"Smarty" wrote in message ...
On 6/3/2013 4:49 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...
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.
You have picked The Wrong Person to attack on knowledge of surround sound.
I 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 am a degreed EE, and a member of Tau Beta Pi and Eta Kappa Nu. I used to
make live recordings (stereo, quad, and Ambisonic), and have rubbed noses with
a few (not many) movers and shakers in the audio industry. At one time I was
the only audiophile reviewer who took surround sound seriously.
Peter 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.)
I used to get the JAES. (I'm still a member, though I haven't paid dues in
years. Saul Marantz and Jon Dahlquist supported my membership.) My favorite
part of the magazine was George Augspurger's trashing of "new" audio patents.
I attended and supported some of this activity personally, and
know the truth, regardless of your claimed understanding.
What is [the] truth?
I know of what I speak. And you are a contemptible person.
You mean you don't like being told you're... mistaken.
The link below is not entirely accurate but the referenced paragraph which I
repeat below is correct:
http://quadraphonicaudio.wordpress.c...s-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."
Quad Bob is an acquaintance, whom I've not spoken with in several years.
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/US363...page&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.
I checked the "Quadraphony" collection from the AES, published in 1975. It is
not comprehensive, of course, but it contains nothing from Peter Scheiber that
even remotely suggests SQ. If such exists, please provide a reference or send
a copy.