Part

1: What exactly IS stereo?

Stereophonic sound reproduction is not simply twice mono [1]. A second mono channel can
be advantageous to provide increased coverage or even to give some arbitrary impression of
difference (a second loudspeaker could, for example, be equalized differently). However, the
point of adding a second channel is to specifically create an artificial soundstage between the
two loudspeakers. While this definition can now be taken for granted, it is interesting and
informative to look at the origins of stereo.

The early days

The idea of reproducing spatial sound goes back some 135 years. This was the time when the
electrical age of the industrial revolution was born, and an event was held in Paris to show
developments in electrical technology. This was one of several large electrical exhibitions that
were held in the 1880s and 1890s. The International Exposition of Electricity, held in 1881,
showcased such things as electric lighting with Edison and others presenting their
incandescent lightbulbs.
One of the exhibits was a stereo telephone. By 1881 Alexander Graham Bell had a
working model of his telephone but it was the Frenchman Clment Ader whose invention was
displayed [2]. Perhaps the British Governments decision not to waste public money
sponsoring the event was the reason. Each night music was performed at the Grande Opera
and people could listen for a few minutes on telephones about two kilometers away at the
Palais de Industrie, where the exposition was being held. An array of ten carbon microphones
was placed along the width of the stage. Each of these was wired to eight listening stations at
the far end. One might think that since the telephone was still in its infancy that for members
of the public to simply hear the performance would have sufficed, but Ader added the
experience of stereo. Each person listening held two earpieces, one for each ear. Each
earpiece presented the performance from a separate location on the stage (eg microphones
1 & 6, 2 & 7, and so on) thus enabling the listener to gauge the lateral position of the
performer. Luckily, the experiment was successful, and stereo was born1.
Several years after the Paris expo of 1881 the invention was used commercially in
France and England.2 The telephone and its required network was developed, as was electric
power distribution, but the next milestone for stereo was not to come until 50 years later.

In 1931, Alan Blumlein applied for a patent [3] (on behalf of EMI) proposing various ideas for
recording two channel audio. Its long and rather understated title is Improvements in and
relating to Sound-transmission, Sound recording and Sound-reproducing Systems. The
application claims an astonishing 70 inventions (many of which are variations), and these
include various microphone techniques, disc cutting, and even radio transmission for stereo.
The application was submitted in December, 1931. It was resubmitted with more detail in
November, 1932, and approved in June, 1933. It is interesting to note that several times
Blumlein states that descriptions are an example only and do not impose any restrictions

1

An attempt to connect another theatre to the exhibition failed, due to interference from the footlights.
In France from 1890 to 1932 as the Thtrophone, and in England from 1895 to 1925 as the Electrophone.


upon the scope of the invention or the manner and means whereby it may be accomplished.
Blumlein was a prolific inventor, so only some of the ideas put forward to the Patent Office
were fully fledged. Others were described only in broad terms. What is clear is that he saw
the primary use of stereo for use with motion pictures:
This invention relates to the transmission, recording- and reproduction of sound and is more
particularly directed to systems for recording and reproducing speech, music and other sound
effects, especially when associated with picture effects as in talking motion pictures.
The fundamental object of the invention is to provide a sound recording and reproducing
system whereby a true directional impression may be conveyed to a listener thus improving
the illusion that the sound is coming, and is only coming, from the artist or other sound source
presented to the eye.
Blumlein proposed to achieve this by using intensity difference between two (or more)
loudspeakers. Around 1900, speculative knowledge of how we hear the direction of sound
had been distilled into Lord Rayleighs Duplex Theory of sound localisation. By the 1930s this
explanation (which, while not giving a complete explanation, is still correct) was well
established, and it is on this understanding that Blumlein bases his invention. In the patent
he makes clear reference to his system differentiating between high (ILD) and low (ITD)
frequencies. The system described is more complicated than a modern true-stereo recording
(where the mic technique used determines intensity / phase differentiation), or constructed
stereo (intensity only).
The method proposed uses two (or more) binaural microphone signals that are
matrixed, using transformers, to derive sum and difference signals. Low frequencies get
converted from phase difference to amplitude difference, as Blumlein had discovered that
even a low frequency phantom image could be localized simply by controlling the relative
intensities of the two channels. The amplitude of all frequencies could therefore be controlled
with resistors. The system he described in detail uses two omni-directional microphones
separated by a block of wood to mimic a human head. These are amplified then fed to a
transformer matrix which derives sum and difference signals. This would essentially be the
recording part of the signal chain. On the reproduction side, the two channels are again
processed using sum and difference techniques. The summed channel acts as a reference and
the other uses a capacitor3 as a phase comparator to convert any phase difference to
amplitude difference. A third sum and difference circuit is then employed to derive the signals
that feed the two loudspeakers.
This Mid-Side technique was partially driven by the need for mono compatibility in
picture theatres (for backward compatibility, or in case one channel failed).
Speaker width is stated as not exceeding the screen width, and not closer together than 70%
of the screen width for low frequencies. For high frequencies the width should be gauged
by trial and error.
Several microphone methods were described:
a)
Binaural4: two pressure mics separated by a dummy head (block of wood). This
rather complex setup required decoding into stereo
b)
M-S: using two velocity mics, one facing forwards, the other side-on.

3
The value is not mentioned, but it would need Xc to take effect around 1500Hz (giving a delay of 167S).
4
No distinction between binaural and stereo was made until 1932 [5]


c)
d)

Blumlein Pair: two velocity mics at 45 to the centre of the screen. No decoding is
required
XY: where the angle may be varied, to avoid the necessity of combining and re-
separating the two channels

Using additional mics in the vertical plane is mentioned to give 3D sound location. There are
no details on this, and it appears that Blumlein thought that there would be no perceptual
differences from the horizontal to the vertical plane.
Blumlein discussed how to cut stereo onto a disc, and four recording head designs are
provided. He described combining hill and dale and lateral, and the preferred method of 45
/ 45 cutting. He correctly identified that this stereo reproduction would likely appeal to music
recording, as well as motion picture.

In 1916 Bell Laboratories produced the first quality studio mic (rather than a Carbon mic). This
had to wait for about 10 years until electrical amplification was available, using the triode
thermionic valve. These were omni-directional mics.
By the time Blumlein tendered his Complete Specification for approval, Harry Olson
had developed the first practical ribbon microphone5. In 1932 Neumann produced the first
cardioid mic, using a double membrane capsule. Blumlein would no doubt have been aware
of these developments, and it seems that some of the open-ended statements in the
application were to allow for use of new technological developments such as unidirectional
microphones.

EMI was not the only company interested in multi-channel sound, and in 1933 Steinberg and
Snow from Bell Laboratories published a paper [4] proposing a system with good localisation
using three channels. The experiment consisted of seeing if a panel of listeners could
accurately locate the positions of persons speaking on a stage, when reproduced via 3
loudspeakers. This was found to provide good results for both fore-aft and lateral localization.
Then the experiment was repeated using two channels. This time any positions on the centre-
line of the stage appeared to come from the rear of the stage. Secondly, the virtual
soundstage was wider than for 3 channels. Combinations were also tried, namely: a) adding
a centre mic to the 2 channel system (which pulled the centre-line positions forward), b)
bridging a third loudspeaker across the 2 channel system (which increased depth but
narrowed the soundstage), and c) adding a third mic and a third loudspeaker across the 2
channel system (this greatly reduced the soundstage width). None of these were considered
to provide realistic spatial information, so the 3 channel system was chosen.
The Bell Laboratories engineers performed further tests on depth localisation and
discovered that a reduction in playback loudness, or an increase of source reverberation ratio,
or both, caused the sound-source to recede. The authors then add It has not been found
possible to put these relationships on a quantitative basis. The experiment identified what
would happen, but the engineers were unable to explain why.
The next part of their research was an experiment to map direct sound loudness levels
to each ear as a sinewave source is rotated by 180 from the front to the back of the subjects

5
Walter Schottky and Erwin Gerlach invented the first ribbon mic in 1924


head. Frequencies from 300 Hz to 15kHz were used. Steinberg and Snow identified three
factors responsible for localization: phase difference, loudness difference, and quality
difference. They discounted phase difference (It is difficult to see how phase differences in
this case can assist in localization in the ordinary way), and chose loudness, and quality.
Quality, they surmised was due to frequency distortion of the sound source wrt angle. This
really is just another way of describing loudness separation, so they were barking up the
wrong tree. And yet they were very close; the plots do indicate that the ears frequency
response not only is not flat, but varies considerably with the direction of sound. Had they
not dismissed phase so quickly they may have headed in the direction of discovering HRTFs.

In this era the field of psycho-acoustics was still in its infancy6 (research on Pinna transforms
was begun in 1959 by Dwight W Batteau. His findings were published in 1964). The important
point here is that the basis of stereo recording and reproduction was formed before a
complete theory of psychophysical localization emerged. In the paper the authors do make a
statement that predates discovery of the Haas (or Precedence) effect7 but do not distinguish
between intensity difference and reverb to direct signal ratio. Later (in the summary) they do
correctly note that reverb ratio plays no part in localization, but does effect depth perception
(with the converse also being true, ie depth localisation was arbitrary).
Steinberg and Snow noted that there was good correlation between calculated and
observed results for apparent angles. Two and three speaker systems were compared, and
the two channel system gave a wider stereo image, but with greater angular distortion (ie
there was spatial compression at the extremities). Thus they concluded that a 3 channel
system was definitely superior as it prevented the hole in the middle, and the centre
channel would allow independent control of the musical soloist. Furthermore, it minimized
localization differences wrt listening position. They added that for music a spatial impression
was more important than accurate localization and therefore a 2 channel system gives good
satisfaction. 3 channel reproduction was recommended for speech and motion picture
sound.

These early experiments in stereo share a common goal; that the actual soundstage should
be represented as accurately as possible upon reproduction. Conclusions were based on
empirical evidence and so a considerable part of the research time was spent producing
sound sources at known locations (these were marked off at set angles) and then finding what
the subjective results for matching these positions was when reproduced.

Stereo in the Home
Stereo had a very long incubation period. Although Blumlein had successfully conceived of
(and demonstrated) a viable stereo recording and reproduction system in 1931, the birth of
stereo had to wait until 1958. Several reasons for this delay can be proposed. Firstly, the early
1930s was the time of the great depression. This meant that sales of expensive luxury items
went into decline. This was also the time of the birth of public broadcast radio. People didnt
want to pay for songs when they could hear them for free. As a result of these two factors
Gramophone record sales dropped substantially.

6
although not without the odd breakthrough eg Fletcher & Munsons 1933 work on loudness curves.
7

Haas (Germany) and Wallach et al (USA) both published their work in 1949.


Another factor would have been the general reluctance of consumers to upgrade equipment.
By the 1940s many people would have owned a gramophone and a considerable collection
of 78s. The big ticket item for the home was a radio, rather than an electrical record player.
This would have slowed sales, as going to a non-compatible expensive new system is always
somewhat unattractive. No doubt WWII was also part of the reason, as research and
manufacturing resources were redirected for military purposes. After the war the USA was in
a good position to accelerate electronics development. In 1948 the mono LP vinyl record
became available. Further delays of the introduction of stereo well may have been simply due
to getting a standard and reliable system to the market.
1958 was the first time standard stereo records were available to the general public.
Acceptance was slow, and it was well into the 1960s before stereo LP sales outstripped mono
LPs. To promote the new format, manufacturers and record companies produced elaborate
short films and demonstration discs. These invariably made exaggerated claims about stereo.
Words and phrases often used are truest, most life-like, perfect fidelity, realism, full-
dimension and so on. The demonstration material ranges from sound effects (the moving
train being the classic stereo clich) to speech, and musical excerpts. These are interesting, in
that the music is mixed quite differently than it is today. To ensure the listener would not miss
the advantage of stereo the recordings split sounds either to the left or right channel. The
main reason for this is obvious: to sell stereo to the public it had to be shown that it was much
better than mono, and the way to do that was by ping-ponging sounds (musical or otherwise)
between the two speakers.
By 1960 many homes already had a quality piece of furniture sitting in the lounge; the
radiogram. Very few of these were upgradable so a newer expensive system was required.
Additionally, a second loudspeaker needed to be place somewhere. It is exactly at this starting
point of stereo where the ideal and the practicalities are in opposition. Many homes simply
did not have the space to set up two loudspeakers in an optimum layout. The manufacturing
companies were aware of this and solved the problem by adding the second speaker to one
end of the radiogram, creating the stereogram. Thus, this slightly larger piece of furniture
would fit into a single position in the room (in many cases simply being put where the old
radiogram was). In terms of penetrating the market this was a clever move. The stereo
demonstrations were not just larger than life due to slick marketing. They had to have hard
left and right panning for people to get any impression of stereo, as the loudspeakers in a
typical stereogram were only about 1.2m apart. This, of course, made nonsense of the
narrators use of words such as realism.
Less obvious is the fact that many studio engineers were also part of creating
unrealistic stereo. It seems that since 30 years had passed since Blumlein laid the foundation
for stereo, recording engineers had lost touch with his research, and were now in the position
of providing stereo popular records to the market. Without any set guidelines, they
experimented with the new format with a no rules attitude. Many 60s records offer the
same stereo attitude as the demonstration discs, for example bass or lead vocal panned hard
to one side. Examples of this style of stereo mixing can be heard on Beatles recordings, which
clearly means that lack of general recording expertise was not a factor. The Beatles catalogue
is an interesting case study. The first album (Please Please Me) was recorded in 1963, some 5
years after the introduction of stereo records to the public. In the UK the economy was still
pulling out of the post-war slump so things were more conservative than in the USA. This
meant that limitations in recording equipment restricted the stereo to be vocal (channel 1) +
band (channel 2).


Arguments continue on Beatles fan forums as to which is better; the mono or stereo version
of each album. Recent full collection releases have provided us with both, and many prefer
the sound of the mono mixes as these were the main mix for release and had the most time
and attention paid to them. Having said that, from a collectors point of view a first pressing
of Please Please Me is valued at 3000 for stereo and 750 for mono.8
In any case, by todays stereo mixing standards, early Beatles recordings sound too
quirky or even just wrong to many listeners, indicating that we have become conditioned to
a certain style of sound field for popular recordings. One statement from Steinberg and
Snows 1931 report stands out: Manipulation of circuit conditions probably can be used
advantageously to heighten the illusions or to produce novel effects. The recordings of the
1960s certainly applied such experimentation into production techniques. By the early 1970s
a de-facto convention for stereo placement from a multitrack source had been established
(for better or worse), and has remained ever since.


Attempts to go beyond stereo
As we have seen, EMI experiments in the 1930s were for both two and three channel sound.
These numbers were decided not from a perspective of moving up from a single channel but,
rather, moving down from a large number of channels (ideally infinite) to a practical and
economic system. It is therefore not surprising that over the years several other ideas
emerged proposing adding extra channels, extra virtual channels, or even superseding stereo
altogether. In 1958 Klipsch [6,7] proposed a centre loudspeaker be added to his stereo horn
system. This was due to the horns being large and therefore necessitating a large room, which
led to a hole in the middle of the stereo image because of the wide spacing.

Quadraphonic sound can be described as the most successful failure of all the multi-channel
systems for music. Although its reign in home audio was short-lived it did manage to gain
enough momentum to provide the public with a significant amount of product both
equipment and musical titles. The idea seemed simple enough two rear loudspeaker
channels were added so that the four loudspeakers were spaced at 90. The listener could
then be immersed in the sound stage. The first systems used pre-recorded 4 track tapes,
making mapping to four loudspeakers simple. How the mix was recorded onto each track had
to be determined at the recording studio, but this was not needing deep consideration (this
was only a few years after the availability of stereo to most people, so no rules panning was
supposedly still acceptable) [8].
Several incompatible methods were brought to the market. JVCs CD-4 pushed the
limit of what could be reliably delivered to a consumer market and early systems were often
hampered by noise and distortion. It used a 30kHz carrier signal to carry the two extra
channels, and could resolve normal stereo, if played back on a standard stereo system. To
obtain the required 50kHz bandwidth from a record considerable difficulties had to be
overcome. Among these was record wear and a special stylus that tracked at only 0.5 gm was
required. Thus, CD-4 was far from plug n play, and some tinkering was required to get good
results. This technology did improve and by 1974 was a fully workable system. Another
system developed by Nippon Columbia9 used a combination of encoding matrix signals and

8

http://beatlescollectingguide.weebly.com/please-please-me.html
UD-4


modulated signals (also using a 30kHz carrier) onto the record groove. It was very much an
also-ran in the quad race, but was the only method to be able to accurately rotate a point-
source through 360 [9].
Commercial quad systems came at some expense to the consumer. A fully discrete
setup required addition of either a CD-4 cartridge and demodulator, or 4-track tape recorder,
as well as two extra amplifiers and loudspeakers. Several ideas were proposed (typically in
DIY electronics magazines which were still popular at the time) to do it on the cheap. The
simplest of these was to wire a third loudspeaker between the + terminals of the L and R
loudspeakers. A potentiometer in series controlled the level of the third loudspeaker which
needed to be set at about -6dB for any sense of realism. The loudspeaker was positioned at
the rear of the listening position, and the pot adjusted to give suitable ambience. A variation
of this was to have two extra loudspeakers wired in series (but out of phase). In this case they
could be place in the rear corners. A commercial version was also available (from Hafler-
Dynaco10).
Another possibility was to add the two loudspeakers at the front of the listening area.
The idea of this is to cancel inter-aural crosstalk between the listeners ears and the main
loudspeakers. If the positions of the additional loudspeakers are close to the main speakers
(and selected on test) then the soundstage can be expanded. Again, commercial versions of
the technique were released11. As well as widening the stereo image, it gives some depth
perception. The method is explained in the Appendix 1.
A third possibility is a Shuffler circuit. The idea goes right back to Blumleins patent
where he described his main stereo method. In fact, that was a quasi-binaural recording mic
arrangement from which M-S was derived. This was then shuffled to provide width control
before being converted back to stereo for playback. A shuffler can also take a stereo signal
and convert it to M-S where the Side signal can be manipulated in amplitude, or with an
equaliser before being reconverted into stereo. This works as the L and R signals are no longer
identical, and the technique was used to create a pseudo-stereo signal in the days of
monophonic reproduction. The matrixing is shown in Appendix 2.
Apart from discrete quad, there were two main rival matrix systems: Sansuis QS and
CBSs SQ. These relied on attenuation and phase shifting to generate the effect, one with +90
the other -90, which meant the two systems were very similar but were incompatible. A
perfect system could not be realised and both suffered from some inter-channel leakage
(separation could be as low as 3dB). Both systems are based on the work of Scheiber [10].
Quadraphony did interest the BBC, who between 1969 and 1973 conducted
comprehensive subjective tests of no less than eight systems, including SQ and QS [11]. A
major concern was that neither of these commercial systems were mono compatible (an
important consideration for broadcasting). It was the idea of quadraphonic radio that the BBC
(and other broadcasters) were primarily interested in, and a paper12 describing a method for
this (H-Matrix) was published in 1977, but by then quadraphony was all but finished.

The lessons learnt at the end of the quad era were several. The most important was that to
avoid a marketing disaster when introducing new technology to the market it is best to have
a single standard format. Consumers are now very wary of having rival formats battle it out
at their expense (eg VHS vs Beta). It is no surprise that hugely successful technologies (such

10

These two companies were acquired by Radial Engineering in 2016.

by Carver, and Sound Concepts
12
RD 1977/2
11


as MIDI, CD) have provided a solid and longstanding standard. In terms of the sound itself,
going from two to four channels is far more than double the trouble. Stereo has difficulties
enough with two actual signal sources, a phantom image, and acoustic inter-channel
crosstalk. With quad this multiplied to six possible phantom images giving a total of ten sound
sources plus at least two sets of crosstalk. Discrete systems could only hold the channels in
place up to the loudspeaker, and matrixed systems simply had no ability to accurately control
sound location. This point is pivotal to quads failure. A new iPhone costs about 40 times more
than a landline telephone, but we don't see Apple going out of business. Consumers weigh
up the benefit to cost ratio. Quad for all its expense could only offer two things: ambience (if
the rear channels were subdued), or wow factor (immersion, and artificial panning
experiences). By the 1970s stereo recording techniques and listeners sophistication had
moved ahead. No longer were the masses going to be fascinated with the novelty of surround
as they had been with the introduction of stereo. Most quad demonstration records were
trying to impress by adding spaciousness and realism. On this account, quad could not survive.
To sound natural, only a hint of rear channel balance was required. By the time the rear
speakers were turned up enough to make the purchase cost worthwhile, it put the listener
inside the orchestra. Great for effect, but hardly a long term proposition. Lastly, quad went
beyond the WAF13. For many casual enjoyers of music in the home, having four loudspeakers
that had to be specifically located was simply a bridge too far, regardless of cost. What would
be next another four loudspeakers at ceiling height?
Quadraphonic sound did generate a multi-channel spin-off (indirectly). This is
Ambisonics [12], and the method is largely the work of Michael Gerzon [13]. It varies from
stereo and quad systems in that the spatial location of each channel is derived by matrices.
This separates the number of physical channels from the number of spatial channels. The
number of actual channels is scalable, with three being the minimum for horizontal only
reproduction, and four if vertical representation is also required. An advantage of the system
is that it can image over a full 360. A simple way to explain it is as a 3D version of M-S. To
achieve this requires a special microphone14 and several stages of formatting (A to D). As the
recording and production of the signal chain are separated, it is possible to decode into other
formats (eg stereo, Dolby 5.1). Interest in the format remains steady albeit from a tiny number
of enthusiasts.
Dolby Surround Sound (particularly Dolby Digital) has seen considerable success in the
market for home theatre. Possibly this is on the wane, as today many consumers are putting
their cash into bigger screens (with stereo bar loudspeakers), rather than adding more
loudspeakers. In any case, Surround Sound has made almost no impact when it comes to
music recordings. Formats developed for this such as DVD-A, and SACD gained no acceptance
from mass consumers.








13
14

Wife Acceptance Factor an important consideration for any lounge equipment.

The Soundfield microphone


Summary


The idea of stereo goes back a surprisingly long way. By the 1930s all the essential theory was
known and practical systems built. It was also clear by then that for the large space of a movie
theatre 3 front channels were needed, particularly for speech. Several attempts were later
tried to improve music systems by adding more channels or deriving additional phantom
channels from the stereo source. None of these 3, 4 or 5(.1) channel systems have succeeded
commercially. The reasons seem twofold; market resistance, and resistance from the
recording industry (not, of course from the manufacturers).
This does not necessarily mean that multi-channel systems sound inferior, and neither
is stereo inherently realistic. All these methods create an audio illusion of some form, and
ideas of how stereo should be mixed range from gimmicky to life-like.
Originally, Audio Engineers grappled with the problem of how to maintain realistic and
accurate positioning of sounds in the stereo field. Today the practice is quite different. Most
signal sources in a mix are mono and are positioned with a panpot. This supposedly sets the
sounds in place in the stereo field. It is very easy to do, and most Engineers I know spend a
lot longer on dynamic control and equalization than on ensuring that the stereo image of a
mix is transferable. Delay is never used to try to position a sound in the stereo field. In fact,
FX such as delay are often added to sounds in the mix and this can often completely
undermine the listeners ability to precisely locate a sound. An accurate soundstage has been
sacrificed for more additives in the mix.
Stereo continues to be the main format for music reproduction, having survived while
other more complex systems have not. It is a relatively simple system and gives a good
impression of spaciousness, suitable for enjoyable music listening. In short; overall, it is the
best solution.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

References
Stereo, a Misunderstanding, The Anstendig Institute, 1982
http://www.anstendig.org/Stereo.html
The Telephone at The Paris Opera
Scientific American, December 31, 1881, 422-423
Blumlein A. D., Electric and Musical Industries Ltd., assignee. Improvements in and
relating to Sound-transmission, Sound recording and Sound-reproducing Systems
(patent 394,325. June, 1933)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=GB&NR
=394325A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19330614&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
Steinberg J. C., Snow W. B., Audio Perspectives - Physical Factors, 1933
http://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/bell.labs/auditoryperspective.pdf
K. Hammer, W. Snow: Binaural Transmission System at Academy of Music in
Philadelphia. Memorandum MM- 3950, Bell Laboratories, Nov. 1932
P. W. Klipsch, Circuits for Three-Channel Stereophonic Playback Derived from Two
Sound Tracks, IRE Transactions, Nov-Dec 1959
P. W. Klipsch, Three-Channel Stereo Playback of Two Tracks Derived from Three
Microphones, IRE Transactions, Mar-Apr 1959
Everest A., (1975). Handbook of Multichannel Recording, TAB books.
Gayford M. L., (1975). Hi-Fi for the Enthusiast, Pitman Press, 2nd Ed.
Scheiber P., Quadrasonic Sound System (patent 3,632,886, 1969)
BBC (1974), The Subjective Performance of Various Quadraphonic Matrix Systems, RD
1974/29.
Brice, R., (2014) Ambisonics,
http://www.pspatialaudio.com/Ambisonics%202014%20article.pdf
Gerzon M. (1991), Optimal Reproduction Matrices for Multispeaker Stereo, 91st AES
conf.,


Appendix 1

A stereo reproduction system produces signals thus:

Ls to Le, Ls to Re, Rs to Le, and Rs to Re where subscripts s and e are speaker and ear,

and Ls to Le = L, and Rs to Re = R, and Ls to Re = L, and Rs to Le = R

The two additional speakers will produce a difference signal and are wired out of phase so
one will give the L-R and the other the R-L signal.

Therefore, at the listener:

L = L + R - R = L

R = R + L - L = R



Appendix 2




M = L + R and S = L - R

M + S = (L + R) + (L R) = 2L

M S = (L + R) - (L R) = 2R



and (M + S) + (M - S) = M + M + S - S = 2M (MS sums to mono)