Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The explanation given was almost completely incorrect.I've always wondered what that was. I seem to think I've seen that on
laserdiscs, and just checked mine, but none have it, not that I'd be able
to play it back correctly anyways.
Ah- SQ."How were those extra channels added and extracted from the regular two
channel recordings, other than with one of those boxes?
"
By summing the left and right channels and sending them to OP AMPS on the inverting inputs, resuling in the attenuation of the L+R component of both channels. By careful mixing, an audio engineer could do alot with that. A system called SQ came out which standardized the process somewhat and only nulled the mid to high ranges, leavng the bass relatively intact for the rear speakers which were ususally identical to the front speakers, unlike today. Today, usually nothing under 100 Hz is sent to the rear. Those little satellite speakers couldn't reproduce it anyway.
The standardization was simply the time constant of the feedback network and the actual amount of L+R attenuation. It was sort of licensed, and you could buy recording supposedly in "SQ", which meant that they were mixed in a way to take advantage of the standards.
This may sound weird, but I'm against meddling with recordings and using"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message news:kogr3u$km7$1@reader1.panix.com...
Was "surround" at the time a true 4 channel recording?
I'm not sure what you mean by "true". Matrixed recordings were considered
four-channel recordings.
The first modern surround recordings came from AR/Vanguard. They were called
"surround stereo", I believe. After that, the term "quadraphonic" was adapted.
(And please don't complain about mixing Greek and Latin. "Dinosaur" is a
similar hybrid.)
Out of these devices, which did true decoding of extra channels
out of a two channel recording?
Strictly speaking, none of them, as two-channel recordings, by definition, do
not have extra channels to be decoded.
However, some of the devices -- such as the Space & Image Composer and the
Ambisonic decoders -- could manipulate 2-channel recordings to wrap the sound
around you, or extract ambience, or both at the same time.
How did the encoded recordings sound if you skipped the decoders? With
old tape decks and Dolby noise reduction, it didn't matter on playback.
Generally, they sounded pretty much like regular stereo. The rear channels
weren't lost or diminished in level -- they simply appeared in the front.
(With SQ recordings, LR and RR often appeared slightly "outside" the front
speakers.) Unfortunately, recordings with ambience in the rear channels tended
to sound overly reverberant in stereo. EMI was obliged to reduce the ambience
levels.
There is no excuse to listen in two channels. Stereo is technically
and aesthetically obsolete.
Unless all your recordings are only available in plain stereo.
Not at all. Your control unit probably has surround modes to enhance stereo
recordings. And hall synthesizers can be bought on eBay.
I had to screw with all the settings for type of sourround signals andI actually had a really hard time locating a surround sound audio test
file to use with a WD Live video/audio playing device. My surround
decoder has a noise generator to identify the channels when setting
up speakers, but that doesn't tell you if it really understands the signals
coming out of the modern media player.
If the program source is "discrete", then there shouldn't be a problem. *
Matrixed material generally requires manual mode selection. Lossy-compressed
materials (such as the various Dolby Digital formats) are //supposed// to be
correctly recognized by your control unit. Regardless, if playback doesn't
seem correct, try forcing the controller to different modes (if it allows
this). I agree that a test disk would be useful.
* With one exception. Some Blu-ray players won't properly output channels 6
and 7 unless you change one of the player's default settings.
That's not weird. Over the years I've learned that most "enhancements" doYour control unit probably has surround modes to enhance stereo
recordings. And hall synthesizers can be bought on eBay.
This may sound weird, but I'm against meddling with recordings and
using weird made-up affect that have nothing to do with the original
recording. If it wasn't in the recording, I don't want to hear it. Not
everything was recorded in a cathedral either. If I can hear the strange
defects in a recording as it was made and mixed, that's plenty exciting
for me.
What about "Stadium"? <grin>Again, this all depends on the type of music as well. Wether or not
heavily produced studio recording from Yes sounds better in a
"concert hall" or "jazz club" setting is questionable.
That's not surprising. Consumer photographic and electronics products haveI had to screw with all the settings for type of sourround signals and
how they were outputted (HDMI/TOSlink or both) and what format and
compatibility modes to output to the decoder. The decoder only has
a few vague settings. Eventually it all worked, but the Blu-ray player
needed firmware updates.
Yes. Smarty's explanation is based on a misunderstanding of the Scheiber"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message news:kogsht$p8h$1@reader1.panix.com...
I've always wondered what that was. I seem to think I've seen that on
laserdiscs, and just checked mine, but none have it, not that I'd be able
to play it back correctly anyways.
The explanation given was almost completely incorrect.
The explanation for SQ was wrong?
You Sir are either an obnoxious troll or a deliberate liar, or perhaps"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message news:koisea$6mh$1@reader1.panix.com...
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message news:kogsht$p8h$1@reader1.panix.com...
I've always wondered what that was. I seem to think I've seen that on
laserdiscs, and just checked mine, but none have it, not that I'd
be able
to play it back correctly anyways.
The explanation given was almost completely incorrect.
The explanation for SQ was wrong?
Yes. Smarty's explanation is based on a misunderstanding of the
Scheiber patents (which I looked at last night). And while we're at
it, neither SQ nor QS is derived from nor dependent on the Scheiber
patents.
The explanation for SQ was wrong?"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message news:kogsht$p8h$1@reader1.panix.com...
I've always wondered what that was. I seem to think I've seen that on
laserdiscs, and just checked mine, but none have it, not that I'd be able
to play it back correctly anyways.
The explanation given was almost completely incorrect.
You have picked The Wrong Person to attack on knowledge of surround sound."Cydrome Leader" wrote in message news:koisea$6mh$1@reader1.panix.com...
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message news:kogsht$p8h$1@reader1.panix.com...
I've always wondered what that was. I seem to think I've seen that
on Laserdiscs, and just checked mine, but none have it, not that I'd be
able to play it back correctly anyways.
The explanation given was almost completely incorrect.
The explanation for SQ was wrong?
Yes. Smarty's explanation is based on a misunderstanding of the Scheiber
patents (which I looked at last night). And while we're at it, neither SQ
nor QS is derived from nor dependent on the Scheiber patents.
You Sir are either an obnoxious troll or a deliberate liar, or perhaps both.
You certainly lack technical grounds for your conclusions. And I am only
impressed with your ability in such matters to take 2 and 2 and come up with
2, not only in quad sound discussions but in others I have now begun to
witness in the area of CRT physics.
I am a degreed EE, and a member of Tau Beta Pi and Eta Kappa Nu. I used toI have no idea who you are or what your credentials are, but you certainly
lack technical prowess in the specific areas I am familiar which we have
mutually discussed in this forum.
I don't remember a patent dispute, but I've no doubt there was one. ThePeter Scheiber was indeed at the genesis of SQ, as much to provoke
a patent dispute with CBS as anything else.
That's hardly surprising. Though Scheiber's patents are pretty much valid, theHe was a musician who played lovely bassoon and his career had
essentially nothing to do with engineering, despite a great business
acumen and an ability to make claims which Ben Bauer and others
including Ray Dolby ultimately acquiesced to, mostly to avoid protracted
legal costs and battles.
What is [the] truth?I attended and supported some of this activity personally, and
know the truth, regardless of your claimed understanding.
You mean you don't like being told you're... mistaken.I know of what I speak. And you are a contemptible person.
Quad Bob is an acquaintance, whom I've not spoken with in several years.The link below is not entirely accurate but the referenced paragraph which I
repeat below is correct:
http://quadraphonicaudio.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/several-pages-of-quad-bob/
"Peter Scheiber invented SQ encoding... which he presented at the 1969
AES. Columbia bought his patent and rights and then Ben Bauer of Columbia
Labs named it SQ and took over the development of SQ quadraphonic
sound."
My incredulous reaction:If Peter Scheiber invented the SQ encoding system that Ben Bauer so
vigorously promoted -- that's news to me. His patent
https://www.google.com/patents/US3632886?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false
misses an important element of SQ, QS, and Ambisonic UHJ encoding --
quadrature phase shift. If I recall correctly, this shift reduces or
removes ambiguity between front and back signals.
analysis that quadrature modulation //DEMANDS A CLOCK//, or must have anPeter Scheiber was indeed at the genesis of SQ, as much to provoke
a patent dispute with CBS as anything else.
I don't remember a patent dispute, but I've no doubt there was one.
The problem is that the Scheiber patent is for a fairly crude quad
system, and there is nothing //fundamentally// innovative about it
that would allow it to have, shall we say, a "controlling interest" in
SQ or QS.
He was a musician who played lovely bassoon and his career had
essentially nothing to do with engineering, despite a great business
acumen and an ability to make claims which Ben Bauer and others
including Ray Dolby ultimately acquiesced to, mostly to avoid protracted
legal costs and battles.
That's hardly surprising. Though Scheiber's patents are pretty much
valid, the American patent system has long been a mess, with people
winning suits based on completely invalid patents. (The patent for
intermittent wipers is a classic example.)
If Peter Scheiber invented the SQ encoding system that Ben Bauer so
vigorously promoted -- that's news to me. His patent
https://www.google.com/patents/US3632886?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false
misses an important element of SQ, QS, and Ambisonic UHJ encoding --
quadrature phase shift. If I recall correctly, this shift reduces or
removes ambiguity between front and back signals.
William, recall from modulation and estimation theory and Fourier
Read the patents.Might I ask you to explain, for example, how putting a 90 degree phase shift
onto any of this audio would remove the ambiguity of front versus back? And
yes, I am aware that some but not all of the competing matrix schemes using
+/- 90 degree phase shifters in the rear made such specious claims.
In fact, Arfa said the same thing. But you didn't attack him, because youThese are not the logical or technically insightful comments of a degreed
E.E. regardless of claimed honor society memberships.
These are the statements of someone who does not understand
how either audio channels or CRTs work.
Hair-brained? You mean hare-brained.You may know how to read and quote others, but I would LOVE to hear you
explain technically how either of your hair-brained interpretations ACTUALLY
WORK from an engineering perspective. Any legitimate engineer who knows
these topics correctly could NEVER BUY INTO THIS BULLSHIT.
No comment.I was a member of Tau Beta Pi and shudder to think that other members of
this prestigious society could be so entirely clueless.
One merely buys one's way into the IEEE. It is not honorary.I also am surprised you are not or were not a member of the IEEE.
Precisely! This was the reason I asked you to explain why / how youTo "Smarty"...
There's a difference between knowing and understanding. It's not
enough to know the facts. Understanding requires the mental effort to
"wrap your head around" a concept and make it your own. I like to say
that if you can't explain something (in relatively simple terms), you
don't really understand it yourself.
I am extremely familiar with Scheiber's work and resulting patent, whichHere again are the two patents I referred to.
https://www.google.com/patents/US3632886 (click on Abstract)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3971890?pg=PA5&dq=sq+quadraphonic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=47isUYfwOeP-igKhnoHIDg&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBA
Please at least browse them. If you have questions, ask and I will try
to answer them (though I don't have detailed knowledge of every aspect
of matrixed surround).
When I was in graduate school and earning a bit of extra income as a"
Because the following comments are so ad-hominem, they require a
response.
Might I ask you to explain, for example, how putting a 90 degree
phase shift onto any of this audio would remove the ambiguity of
front versus back? And yes, I am aware that some but not all of the
competing matrix schemes using +/- 90 degree phase shifters in the
rear made such specious claims.
Read the patents.
Hardly, I perceive him as a very knowledgeable repair technician withIn fact, Arfa said the same thing. But you didn't attack him, because
you perceive him as an expert.
Absolutely true, and as I mentioned in my prior reply, I too joined as aYou may know how to read and quote others, but I would LOVE to hear
you explain technically how either of your hair-brained
interpretations ACTUALLY WORK from an engineering perspective. Any
legitimate engineer who knows these topics correctly could NEVER BUY
INTO THIS BULLSHIT.
Hair-brained? You mean hare-brained.
Excellent comment!
I also am surprised you are not or were not a member of the IEEE.
One merely buys one's way into the IEEE. It is not honorary.
You don't have to be a graduate EE to join. I entered as an
undergraduate, around 1967 (which is pushing 50 years), and remember a
special issue on the Fast Fourier Transform, which was then coming
into common use.
I learned later that the FFT had been known for quite some time earlierYou don't have to be a graduate EE to join. I entered as an undergraduate,
around 1967 (which is pushing 50 years),
and remember a special issue on the Fast Fourier Transform,
which was then coming into common use.
Absolutely true, and as I mentioned in my prior reply, I too
joined as a student, quite a few years before you, and actually
do remember the 'discovery' of the FFT in that same time period.
In the early days of matrixed surround, Michael Gerzon wrote an article for aWhy did you make the statement that a 90 degree phase shift
added to the rear discrete audio channels in any encoder which
mixes down to 2 channels, to use your exact words, "removes
ambiguity between front and back signals" ?
Once again, you dodge the question, and given that this is now the 4thOn 6/4/2013 9:45 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
To "Smarty"...
Precisely! This was the reason I asked you to explain why / how you
could make the statement that a 90 degree phase shift added to the
rear discrete audio channels in any encoder which mixes down to 2
channels, to use your exact words, "removes ambiguity between front
and back signals". Again, to borrow your exact words, "If you can't
explain something (in relatively simple terms), you don't really
understand it yourself".
Here again are the two patents I referred to.
https://www.google.com/patents/US3632886 (click on Abstract)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3971890?pg=PA5&dq=sq+quadraphonic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=47isUYfwOeP-igKhnoHIDg&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBA
Please at least browse them. If you have questions, ask and I will
try to answer them (though I don't have detailed knowledge of every
aspect of matrixed surround).
I am extremely familiar with Scheiber's work and resulting patent,
which I read in various stages of its submission, and have certainly
more than 'browsed' Bauer's patent and several others when they were
issued. I thank you for the opportunity to ask you any questions, and
will, once again ask you the simple question:
Why did you make the statement that a 90 degree phase shift added to
the rear discrete audio channels in any encoder which mixes down to 2
channels, to use your exact words, "removes ambiguity between front
and back signals" ?
Forgive my skepticism and my continuing disrespectful tone. If we were
both automotive engineers, and you made a statement that the anti
gravity feature of your engine provided enhanced gas mileage, I would
initiate the same type of request for clarification. Those who
understand modulation theory and these specific types of surround
sound devices would never make such a statement, and I am merely
asking you to explain how such an outcome could occur.
I have given a reference. Please get back to us once you've read it.Once again, you dodge the question, and given that this is now
the 4th attempt I have made to get an answer, I will save you
the embarrassment of now saying that there is no technically
correct answer, if, in fact, you even realize this is true.