Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

That makes sense. Thanks. Dave On 31 October 2015 at 16:50, Geoffrey Barton wrote: > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:24:23 + > > From: Dave Malham > > To: Surround Sound discussion group > > Subject:

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

ve Malham <dave.mal...@york.ac.uk> > > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD > > Message-ID: > ><CAPw+1zT+_E1JbYX4q+5nELsSLOugKm=4pfqbg6atybzgu1u...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: tex

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

> > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:24:23 + > From: Dave Malham > To: Surround Sound discussion group > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 87, Issue 20 > Message-ID: >

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

>> > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:40:08 + > From: Dave Malham <dave.mal...@york.ac.uk> > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD > Message-ID: ><CAPw+1zT+_E1JbYX4q+5nELsSLOugKm=4pf

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

> > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:44:35 -0400 > From: "Ronald C.F. Antony" <r...@cubiculum.com> > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD > Message-ID: <8831d411-7334-4736-86a5-a450b42d

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

Kind of thought it might be that - purely manual, or was there any signal dependent stuff going on? Dave On 30 October 2015 at 16:13, Geoffrey Barton wrote: > > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:58:34 + > > From: Dave Malham

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

> > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:58:34 + > From: Dave Malham > To: Surround Sound discussion group > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 87, Issue 20 > Message-ID: >

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

> > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:07:59 + > From: Peter Lennox <p.len...@derby.ac.uk> > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD > Message-ID: > > <28f33490c302

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

SQ playback is pleasant, with good localization and low phasiness (FWIW, > IMHO) > Giovanni Abrate > > -Original Message- From: Martin Leese > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 1:48 PM > To: sursound@music.vt.edu > Subject: Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD > > David Pickett wrote

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

grex) to which I did some minor updates, mainly > in the power supply. > SQ playback is pleasant, with good localization and low phasiness (FWIW, > IMHO) > Giovanni Abrate > > -Original Message- From: Martin Leese > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 1:48 PM > To:

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

I'm intrigued now. On Wednesday, 21 October 2015, Richard wrote: > That is very true, and there never will be. > > Spent to long on it to get it where they are now, and having had nothing but negativity from certain areas regarding my work i fail to see why i should

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

Thank you for proving my point --On 21 October 2015 18:16 +0200 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > I have a marvellous algorithm that will restore old shellacs to their > original 10-octaves full surround beauty, but since the world is what > it is, I'm

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

On 10/21/2015 03:14 PM, Richard wrote: That is very true, and there never will be. I have a marvellous algorithm that will restore old shellacs to their original 10-octaves full surround beauty, but since the world is what it is, I'm not going to show it to you. -- Jörn Nettingsmeier

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

--On 21 October 2015 18:16 +0200 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > I have a marvellous algorithm that will restore old shellacs to their > original 10-octaves full surround beauty, but since the world is what > it is, I'm not going to show it to you. Or maybe it won't

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

David Pickett wrote: > I dont expect them to ever sound as good as an Ambisonic recording, > but I bought some SQ-encoded LPs today. I get pleasant results > playing them out of phase with the same on two rear channels at -6 dB. > > My reason for writing is to ask whether anyone here knows what

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD David Pickett wrote: I dont expect them to ever sound as good as an Ambisonic recording, but I bought some SQ-encoded LPs today. I get pleasant results playing them out of phase with the same on two rear channels at -6 dB. My reason for writing

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

I've done it, along with the QS one. Pretty awful really, he was spot on when he said that SQ was compatible with Ambisonics. Of course i'd imagine that when he said it was better than SQ hardware decoders he was comparing it with a basic 10/40 non-logic decoder and certainly not against a

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

Aah, well... I don't feel that I have fallen into any trap, as I have never even tried to understand the quad matrix systems. I used surround sound in production in my work in the 1990's and none of the matrix systems did what I wanted. I look forward to read from your blog, when you really

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

That is very true, and there never will be. Spent to long on it to get it where they are now, and having had nothing but negativity from certain areas regarding my work i fail to see why i should share it with them. I did once share my work, in fact you and i have talked in the past, and if

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

As i said, saying's one thing, actually doing is another. There's a great deal more to decoding SQ & QS, my proces's are highly advanced and gives results approaching that of the original four channel master, which just just doing simple maths will not do (max 3db) You have fallen into the

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

Richard wrote: The basis for their work appears to be the many inacurate sites filling the web with 'oh-so' wrong, ill informed inacurate information. Well, this subject isn't much of my interests, but at least Stephan Hotto's decoder claims to use exactly the equations you are citing:

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

The basis for their work appears to be the many inacurate sites filling the web with 'oh-so' wrong, ill informed inacurate information. I've had a bash at altering 'Wikipedia' in some areas but it's a thankless task trying to undo the masses of misinformation out there. I've withdrawn into my

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

An interesting site and resource - do hope you don't fall foul of the IP sections of TTIP when (if???) it is ratified! Dave On 20 October 2015 at 20:17, Richard wrote: > Hi > > As some here know i've spent quite a bit of the last five years devoted to > the accurate

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

Richard wrote: the two software programs you've been provided links for don't decode it, they are so wrong it's hard to know where to start. snip I don't normally like advertising it like this Well, sometimes it is good idea to to advertise. I have never heard of your blog and would have

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

There's another: http://www-user.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~junglas/SQdecode/SQdecode.html Eero 20.10.2015, 20:35, David Pickett kirjoitti: I dont expect them to ever sound as good as an Ambisonic recording, but I bought some SQ-encoded LPs today. I get pleasant results playing them out of phase with

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

There's one: http://www.hotto.de/software/quadrophonicmatrixdecoder.html Eero 20.10.2015, 20:35, David Pickett kirjoitti: I dont expect them to ever sound as good as an Ambisonic recording, but I bought some SQ-encoded LPs today. I get pleasant results playing them out of phase with the same

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

Many thanks, Eero! (I dont know why my search didnt turn these up...) I see that the transformation used in the first one is simple to describe. 90 degree rotation is not simple, however! David At 20:37 20-10-15, Eero Aro wrote: There's another:

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

Alas it's far more complex than that, a quick look at the equation will tell you that: Lt = Lf + (- j0.707Lb + 0.707Rb) Rt = Rf + (- 0.707Lb + j0.707 Rb ) Many thanks, Eero! (I dont know why my search didnt turn these up...) I see that the transformation used in the first one is

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

Richard, You say "the two software programs you've been provided links for don't decode it" Just out of curiosity, in what way do the two software decoders fail to properly decode SQ? My interest is purely academic, as I don't have any SQ source material. Eric Benjamin On Tuesday,