Sony SL-2700 Betamax
"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. |
Sony SL-2700 Betamax
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. 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. Peter Scheiber was indeed at the genesis of SQ, as much to provoke a patent dispute with CBS as anything else. 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. I attended and supported some of this activity personally, and know the truth, regardless of your claimed understanding. I know of what I speak. And you are a contemptible person. 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." |
Sony SL-2700 Betamax
"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. |
Sony SL-2700 Betamax
On 6/3/2013 7:15 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
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. My incredulous reaction: Is it even slightly possible that William, claiming to be a graduate E.E., (member of Tau Beta Pi* and Eta Kappa Mu honor societies no less), is capable of actually believing that: 1. trying to encode 4 separate audio channels into a 2 channel standard vinyl LP system and adding 90 degree quadrature phase shifts could possibly "remove the ambiguity between the front and back signals" ?? 2. "Whether purity is good or bad, the electron beams have to land /somewhere/. In a B&W image, it might not matter much if red winds up on blue, blue on green, and green on red. The result will be /something/ approximating a shade of gray. " These are not the logical or technically insightful comments of a degreed E.E. regardless of claimed honor society memberships. These are the statements of someone who does not understand how either audio channels or CRTs work. Might I ask you to explain, for example, how putting a 90 degree phase shift onto any of this audio would remove the ambiguity of front versus back? And yes, I am aware that some but not all of the competing matrix schemes using +/- 90 degree phase shifters in the rear made such specious claims. You may know how to read and quote others, but I would LOVE to hear you explain technically how either of your hair-brained interpretations ACTUALLY WORK from an engineering perspective. Any legitimate engineer who knows these topics correctly could NEVER BUY INTO THIS BULL****. *I was a member of Tau Beta Pi and shudder to think that other members of this prestigious society could be so entirely clueless. I also am surprised you are not or were not a member of the I.E.E.E. I was a Senior Member for many years and began as a student member over 50 years ago. Like the AMA for physicians and the ABA for attorneys, it is the defacto professional organization for those who are real graduate E.E.s, with over 400,000 members currently. |
Sony SL-2700 Betamax
On 6/3/2013 7:15 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
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.) 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. William, recall from modulation and estimation theory and Fourier analysis that quadrature modulation //DEMANDS A CLOCK//, or must have an ability to self clock. Neither of these exist in a compatible 2 channel analog system of this type, and adding such a clock eliminates compatibility with the entire world of analog playback systems. I will assume you were not ascribing the design to this approach. And of course the simple act of putting a 90 degree phase shifter into the rear audio paths does NOT make their resulting signal quadrature modulated. It bears no resemblance to the more widely understood I and Q quadrature method used in many places including color TV to truly carry independent data. It merely corresponds to a quarter of a wavelength shift to the one and only amplitude conveyed by a singular waveform. Even with careful microphone choices and placements along with a mixing and recording chain which preserves phase integrity, the very best outcome one can hope for is a third derived phantom source centered in the rear, as was well demonstrated earlier by Hafler as well as some of the 1960s Delco radio designs which ran L-R across the rear speakers in a few cars. Given the signalling and compatibility requirements, creating a rear center signal only was / is unachievable without also forming front artifacts of a substantial nature. As regards Scheiber: Scheiber's original patent was in the 1960s. CBS did not file until the early 70s, and their lawyers were appropriately committed to avoid infringement issues, something that Peter very well understood and capitalized upon. His approach was important only in that it came first. Scheiber's method for producing 'surround sound' was neither superior nor especially innovative, since all such techniques relied on an incomplete / impossible technical foundation which could never deliver 4 separate channels at a time, nor could they 'isolate' nor 'extract' information exclusively to a given channel while other channels were present except in special cases. These special cases they naturally demonstrated and portrayed as successful solutions. Putting designs together which "worked" was not the problem; rather, the choice of design parameters boiled down to those which appeared to interfere least, and whose effects were dramatic without being exaggerated, a compromise which is actually hard to achieve given the limit of 2 channels to work with. He and all the other contenders metaphorically offered their recipes to put multiple ingredients into a stirred pot, and then showed how they could, for some of the ingredients, some of the time, recover individual ingredients. Since the patent office and the courts award great benefits to 'prior art', and since the matrixing approaches all were merely artistic concoctions of time delays, phase shifts, gain controls, and their associated time constant choices, the fact that one system might actually sound better under some conditions but worse under others was not a legal battle but a marketing battle. The legal battle was to essentially avoid and if possible totally prevent infringement lawsuits, which was both Columbia's and Dolby's primary objective. He wound up with the credit for the "discovery" and was financially rewarded, but never for selling a single encoder or decoder. His genius was really in getting to the patent office first with a working prototype to demonstrate proof of concept. For me it was an exciting time and the first glimpse for me of the business side of electronics. |
Sony SL-2700 Betamax
To "Smarty"...
I could go on for several pages, but will limit myself. I //could// sum up this entire exchange by saying that I feel like Gus arguing with Woodrow, but other things need saying. Several months ago I called David Janszen (the son of the late/great Arthur Janszen) to ask about the modeling of planar radiators. He told me that the analysis was rather more complex than I'd imagined, and referred me to Olsen. Did I criticize him? Did I tell he didn't know what he was talking about? No. I got a copy of Olsen, and though I haven't had time to study the appropriate sections, I will eventually get to it. (There's a lot of material on acoustics I've never fully understood, so it's worth reading for that, alone.) Now... Even if David Janszen weren't an authority in speaker design -- even if he'd been someone I'd never even heard of -- I would have taken his response seriously. There's nothing wrong with assuming that "some guy you've never heard of" might -- just might -- know something you don't know. If he doesn't, you'll eventually find out. There's a difference between knowing and understanding. It's not enough to know the facts. Understanding requires the mental effort to "wrap your head around" a concept and make it your own. I like to say that if you can't explain something (in relatively simple terms), you don't really understand it yourself. Unfortunately, too many people believe what they're told -- even when it's dead wrong -- then try to defend their beliefs against rational -- or just common-sense -- attack. (I have engaged in some of the most appalling arguments here and elsewhere over people's misconceptions about digital processing. I've also learned a few things in the process.) Here again are the two patents I referred to. https://www.google.com/patents/US3632886 (click on Abstract) https://www.google.com/patents/US397...ed=0CFMQ6AEwBA Please at least browse them. If you have questions, ask and I will try to answer them (though I don't have detailed knowledge of every aspect of matrixed surround). |
Sony SL-2700 Betamax
"Smarty" wrote in message ...
On 6/3/2013 7:15 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote: Because the following comments are so ad-hominem, they require a response. Might I ask you to explain, for example, how putting a 90 degree phase shift onto any of this audio would remove the ambiguity of front versus back? And yes, I am aware that some but not all of the competing matrix schemes using +/- 90 degree phase shifters in the rear made such specious claims. Read the patents. 2. "Whether purity is good or bad, the electron beams have to land /somewhere/. In a B&W image, it might not matter much if red winds up on blue, blue on green, and green on red. The result will be /something/ approximating a shade of gray." These are not the logical or technically insightful comments of a degreed E.E. regardless of claimed honor society memberships. These are the statements of someone who does not understand how either audio channels or CRTs work. In fact, Arfa said the same thing. But you didn't attack him, because you perceive him as an expert. You may know how to read and quote others, but I would LOVE to hear you explain technically how either of your hair-brained interpretations ACTUALLY WORK from an engineering perspective. Any legitimate engineer who knows these topics correctly could NEVER BUY INTO THIS BULL****. Hair-brained? You mean hare-brained. You are criticizing something you don't understand, that you have rejected without consideration. I was a member of Tau Beta Pi and shudder to think that other members of this prestigious society could be so entirely clueless. No comment. I also am surprised you are not or were not a member of the IEEE. One merely buys one's way into the IEEE. It is not honorary. You don't have to be a graduate EE to join. I entered as an undergraduate, around 1967 (which is pushing 50 years), and remember a special issue on the Fast Fourier Transform, which was then coming into common use. |
Sony SL-2700 Betamax
On 6/4/2013 9:45 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
To "Smarty"... There's a difference between knowing and understanding. It's not enough to know the facts. Understanding requires the mental effort to "wrap your head around" a concept and make it your own. I like to say that if you can't explain something (in relatively simple terms), you don't really understand it yourself. Precisely! This was the reason I asked you to explain why / how you could make the statement that a 90 degree phase shift added to the rear discrete audio channels in any encoder which mixes down to 2 channels, to use your exact words, "removes ambiguity between front and back signals". Again, to borrow your exact words, "If you can't explain something (in relatively simple terms), you don't really understand it yourself". Here again are the two patents I referred to. https://www.google.com/patents/US3632886 (click on Abstract) https://www.google.com/patents/US397...ed=0CFMQ6AEwBA Please at least browse them. If you have questions, ask and I will try to answer them (though I don't have detailed knowledge of every aspect of matrixed surround). I am extremely familiar with Scheiber's work and resulting patent, which I read in various stages of its submission, and have certainly more than 'browsed' Bauer's patent and several others when they were issued. I thank you for the opportunity to ask you any questions, and will, once again ask you the simple question: Why did you make the statement that a 90 degree phase shift added to the rear discrete audio channels in any encoder which mixes down to 2 channels, to use your exact words, "removes ambiguity between front and back signals" ? Forgive my skepticism and my continuing disrespectful tone. If we were both automotive engineers, and you made a statement that the anti gravity feature of your engine provided enhanced gas mileage, I would initiate the same type of request for clarification. Those who understand modulation theory and these specific types of surround sound devices would never make such a statement, and I am merely asking you to explain how such an outcome could occur. |
Sony SL-2700 Betamax
On 6/4/2013 12:02 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
" Because the following comments are so ad-hominem, they require a response. Might I ask you to explain, for example, how putting a 90 degree phase shift onto any of this audio would remove the ambiguity of front versus back? And yes, I am aware that some but not all of the competing matrix schemes using +/- 90 degree phase shifters in the rear made such specious claims. Read the patents. When I was in graduate school and earning a bit of extra income as a teaching assistant, I genuinely feared being asked questions in front of a group of people by younger students and not knowing the answer. The natural and safe way to deal with all such situations was to reply to the inquisitive student: "Read the textbook" In fact, Arfa said the same thing. But you didn't attack him, because you perceive him as an expert. Hardly, I perceive him as a very knowledgeable repair technician with vast experience who may or may not have the understanding of the underlying physical details of how things work in this specific area. If I were to ask him, or you, or others on this forum a question like: "Why isn't a pure white raster the outcome of mis-registered set of beams, given that it supposedly does not matter where the beams land?", he may be as clueless as I am. You may know how to read and quote others, but I would LOVE to hear you explain technically how either of your hair-brained interpretations ACTUALLY WORK from an engineering perspective. Any legitimate engineer who knows these topics correctly could NEVER BUY INTO THIS BULL****. Hair-brained? You mean hare-brained. Excellent comment! I also am surprised you are not or were not a member of the IEEE. One merely buys one's way into the IEEE. It is not honorary. You don't have to be a graduate EE to join. I entered as an undergraduate, around 1967 (which is pushing 50 years), and remember a special issue on the Fast Fourier Transform, which was then coming into common use. Absolutely true, and as I mentioned in my prior reply, I too joined as a student, quite a few years before you, and actually do remember the 'discovery' of the FFT in that same time period. |
Sony SL-2700 Betamax
You don't have to be a graduate EE to join. I entered as an undergraduate,
around 1967 (which is pushing 50 years), and remember a special issue on the Fast Fourier Transform, which was then coming into common use. Absolutely true, and as I mentioned in my prior reply, I too joined as a student, quite a few years before you, and actually do remember the 'discovery' of the FFT in that same time period. I learned later that the FFT had been known for quite some time earlier (well-before 1967). It was the development of relatively cheap digital computers that made its use practical. With respect to telling students to "read" the textbook, it would probably be more correct to tell them "work the problems". I found I often did not truly comprehend the material until I'd worked through the problems. |
Sony SL-2700 Betamax
"Smarty" wrote in message ...
Why did you make the statement that a 90 degree phase shift added to the rear discrete audio channels in any encoder which mixes down to 2 channels, to use your exact words, "removes ambiguity between front and back signals" ? In the early days of matrixed surround, Michael Gerzon wrote an article for a British hi-fi magazine explaining what happened as sources were panned from front to rear, and a resulting directional ambiguity (with respect to the encoding). I cannot find the article. However, a brief search turned up the following. Note Section 8, in particular. http://www.michaelgerzonphotos.org.u...20COMPLETE.pdf By the way, Scheiber mentions the need for phase shift in the patent I referred to, though I don't believe he goes into any detail. |
Sony SL-2700 Betamax
On 6/5/2013 12:28 AM, Smarty wrote:
On 6/4/2013 9:45 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote: To "Smarty"... Precisely! This was the reason I asked you to explain why / how you could make the statement that a 90 degree phase shift added to the rear discrete audio channels in any encoder which mixes down to 2 channels, to use your exact words, "removes ambiguity between front and back signals". Again, to borrow your exact words, "If you can't explain something (in relatively simple terms), you don't really understand it yourself". Here again are the two patents I referred to. https://www.google.com/patents/US3632886 (click on Abstract) https://www.google.com/patents/US397...ed=0CFMQ6AEwBA Please at least browse them. If you have questions, ask and I will try to answer them (though I don't have detailed knowledge of every aspect of matrixed surround). I am extremely familiar with Scheiber's work and resulting patent, which I read in various stages of its submission, and have certainly more than 'browsed' Bauer's patent and several others when they were issued. I thank you for the opportunity to ask you any questions, and will, once again ask you the simple question: Why did you make the statement that a 90 degree phase shift added to the rear discrete audio channels in any encoder which mixes down to 2 channels, to use your exact words, "removes ambiguity between front and back signals" ? Forgive my skepticism and my continuing disrespectful tone. If we were both automotive engineers, and you made a statement that the anti gravity feature of your engine provided enhanced gas mileage, I would initiate the same type of request for clarification. Those who understand modulation theory and these specific types of surround sound devices would never make such a statement, and I am merely asking you to explain how such an outcome could occur. Once again, you dodge the question, and given that this is now the 4th attempt I have made to get an answer, I will save you the embarrassment of now saying that there is no technically correct answer, if, in fact, you even realize this is true. Since you are "the wrong person to mess with when it comes to surround sound", I am utterly astonished. I thought that this was an area in which you enjoyed particular expertise. Or, to use your words: "I like to say that if you can't explain something (in relatively simple terms), you don't really understand it yourself." Looks like Phil has you pegged...................... |
Sony SL-2700 Betamax
"Smarty" wrote in message ...
Once again, you dodge the question, and given that this is now the 4th attempt I have made to get an answer, I will save you the embarrassment of now saying that there is no technically correct answer, if, in fact, you even realize this is true. I have given a reference. Please get back to us once you've read it. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter