Audiophiles

schumanesq · « **Reply #80 on:** 13 Feb 2024, 08:05 pm »

I was one of the early Quadrophonic adopters. I actually had a 4 channel 8 track player!

FullRangeMan · « **Reply #81 on:** 13 Feb 2024, 08:10 pm »

When these Quad systems appeared, I swore they were better than Stereo, even though I'd never heard them, just because they had more channels

Phil A · « **Reply #82 on:** 13 Feb 2024, 08:13 pm »

Welcome! I had surround sound in the 1970s via time delays (https://www.teachmeaudio.com/mixing/equipment/effects/delay#:~:text=A%20delay%20unit%20works%20by,set%20by%20the%20mix%20control.) The longer the delay (in milliseconds) the bigger the acoustic space it was simulating. I heard quad recordings but never invested in the hardware.

Mag · « **Reply #83 on:** 13 Feb 2024, 09:38 pm »

Quote from: schumanesq on 13 Feb 2024, 08:05 pm

I was one of the early Quadrophonic adopters. I actually had a 4 channel 8 track player!

We had Quadrophonic Receiver & Headphones, which I thought was quite good. Must have been my brother who bought it because I didn't purchase it, which would then place it around '78 or '79.
Then I heard my friends new Radio Shack stereo system and I concluded good stereo beats Quad. However when I started investing in audio around year 2000. My girlfriends low cost Surround system sounded better to me than my stereo. So after that I was sold on Surround Sound. With my Bryston Model T speakers & 2 corner speaker for 4 channel stereo. I get a better soundfield than I did with 5.1 Surround, but my room dimensions is also a factor.