Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent

[Richard Dobson]

On 20/09/2011 22:24, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
..

Wow. How far back in time does this arrangement go? Which came first -
the individual, or the society?


That doesn't really matter. If a number of individuals interact
you have a society. Once that happens, things are 'yours' only
because the others agree the are. Such agreements arise because
they bring mutual benifit.




Interesting choice of words. You say  "agree", I would say "recognise". 
Do "they" put it to a vote? My thoughts (which you appear to equate with 
"things") are my own, and if I choose to share them with anyone else 
that is my choice, and their privilege.



The alternative is living isolated, or having to physically
protect and defend your 'property' all the time, which sort
of defeats the purpose.



What purpose is that? Who decides what the purpose is?

Unfortunately, not all societies are so "enlightened". The days where 
one needed no lock on one's front door are long gone; if they ever 
really existed much anyway. I have been burgled three times, by 
individuals (aka "society" according to you) who clearly did not "agree" 
that my Tannoy DC200 dual-concentrics, or my gold signet ring with the 
family seal on it inherited from my father, belonged to me. Am I now 
supposed to "agree" that they really owned them all along? Seems to me 
there are plenty of people around who would treat my thoughts in the 
same way, if they could. Perhaps a few of them are even on this list. 
You just can't slap a GPL licence on a person and call it "natural".


Richard Dobson




___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 09:23:37PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote:
> On 20/09/2011 20:38, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:15:19PM -, Michael Chapman wrote:
> ..
>> Intellectual property, just like property of physical
>> goods, does not exist naturally - it is something
>> granted by society to individuals in the hope that
>> society will benefit by doing so. If that doesn't
>> happen there is no reason why it should exist.
>>
>
> Wow. How far back in time does this arrangement go? Which came first -  
> the individual, or the society?

That doesn't really matter. If a number of individuals interact
you have a society. Once that happens, things are 'yours' only
because the others agree the are. Such agreements arise because
they bring mutual benifit.

The alternative is living isolated, or having to physically
protect and defend your 'property' all the time, which sort
of defeats the purpose.

Ciao,

-- 
FA


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent

[Richard Dobson]

On 20/09/2011 20:38, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:15:19PM -, Michael Chapman wrote:

..

Intellectual property, just like property of physical
goods, does not exist naturally - it is something
granted by society to individuals in the hope that
society will benefit by doing so. If that doesn't
happen there is no reason why it should exist.



Wow. How far back in time does this arrangement go? Which came first - 
the individual, or the society?


Richard Dobson





___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:15:19PM -, Michael Chapman wrote:

> I must disagree.
> Patents _do_ distort the market.

As does any monopoly, even a temporary one.

I'd very much want to see some changes to patent
law, like for example a patent being cancelled if
within a reasonable time there are not at least
four or five effectively competing licencees, all
of them bound to the same conditions.

Intellectual property, just like property of physical
goods, does not exist naturally - it is something 
granted by society to individuals in the hope that
society will benefit by doing so. If that doesn't
happen there is no reason why it should exist.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent

[Stefan Schreiber]

Ok, the Wikipedia links just don't work and distort everything. Even not 
in (plain) text mode.


I am apologizing...


Best,

Stefan



Stefan Schreiber wrote:


Oops, I try to send the same message in another format...  :-[

Michael Chapman wrote:


Sampo Syreeni wrote:

  


On 2011-09-19, Stefan Schreiber wrote:






 


What she does *not* know is that the oldest, simplest and cheapest
NSAID medication works even better. I mean, today, now that I ran out
of my prescribed NSAID, I again took a gram's worth of aspirin
(acetosalicylic acid). As before, it worked twice as well as the 30x
more expensive newer -coxib.





 


That's how patents and the like distort real life, in the medical
circuit. ...



I am obviously sorry for this incident. If you are right, this is a 
case

of wrong treatment or prescription, not really patent-related.

  



I must disagree.
Patents _do_ distort the market.

Unpatented medicines have no budget for marketing: for
representatives to visit practitioners, for advertising, for stands at
conferences, for sponsorship, for 
(which could bring is back to elegant arguments about ambisonics;-)>

The best example is perhaps the 'anthrax scare'. 'Everyone knows'(TM)
that plain ordinary penicillin is effective at treating anthrax (well 
that's

what the textbooks used to say), but one patented product had a
licence: governments spent fortunes stockpiling the latter, whilst the
former must cost only a few cents a gram 

Michael

 

Sorry, but no. There are forms of anthrax which can't be treated by 
penicillin. If we talk about biological weapons, unfortunately they 
would use these forms.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks



___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent

[Stefan Schreiber]

Oops, I try to send the same message in another format...  :-[

Michael Chapman wrote:


Sampo Syreeni wrote:

   


On 2011-09-19, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

 



 


What she does *not* know is that the oldest, simplest and cheapest
NSAID medication works even better. I mean, today, now that I ran out
of my prescribed NSAID, I again took a gram's worth of aspirin
(acetosalicylic acid). As before, it worked twice as well as the 30x
more expensive newer -coxib.
 



 


That's how patents and the like distort real life, in the medical
circuit. ...
 


I am obviously sorry for this incident. If you are right, this is a case
of wrong treatment or prescription, not really patent-related.

   



I must disagree.
Patents _do_ distort the market.

Unpatented medicines have no budget for marketing: for
representatives to visit practitioners, for advertising, for stands at
conferences, for sponsorship, for 
(which could bring is back to elegant arguments about ambisonics;-)>

The best example is perhaps the 'anthrax scare'. 'Everyone knows'(TM)
that plain ordinary penicillin is effective at treating anthrax (well that's
what the textbooks used to say), but one patented product had a
licence: governments spent fortunes stockpiling the latter, whilst the
former must cost only a few cents a gram 

Michael

 

Sorry, but no. There are forms of anthrax which can't be treated by 
penicillin. If we talk about biological weapons, unfortunately they 
would use these forms.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

All of the material was derived from the same bacterial strain 
 known as the Ames 
strain . Prior to the 
attacks, the Ames strain was believed to be a common strain isolated 
from a cow in Iowa. After the attacks, the investigation discovered 
that it was a relatively rare strain isolated from a cow in Texas in 
1981 - a critical fact in the investigation.[58] 
[59] 
 First 
researched at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of 
Infectious Diseases 
 
(USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland, the Ames strain was then 
distributed to sixteen bio-research labs within the U.S. and three 
other locations (Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom).[60] 



DNA sequencing of the anthrax taken from Robert Stevens (the first 
victim) was conducted at The Institute for Genomic Research 
 
(TIGR) beginning in December 2001. Sequencing was finished within a 
month and the analysis was published in the journal Science in early 
2002.[61] 


Radiocarbon dating  
conducted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
 
in June 2002 established that the anthrax was cultured 
 no more than 
two years before the mailings.[62] 
 In 
October 2006 it was reported that the water used to process the 
anthrax spores came from a source in the northeastern United 
States.[63] 





On September 11, the president and White House 
 staff began taking a 
regimen of Cipro , a powerful 
antibiotic. The public interest group Judicial Watch 
 filed lawsuits in June 
2002 against federal agencies to obtain information about how, what 
and when the White House knew on 9/11 about the danger of anthrax 
weeks before the first known victim of the anthrax attacks.[41] 
[42] 
 The 
issue, therefore, is on what grounds governmental officials were 
alerted to prepare for the coming anthrax attacks, which were later 
traced to a U.S. army medical research institute.[43] 





Best,

Stefan
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent

[Stefan Schreiber]

Michael Chapman wrote:


Sampo Syreeni wrote:

   


On 2011-09-19, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

 



 


What she does *not* know is that the oldest, simplest and cheapest
NSAID medication works even better. I mean, today, now that I ran out
of my prescribed NSAID, I again took a gram's worth of aspirin
(acetosalicylic acid). As before, it worked twice as well as the 30x
more expensive newer -coxib.
 



 


That's how patents and the like distort real life, in the medical
circuit. ...
 


I am obviously sorry for this incident. If you are right, this is a case
of wrong treatment or prescription, not really patent-related.

   



I must disagree.
Patents _do_ distort the market.

Unpatented medicines have no budget for marketing: for
representatives to visit practitioners, for advertising, for stands at
conferences, for sponsorship, for 
(which could bring is back to elegant arguments about ambisonics;-)>

The best example is perhaps the 'anthrax scare'. 'Everyone knows'(TM)
that plain ordinary penicillin is effective at treating anthrax (well that's
what the textbooks used to say), but one patented product had a
licence: governments spent fortunes stockpiling the latter, whilst the
former must cost only a few cents a gram 

Michael

 

Sorry, but no. There are forms of anthrax which can't be treated by 
penicillin. If we talk about biological weapons, unfortunately they 
would use these forms.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

All of the material was derived from the same bacterial strain 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_%28biology%29> known as the Ames 
strain <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_strain>. Prior to the 
attacks, the Ames strain was believed to be a common strain isolated 
from a cow in Iowa. After the attacks, the investigation discovered 
that it was a relatively rare strain isolated from a cow in Texas in 
1981 - a critical fact in the investigation.[58] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#cite_note-57>[59] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#cite_note-58> First 
researched at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of 
Infectious Diseases 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Medical_Research_Institute_of_Infectious_Diseases> 
(USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland, the Ames strain was then 
distributed to sixteen bio-research labs within the U.S. and three 
other locations (Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom).[60] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#cite_note-usatoday.com-59>


DNA sequencing of the anthrax taken from Robert Stevens (the first 
victim) was conducted at The Institute for Genomic Research 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Institute_for_Genomic_Research> 
(TIGR) beginning in December 2001. Sequencing was finished within a 
month and the analysis was published in the journal Science in early 
2002.[61] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#cite_note-60>


Radiocarbon dating <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating> 
conducted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Livermore_National_Laboratory> 
in June 2002 established that the anthrax was cultured 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbiological_culture> no more than 
two years before the mailings.[62] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#cite_note-61> In 
October 2006 it was reported that the water used to process the 
anthrax spores came from a source in the northeastern United 
States.[63] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#cite_note-Criminal_probe-62>




On September 11, the president and White House 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House> staff began taking a 
regimen of Cipro <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipro>, a powerful 
antibiotic. The public interest group Judicial Watch 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch> filed lawsuits in June 
2002 against federal agencies to obtain information about how, what 
and when the White House knew on 9/11 about the danger of anthrax 
weeks before the first known victim of the anthrax attacks.[41] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#cite_note-40>[42] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#cite_note-41> The 
issue, therefore, is on what grounds governmental officials were 
alerted to prepare for the coming anthrax attacks, which were later 
traced to a U.S. army medical research institute.[43] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#cite_note-42>




Best,

Stefan
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110920/45c32ada/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent

[Michael Chapman]

> Sampo Syreeni wrote:
>
>> On 2011-09-19, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
>>

>> What she does *not* know is that the oldest, simplest and cheapest
>> NSAID medication works even better. I mean, today, now that I ran out
>> of my prescribed NSAID, I again took a gram's worth of aspirin
>> (acetosalicylic acid). As before, it worked twice as well as the 30x
>> more expensive newer -coxib.

>> That's how patents and the like distort real life, in the medical
>> circuit. ...
>
> I am obviously sorry for this incident. If you are right, this is a case
> of wrong treatment or prescription, not really patent-related.
>

I must disagree.
Patents _do_ distort the market.

Unpatented medicines have no budget for marketing: for
representatives to visit practitioners, for advertising, for stands at
conferences, for sponsorship, for 
(which could bring is back to elegant arguments about ambisonics;-)>

The best example is perhaps the 'anthrax scare'. 'Everyone knows'(TM)
that plain ordinary penicillin is effective at treating anthrax (well that's
what the textbooks used to say), but one patented product had a
licence: governments spent fortunes stockpiling the latter, whilst the
former must cost only a few cents a gram 

Michael



___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] another patent

[Stefan Schreiber]

Dave Malham wrote:




On 19/09/2011 15:21, Stefan Schreiber wrote:


Dave Malham wrote:

Well, like I said, I do apologise - it was an unfortunate attempt at 
a humorous dig at the system and the fact that patent examiners, who 
are generally overworked and underpaid, often end up being forced to 
take on patents which are not really in their sphere of expertise 
due to pressure of work (one of the Uni's Patent Agent's told me 
that the US patent office typically allocates less than 20 minutes 
per application - true or not, it gives some indication of the scale 
of the problem)




This can't be true, because < my > (US) examiner wrote 20+ pages in 
the first reaction I got, and they were very elaborated.


Secondly, she presented a quite big list of related documents. 
Therefore, she had spent a considerable amount of time in the 
evaluation of application, and for technical "recherche".


Thirdly, you could not even have read the application in 20 minutes 
(quite obviously), and I can't imagine the USPTO would issue some 
rules which basically would have the consequence that examiners would 
have to judge documents they even could not have read as a whole. (It 
seems to me that this would be neglective, if not illegal.)


Considering payment of examiners, at least European examiners are 
well paid. (In the case of the USPTO, I just don't know.)


The "20 minutes per application" might refer to a specific step, but 
then applications are simply too different to be treated in a given 
time frame. I think this was a rumour...



Well, like I said, "true or not"  - and based on

(no. of examiners * hours worked) / no. of applications received

it's probably more like 10-20 hours on average, based on figures at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office. 
However, stupid stuff does get through (see that same page for some 
real lulus.)



Which is 1 to 2 orders more, just as I wrote. (about factor 50...)




So maybe I was just lucky, but speaking of my own case: they must 
have spent about 1-2 orders more time. And actually, there is always 
more than one examiner. (Two at the USPTO. Three in Europe.)


Stefan, I _do_ think you are lucky (or I was unlucky :'( .) We had a 
case were we had a US examiner who at least appeared not to have fully 
understood the patent and who chose to stick on a point in the patent 
that he said conflicted with a previous patent - this was even after 
the mandatory interview. From his comments, the problem seemed to be 
that he didn't really understand surround audio in the context of 
Ambisonics - which is not that unusual! 


Firstly, the examiner didn't understand some things. However, I was able 
to explain these. Here I probably was lucky. (At the EPO, I had a very 
twisted case of "they don't understand something however well you 
explain", however I think this doesn't belong onto the list. )


As far as I and my colleagues here could see (and our patent agents) 
it appeared that he had simply done a keyword search for "spherical 
harmonics" and "audio".  Even though a) if he was right, every audio 
related patent mentioning spherical harmonics would be dubious (at the 
very least) and b) the people involved in the other patent wrote 
stating they did not agree with him, he refused to change his stance. 
In the end we just gave it up as a bad job and let even the European 
patent lapse. I accept what you say about the number of examiners, but 
I have to say I only ever saw one name mentioned in the documents 
related to the US application - can't honestly say I remember about 
the European application, probably because that was non-problematic.


I am sorry to hear all this. I had some nearly as bad experience last 
year...




However, maybe we should leave this now and get back to more 
interesting stuff. :-)


  


Yes!;-)

Best,

Stefan
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent

[Stefan Schreiber]

e, and it then backfires,


Because patient and normal people have to be protected.

and e.g. 5) how is it that you can be convicted even for a successful, 
illegal drug trial, which helped muliple individuals?


Because illegal means "not legal"?Example, anyway?




Therefore, I think there have been and there are very good reasons to 
protect people or companies doing innovations. (As everybody knows, 
patents are published. Therefore there is less incentive to hide 
innovations from others, which is a good thing. )



I'm seeing no real reason for claiming market failure, or then market 
invervention, there. I'm you know, as I've already tried to explain, 
I'm pretty good at seeing all of those reason.


Thus, please continue, and keep the [ot] ("off topic") tag in the 
subject line. Naturally we both like the others on-list to be able to 
filter us out, as they so like.



Examples of patent abuse or patent trolls [...]



I've seen many enough even in related fields so that that's given. A 
nasty one.



I have admitted there are ones...



In spite of all fashionable theories in certain circles (often 
insider groups with a very homogeneous opinion on topics like 
"copyright" and "patents"), I don't think it would be especially 
good for the economy to abolish the concept of "soft" ownership.




Maybe not, but maybe it should be made even softer on economic rights. 
Like, all immaterial rights (and especially copyright) last for 
something between 2-4 years, at max, and perhaps with renewal 
obligation in between?


Otherwise, accept that every Chinese company can install a "free" 
copy of Windows on any PC.




I would accept. I'd then install GNU/Linux (or perhaps even GNU/Hurd) 
instead. The choice would prolly be between Ubuntu and base Debian, then.


GNU/Linux is meant as a free system, and can coexist with "propietary 
stuff". However, I still don't see that Linux is the best choice for 
normal users. (Wasn't there also a huge problem regarding the last 
update of Ubuntu? A physicist I knew lost actually files. So, they 
didn't test enough.)




I maybe should co-found some company which does some 1:1 clones of 
Apple computers (high quality, of course!) or iPads (you can get the 
parts, no secrets here... :-D ), and accept that people can download 
the latest Hollywood movie for nothing.




It does sound like a business. Given Apple's outrageous profit margins 
and litigiousness, I'd be happy if you did just that.


This is why I proposed the example. Apple has huge pofits, which are 
based on IP protection. However, people are still buying this stuff and 
are happy about.


No matter the fact that Apple *does* really put out high quality 
computing appliances in their 3-4 forms. And no matter that I am 
employed by a rival firm, which right now seems to be losing to Apple.



It is obvious that Nokia had/has a mere software problem, as the quality 
of the handsets is actually very high. But the phone system with the 
biggest growth has recently been  Android, so it is not just about Apple.


Therefore, I think you should be able to compete if you have solved your 
software problems. 



Best,

Stefan



-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110920/0ce23457/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] AES Convention Ambio Demo

[Michael Chapman]

> If any of you are coming to the AES Convention this October, you are
> welcome to come�for a demonstration of Ambiophonics and Panambio in
nearby
> New Jersey.

Every success for the demo's.


> There are�seven different Ambiophonic-like systems�you can try out here
> including component, PC, Apple, Droid, video, and Chinese variants.� Plus
> new linesource�and point source speakers�optimized for Ambio use.

The say distance adds perspective ... and thus I hope this is
constructive ... but I find 'Ambio' if not ambiguous then at
least potentially confusing, as an abbreviation.

Anyway, whatever it/they is/are called, I hope you get plenty of listeners
to hear the variants!

Michael


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent

[Michael Chapman]

> The modern day pharmaceutical industry is perhaps the one exception to
the rule that patents are bad to humanity. Why is that? Well, because
it's remained the most sacred, shielded, unquestioned, and especially
for the longest time. In part because of the huge and quite possibly
unfounded shielding it has. Sometimes that actually works.

I've been holding my tongue, but seeing as Sampo has added an
[OT] tag:

Is it not strange that Medicine relies on patent medicines,
whilst Surgery relies on published 'open source'
procedures .  .  . ?

Michael





___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Blumlein Shuffler - beta testers wanted

[Dave Malham]

Couldn't agree more...

On 20/09/2011 10:58, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:33:08AM +0100, Dave Malham wrote:


As Eric says, though, this isn't much different from what
happens with phono cartridge amplifiers. In fact, one _might_ even say
that all that is happening is that the implicit eq in electro-mechanical
design of ribbon mics is just being done explicitly in the computational
domain.

That's correct, but there is a practical difference (pun not intended).
For the EM cartridge, or the ribbon mic, the difference operation is
done in the physical domain and the problem of unmatched gains before
the difference operation does not arise. And that is not just a matter
of calibration but also of stability. If one mic becomes 0.1 dB more
sensitive than the other (because of e.g. a temperature difference),
and you amplify by 40 dB, then the error has the same magnitude as the
wanted signal. Things get much worse again for higher orders.


Ciao,



--
 These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
/*/
/* Dave Malham   http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
/* Music Research Centre */
/* Department of Music"http://music.york.ac.uk/";   */
/* The University of York  Phone 01904 432448*/
/* Heslington  Fax   01904 432450*/
/* York YO10 5DD */
/* UK   'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'   */
/*"http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/"; */
/*/

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Blumlein Shuffler - beta testers wanted

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:33:08AM +0100, Dave Malham wrote:

> As Eric says, though, this isn't much different from what  
> happens with phono cartridge amplifiers. In fact, one _might_ even say 
> that all that is happening is that the implicit eq in electro-mechanical 
> design of ribbon mics is just being done explicitly in the computational 
> domain.

That's correct, but there is a practical difference (pun not intended).
For the EM cartridge, or the ribbon mic, the difference operation is
done in the physical domain and the problem of unmatched gains before
the difference operation does not arise. And that is not just a matter
of calibration but also of stability. If one mic becomes 0.1 dB more
sensitive than the other (because of e.g. a temperature difference),
and you amplify by 40 dB, then the error has the same magnitude as the
wanted signal. Things get much worse again for higher orders.


Ciao,

-- 
FA

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Blumlein Shuffler - beta testers wanted

[Dave Malham]

On 20/09/2011 01:53, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
OTOH, the shuffler algorithm is exactly the one used to extract the Ambisonic X,Y,Z signals by 
mics using omni capsules on a rigid spere.


This is something totally new to me. Rigid sphere? Originally it was about an open 1D sphere 
(thus, "line segment", so how did it mutate into a rigid sphere in between, in the process?


Yep, it is perfectly possible to extract spherical harmonic responses from omnis on a rigid sphere, 
but it does need some serious equalisation - according to some simulations Eric Benjamin has done 
for me, this may require as much as 40 dB boost in the bass. This is for omnis on a 50mm sphere. For 
first order mics, you'd probably want to use a 25mm sphere to move the HF wobbles up an octave and 
just accept LF rolloff on the dipoles. As Eric says, though, this isn't much different from what 
happens with phono cartridge amplifiers. In fact, one _might_ even say that all that is happening is 
that the implicit eq in electro-mechanical design of ribbon mics is just being done explicitly in 
the computational domain.


 Dave

--
 These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
/*/
/* Dave Malham   http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
/* Music Research Centre */
/* Department of Music"http://music.york.ac.uk/";   */
/* The University of York  Phone 01904 432448*/
/* Heslington  Fax   01904 432450*/
/* York YO10 5DD */
/* UK   'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'   */
/*"http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/"; */
/*/

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] another patent

[Dave Malham]

On 19/09/2011 15:21, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

Dave Malham wrote:

Well, like I said, I do apologise - it was an unfortunate attempt at a humorous dig at the system 
and the fact that patent examiners, who are generally overworked and underpaid, often end up 
being forced to take on patents which are not really in their sphere of expertise due to pressure 
of work (one of the Uni's Patent Agent's told me that the US patent office typically allocates 
less than 20 minutes per application - true or not, it gives some indication of the scale of the 
problem)




This can't be true, because < my > (US) examiner wrote 20+ pages in the first reaction I got, and 
they were very elaborated.


Secondly, she presented a quite big list of related documents. Therefore, she had spent a 
considerable amount of time in the evaluation of application, and for technical "recherche".


Thirdly, you could not even have read the application in 20 minutes (quite obviously), and I can't 
imagine the USPTO would issue some rules which basically would have the consequence that examiners 
would have to judge documents they even could not have read as a whole. (It seems to me that this 
would be neglective, if not illegal.)


Considering payment of examiners, at least European examiners are well paid. (In the case of the 
USPTO, I just don't know.)


The "20 minutes per application" might refer to a specific step, but then applications are simply 
too different to be treated in a given time frame. I think this was a rumour...



Well, like I said, "true or not"  - and based on

(no. of examiners * hours worked) / no. of applications received

it's probably more like 10-20 hours on average, based on figures at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office. However, stupid stuff does 
get through (see that same page for some real lulus.)


So maybe I was just lucky, but speaking of my own case: they must have spent about 1-2 orders more 
time. And actually, there is always more than one examiner. (Two at the USPTO. Three in Europe.)


Stefan, I _do_ think you are lucky (or I was unlucky :'( .) We had a case were we had a US examiner 
who at least appeared not to have fully understood the patent and who chose to stick on a point in 
the patent that he said conflicted with a previous patent - this was even after the mandatory 
interview. From his comments, the problem seemed to be that he didn't really understand surround 
audio in the context of Ambisonics - which is not that unusual! As far as I and my colleagues here 
could see (and our patent agents) it appeared that he had simply done a keyword search for 
"spherical harmonics" and "audio".  Even though a) if he was right, every audio related patent 
mentioning spherical harmonics would be dubious (at the very least) and b) the people involved in 
the other patent wrote stating they did not agree with him, he refused to change his stance. In the 
end we just gave it up as a bad job and let even the European patent lapse. I accept what you say 
about the number of examiners, but I have to say I only ever saw one name mentioned in the documents 
related to the US application - can't honestly say I remember about the European application, 
probably because that was non-problematic.


However, maybe we should leave this now and get back to more interesting stuff. 
:-)

Dave


--
 These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
/*/
/* Dave Malham   http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
/* Music Research Centre */
/* Department of Music"http://music.york.ac.uk/";   */
/* The University of York  Phone 01904 432448*/
/* Heslington  Fax   01904 432450*/
/* York YO10 5DD */
/* UK   'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'   */
/*"http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/"; */
/*/

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Blumlein Shuffler - beta testers wanted

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:53:08AM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> On 2011-09-19, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
>>> Though perhaps more surround than most would think. Come with me,  
>>> here: if you take a look at the compensation circuitry which turns  
>>> A-format into B-format within the conventional SoundField microphone, 
>>> isn't it pretty much *exactly* a 3D Blumlein shuffler?
>>
>> It's not the same. The shuffler is designed to process signals that  
>> have no significant level differences in the frequency range it  
>> handles, just the phase differences.
>
> Like the soundfield above some 10kHz? No?

No. The soundfield capsules are directional, they tend to become
even more directional at HF. They produce level differences which
are matrixed to obtain the AMB signals. The basic assumption of
the matrixing is that everything is in phase, and things would be
perfect and require no filtering at all if the capsules could be
really coincident. The post matrix filtering is there to partially
correct for the effects of non-coincidence, it's a pragmatic
compromise and nothing more.

As said before, the shuffling algorithm (which amounts to integrating
the difference of two pressure signals) is similar to how 'spherical'
mics using omnis derive X,Y,Z. Or to the way the B&K intensity probe
computes the velocity signal. It *requires* non-coincidence. Normal
tetrahral A-format mics do nothing of the sort.

> Yes. But the entirety of the soundfield approaches an omni mic at the  
> very lowest frequencies. Between that 10-12kHz high range and the more  
> usual 2-4kHz well-optimized range (or so), it's so'n'so. At the very  
> highest frequencies it again approaches a monopole, because of the  
> stupendeous amount of spatial aliasing, which then leads to Gerzon's  
> idea that the energy analysis applies even off-centre, and in fact in  
> many cases beyond that.

Sorry, this makes no sense at all. You seem to be mixing up a lot
of concepts without really understanding them. It would be a good
idea to return to the mathematical and physical basics, and allow
intuition in again only after those are well understood. 

Ciao,

-- 
FA

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Blumlein Shuffler - beta testers wanted

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:02:56AM +0100, Paul Hodges wrote:

>> It's not the same. The shuffler is designed to process signals
>> that have no significant level differences in the frequency
>> range it handles, just the phase differences.
>
> But Blumlein also considered shuffling might be desirable with crossed  
> ribbons (Burns, The life and times of AD Blumlein, p133), and I 
> understood this was part of the EMI Stereosonic system (though I'm open 
> to correction on this).

This is a different form of shuffling, it amounts to a much gentler
(0dB at LF, -3dB at HF) shelf filter applied to the difference 
channel (and ideally a corresponding phase compensation in the sum
channel).

This ensures that the LF and HF images of the same source coincide
(except at the extreme L,R positions). It's quite similar to the
shelf filters used in AMB decoding, and based on the same ideas.

Stereosonic was developed after the death of Blumlein. According
to this source  the
circuit was called 'a shuffler' in his honour by his former
collegues.

The software I presented only implements the 'original' Blumlein
shuffler. This is quite different: it operates only on LF, and
the high LF gain (-6 dB/oct) and 90 degrees phase shift of the
difference channel filter are its essential features.

Ciao,

-- 
FA


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound