:We all know that you think you know
everything about eveyrthing, and you've bragged about being the best in
your field."

I do come off as a pompous ass huh. This best in the field, someone else said that. And it only applies to this state.

Your field is not my field. I am also not what I once was. My ield actully narrowed, it was lucrative for a time, but no more.

Yeah, twenty years ago I was the HNIC. I knew now to get sit done, the best, the fastest. The owners of the company did what I told them to do. If you really have to have proof, /I can arrainge a meeting. They would testify to this in court.

Anyway, enough of this tweet ****.

What about this dude's SL-2700 ? You WANT this to work, know why ? It is not SuperBeta, and has no RMS detector ?which means COPYGUARD DOES NOT WORK. It just records it.

Now if you take that Beta tape and record it back to VHS, the copyguard is still there. It will **** up the copy just like the original did.

But as the proud owner of the SL-2700 or some other nice Soy deck, HYOU can view the movie at any time. I won't be selling mine. (SL-HFR60 with the HFP100)

"This is called DynaQuad. It was first officially proposed by David Hafler..

OFFICIALLY. The same thing has been caled everything. Quad this and quad that. From Alphaquad to Omegaquad lol. And when that $65 Dolby chip is in simple surround, it simply just nulls part of the L+R signal. It does work a bit better than a resistor though, if that's what you want.

"

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I hope the following doesn't sound unduly ad hominem. However, the differences
are plain.

The problem with you "beta was better" guys is you never admit that during
the great vhs vs. beta wars, 99% of the people who bought them had crap
televisions that probably couldn't produce 280 lines of resolution.

I'd bet most tv's in the late 70's when home video started to gain ground
still had some vacuum tubes.

It was a coax hookup, not line outs.

If there was a difference on paper, thats where the difference ended.

The simple fact of the matter was, most people simply could not tell the
difference from one to the other. People with trained eyes, possibly.

There was no day and night difference between them, there couldn't of been
because few people owned any kind of set to watch them on, to notice the
difference.

The only credit I give the beta format was when the copy protection ****
came out (copyguard), what worked on vhs, didn't on beta. So if you needed
to make an archival copy of something, doing it from beta worked better.

I'm with the other guys, mechanically, beta machines were built like ****
and didn't last long in normal use. Transport problems were difficult to
repair and usually didn't last. Being they were usually more expensive than
the vhs counterparts, they were just a poor value for the money.

-bruce

You do know that Ampex started the development of VHS before they
sold out to a consortium of japanese companies to raise much needed
funds for their financial survival? Ampex wanted to make a cheap,
scaled down version of their existing 1% 2" tape systems, to sell at
an affordable price for consumers but ran into cash flow problems.

That's new to me. I don't see why Japanese companies aren't capable of
designing poor-quality products on their own. (RCA had been working on a
consumer video recorder for years, but felt it wouldn't be marketable until it
hit the same price point as color TV -- $500.)


The Betamax machines I worked on treated the tape
a lot worse than VHS.

That's not altogether surprising. Beta pulled the tape into an elongated loop
around the drum, to isolate its motion -- which is why Beta has less line
jitter.

Some had the tape sliding against itself to simplify
the loading and unloading.

I'm not sure I understand.


Having seen both in use in a broadcast station, the cheap VHS
was much better than any Beta, other than the overpriced ENG
version that only got 20 minutes per tape. All Sony machines
needed a TBC to meet FCC requirements, but I could feed a $79
VHS tape into our Vital Industries Squeezezoom and get a picture
that was stable enough to broadcast.

You are one of the most-knowledgeable people (about anything) I've ever met,
but here I have to say "No way, José." VHS has serious time-base problems.

I first noticed this the early 80s when I was scanning a late-night show I'd
recorded * -- why was the picture visibly sharper than in normal play? I
looked closely and saw the reason -- severe line jitter. When scanning, there
was either less of it (for the same reason analog recorders have less flutter
at higher speeds), or the eye did a better job of averaging the errors.

Just as I judge audio equipment by what I hear, I judge video equipment by
what I see. When VHS recordings have obvious time-base problems -- what am I
supposed to conclude?

* The machine was a high-end RCA-branded Panasonic.

"Bruce Esquibel" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I hope the following doesn't sound unduly ad hominem.
However, the differences are plain.

The problem with you "beta was better" guys is you never admit that during
the great VHS vs. Beta wars, 99% of the people who bought them had crap
televisions that probably couldn't produce 280 lines of resolution.

I owned an NAD MR-20A at one time, and my SuperBeta HiFi machine made
recordings that were //almost// indistinguishable from the broadcast.
Obviously, if they were played on modern displays, the loss of quality would
be more visible.


The simple fact of the matter was, most people simply could not tell the
difference from one to the other. People with trained eyes, possibly.

You don't need trained eyes to see the difference. It isn't at all subtle.


There was no day and night difference between them. There couldn't
have been because few people owned any kind of set to watch them
on, to notice the difference.

You're kidding, of course. One of the most-noticeable problems with VHS is the
lousy color. Not only are hues sometimes off, but the chrominance doesn't
always fill the luminance!

I can't speak for or against the quality of Beta transports. They were
more-complex than VHS, so, in principle, they should have been less reliable.
I never had trouble with my SL-HF900 deck. It still works.

On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:53:34 -0400, Smarty wrote:

On 5/29/2013 12:59 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:28:34 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

If fuses blew on the amp, I'd not be in a hurry to start replacing them.
I'd probably disable channels in the surround decoder.
Chuckle. I have an old Heathkit AA-2010 quad channel amplifier.
http://www.audioasylumtrader.com/ca/ca.html?ca=23000
I'm down to one channel now, as the other three have blown up over the
years. When the last channel dies, I'll probably fix it and start
over.

My ears are somewhat screwed up, so quad sound never did anything for
me. In the early 1970's, I attened an AES (Audio Engineering Society)
convention, where the hot topic was quadraphonic everything. I tried
on quad earphones and heard nothing interesting. I listened to a
serious discussion between "experts" over whether the listener wants
concert hall realism, which meant sitting in front of the orchestra in
stereo, or whether he wants to be "immersed" in the sound, which meant
sitting in the middle of the orchestra in quad. Meanwhile, the movie
theaters were having a bit of a problem with quad sound, which tended
to produce dead spots.

Subsequent to the original release of quad headphones, in the late 60s,
considerable research was done on ear / brain localization and spatial
imaging, funded in part by the Air Force / DARPA (to facilitate heads up
display direction of arrival cues for pilots being fired upon from 360
degrees in azimuth). Some seminal work was done at the University of
Darmstadt, Germany, the prior art upon which Bob Carver's original
"sonic hologram' patent was granted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver

The technical significance of the findings was the intra-aural spacing
of the typical human and the resulting time difference of arrival from
the earlier to the later ear, combined with the comb filter created by
the external ear's ridge structure (pinnae) allowed the brain to build a
mental map of where things arrived from acoustically. A given angle of
arrival in azimuth and elevation at a given frequency would have a
learned interpretation of where it arose from. This was in addition to
the reverb decay times and spectra influencing / defining the enclosed
space in which the audio was captured / simulated.

The bottom line was that headset design could not inherently replicate
the intra-aural delays and especially the comb filter results accurately
for all individuals, since each of us has a unique set of parameters.
Partially successful alternatives such as binaural recording and
playback have overcome this to some extent but not fully.

Thanks. That explains why I didn't hear anything resembling
quadraphonic sound. My ears are bad, but not that bad.

There were others in the group that claimed the quad headset was
wonderful sounding but they would be fiddling with the controls, or
moving the headset around trying to "improve" the experience. I also
noticed a few puzzled looks as they were playing with the headset. I
few shows later, someone demonstrating an improved version of the
headset. Instead of wearing the headset over the ears, it was more
like a hat, with 4 speakers at the end of support rods spaced about 5
cm away from the ears. While obviously impractical, it was presented
as some kind of demonstration of how a quad headset should sound. I
didn't try it.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

William Sommerwerck wrote:

You do know that Ampex started the development of VHS before they
sold out to a consortium of japanese companies to raise much needed
funds for their financial survival? Ampex wanted to make a cheap,
scaled down version of their existing 1% 2" tape systems, to sell at
an affordable price for consumers but ran into cash flow problems.

That's new to me. I don't see why Japanese companies aren't capable of
designing poor-quality products on their own. (RCA had been working on a
consumer video recorder for years, but felt it wouldn't be marketable until it
hit the same price point as color TV -- $500.)

The Betamax machines I worked on treated the tape
a lot worse than VHS.

That's not altogether surprising. Beta pulled the tape into an elongated loop
around the drum, to isolate its motion -- which is why Beta has less line
jitter.

Some had the tape sliding against itself to simplify
the loading and unloading.

I'm not sure I understand.


the tape was wrapped around the drum, then around a guidepost. The
back side of the film was dragged across the outside of the film on its
way back into the cartridge. VHS pulled the tape around the drum from
both sides, and didn't have some of the tape handling problems of the
Beta machines.

We offered U-matic for our public access channel at United Video
Cablevision in Cincinnati. One church paid to air their services but
insisted on beta. They supplied a huge, Sony beta deck. It, and the
video quality was crap. The chroma was unstable, and the sync levels
didn't meet FCC specs, so I had to let the dark, muddy video go out. It
was a minority church that had screamed racism, because 'Only a white
church can afford U-matic!!!'


Having seen both in use in a broadcast station, the cheap VHS
was much better than any Beta, other than the overpriced ENG
version that only got 20 minutes per tape. All Sony machines
needed a TBC to meet FCC requirements, but I could feed a $79
VHS tape into our Vital Industries Squeezezoom and get a picture
that was stable enough to broadcast.

You are one of the most-knowledgeable people (about anything) I've ever met,
but here I have to say "No way, José." VHS has serious time-base problems.


You don't understand what the SqueezeZoom was. It was the first
broadcast quality Digital Video Effects system on the market. It sold
for $250,000, and was made in Gainesville, Florida. It had two pages of
digitized video, and built one while displaying the other. Considering
that it used a Z80B processor and slower than dirt interleaved RAM, it
was an amazing piece of equipment. It filled a full relay rack, and the
+5 volt power supply was a linear three phase monster with a clean 1,000
amp output. It could take the output of a good VHS machine with no
problem, but I never saw a Beta that it liked.

You've likely seen one of it's best known uses at the end of the old
Sonny & Cher show, when they walked out in each set of costumes from
each skit, one after another. The images were combined into a video with
all of them with no obvious degrading of the image. It was the first
time it could be done in post production, with 2" video tape instead of
shooting film and sending it to and outside company for optical work.
Studios were begging for a chance to get one as fast as possible.

BTW: The custom video ADC was over $1400.


I first noticed this the early 80s when I was scanning a late-night show I'd
recorded * -- why was the picture visibly sharper than in normal play? I
looked closely and saw the reason -- severe line jitter. When scanning, there
was either less of it (for the same reason analog recorders have less flutter
at higher speeds), or the eye did a better job of averaging the errors.

Just as I judge audio equipment by what I hear, I judge video equipment by
what I see. When VHS recordings have obvious time-base problems -- what am I
supposed to conclude?

* The machine was a high-end RCA-branded Panasonic.

wrote:

:We all know that you think you know
everything about eveyrthing, and you've bragged about being the best in
your field."

I do come off as a pompous ass huh. This best in the field, someone else said that. And it only applies to this state.


I hope that I'm never in your state. From what you post, it's really
screwed you over.


Your field is not my field. I am also not what I once was. My ield actully narrowed, it was lucrative for a time, but no more.

Yeah, twenty years ago I was the HNIC. I knew now to get sit done, the best, the fastest. The owners of the company did what I told them to do. If you really have to have proof, /I can arrainge a meeting. They would testify to this in court.


Yawn. Don't you ever get tired of beating off in public?


Anyway, enough of this tweet ****.

What about this dude's SL-2700 ? You WANT this to work, know why ? It is not SuperBeta, and has no RMS detector ?which means COPYGUARD DOES NOT WORK. It just records it.


yawn. $5 at a thrift store and you'll find the old strippers, if you
are a criminal. Do you have a good waveform monitor & Vectorscope?
Look at the output of that old junk and you'll cringe.


Now if you take that Beta tape and record it back to VHS, the copyguard is still there. It will **** up the copy just like the original did.


Yawn....................


But as the proud owner of the SL-2700 or some other nice Soy deck, HYOU can view the movie at any time. I won't be selling mine. (SL-HFR60 with the HFP100)


I have absolutely no interest in your 1970s grade video junk. I have
no desire to make illegal copies of movies. I can buy literally
thousands of VHS movies for 25 cents each, but I rarely see a Beta
tape. I have a modest collection of DVDs and an internet ready Blu-Ray
player that lets me watch thousands of HD movies from websites like Hulu
or Crackle.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...

The movie folks do a really half assed job with surround sound
is the short version of the story.

That might be true. But I've spent many years listening to orchestral
recordings enhanced with surround -- either from the recording itself, or a
hall synthesizer -- and the improvement is huge.

They probably do those recordings correctly, and the audience for such
recording will care.

I've seen pretty recent movies where the surround sound effects are
completely random and pointless. One movie has surround sound for a bird
flying around, and it had nothing to do with the scene at all. It's like
there was a budget for 30 seconds of surround sound and somebody played
some canned sound effects to meet a quota.

Then or couse when people were being chased around in the woods and
murdered there was no surround sound. That would have been the perfect
time for such effects- hearing some twigs snap over here or there.

Circa 1980, I had a really high-quality quad system, with Lux electronics and
Infinity speakers. People -- including a hi-fi dealer -- said "I don't like
quad, but I like your system".

How were those extra channels added and extracted from the regular two
channel recordings, other than with one of those boxes?

"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...


The movie folks do a really half-assed job with surround sound
is the short version of the story.

That might be true. But I've spent many years listening to orchestral
recordings enhanced with surround -- either from the recording itself,
or a hall synthesizer -- and the improvement is huge.

They probably do those recordings correctly, and the audience for such
recording will care.

Absolutely.


Then, of course, when people were being chased around in the woods and
murdered there was no surround sound. That would have been the perfect
time for such effects -- hearing some twigs snap over here or there.

Point well-taken. Movies often miss the opportunity to create a truly
immersive experience.


Circa 1980, I had a really high-quality quad system, with Lux electronics
and Infinity speakers. People -- including a hi-fi dealer -- said "I don't
like
quad, but I like your system".

How were those extra channels added and extracted from the regular two
channel recordings, other than with one of those boxes?

I had a variety of sources and processors. At the top was discrete open-reel
tape, which produced the most-spectacular consumer sound, until multi-ch SACD
came along. (I still have the tapes and an Otari quad deck.) It is unfortunate
that Sony has refused to reissue its huge library of Columbia surround
recordings on SACD.

For quad phonograph records, there was the Audionics Space & Image Composer,
an advanced SQ decoder that could wrap stereo recordings around you, often to
great effect. I also had an Ambisonic decoder for Ambisonic recordings. It
could do things similar to the Audionics, without requiring logic circuitry,
and did a superb job of ambience extraction.

For stereo recordings, I had an audio/pulse Model One, the first consumer
digital ambience device. It didn't generate high echo density, but used
tastefully, it could greatly enhance the sense of space. (I later replaced it
with the improved audio/pulse 1000.)

My current system includes the JVC XP-A1000 and Yamaha DSP-3000 hall
synthesizers. These are modeled on real halls (such as the Concertgebouw). You
can pick an appropriate hall (concert, recital, cathedral, opera, stadium),
then tweak the settings (if you wish) to fine-tune the sound to match the
recording's ambience. These devices are so natural-sounding, you cannot hear
them working until you shut them off.

I have a 6.1 system (no center speaker) with Apogee speakers and Curl
amplification.

There is no excuse to listen in two channels. Stereo is technically and
aesthetically obsolete.

On 5/30/2013 11:39 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:53:34 -0400, Smarty wrote:

On 5/29/2013 12:59 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:28:34 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

If fuses blew on the amp, I'd not be in a hurry to start replacing them.
I'd probably disable channels in the surround decoder.
Chuckle. I have an old Heathkit AA-2010 quad channel amplifier.
http://www.audioasylumtrader.com/ca/ca.html?ca=23000
I'm down to one channel now, as the other three have blown up over the
years. When the last channel dies, I'll probably fix it and start
over.

My ears are somewhat screwed up, so quad sound never did anything for
me. In the early 1970's, I attened an AES (Audio Engineering Society)
convention, where the hot topic was quadraphonic everything. I tried
on quad earphones and heard nothing interesting. I listened to a
serious discussion between "experts" over whether the listener wants
concert hall realism, which meant sitting in front of the orchestra in
stereo, or whether he wants to be "immersed" in the sound, which meant
sitting in the middle of the orchestra in quad. Meanwhile, the movie
theaters were having a bit of a problem with quad sound, which tended
to produce dead spots.
Subsequent to the original release of quad headphones, in the late 60s,
considerable research was done on ear / brain localization and spatial
imaging, funded in part by the Air Force / DARPA (to facilitate heads up
display direction of arrival cues for pilots being fired upon from 360
degrees in azimuth). Some seminal work was done at the University of
Darmstadt, Germany, the prior art upon which Bob Carver's original
"sonic hologram' patent was granted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver

The technical significance of the findings was the intra-aural spacing
of the typical human and the resulting time difference of arrival from
the earlier to the later ear, combined with the comb filter created by
the external ear's ridge structure (pinnae) allowed the brain to build a
mental map of where things arrived from acoustically. A given angle of
arrival in azimuth and elevation at a given frequency would have a
learned interpretation of where it arose from. This was in addition to
the reverb decay times and spectra influencing / defining the enclosed
space in which the audio was captured / simulated.

The bottom line was that headset design could not inherently replicate
the intra-aural delays and especially the comb filter results accurately
for all individuals, since each of us has a unique set of parameters.
Partially successful alternatives such as binaural recording and
playback have overcome this to some extent but not fully.
Thanks. That explains why I didn't hear anything resembling
quadraphonic sound. My ears are bad, but not that bad.

There were others in the group that claimed the quad headset was
wonderful sounding but they would be fiddling with the controls, or
moving the headset around trying to "improve" the experience. I also
noticed a few puzzled looks as they were playing with the headset. I
few shows later, someone demonstrating an improved version of the
headset. Instead of wearing the headset over the ears, it was more
like a hat, with 4 speakers at the end of support rods spaced about 5
cm away from the ears. While obviously impractical, it was presented
as some kind of demonstration of how a quad headset should sound. I
didn't try it.
The spacing of the drivers away from the ears did achieve a reasonable
degree of rear channel and front to back spatial imaging, since it could
exploit the outer ears and their frequency dependent filtering. It is
not a coincidence that "Mother Nature" chose the spacing of the ridges
of the outer ear to act as reflectors and attenuators precisely in the
acoustical wavelengths where we perceive high frequency audio in space.
Think of the outer ear as a Yagi, a beam former, or a synthesized
aperture and you begin to get the idea nature has provided foe eons not
just on humans.

The manikin heads designed for holding binaural recording mikes will
usually provide a generic version of these same folds. Kinda works for
everybody, but not very credibly compared to the real thing.

The work one of my groups did for Wright Patterson Air Force Base in the
early 80s used FFTs and convolvers to synthesize a transfer function
which would place a sound source anywhere in the azimuthal and elevation
planes so as to provide a rapid direction-of-arrival cue to warn against
incoming missiles. Unlike Carver's "sonic hologram" which needed and
used inter-aural cross-talk cancelling to make speakers appear much more
like headphones in terms of left to right discrimination, the approach
at SRL was intended to use pilot headphones and modify the perceived
spatial presentation with an early DSP solution. Today's chip sets would
have made the implementation a piece of cake, but 35 years ago the world
was Z80's, 6502s, 6800s, etc. It was user calibrated, however, and this
was the key to getting really accurate and repeatable directional cues.
And it all came down to the comb filter coefficients and how they
constructively and destructively combined the energy from a few hundred
HZ up.

On 5/30/2013 3:26 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...


The movie folks do a really half-assed job with surround sound
is the short version of the story.

That might be true. But I've spent many years listening to orchestral
recordings enhanced with surround -- either from the recording itself,
or a hall synthesizer -- and the improvement is huge.

They probably do those recordings correctly, and the audience for such
recording will care.

Absolutely.


Then, of course, when people were being chased around in the woods and
murdered there was no surround sound. That would have been the perfect
time for such effects -- hearing some twigs snap over here or there.

Point well-taken. Movies often miss the opportunity to create a truly
immersive experience.


Circa 1980, I had a really high-quality quad system, with Lux
electronics
and Infinity speakers. People -- including a hi-fi dealer -- said "I
don't like
quad, but I like your system".

How were those extra channels added and extracted from the regular two
channel recordings, other than with one of those boxes?

I had a variety of sources and processors. At the top was discrete
open-reel tape, which produced the most-spectacular consumer sound,
until multi-ch SACD came along. (I still have the tapes and an Otari
quad deck.) It is unfortunate that Sony has refused to reissue its
huge library of Columbia surround recordings on SACD.

Open reel was the best. JVC CD4 discrete disks were the worst......
Pre-recorded open reel tapes were few and expensive, but boy did they
sound wonderful.

For quad phonograph records, there was the Audionics Space & Image
Composer, an advanced SQ decoder that could wrap stereo recordings
around you, often to great effect. I also had an Ambisonic decoder for
Ambisonic recordings. It could do things similar to the Audionics,
without requiring logic circuitry, and did a superb job of ambience
extraction.

For stereo recordings, I had an audio/pulse Model One, the first
consumer digital ambience device. It didn't generate high echo
density, but used tastefully, it could greatly enhance the sense of
space. (I later replaced it with the improved audio/pulse 1000.)

My Audio Pulse hissed and made a lot of background noise. The pushbutton
switch array also got intolerably noisey. The Advent SoundSpace was a
huge improvement.

My current system includes the JVC XP-A1000 and Yamaha DSP-3000 hall
synthesizers. These are modeled on real halls (such as the
Concertgebouw). You can pick an appropriate hall (concert, recital,
cathedral, opera, stadium), then tweak the settings (if you wish) to
fine-tune the sound to match the recording's ambience. These devices
are so natural-sounding, you cannot hear them working until you shut
them off.

I have a 6.1 system (no center speaker) with Apogee speakers and Curl
amplification.

There is no excuse to listen in two channels. Stereo is technically
and aesthetically obsolete.

On 5/30/2013 3:26 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...


The movie folks do a really half-assed job with surround sound
is the short version of the story.

That might be true. But I've spent many years listening to orchestral
recordings enhanced with surround -- either from the recording itself,
or a hall synthesizer -- and the improvement is huge.

They probably do those recordings correctly, and the audience for such
recording will care.

Absolutely.


Then, of course, when people were being chased around in the woods and
murdered there was no surround sound. That would have been the perfect
time for such effects -- hearing some twigs snap over here or there.

Point well-taken. Movies often miss the opportunity to create a truly
immersive experience.


Circa 1980, I had a really high-quality quad system, with Lux
electronics
and Infinity speakers. People -- including a hi-fi dealer -- said "I
don't like
quad, but I like your system".

How were those extra channels added and extracted from the regular two
channel recordings, other than with one of those boxes?

I had a variety of sources and processors. At the top was discrete
open-reel tape, which produced the most-spectacular consumer sound,
until multi-ch SACD came along. (I still have the tapes and an Otari
quad deck.) It is unfortunate that Sony has refused to reissue its
huge library of Columbia surround recordings on SACD.

For quad phonograph records, there was the Audionics Space & Image
Composer, an advanced SQ decoder that could wrap stereo recordings
around you, often to great effect. I also had an Ambisonic decoder for
Ambisonic recordings. It could do things similar to the Audionics,
without requiring logic circuitry, and did a superb job of ambience
extraction.

For stereo recordings, I had an audio/pulse Model One, the first
consumer digital ambience device. It didn't generate high echo
density, but used tastefully, it could greatly enhance the sense of
space. (I later replaced it with the improved audio/pulse 1000.)

My current system includes the JVC XP-A1000 and Yamaha DSP-3000 hall
synthesizers. These are modeled on real halls (such as the
Concertgebouw). You can pick an appropriate hall (concert, recital,
cathedral, opera, stadium), then tweak the settings (if you wish) to
fine-tune the sound to match the recording's ambience. These devices
are so natural-sounding, you cannot hear them working until you shut
them off.

I have a 6.1 system (no center speaker) with Apogee speakers and Curl
amplification.

I had Dayton Wrights, some Quad ESLs, now totally Martin Logan except
for subs.

There is no excuse to listen in two channels. Stereo is technically
and aesthetically obsolete.

I had Dayton Wrights...

I owned Dayton Wright //dynamic speakers// (trade name: Watson). Quite good.
Had unbelievable subwoofers that got 15Hz -- solid -- out of a tiny box filled
with SF6. (Sound familiar?) Why no one has "stolen" Wright's long-expired
patents is beyond me.


...some Quad ESLs, now totally Martin-Logan except for subs.

If ever I sell a screenplay, I will replace my belovéd Apogees with the big
Martin-Logans.

I don't know who you are, "Smarty", but its rare to meet an audiophile who
understands the significance of surround.

"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.

"How were those extra channels added and extracted from
the regular two channel recordings, other than with one of
those boxes?"

SQ was a full-range system without any frequency discrimination. The encoding
and decoding were more-complex than simply adding and subtracting signals.

On 5/30/2013 5:10 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
I had Dayton Wrights...

I owned Dayton Wright //dynamic speakers// (trade name: Watson). Quite
good. Had unbelievable subwoofers that got 15Hz -- solid -- out of a
tiny box filled with SF6. (Sound familiar?) Why no one has "stolen"
Wright's long-expired patents is beyond me.

I am not familiar with those subs but you certainly have evoked my
curiosity! Tiny boxes and 15 Hz --solid-- are not likely
companions......... My brief flirtation with tiny box subs, ala Carver /
Sunfire True Subs, was disappointing in that regard, although they did
make a lot of subsonic energy considering their size. Now I am wondering
what Wright's sub approach actually was. I still have a remaining
Sunfire True Sub and some Carver Amazings here with quite an arsenal of
low frequency drivers, but they have not been turned on in over a year.
My Logan subs have been from Hsu Research, perhaps a bit pedestrian but
very nice to listen to.




...some Quad ESLs, now totally Martin-Logan except for subs.

If ever I sell a screenplay, I will replace my belovéd Apogees with
the big Martin-Logans.

If you are dreaming of owning the Logan Statement, I totally understand.
The Apogees will be hard to improve upon.

I don't know who you are, "Smarty", but its rare to meet an audiophile
who understands the significance of surround.
My vocation and avocation since the 1950s has been electrical
engineering, all things electronic, ham radio, audio, video, computers,
and the nearly endless array of gadgets which rely on electronics. A CES
I attended in the 1960s exposed me to the first quad systems then
emerging, and I had a small hand in working with a Toronto company to
develop a gated 4 channel decoder using logic to steer rear channel
content based on primitive rules from left and right amplitudes. Its
intended market was movie theaters.

It was very clear to me right from the start that reconstructing some
information behind the listener had tremendous potential to improve the
listening experience. "True" quad open reel was a joy to behold, and
well miked and properly mastered content was just a quantum leap beyond
anything I had ever heard. Even relatively small speakers allowed a
credible and extremely engaging sound field. I think I was using AR or
Rectilinear boxes at that time. There was a collection of open reel
releases including Joni Mitchell from Verve or some similarly named
company that were among my favorites. Carly Simon and James Taylor,
married at the time, did a spectacular rendition of "Mocking Bird" in
true 4 channel open reel that was another spectacular demonstration of
the potential of surround. The classical releases were, for the most
part, wonderful as well.

As an old geezer, I can attribute my original surround passion to a
Motorola "Vibrasonic" spring delay reverb installed in my 1962 Stingray.
Other than the occasional microphonics which arose from the inevitable
bumps in the road, it created a very satisfying presence and bloom which
filled the passenger compartment.

To this day I bemoan the absence of a really rich multichannel format
for distribution of recorded music. The trend to mediocrity, especially
mp3, is ironic given the low costs of analog to digital and digital to
analog converters, storage, etc. If anything, the bar should be rising,
but instead has been lowering. Was it PT Barnum who said that 'Nobody
has ever gone broke underestimating the taste of the American public'?

On 5/30/2013 8:12 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"How were those extra channels added and extracted from
the regular two channel recordings, other than with one of
those boxes?"

SQ was a full-range system without any frequency discrimination. The
encoding and decoding were more-complex than simply adding and
subtracting signals.

The more advanced systems essentially used voltage controlled amplifiers
to synthesize the rear channels using amplitude and phase relationships
from the front left and front right to make somewhat sensible decisions
about when and where to steer energy into the rear channels. The notion
of a "matrix" to construct the coefficients for the steering logic was
developed, in which the VCAs and their control voltages had weighted,
time-dependent control signals. Choosing appropriate time constants for
the attack, release, etc. was artistic and musically dependent, and the
eventually winning techniques such as Columbia SQ were noted for being
comparatively gentle / subtle and without noticeable pumping or breathing.

"Smarty" wrote in message ...

Now I am wondering what Wright's sub approach actually was.

Sulfur hexafluoride, same as the 'stats. The woofers had a volume of about 2
cubic feet. When I put 15Hz into them, nothing was audible -- except for
everything loose in the room rattling. These woofers had extremely low
distortion -- around 2% at 20Hz.


If you are dreaming of owning the Logan Statement, I totally understand. The
Apogees will be hard to improve upon.

Hard, but not impossible. There's an Australian company that makes a version
with a true-ribbon titanium midrange.


To this day I bemoan the absence of a really rich multichannel format for
distribution of recorded music. The trend to mediocrity, especially mp3, is
ironic given the low costs of analog to digital and digital to analog
converters, storage, etc. If anything, the bar should be rising, It instead
has been lowering. Was it PT Barnum who said that 'Nobody has ever gone
broke underestimating the taste of the American public'?

If by "rich", you mean "supporting a wide range of formats" (such as
Ambisonics in addition to quadrifontal formats), I agree. But we have at least
two high-quality uncompressed formats that aren't likely to go away --
multi-ch SACD and Blu-ray audio.

The more advanced systems essentially used voltage controlled amplifiers to
synthesize the rear channels using amplitude and phase relationships from
the front left and front right to make somewhat sensible decisions about
when and where to steer energy into the rear channels.

The correct term is "isolate" or "extract", not synthesize. The rear channels
are always present. Advanced decoders (such as Tate SQ and VarioMatrix QS)
selectively cancel the interfering crosstalk, based on which channel is
momentarily dominant.

On 5/31/2013 3:05 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
The more advanced systems essentially used voltage controlled
amplifiers to synthesize the rear channels using amplitude and phase
relationships from the front left and front right to make somewhat
sensible decisions about when and where to steer energy into the rear
channels.

The correct term is "isolate" or "extract", not synthesize. The rear
channels are always present. Advanced decoders (such as Tate SQ and
VarioMatrix QS) selectively cancel the interfering crosstalk, based on
which channel is momentarily dominant.

I would perhaps resort to semantic quibbling in this case, since the
'isolation' or 'extraction' of a left or right rear channel would
presume that they had been encoded into the mix in some explicit way to
begin with, and could thus be extracted using some reciprocal process or
decoding scheme. The original front channels did not possess the
bandwidth nor the dynamic range to permit separate channels to be
encoded, and any scheme which claims to fold 4 channels into two and
then magically permits the original 4 to be regenerated would need to
use alternate modulation schemes, thereby rendering downward
compatibility with existing stereo to be none existent. Fundamentally,
you cannot take two channels of 20 KHz bandwidth and (let's say) 70 dB
of dynamic range such as may be found in a standard LP record and
somehow encode anything additional without either spoiling the original
stereo L and R pair, eliminating conventional stereo playback, or
creating a new and different encoding scheme from scratch. JVC
approached the problem with adding an ultrasonic subcarrier and then
modulating it, adding true additional channel capacity in the process
(in much the same manner as FM monaural added FM stereo with its similar
pilot and subcarrier multiplexor). Sadly, the JVC ultrasonic subcarrier
imposed on the vinyl, groove, was both extremely fragile and very
susceptible to noise, despite the specially shaped and designed stylus
by Shibata which knew how to deal with it.

My distinction between 'synthesize' and 'extract' really goes beyond
mere semantics, and is quite explicit in communications theory in terms
of signalling and channels, in that uncorrelated content in the 4 quad
channels demands more than mere phase shift nulls, cancellations, or
gated VCAs which temporarily steer energy from one place to another. The
original 2 stereo channels could have encoded 4 true channels had
engineers been allowed to sacrifice backward compatibility and trade
bandwidth for dynamic range, for example. Or they could have
incorporated some in-phase and quadrature method to modulate sidebands
of a suppressed carrier or exalted carrier encoder (such as NTSC color)
or used some (1960's vintage) TDMA mux approach. Or as a partial
compromise, they could have put control tones / signals in the
ultrasonic band above (let's say) 15 KHz and done some low pass
filtering on the front channels and used the control tones to steer some
rear VCAs.

They opted to preserve quality and compatibility, and in doing so
created a two channel mix from which extra channels could be
synthesized, but the isolation / extraction of true rear channel could
at best transpose out of phase information into rear channel output as
if it were somehow supposed to be there in the first place.

The correct term is "isolate" or "extract", not synthesize. The rear
channels are always present. Advanced decoders (such as Tate SQ and
VarioMatrix QS) selectively cancel the interfering crosstalk, based on
which channel is momentarily dominant.

I would perhaps resort to semantic quibbling in this case, since the
'isolation' or 'extraction' of a left or right rear channel would
presume that they had been encoded into the mix in some explicit way to
begin with, and could thus be extracted using some reciprocal process or
decoding scheme. The original front channels did not possess the
bandwidth nor the dynamic range to permit separate channels to be
encoded, and any scheme which claims to fold 4 channels into two and
then magically permits the original 4 to be regenerated would need to
use alternate modulation schemes, thereby rendering downward
compatibility with existing stereo to be none existent.


This is absolutely true mathematically -- but it is not true
psycoacoustically. The ear can be tricked.

It is possible to have significant material on all four channels at the same
time, with the resulting effect seeming fully "discrete".

Actually, the "alternate modulation schemes" you refer to, do allow full
backward compatibility, just as stereo FM broadcasts can be heard in mono
without losing anything.



Fundamentally,
you cannot take two channels of 20 KHz bandwidth and (let's say) 70 dB
of dynamic range such as may be found in a standard LP record and
somehow encode anything additional without either spoiling the original
stereo L and R pair, eliminating conventional stereo playback, or
creating a new and different encoding scheme from scratch.

Again, yes and no. SQ encodes the front left and front right channels as if
they were conventional stereo, so they sound pretty much the same as they
would on a stereo record -- or when an SQ disk is played in stereo.

It is worth noting that Ambisonic UHJ encoding allows psychoacoustically
correct playback without logic circuits.

Of course, the availability of "discrete" delivery systems largely eliminates
the issues of compatibility.

On 5/31/2013 5:08 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
The correct term is "isolate" or "extract", not synthesize. The rear
channels are always present. Advanced decoders (such as Tate SQ and
VarioMatrix QS) selectively cancel the interfering crosstalk, based
on which channel is momentarily dominant.

I would perhaps resort to semantic quibbling in this case, since the
'isolation' or 'extraction' of a left or right rear channel would
presume that they had been encoded into the mix in some explicit way to
begin with, and could thus be extracted using some reciprocal process or
decoding scheme. The original front channels did not possess the
bandwidth nor the dynamic range to permit separate channels to be
encoded, and any scheme which claims to fold 4 channels into two and
then magically permits the original 4 to be regenerated would need to
use alternate modulation schemes, thereby rendering downward
compatibility with existing stereo to be none existent.


This is absolutely true mathematically -- but it is not true
psycoacoustically. The ear can be tricked.

Indeed it can. I was talking in the parlance of an electrical engineer,
ultimately predicated upon the underlying mathematics of communications
theory and its vocabulary.

It is possible to have significant material on all four channels at
the same time, with the resulting effect seeming fully "discrete".

Yes, this is true, but this ear/brain trickery comes at a price.
Engineers would not call this a discrete system since the effect is
artificially created, aka 'synthetic'.

Actually, the "alternate modulation schemes" you refer to, do allow
full backward compatibility, just as stereo FM broadcasts can be heard
in mono without losing anything.

Only one alternate modulation schemes I mentioned does offer backwards
compatibility, which is why JVC chose it for their CD4 vinyl LP system,
at the expense of rapid wear-out and very noisy rear channels, mitigated
somewhat by companding and severe filtering of highs in the rear. The
other modulation schemes I described do not offer backwards
compatibility unless the original front left and right channel
performance is degraded.



Fundamentally,
you cannot take two channels of 20 KHz bandwidth and (let's say) 70 dB
of dynamic range such as may be found in a standard LP record and
somehow encode anything additional without either spoiling the original
stereo L and R pair, eliminating conventional stereo playback, or
creating a new and different encoding scheme from scratch.

Again, yes and no. SQ encodes the front left and front right channels
as if they were conventional stereo, so they sound pretty much the
same as they would on a stereo record -- or when an SQ disk is played
in stereo.

It is worth noting that Ambisonic UHJ encoding allows
psychoacoustically correct playback without logic circuits.

Of course, the availability of "discrete" delivery systems largely
eliminates the issues of compatibility.

The kernel of your semantic distinction in that we are dealing with
extraction and isolation of rear channel information which has been
encoded and added into 2 standard front audio channels, ostensibly
without compromise to the original front channel pair.

I entirely agree that psychoacoustic techniques permit the illusion of 4
(or more) channels to be constructed in the listener's mind. The brain
has a lot of adaptive power, and mp3 recordings with less than 15% of
the originally encoded music are generally accepted as reasonable
approximations to the original recording as well. Perhaps we hear what
we want to hear or what we choose to hear.

To the engineer however, the distinction between extracting an isolated
signal which is independently signaled versus the synthesis of a derived
signal which is not explicitly and discretely separable are two entirely
different methods. The fact that the human brain can be fooled to think
that the more complex discrete version can be adequately imitated by the
less complex derived version really doesn't change the technical
distinction between real versus synthetic.

To the engineer however, the distinction between extracting an isolated
signal which is independently signaled versus the synthesis of a derived
signal which is not explicitly and discretely separable are two entirely
different methods. The fact that the human brain can be fooled to think
that the more complex discrete version can be adequately imitated by the
less complex derived version really doesn't change the technical
distinction between real versus synthetic.

I never said it did. I object to the term "synthetic".

On Fri, 31 May 2013 12:48:50 -0400, Smarty wrote:

On 5/30/2013 8:12 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"How were those extra channels added and extracted from
the regular two channel recordings, other than with one of
those boxes?"

SQ was a full-range system without any frequency discrimination. The
encoding and decoding were more-complex than simply adding and
subtracting signals.

The more advanced systems essentially used voltage controlled amplifiers
to synthesize the rear channels using amplitude and phase relationships
from the front left and front right to make somewhat sensible decisions
about when and where to steer energy into the rear channels. The notion
of a "matrix" to construct the coefficients for the steering logic was
developed, in which the VCAs and their control voltages had weighted,
time-dependent control signals. Choosing appropriate time constants for
the attack, release, etc. was artistic and musically dependent, and the
eventually winning techniques such as Columbia SQ were noted for being
comparatively gentle / subtle and without noticeable pumping or breathing.
I have been reading these posts about quad sound and it reminded me of
my grandfather, William B. Snow, who did some pioneering work on
stereo in large rooms, getting a patenet in 1938, and on binaural
sound. When I was a young child he would let me listen to binaural
recordings he made with the mannequin heads. I could hear him walking
around behind me through the headphones, though what I was really
hearing was a recording. As a young child I was amazed by the
resemblance to live sound. He had a lab at his house with
oscilloscopes and other sound equipment that was fascinating to me. He
would have been very happy with the advancements made with sound
processing since his death in '68.
Eric

On 5/31/2013 5:49 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
To the engineer however, the distinction between extracting an
isolated signal which is independently signaled versus the synthesis
of a derived signal which is not explicitly and discretely separable
are two entirely different methods. The fact that the human brain can
be fooled to think that the more complex discrete version can be
adequately imitated by the less complex derived version really doesn't
change the technical distinction between real versus synthetic.

I never said it did. I object to the term "synthetic".


The word "synthetic" is not in any way used in a negative or derogatory
fashion in the engineering context. Synthesis, analysis, and other such
engineering terminology are understood to mean rather concrete things
which may offend those who tend to thing of them in a more informal or
colloquial way. The rear channel information in such systems as Columbia
SQ is synthetic, having not been discretely processed as it would be in
a system explicitly designed to capture and then reproduce such rear
channel information. In fact, an SQ system could not localize a left
rear only signal nor a right rear only signal without producing some
artifacts in the front channels, given the non discrete nature of the
method employed. It is an implementation distinction which may be
noticed or may not, but it not at all like you make be thinking of if
your objection views synthetic = "ersatz", unrealistic, etc.

The rear channel information in such systems as Columbia SQ
is synthetic, having not been discretely processed as it would
be in a system explicitly designed to capture and then reproduce
such rear-channel information.

That is absolutely incorrect.

In all four-channel matrix systems, there are four inputs and four outputs. A
logic-directed, phase-cancellation decoder is capable of dynamically
"separating" the front and back information.


In fact, an SQ system could not localize a left-rear-only signal nor a
right-rear-only signal without producing some artifacts
in the front channels, given the non-discrete nature of the method employed.

Of course it can, as assuredly as it can simultaneously localize left-front
and right-front signals, without any artifacts in the rear channels.

It can do this for //any two// isolated channels. The decoder cancels out
their crosstalk in the other two channels. This breaks no laws of math or
physics.


It is an implementation distinction which may be noticed or may
not, but it not at all like you make be thinking of if your objection
views synthetic = "ersatz", unrealistic, etc.

I own two hall synthesizers, which produce synthetic ambience -- which happens
to sound very natural.

On 5/31/2013 10:18 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
The rear channel information in such systems as Columbia SQ
is synthetic, having not been discretely processed as it would
be in a system explicitly designed to capture and then reproduce
such rear-channel information.

That is absolutely incorrect.

In all four-channel matrix systems, there are four inputs and four
outputs. A logic-directed, phase-cancellation decoder is capable of
dynamically "separating" the front and back information.


In fact, an SQ system could not localize a left-rear-only signal nor
a right-rear-only signal without producing some artifacts
in the front channels, given the non-discrete nature of the method
employed.

Of course it can, as assuredly as it can simultaneously localize
left-front and right-front signals, without any artifacts in the rear
channels.

It can do this for //any two// isolated channels. The decoder cancels
out their crosstalk in the other two channels. This breaks no laws of
math or physics.


It is an implementation distinction which may be noticed or may
not, but it not at all like you make be thinking of if your objection
views synthetic = "ersatz", unrealistic, etc.

I own two hall synthesizers, which produce synthetic ambience -- which
happens to sound very natural.

I have several hall synthesizers presently including a relatively
elaborate Audyssey processor in my main system, and I have owned many
going back to the AudioPulse 35 years ago (and its annoying hiss and
pushbutton intermittents) and many, many since then. Many if not most of
them sounded and presently sound extremely natural. And this discussion
has absolutely NOTHING to do with their ability to create a convincing
and natural and wonderful sound. I entirely and totally share your
opinion and do not have any disagreement with your assessment of their
performance from a psychoacoustics point of view whatsoever!! Had I been
a critical reviewer of this equipment and been asked my opinion of how
they sounded, I would totally express my vote of approval and
confidence, and have, indeed voted many thousands of my dollars directly
over quite a few decades supporting this very belief. Even my small
audio system in a tiny small home office has a $2K Denon receiver with
an Audyssey X32 processor because I totally enjoy the perceived effects
of its natural surround sound.

However........

I am now (and have been) exclusively talking from a technical,
engineering viewpoint, and as one who is very qualified in this area.
The various systems which do not provide separate and discrete
independent channels for each of the 4 original channels cannot, do not,
and will not separate and maintain independent information for each of
the four channels unless each has its own distinct, isolated, channel. A
channel has a very specific and very defined meaning to a communications
engineer not only based on bandwidth and SNR but also its time domain /
frequency domain characteristics, a snapshot of which can be portrayed
in its transfer function, and measured entirely using both time and
frequency domain techniques including Fourier and Laplace analysis. I
spent 2 years in a Masters program learning this topic quite fully on
top of the (4 courses of) required undergraduate electrical engineering
course work required for this area.

You might be convinced that some matrixed scheme of putting 4 audio
channels into a 2 channel stereo medium can somehow permit the originals
to be faithfully extracted, but I am here to tell you that you are
entirely wrong.

The more advanced version of SQ used gated, voltage controlled
amplifiers not unlike the more recent Dolby ProLogic scheme to move out
of phase information selectively to the rear. The encoder can and
certainly does encode the rear channels to be out of phase so as to
emphasize their rear presentation, BUT..............and this is the
killer issue...........the original stereo mix already has out of phase
information which itself conveys time differences attributable to front
separation alone.

The lack of separate and independent channels forces the scheme to
"guess" at which elements of the signal structure represent true rear
data, which represent original left to right phase differences, and how
to use some form of demodulation to portray them. The appearance of
multiple approaches using several competing matrixing, AGC, companding,
and steering techniques and competing ways to trick the ear clearly
illustrated the absence of a single correct solution, since the 4 into 2
back to 4 channel process is inherently very inexact.

The decoder has no way to "cancel out crosstalk". The 2 channel phase
information does not contain identifiable crosstalk since the front and
rear are not orthogonal, and have no clock or other time reference to
independently serve to distinguish front from back out of phase content
versus left to right out of phase content. Were an ultrasonic clock to
have been recorded (an approach considered as one potential solution
versus an ultrasonic subcarrier used by JVC), and this clock used to
time mux the analog stream, then there could indeed be a way to
explicitly isolate separate channels, but at the expense of front
channel bandwidth and signal to noise. In the subsequent digital era,
these problems disappear, and bit pooling and TDMA or other muxing and
sampling allow streams to be created where time can be used as a
reliable reference to sort things out. In the early 1960s when these
systems were being deployed (and I was in my graduate EE program) this
was not an option.

Try to imagine what a stereo capable LP would contain in order to create
a left rear only output:

If you had only left energy recorded, it would show up in the left
channel regardless of phase. Left energy alone would have no phase
difference to reference, and its absolute phase would either cause the
left front speaker to move its cone first forward then back, or, if 180
degrees reversed, would move the cone in the opposite sense. Any phase
angle you choose for conveying "front to back" for this simple example
fails.

If you want to build an encoder / decoder to use phase as a way to
convey front / rear directionality, you can ***SYNTHESIZE*** an
artificial reference frame, exaggerate the effect with VCAs and gating
logic, and treat shorter phase shifts as if they belong to the front and
longer phase shifts as if they belong to the rear. The ear can indeed be
fooled, and this is fundamentally the way it was done.

Lets go one step further and make an even more drastic engineering
assumption. We are going to assume that the front speakers are spaced
much closer to one another than the rear pair are spaced with respect to
the front. We will then "guess" that phase shifts / time delays longer
than the presumed short left to right delay are entirely attributable to
rear delayed energy. We will choose an arbitrary cut off and declare
that all delays longer than "X" degrees of phase shift are the result of
rear channel content. This might even work were it not that 361 degrees
of phase shift is entirely and totally indistinguishable from 1 degree
of phase shift as far as analog processing is concerned. Phase only
offers a brief impartial piece of evidence as encoded in this analog system.

Could an advanced DSP be used to build an FFT waterfall and distinguish
early and late energy more exactly. Yes, of course. But this has nothing
to do with the way SQ, QS, Dolby ProLogic or any such primitive scheme
worked in the 1960s.

Did I ever say that SQ or other techniques of its ilk were bad,
unnatural, or otherwise flawed. Not at all. I ask you please to not
conflate how things work with how things sound. I am an engineer talking
about how things work.

On 5/31/2013 7:26 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 12:48:50 -0400, Smarty wrote:

On 5/30/2013 8:12 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"How were those extra channels added and extracted from
the regular two channel recordings, other than with one of
those boxes?"
SQ was a full-range system without any frequency discrimination. The
encoding and decoding were more-complex than simply adding and
subtracting signals.
The more advanced systems essentially used voltage controlled amplifiers
to synthesize the rear channels using amplitude and phase relationships
from the front left and front right to make somewhat sensible decisions
about when and where to steer energy into the rear channels. The notion
of a "matrix" to construct the coefficients for the steering logic was
developed, in which the VCAs and their control voltages had weighted,
time-dependent control signals. Choosing appropriate time constants for
the attack, release, etc. was artistic and musically dependent, and the
eventually winning techniques such as Columbia SQ were noted for being
comparatively gentle / subtle and without noticeable pumping or breathing.
I have been reading these posts about quad sound and it reminded me of
my grandfather, William B. Snow, who did some pioneering work on
stereo in large rooms, getting a patenet in 1938, and on binaural
sound. When I was a young child he would let me listen to binaural
recordings he made with the mannequin heads. I could hear him walking
around behind me through the headphones, though what I was really
hearing was a recording. As a young child I was amazed by the
resemblance to live sound. He had a lab at his house with
oscilloscopes and other sound equipment that was fascinating to me. He
would have been very happy with the advancements made with sound
processing since his death in '68.
Eric
I too have been very impressed with binaural sound, and for a time
actually carried a portable Sony DAT recorder with microphones designed
to be worn in my ears, thereby capturing the precise signal structure my
ears and brain had learned over time to make direction of arrival
decisions. I recorded a number of live performances as well as a lot of
ambient daily activities, and the playback was as faithful and authentic
with regard to the original as any "high fidelity" scheme I have
encountered in my entire life including that from some audio systems I
have owned which cost many tens of thousands of dollars.

Stax has released a wonderful collection of binaural recordings on CD,
many of which I own, and other occasional binaural recordings are out
there from other labels as well. These have been recorded with a
mannikin dummy head which diminishes the accuracy and richness of the 3
dimensional experience somewhat compared to custom miked content, but
they are still very engaging and very much an improvement over stereo.
Unlike normal stereo headphones which present an image essentially
inside the head, these recordings open up the 3D space profoundly, even
if your earphones are small buds inserted in the ear canals.

You can be very proud of your grandad. I have tried to show my
grandchildren some examples of what I have done in my engineering
career, and, for the time being, they remain unimpressed.....!

On 5/31/2013 10:18 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
The rear channel information in such systems as Columbia SQ
is synthetic, having not been discretely processed as it would
be in a system explicitly designed to capture and then reproduce
such rear-channel information.

That is absolutely incorrect.

In all four-channel matrix systems, there are four inputs and four
outputs. A logic-directed, phase-cancellation decoder is capable of
dynamically "separating" the front and back information.


In fact, an SQ system could not localize a left-rear-only signal nor
a right-rear-only signal without producing some artifacts
in the front channels, given the non-discrete nature of the method
employed.

Of course it can, as assuredly as it can simultaneously localize
left-front and right-front signals, without any artifacts in the rear
channels.

It can do this for //any two// isolated channels. The decoder cancels
out their crosstalk in the other two channels. This breaks no laws of
math or physics.

Absolutely wrong answer! It most assuredly does violate both
mathematical and physical constraints. You might want to take a look at
the Ambisonics website where they state:

Matrix quad tried to get the four
original channels into two and back again,
which is impossible. A sound panned
around the control room in a circle (black)
would be replayed as a flat ellipse by SQ"

The flat ellipse shown in the Ambisonics reference is a typical result
of using a matrix approach, and other matrix designs have other odd
shapes, the Sansui QS matrix resulting in a heart-shaped / cardioid
sound field. In any such example for any choice of matrix coefficients,
the same result occurs, namely, the original directionality is lost, and
the sound field changes its shape with frequency. In Sansui's design
(later adopted for theater use as well) the rear channels effectively
produce a single centered rear channel at the acute vertex of the
cardioid. The brain and ear don't get any right rear to left rear
directionality whatsoever. In the SQ matrix, there is very little front
to back discrimination, with the virtual sound sources placed almost
entirely to the left and right of the listener, imitating spatial depth
by widening the front and adding hints to the rear.

Both are entirely avoided using discrete analog techniques of the
1960s, as in ***4 DISCRETE CHANNELS***. The matrix methods are synthetic
in that they synthesize an approximation to the discrete wavefronts,
good enough to fool the majority of listeners, but by no means accurate
or complete.


http://www.ambisonic.net/pdf/ambidvd2001.pdf as well as the surrounding
articles and introduction page for the Ambisonics approach.

"Smarty" wrote in message ...

We have the problem of two people who agree, arguing over the agreement.


I am now (and have been) exclusively talking from a technical, engineering
viewpoint, and as one who is very qualified in this area. The various
systems which do not provide separate and discrete independent channels for
each of the 4 original channels cannot, do not, and will not separate and
maintain independent information for each of the four channels unless each
has its own distinct, isolated, channel.

That's what I said. Please re-read what I posted.

I'll repeat it, though. In a matrixed quad system, a properly designed decoder
can completely isolate one or two channels, when they are the only active
channels. That is what I said, and I stand by it. (To put it mathematically --
you can solve for two unknowns -- but no more -- when you have two equations.)

These is easily demonstrated with a single channel on a test disk, or by
playing a conventional stereo recording through an advanced SQ decoder.
Nothing comes out of the rear speakers.


You might be convinced that some matrixed scheme of putting 4 audio channels
into a 2 channel stereo medium can somehow permit the originals to be
faithfully extracted, but I am here to tell you that you are entirely wrong.

They can, under the conditions previously stated.


The more advanced version of SQ used gated, voltage controlled amplifiers
not unlike the more recent Dolby ProLogic scheme to move out of phase
information selectively to the rear.

The advanced SQ and QS decoders do not use "gated" amplifiers, which had been
abandoned years earlier. I owned such a decoder (the Sony SQD-2020), and it
sounded terrible, because it shut off channels with important material.


I'm going to stop at this point and simply state -- in an objective and
non-personal matter -- that you aren't familiar with how matrix and decoding
work. I wish I had some material to offer, but a lot of my source material has
been lost or misplaced over the years. If you'd to discuss this over the
weekend, we can get together on the phone.

In fact, an SQ system could not localize a left-rear-only signal nor
a right-rear-only signal without producing some artifacts
in the front channels, given the non-discrete nature of the method
employed.

Of course it can, as assuredly as it can simultaneously localize
left-front and right-front signals, without any artifacts in the rear
channels.

It can do this for //any two// isolated channels. The decoder cancels
out their crosstalk in the other two channels. This breaks no laws of
math or physics.

Absolutely wrong answer! It most assuredly does violate both
mathematical and physical constraints. You might want to take a look at
the Ambisonics website where they state:

Matrix quad tried to get the four
original channels into two and back again,
which is impossible. A sound panned
around the control room in a circle (black)
would be replayed as a flat ellipse by SQ"

READ WHAT I SAID, rather than what you think I said.

On 6/1/2013 9:03 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Smarty" wrote in message ...

We have the problem of two people who agree, arguing over the agreement.


I am now (and have been) exclusively talking from a technical,
engineering viewpoint, and as one who is very qualified in this area.
The various systems which do not provide separate and discrete
independent channels for each of the 4 original channels cannot, do
not, and will not separate and maintain independent information for
each of the four channels unless each has its own distinct, isolated,
channel.

That's what I said. Please re-read what I posted.

I'll repeat it, though. In a matrixed quad system, a properly designed
decoder can completely isolate one or two channels, when they are the
only active channels. That is what I said, and I stand by it. (To put
it mathematically -- you can solve for two unknowns -- but no more --
when you have two equations.)

These is easily demonstrated with a single channel on a test disk, or
by playing a conventional stereo recording through an advanced SQ
decoder. Nothing comes out of the rear speakers.


You might be convinced that some matrixed scheme of putting 4 audio
channels into a 2 channel stereo medium can somehow permit the
originals to be faithfully extracted, but I am here to tell you that
you are entirely wrong.

They can, under the conditions previously stated.


The more advanced version of SQ used gated, voltage controlled
amplifiers not unlike the more recent Dolby ProLogic scheme to move
out of phase information selectively to the rear.

The advanced SQ and QS decoders do not use "gated" amplifiers, which
had been abandoned years earlier. I owned such a decoder (the Sony
SQD-2020), and it sounded terrible, because it shut off channels with
important material.


I'm going to stop at this point and simply state -- in an objective
and non-personal matter -- that you aren't familiar with how matrix
and decoding work. I wish I had some material to offer, but a lot of
my source material has been lost or misplaced over the years. If you'd
to discuss this over the weekend, we can get together on the phone.
I will begin with your last and most offensive comment first. I am not
at liberty to describe this in detail given certain non disclosure
agreements, but I will leave you with the opportunity to research Peter
Scheiber and the patent rights sold to Dolby for the design and
implementation of original matrixing audio technology ultimately sold to
Columbia to become SQ. I can only state a single comment, which is that
Mr. Scheiber, a musician, and non engineer, holds the original patent,
but relied on a certain graduate university student to develop and build
his design concept. I will leave it to your fertile and most ad hominem
imagination to figure out who that graduate student was. And I will
remind you of my original introduction to this topic earlier in this
very same thread by stating that I had first worked in Toronto on a
matrixing audio encoder design for theater use starting in the 1960s.

Since you have already amply demonstrated an exquisite knack for putting
two and two together and getting two, I will now briefly summarize your
conclusion that we are supposedly violently agreeing upon.

If you are now stating that a 4 channel matrixing encode and decode
system can merely handle two channels at a time, then you are now
beginning to demonstrate and acknowledge their fundamental inability to
extract and isolate 4 channels independently. If you are somehow trying
to assert that by only doing two channels at a time, they somehow
preserve these 2 channels correctly in the presence of any other energy
arising from the other two channels whatsoever, you are utterly wrong.

The point of this is that given a 4 channel input, the very best you can
ever hope for are 4 poor imitations of the original 4 discrete signals.
If you are somehow arguing that the method succeeds with simultaneous 4
channel input, you are incorrect. This type of solution is referred to
by engineers as synthetic, since it uses a synthesis method to form
approximations of actual things. Think "Moog synthesizer" if you cannot
grasp the meaning in a more expansive way.

I have merely stated that such systems as we have been discussing are
"synthetic" and the notion that they somehow isolate and extract is
technically wrong.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...


The movie folks do a really half-assed job with surround sound
is the short version of the story.

That might be true. But I've spent many years listening to orchestral
recordings enhanced with surround -- either from the recording itself,
or a hall synthesizer -- and the improvement is huge.

They probably do those recordings correctly, and the audience for such
recording will care.

Absolutely.


Then, of course, when people were being chased around in the woods and
murdered there was no surround sound. That would have been the perfect
time for such effects -- hearing some twigs snap over here or there.

Point well-taken. Movies often miss the opportunity to create a truly
immersive experience.


Circa 1980, I had a really high-quality quad system, with Lux electronics
and Infinity speakers. People -- including a hi-fi dealer -- said "I don't
like
quad, but I like your system".

How were those extra channels added and extracted from the regular two
channel recordings, other than with one of those boxes?

I had a variety of sources and processors. At the top was discrete open-reel
tape, which produced the most-spectacular consumer sound, until multi-ch SACD
came along. (I still have the tapes and an Otari quad deck.) It is unfortunate
that Sony has refused to reissue its huge library of Columbia surround
recordings on SACD.

Was "surround" at the time a true 4 channel recording?

For quad phonograph records, there was the Audionics Space & Image Composer,
an advanced SQ decoder that could wrap stereo recordings around you, often to
great effect. I also had an Ambisonic decoder for Ambisonic recordings. It
could do things similar to the Audionics, without requiring logic circuitry,
and did a superb job of ambience extraction.

For stereo recordings, I had an audio/pulse Model One, the first consumer
digital ambience device. It didn't generate high echo density, but used
tastefully, it could greatly enhance the sense of space. (I later replaced it
with the improved audio/pulse 1000.)

Out of these devices, which did true decoding of extra channels out of a a
two channel recording?

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.

My current system includes the JVC XP-A1000 and Yamaha DSP-3000 hall
synthesizers. These are modeled on real halls (such as the Concertgebouw). You
can pick an appropriate hall (concert, recital, cathedral, opera, stadium),
then tweak the settings (if you wish) to fine-tune the sound to match the
recording's ambience. These devices are so natural-sounding, you cannot hear
them working until you shut them off.

I have a 6.1 system (no center speaker) with Apogee speakers and Curl
amplification.

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.

I 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 the generate noise on each channel test for setting up speakers, but
that doesn't tell you if it really understands the signals coming out of
the modern media player.

wrote:
"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.

Ah- SQ.

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.

"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...

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 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.

"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.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...

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.

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.

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.

I 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.

I 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 bluray player needed
firmware updates.

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?

"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Your 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.

That's not weird. Over the years I've learned that most "enhancements" do
nothing to truly improve the sound. Worse, the better the playback equipment,
the more the enhancements become audible as unmusical changes.

Of course, two-channel recording is fundamentally limited in its ability to
convey directionality and spatiality. This might not be important if you're
listening to multi-miked studio recordings, but it /is/ important when the
music was (or should have been) recorded in an appropriate acoustic space.

The Carver Sonic Hologram actually does work -- at least with simply-miked
recordings. (I've had little experience with other crosstalk cancellers, which
might or might not work.) An Ambisonic decoder can "extract" the ambience from
a well-made recording and present it in a very natural-sounding manner.

Of course, such devices require sending the program through a processor, which
to an audiophile is generally a no-no. That's the beauty of a hall
synthesizer -- the generated ambience is played through four additional
speakers, and the original recording is left untouched.


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.

What about "Stadium"? grin


I 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.

That's not surprising. Consumer photographic and electronics products have
become incredibly complex, and the idiots (I use the word deliberately,
because they are idiots) who write the user manuals neither understand the
products nor how to explain their use to the reader. I have long considered
starting a class-action suit against the major manufacturers for their lousy
manuals.