"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
Thanks David.

Yeah, you seem to be confirming what I suspected. Even these
days, I think it'd be hard to recover signal above 20kHz from
vinyl with good performance, so I'm still surprised they tried
it in the 70s and expected it to work *in*the*field* with the
domestic blunt-knitting-needle styli (for that's how it's spelt,
Jim Lesurf :-) ) of the day.

**Incorrect. CD4 was the only decent quadraphonic system. QS and SQ were
severely limited 'kludges'. Worse, compatability with regular stereo was a
joke. I even kept a couple of SQ recordings, along with the regular stereo
ones as a comparison, to remind me of just how bad recording studios can get
it. A Shibata stylus could easily achieve what was required for CD4. Even on
a properly designed MM cart. MC carts can do better. MUCH better. By the
early 1980s, A decent MC could manage more than 60kHz. Correctly done,
record wear was somewhat more than a regular stereo recording. BTW: As
service manager for Marantz (Aust) during the 1970s, I needed to test 4
channel gear daily. Marantz manufactured both SQ and CD4 stuff. I had a
couple of CD4 records and a suitably equipped turntable (a Technics),
cartridge and stylus. Setting up the CD4 units required that I play a CD4
recording and note the existence of the carrier frequency and then perform a
listening test. Despite the records being played hundreds of times, the
carrier light always lit up, after alignment. I never much cared for 4
channel audio, but the descrete nature of CD4 was a vast improvement over
the SQ and QS systems.


I don't think I'll bother buying the quad LP from Ebay.

**I wouldn't, unless it was a nostalgia thing, or for an investment. Given
the shocking quality of most quadraphonic recordings, most people would have
disposed of them, thus ensuring their rarity and (possibly) pushing up
prices. They're sure not worth listening to.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au