MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Quadraphonic....why not ?
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Production Techniques  
Author Quadraphonic....why not ?
Midiot
Quadraphonic in a basement "modular" studio seems easy and can sound great.
After all, it's just 2 extra speakers (and amplification)..... right ?

After all all, many of us listen to home-theater systems, with as many (or more) speakers.

How many of you have a quadraphonic system ?
Joe.
Midiot wrote:
seems easy


Do you have a modular system?
Midiot
I do have one.
mid-sized.

Creating a quad surround sound, is easy for synths. Not so with "live sound with mics".
All you really need is two separate (stereo) mixer outs, that can be sent to amplification/speakers.....and adjust it to taste.
Joe.
But you're only describing quadraphonic panning a single voice?

The reason I asked about your synth is to see if you have any quad modules, or if there's some other reason you think it would easy to setup. Perhaps with a large selection of quad modules, delays/vcas/oscillators and quadrature LFO modulation etc, you might be able to gets some interesting effects.

Trying to patch the simplest stereo effects though, such as pingpong delay or mid/side processing, is a massive chore. The amount of modules to do this for a quadraphonic track (including multiple voices, and all the mixers needed to merge them) would be huge and incredibly complicated.

I'm probably stuck in mono becuase it's the easiest cool
jfloftin
I just purchased a L-1 with the intention of starting one
Reese P. Dubin
It takes WAY MORE hardware than anyone thinks to do worthwhile quad.
ersatzplanet
Quad is pretty easy if you have a module like a QVCAMatrix or such around. I sometimes do quad in my studio since I have two different monitoring systems (one for the modular and one for my computer). with a few control modules, I use Doepfer quadrature LFOs, Morphing controllers, and Quad Envelope generators, you can move things around pretty easily. Recording is not that much of a problem either.

The problem is ALL in the playback. Unless you or your target audience has a playback system designed for Quadraphonic, it will not sound the same. Surround Sound Theater systems are typically NOT good for Quadraphonic. The rear and center channel speakers are typically not full range. The rear speakers are usually much smaller and are designed for room ambience and don't have the full range as the front pair do. The Center channel is typically geared for vocal delivery and is often not full range either. This means with a quadraphonic sound source, the sound of instruments will change when they are panned to the real speakers. Not the best solution.
Midiot
Joe. wrote:
But you're only describing quadraphonic panning a single voice?


Well, no....I'm thinking about panning stereo effects, and multiple odd sounds to the rear extra two speakers.
I don't plan on doing live performances, so it's probably just a permanent setup in my studio.
My modular is largely stereo-ready.
ersatzplanet
Midiot wrote:
I'm thinking about panning stereo effects, and multiple odd sounds to the rear extra two speakers.
I don't plan on doing live performances, so it's probably just a permanent setup in my studio.
My modular is largely stereo-ready.


The VCAMatrix is great for this because it gives you 4 inputs and four outputs. Any input can be sent to any combination of outputs depending on the CVs used. They can be chained internally to make a 8X4 or 4X8 too if four ins is not enough.

Contro one of those with a Malekko Jag Axis controller and a joystick and you can place sounds easily wherever you want. The quadrature LFOs do the constant moving around bit, and quad envelope generators can do the rhythmical panning. Fun stuff ahead.
Chevron87
I often wonder why Quad or 4.1 sound isn't more popular for music, especially live. 5.1 is great for movies but 4.1 makes more sense for music
Midiot
ersatzplanet wrote:


The VCAMatrix is great for this because it gives you 4 inputs and four outputs. Any input can be sent to any combination of outputs depending on the CVs used. They can be chained internally to make a 8X4 or 4X8 too if four ins is not enough.

Contro one of those with a Malekko Jag Axis controller and a joystick and you can place sounds easily wherever you want. The quadrature LFOs do the constant moving around bit, and quad envelope generators can do the rhythmical panning. Fun stuff ahead.


Yes, I'll experiment.
I have the Rebel Technology Mix 04, which is a 4 channel vca matrix.
I shouldn't claim "it's easy", before trying it....lol.
ersatzplanet
Midiot wrote:
ersatzplanet wrote:


The VCAMatrix is great for this because it gives you 4 inputs and four outputs. Any input can be sent to any combination of outputs depending on the CVs used. They can be chained internally to make a 8X4 or 4X8 too if four ins is not enough.

Contro one of those with a Malekko Jag Axis controller and a joystick and you can place sounds easily wherever you want. The quadrature LFOs do the constant moving around bit, and quad envelope generators can do the rhythmical panning. Fun stuff ahead.


Yes, I'll experiment.
I have the Rebel Technology Mix 04, which is a 4 channel vca matrix.
I shouldn't claim "it's easy", before trying it....lol.


Another set of modules to consider would be the Doepfer A-144 Morph Controller which divides an incoming CV into 4 separate outs that slide up in voltage as the inputted CV passes through that range. Great for Quad panning with a single CV and only $90.

**Shameless plug alert** Another good module to use is a programmer like the Synthwerks PGM-4X4 which gives you 4 programmable CV levels that can be chosen via manual pushbutton, Gate/Trigger, or by it own internal sequencer. They can be chained for 8 columns/programs or stacked as high as you have cabinet space for more rows. With a lag on the output, the programs can slide into the next one.
PrimateSynthesis
ersatzplanet wrote:

The problem is ALL in the playback. Unless you or your target audience has a playback system designed for Quadraphonic, it will not sound the same. Surround Sound Theater systems are typically NOT good for Quadraphonic. The rear and center channel speakers are typically not full range. The rear speakers are usually much smaller and are designed for room ambience and don't have the full range as the front pair do.


I do not know if it's typical, but I've seen plenty of 5.1 systems with 4 of the same speaker. Regardless, the most practical replication media for quadraphonic would use 5.1.

If I wanted to make quadraphonic music, I would probably do most of it in software.
ersatzplanet
PrimateSynthesis wrote:

I do not know if it's typical, but I've seen plenty of 5.1 systems with 4 of the same speaker. Regardless, the most practical replication media for quadraphonic would use 5.1.

If I wanted to make quadraphonic music, I would probably do most of it in software.


Things are looking better it seems. If you do a google search for "Surround Sound Systems" and looking the images section, it looks like it is close to 30-40% on systems with matched speakers vs 60-70% for ones with different sizes (I didn't do a count). That used to not be the case. It used to be much rarer.
Michael O.
While my studio is quad capable (everything from the sound sources, to a late ‘70s quadrophonic Trident console, to proper and capable monitoring), I never work in quad.

The objective limitations on playback are obvious: there are very few quad systems out there, and the sweetspot for listening is smaller than the already narrow sweetspot in a stereo system insofar as the most minute alterations in the listener’s ears’ position can ruin the effect. Subjectively I find it gimmicky and more distracting/less engrossing than stereo. So for those reasons I work in either stereo for music or 5.1 for film sound.
muhimnested
Anyone here have experience with the Koma Elektronik Poltergeist? That module is designed specifically for quadraphonic
Dilibob
I listen thru protools hd via calibrated room/genelec 5.1 system(somewhat like Richard Devines working room but with the config more like junkiexl) . I personally love listening to mono coming out of 5u through a nice 5.1 reverb, quad coming out of modular is totally immersive. I wish 5.1 was a home standard, for new people listening to modular they finally start to "get it" if they experience it in 5.1/immersive/concert_experience.
Grumble
Is't quadraphonic not just really a matter of phase difference between the inputs of the four amplifiers?
I think even with one VCO you could make a quadraphonic system if you have the means to phase shift the four outputs.
Navs
muhimnested wrote:
Anyone here have experience with the Koma Elektronik Poltergeist? That module is designed specifically for quadraphonic


Wouter Jaspers and Richard Scott played quadraphonic sets using the Poltergeist last week at km28 in Berlin:

https://www.facebook.com/events/606388589777712/

It's a relatively small space but they have a nice sound and speakers, so it was a treat to be sitting 'in' rather than in front of the sound.
Phil999
I use a Mackie 1640 for quad distribution.
ersatzplanet
Phil999 wrote:
I use a Mackie 1640 for quad distribution.


That is my mixer too. Do you use AUX outs or the Mute Button's Alternate 3/4 out (my choice)?
felixer
the problem with quadaphonic is that the angels are too big. you don't really get a phantom middle. so it remains four different speakers. fun, for sure. i had a quad system for years ... but gave it up mainly because there seems to be no way to communicate those quad mixes: you will not get it to anybody else. even although there seems to be a standard for cd's to give you 4 outputs at the cost of the total playing time obviously. but not implemented anywhere.
Arders Bergdahl
I have the koma poltergeist and four genelec 8110, great fun... for stereo mix i foten have the back channels with some EQ to make duller and some reverb, it makes for some movement in the stereo field aswell as some closer, morse distant panning..
Phil999
ersatzplanet wrote:

That is my mixer too. Do you use AUX outs or the Mute Button's Alternate 3/4 out (my choice)?

main out for L-R and subgroup 1-2 for Ls-Rs. Although I'm not sure if we're talking about the same mixer. The Mackie 1640 doesn't have Mute Button's Alternate 3/4 out like the 1604. Anyway, not important.

Interesting what you people say about the sweet spot in quad systems. Reminds me that indeed it seems more complex and difficult to get the sound right than stereo. I use quad rather for panning effects and for additional options to separate individual voices. Especially the latter aspect appears to me helpful in mixing, makes mixing easier than in stereo.
Hovercraft
I’m about to release a beta version of a quad spatializer for the ER-301 module. It has six input channels—2 Cartesian (X-Y), 2 polar (swirl), and 2 stereo channels. One of the Cartesian channels has a cv recorder/looper that gets turned on/off with a gate, so a Planar-type joystick makes a great controller. My intent is using the as yet unreleased faderbank 16n as a controller, since it offers 16 offsets via I2C bus, but you can use any external offsets/modulation, or control from within the ER-301. I’ve made the routing architecture as efficient as I can, so it’s only using a little more than 50% cpu/memory, to allow for customization and future development.

My philosophy on modular quad is simple—there’s no orthodoxy, and it’s all an artificial construct. If it works, it works.
chiavere
I’ve done a lot of modular quad concerts over the past 5+ years, most recently using the Poltergeist since its release (it’s expensive, but worth every penny) - lots of good points and tips above - I’ve been fortunate to mostly work in good rooms with nice systems, but one cheap/easy trick is using the “alt” outs on a Mackie mixer to feed two of the four channels.

I also recommend the Toppobrillo Mixiplexer and Intellijel planar for not prohibitively expensive quad routing/panning.

I don’t have one, but I imagine you could use a couple Make Noise RxMx to do quad, too.

p.s. I would also say that learning how to make quad panner patches in either pd or supercollider (both free software) is another low-cost (financially, anyway) way to get into quad.
ersatzplanet
Phil999 wrote:
Although I'm not sure if we're talking about the same mixer. The Mackie 1640 doesn't have Mute Button's Alternate 3/4 out like the 1604. Anyway, not important.


Right you are - I have a CR1604 which is quite different.
The Grump
I guess the first thing to ask is this: how do you mix in stereo, personally? Do you just use panning laws to place your sounds, or do you apply delays and attenuate certain frequencies? Do you use m/s processing? Do you do weird shit like dividing single sounds into several clusters of frequencies per side and move those around? Do you use Ambisonics? There are no hard and fast rules, you just figure out what works and use that.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Production Techniques  
Page 1 of 2
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group