle. You could try turning the volume from the 'back' amp off to compare the relative stereo experience. Yes, the amps probably wouldn't match (although the speakers would) and it wouldn't be a true test of how audiophillic they could be. It would just give you a rough idea. I don't think it would be the same as discrete quadraphonic... but, well - maybe it would be too. Who knows? Maybe you could begin to offer four channel recordings to your customers?

At the very least, it would be a terrific way to waste time some afternoon when you know full well you should really be doing something productive. And that counts for a lot. Candles and incense are optional, of course. Then report back!

[Dave Labrecque]

LOL. Yeah, I don't think that's gonna happen. Where would I find the Tibetan smelly stuff?

Seriously, I think discrete 4-channel audio = quadrophonic = the scenario you described, save for the fact that the two individual stereo amps wouldn't have their volume knobs ganged. I, personally, would probably not be able to notice any differences between the amps. At least 2022 amps.

Come to think of it, these headphones would work fine for 5.1, no? (Who needs a center channel speaker if there other four aren't moving? Though you'd want to mix that channel into the FLR pair) It's not like they're going to get in the way (much) of the subwoofer, right?

Maybe I can market my vintage quad cans as the very first 5.1 headphones ("center channel speaker and subwoofer not included") I bet I could parlay my million bucks into double digits.

[John Ludlow]

Hey - in my defense, I said candles and incense were optional. And... I'm not sure where you'd buy Tibetan joss sticks these days. That was back in the days of, as author Tom Robbins put it, incense burners with a yin-yang symbol on three sides. Americans were just starting to adjust to access to diverse world cultures back then. Maybe online? Yep - after a quick check, the Internet has that covered.

Yeah - I'm with you on the lack of need for a center speaker and the desirability of combining the subwoofer feed with... maybe all four feeds - so as not to lose some of the bass range (although if there was ever a speaker system that wouldn't know what to do with a subwoofer - headphones has to be close to the top).

So - good! It sounds like this is happening! I live vicariously through you, Dave! I'll bet it turns out great!

And, yes, if you were to market your fifty-year-old cans I'll bet you'd get, literally, tens of views. Actually, in as much as there's a market for fifty-year-old Quad vinyl - you probably could sell them for more than you bought them for. Pretty specialized market, but if you were a collector there wouldn't be many opportunities to buy what you have. But, maybe after listening to your Quad mix - you won't want to sell them...

https://www.ebay.com/b/Rock-Quadraph...=&toolid=10001

[John Ludlow]

Here's something else you could try. A conventional stereo recording pumped through both front and back headphone speakers, but with the back delayed several ms and possibly turned down in volume. Maybe that would give you that sense of 3d space (did I mention that I recommend 'Tales From Topographic Oceans' by Yes?).

[jmh]

I think the authentic feel requires very a specific number of delay samples, like 196K times the distance between the record & play head divided by inches per second. Naturally you would have forgotten, since the reason to have Tails open would be to sort seeds.

[jmh]

Did I say 196? Should be 192. YES addles the mind.

[John Ludlow]

So, I'm realizing for the first time that when 'joss stick' is being read, a different type of 'stick' than I intend is coming to the mind of the reader. One of which I have no direct knowledge. I don't know any 'Dave'. Who is this? Wrong number! WRONG NUMBER! Joss sticks are incense that has no stick in the middle. Every part burns. This feature means that the scent is not polluted by the smell of burning bamboo. Rather, it's pure and won't obstruct one's spiritual listening experience. You can look it up. Set and setting are important for the ideal Quadraphonic session.

And, JMH - I have no idea what you are talking about...

[Dave Labrecque]

Here's something else you could try. A conventional stereo recording pumped through both front and back headphone speakers, but with the back delayed several ms and possibly turned down in volume. Maybe that would give you that sense of 3d space (did I mention that I recommend 'Tales From Topographic Oceans' by Yes?).

Yes? No. Still trying to decide between Jane Fonda and Seals & Crofts. Decisions, decisions...