Mr Jalopy's love-ode to Marantz quadrophonic sound
Mr Jalopy sez, "I bought a vintage Marantz quadraphonic sound amplifier at a garage sale and have drafted a black light tinged ode to the competing 4-channel formats that never really panned out. "
Link (Thanks, Mr Jalopy!)
I am not audiophile and I do not have a golden ear, but I am extremely interested in the blunt force trauma of the awesome clarity and unambiguous nature of completely rocking out. There are tons of quadraphonic albums on eBay and it is only a matter of time until I find a quadraphonic 8-track player at a garage sale for $1. Besides, it turns out quad receivers are selling on eBay for less than two rolls of quarters, so from a cost of fun perspective, some quad audio experiments are a pretty good value.Besides the aforementioned technical snafus, there will be the issue of availability of key releases as I imagine Iggy Pop's "Raw Power" is not available in quad. What about Ziggy Stardust? And Black Sabbath's "Paranoid?" Or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, what if a friend excitedly brings over a quadraphonic Yes album and I am not able to keep from ripping it from the turntable to smash it to bits?
the latest
latest episodes
Quad is fun. I had two pairs of Ohm Walsh 4s for a bit that I used with an impromptu quad setup.
And don't hate on Yes, Jalopy.
If you're a teenage gun-store owner like Mr. J, you can hate on anyone you want.
Marantz were the thing back in the day. The party crazy Australians I hung out with in 70's London had one cranked up 23 hours a day. They did need an hour to cool off eventually.
I think your best and first quad album to score would be Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon"-- the echoes on the vocals go from speaker to speaker around the room. Not only is that "trippy" but you should be able to tell pretty quickly if the quad actually works like it's supposed to.
I work in a recording studio that is all vintage analog, and the console we use was built in the early 70's (or possibly late 60's) to mix quad. We mix in stereo but all of the joysticks are there in case we ever needed to do it!
I'll see your Dark Side of the Moon, which was never officially released in Quad, although Alan Parsons did mix it for Quad back in '75, and that mix has surfaced as a 4.1 audio DVD-A (which will also play in regular DVD players, albeit not at DVD-A resolution) and raise you Wish You Were Here and Animals, which were both officially released in Quad.
(Do not confuse this DSOTM Quad mix with the recent 30th anniversary 5.1 SACD release, which, from what I read online, is a much more pedestrian mix, in that the rear channels are mostly used as ambiance.)
WYWH only has a few interesting bits that stand out from the regular stereo mix, but Animals has some very memorable Quad moments.
To anyone who's thinking of building a vintage Quad setup, keep this in mind: 8-track Quad was the only "true" Quad sound available at the time, with four distinct channels of audio. Vinyl-based Quad was matrixed, meaning that the two rear channels were mixed in with the two front channels to get a regular stereo signal which could be recorded to vinyl. (More recent applications of matrixed sound include Dolby Surround and Dolby Pro-Logic: compare those to true, distinct 5.1 sound, and you'll get an idea for the difference between 8-track and vinyl quad.
Many of these vintage Quad albums have been ripped and mastered to 4.0 or 4.1 DVD-A by fans. Just look around the 'net, and you may find them.
More recent multi-channel audio to look out for, if you've got a modern setup:
Queen's "A Night at the Opera" 30th anniversary DVD+CD set, which offers a new and very compellingly-mixed 5.1 version.
Frank Zappa's "Quaudiophilliac": if you like Zappa's music (I wouldn't blame you if you didn't) you'll be impressed by his use of Quad sound, which, like his music, does things no one else would have dreamed of.
NO! Please do not cause a resurgence of interest in vintage Quad gear! I have a pile of old Marantz, Pioneer, Sony and Sansui quad gear around here. The stuff is 4X more difficult to work on due to the packaging of 2 X as much circuitry into 1.25 X as much space. A Quad receiver is wonderful when it's working but a 60 lb asspain when one of its scores of pots and switches is dirty and intermittent.
I like ambience added to 2-channel recordings so I use delayed/reverb back channels generated from stereo by a Yamaha DSP processor amp component. The extra warmth and liveliness is indeed welcome on many recordings compared to standard Stereo.
#6: This makes me wonder how many quadraphonic albums have been rexmied into digital surround sound recordings. Seems like the perfect excuse for a quad-renaissance!
My dad still has one of these guys. I think he only hooked it up once so we could listen to a couple of quad Beatles albums. I can't say it was particularly remarkable. But I'm sure it was a marvel in the 60s. ;-)
There is a "Dark Side of the Moon" SQ vinyl, so it was officially released in Europe only, but it's matrixed and not a very good quad image.
However, 8 track quad is not the only true quad format. Quadradisc CD-4 vinyl albums did manage to put 4 discreet channels of information on a disc. I direct you to Nilsson's "Nilsson Schmilsson" for the best quad album ever produced. Unfortunately, you can't play it properly on a Marantz, which is a matrix based system that pulls two extra mono signals from a stereo image. If that's the way you want to go, however, just stick with Dolbly pro logic surround on any modern amplifier. It's basically the same dang thing.
I recommend going underground, where audiophiles have transferred their quad collections to DTS cds. They're pretty easy to find.
good ole Charlatan Fake and Shyster:
In 1973 the band formed their own label, Manticore, and after nearly a year and a half of vacation, they recorded the infamously-titled Brain Salad Surgery. Soon after, they headed out for a monster tour across America, dragging 36 tons of equipment with them. Not only did the tour boast the first true quadraphonic sound system, but it involved timpani, gongs, chimes, a church bell, six moog synthesizers, an electric piano, two organs, and a Steinway. It resulted in a live triple gold album, Welcome Back My Friends.
that was a quote by the way.
Professor Detroit: you have awakened an ancient evil in me. I purchased a Nordmende at the thrift store and am looking for tubes. For shame.
Tak:
Slippery slope, my friend. Mind that first step or the next thing you know you'll have a basement full like me.
I'm all about teh valves. Find me on AudioKarma. Bauhausler is my handle.
(evil laugh)
I've got a Fisher 404 quad receiver that I aboslutely adore. One of the output transistors seems to be shot, but I'm holding onto it until I can find someone trustworthy in this town to repair it. I've never fed it an actual quad source, but even with two channels of input and the thing set to fake it, this is one sweet piece of hardware. Especially when driving a pair of KLH Model 22 speakers... older than I am, and smoother too!
Metal Machine Music in quad = pure evil.
AFAIK and sadly there is no Quadrophonic Quadrophenia...
Look for Santana Abraxas. First album I actually heard in true Quad.
Yes rules, what's yer prob ?
What's with the Yes bashing ? Lame !
oops, sorry about the double post. but really, this Yes thing.... duh !
One reason quad never caught on was that producers never figured out what to do with stereo. Listening to stereo with headphones would make my ears itch because it was not stereo. It was merely two channels that happened to be playing the same tune. For instance every Chet Atkins record had Chet playing in one ear and everybody else playing in the other. Quad was twice as much work for no more music.
Music fans bitched constantly about the lack of realism, but the record makers flatly refused to make an actual stereo recording. They wouldn't let anything out of the studio until it was entirely artificial. Actual live music was called "hot mix" and was about as likely as a bj in a convent.
in my experience that would be highly likely
hey dark cloud, marantz is still the thing in this day. they make the best CD players for the money, the best CD player to play SACD, DVD-A and everything else. They make great DVD, amps, pre-amps, etc. still today. At the mid-priced high-end, they are probably still the best and sell quite well. my next CD player will be a marantz.
Marantz sure made a gruntload of gear in the '70s. Is there anyone who didn't buy one of the 22XX series receivers? I sell them as fast as I get them and I still have a backlog of 3 or 10 of them laying around waiting to be fixed and flogged. Every time I turn around someone's dropping one on my doorstep. They last a long time and the engineering is at least adequate for what they are. I think Mr. Jalopy's high regard for this brand may be based on sentiment more than technology, but he's entitled to his favorites.
My personal favorite 'vintage' audio gear, out of the hundreds of pieces that I've owned is still Accuphase. They intended to be the Japanese Mcintosh and ended up being better designed, better built and more expensive. I don't believe they ever fell for the Quad craze, which is just as well because the gear they made was brain meltingly complex to begin with.
Somewhere in storage, I've got a quad version of Touch by Morton Subotnick. I seem to remember getting to hear it once or twice on a quad system. Ideal for that format since it was a totally synthetic, electronic composition.
Morton Subotnick the early synth composer who did Silver Apples of the Moon? Yes, I'll bet that would really be something in multichannel.
I found a lovely Marantz receiver sitting by the curb on garbage day 2 months ago. Very excited I was. Brought it home and cleaned it and lubed the pots and switches. It works very well but needs replacement bulbs for the display. Is there a way to use LEDs in this capacity?
@26: If it's a 2200 series rcvr, burned out bulbs are the norm. The 8v 200ma fuse-type bulb it uses is no longer widely available. The substitute is 8v 250ma. Here's the part you need
but beware shipping charges.
For the conversion to LEDs I recommend you read this authoritative thread on AudioKarma.
Ricardus: Send me a picture of the analog board with the joysticks! I would love to see it!
Re: sentiment vs. technology: Of course. There is how things are in the world - measured with instruments and documented. Then, there is how things are in your world, which is much more subjective.
In my world, HiFi is the look of Marantz. How can sound have a look? Same way that a Datsun 510 with Panasports and bolt-on fender flares looks faster than new Porsche. Subjective sentiment.
Beyond sentiment, there is the dimension of availability. Marantz and Sansui are the staple of the garage sale. I have several of each. Soon as I see an Accuphase, I will have (and post!) one of those!
As an aside to an already long comment, people often ask me how to get started 'making' as in Make magazine. I think a $10 Marantz with a pair of garage sale Bose/RSL/JBL/Yamaha speakers would be the ideal gift for somebody that wants to start tinkering with something. A perfect gift for somebody in middle school.
misterjalopy@gmail.com
Mr. Jalopy; Thanks for weighing in. Clarity and passion combined, as usual!
If you want just pix of Accuphase I have a lot of good clear photos of P-300, C-200, T-100, T-101 and E-202, the first 5 products from the early '70s. Considering that the tuner, preamp and power amp would set you back almost $5k in 1973 it's amazing how many there still are on the market. But then, they were built to last.
I agree about multichannel being superior to stereo. Why settle for two point sources for the sound when you can be enveloped?
I'm jaded about Marantz because I've spent so much time under the hoods of them lubing pots and swapping bulbs. Marantz just looks like work to me! They do have classic styling, and a clean 2270 or 2275 would be a keeper for sure.
@28, Amen! I just recently graduated college, so I haven't been in the game very long... But I started in middle school with an old Scott receiver, some cheap Technics speakers, and a Technics SL-1600. The rcvr & spkrs were a thrift store find, and the 'table was bought broken at a pawn shop for $5. Fixed that stuff up and have been constantly tweaking my system since. Right now I run a Pro-Ject Debut through a Superphon Revelation Basic (which I just opened up and gave a thorough cleaning), and then into a Rotel (not the best PA choice, but my beloved Luxman went up in smoke and nothing else in my repertoire is working as well as the Rotel atm...) which drives Klipsch Heresy IIs. Anyway, my point is that just starting with cheaper (but better than anything Wal-mart had to offer...) equipment when I was younger really gave me a better appreciation for music and for electronics. Alright, now exiting ramble city.
PS, Synergy in quad is some wild shit.
PPS, anybody know if any Tangerine Dream was ever put out in quad?
Chiming in to support Yes. You want to pick bad music, select just about anything that charted between 1984 and 1989.
@31 Anonymous, You picked '84 as a starting point because of "Owner of a Lonely Heart" in '83, didn't you? I like Yes as much as the next guy (who isn't Mr. Jalopy), but 90125 (and forward) isn't the Yes I know...
A note for those who are interested in vintage audio like the pieces shown above. Like every other obsession, there exists a thriving community of enthusiasts online. One popular gathering place is AUDIOKARMA.ORG. They have forums devoted to vintage audio and to specific manufacturers. Users' level of expertise ranges from hardware engineers to complete newbies. No question or problem is too insignificant to attract a patient and well informed answer. It's a great hobby and AUDIOKARMA is a very useful resource.
I am not affiliated with AUDIOKARMA.