Quadraphonic PINK FLOYD Dark Side of the Moon
 

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
A reason certainly, but the biggest? As I see it there were several
reasons:-

1/ Too many competing and incompatible systems.

2/ Cost

3/ Problems in accommodating rear speakers in the typical living room

4/ Unimpressive results (especially from the market leader SQ)

David.


Indeed. Quadraphonics was no more a gimmick than stereo was to mono. It
was meant to improve the listening experience. The above reasons for
failure are pretty much spot-on, and in the right order.

I'd not agree. Stereo, recorded on a simple mic pair - in a good listening
room - gives a good soundstage between and sometimes outside the actual
speakers. Quad - using four mics, and four speakers in the same sort of
way simply doesn't work properly - you get little to no side information,
and the rear isn't brilliant either. The only decent true surround I've
ever heard is Ambisonics - and that is a very much more expensive device
to implement than pure 'quad'.

As regards the extra speakers needed for quad it doesn't seem to have put
off the numbers who now have AV setups.

--
*If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Quadraphonic PINK FLOYD Dark Side of the Moon
 

In article ,
John J Armstrong wrote:
Or for that matter their late 50's stereo tests on a Saturday morning
using BBC TV sound and BBC Third Programme as the two channels. I
remember my dad moving the (very large) radiogram into the correct
position......and my mother's horror!

I do indeed remember them. And given how important accurate phase is
across the full frequency range for decent stereo I wonder why they even
bothered.

--
*People want trepanners like they want a hole in the head*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Quadraphonic PINK FLOYD Dark Side of the Moon
 

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

Iain wrote
Both words follow the second declension model
dominus.


I deleted the parts of Phil's posts that contained
expletives. There was nothing left.

A local wit just asked me:

Q. What is the Latin nominative plural for
"Socially-challenged Australian toaster repairer" ?

A. There is no plural. There is only one Phil Allison.


Iain

Quadraphonic PINK FLOYD Dark Side of the Moon
 

"Iain Churches" wrote
I deleted the parts of Phil's posts that contained
expletives. There was nothing left.

A local wit just asked me:

Q. What is the Latin nominative plural for
"Socially-challenged Australian toaster repairer" ?

A. There is no plural. There is only one Phil Allison.

Iain

He's absolutely furious that I have outed his autism, when
he's been using that as his most common insult to others -
deploying it as "chaff" to distract attention to his own
suffering from that socially-crippling condition. And that's
quite obviously what his problem is - he just doesn't have
normal social reactions to people and cannot control himself.
He cannot understand social interaction, and struggles
constantly trying to make sense of other people, and emotions.

He didn't reckon on the fact, when he was rude to me, that
I have a SERIOUSLY nasty streak, pretty much psycopathic,
in fact, and I can have a lot of fun taunting him and making
him foam at the mouth, as I rattle his cage.

And since he seems to have to have the last word, I reckon
there's a good chance he'll keep coming back for more.

The smart thing for him to do would be to shut the hell up,
because I'm nasty enough that I won't necessarily soon tire
of humiliating and teasing him.

I'm going to enjoy it.


Martin

Quadraphonic PINK FLOYD Dark Side of the Moon
 

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...

He didn't reckon on the fact, when he was rude to me, that
I have a SERIOUSLY nasty streak, pretty much psycopathic,
in fact, and I can have a lot of fun taunting him and making
him foam at the mouth, as I rattle his cage.


I just kill-filed the idiot as soon as I realised that all his posts were
simply expletive-laden insults, seems the easiest way. Why bother rattling
his cage, is he worth it?

David.

Quadraphonic PINK FLOYD Dark Side of the Moon
 

"David Looser" wrote
I just kill-filed the idiot as soon as I realised that all his posts were
simply expletive-laden insults, seems the easiest way. Why bother rattling
his cage, is he worth it?

Because my psycopathic streak enjoys it.

It's entertainment. That's all. No better reason than that.

Quadraphonic PINK FLOYD Dark Side of the Moon
 

"John J Armstrong" wrote in message
...

Does anyone remember the BBC's late night experiments in 4 channel
sound in the early 70's? They used 2 stereo FM channels.

Oh yes. My brother and I combined our HiFi systems to listen to them. Some
material came over very well, I particularly remember a Van Morrison
session.

Or for that matter their late 50's stereo tests on a Saturday morning
using BBC TV sound and BBC Third Programme as the two channels. I
remember my dad moving the (very large) radiogram into the correct
position......and my mother's horror!


And yes again! Hearing one channel from a large pre-war Murphy radio with
energised speaker and the other from a 1950s Ultra TV with "wrap-around"
cabinet and small side facing speaker driven with around 500mW by the
pentode half of a 30FL1 (would you believe that the triode section was part
of the field oscillator?) didn't give optimum channel balance.

David.

Quadraphonic PINK FLOYD Dark Side of the Moon
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

As regards the extra speakers needed for quad it doesn't seem to have put
off the numbers who now have AV setups.


There's a vast difference between the rear speaker problem for 1970's quad
and that for 21st C "home cinema". The surround speakers of AV do not need
either the frequency range or the acoustic output capability of the main
front speakers, whilst the rear speakers for quad really needed to be a
match for the front ones. And you can sit close to the rear speakers without
it spoiling the soundstage, partly because the rear speakers carry only
ambience, or rear-only effects and partly because AV surround decoders delay
the signal to the surround speakers to ensure that time co-incident sounds
are heard from the front speakers first. With quad the rear speakers needed
to be about as far behind the listening position as the front speakers were
in front of it otherwise the soundstage collapsed. This, I would suggest,
was, and is, difficult to do in typical living rooms.

David.

Quadraphonic PINK FLOYD Dark Side of the Moon
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
As regards the extra speakers needed for quad it doesn't seem to have
put off the numbers who now have AV setups.


There's a vast difference between the rear speaker problem for 1970's
quad and that for 21st C "home cinema". The surround speakers of AV do
not need either the frequency range or the acoustic output capability
of the main front speakers, whilst the rear speakers for quad really
needed to be a match for the front ones. And you can sit close to the
rear speakers without it spoiling the soundstage, partly because the
rear speakers carry only ambience, or rear-only effects and partly
because AV surround decoders delay the signal to the surround speakers
to ensure that time co-incident sounds are heard from the front
speakers first. With quad the rear speakers needed to be about as far
behind the listening position as the front speakers were in front of it
otherwise the soundstage collapsed. This, I would suggest, was, and is,
difficult to do in typical living rooms.

Quite so as a theory - but how many have even the main pair of speakers in
the correct place- let alone 4? My guess is quad was simply not good
enough to warrant the extra expense. I was never tempted by any
demonstrations - unlike just about everything else. ;-)

--
*I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Iain Churchus= Congenital Autistic Menace
 

"Iain Churchus = Congenital Mental Defective "

Sylus is a noun of the second declension (m) model dominus.
The plural is styli.

** ****ING ******** !!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is a Latin word " stilus " - but " stylus " is a word in the

** English language ** !!!


The Oxford Dictionary gives: Stylus (pl: styli)
Origin: Latin - stilus.

Both words follow the second declension model
dominus.

** WRONG language - YOU ****ING IDIOT !!!!!

The word "stylus " NOT Latin - ****WIT !!

So you cannot apply the rules of Latin to it - ****WIT !!!



The usual plural of which is " styluses " .

The Oxford dictionary states otherwise.


** Like hell it does - ****WIT !!

Most folk use " styluses" as the plural of "stylus" ( over 2.3 million
hits on Google) and most dictionaries give it as one of the two
alternatives.

Go D R O P D E A D !!!!

you sub human pile of criminal GARBAGE !!



...... Phil