seva <s...@soundcurrent.com> > was it not true that the UK did not, or would not, help to support > the ambisonic fledgling business due to some frustrating legal > restriction? this was a major point in the killing of the launch.
I assume by "the UK" you mean the UK Government. The UK Government, through the National Research Development Corporation, strongly supported the development of Ambisonics; they paid for it. While the NRDC had strange ideas on how to market Ambisonics, there were no legal restrictions on them doing so. > in addition, when MAG openly criticized (and mathematically gutted) > the Quad stuff, he did not make friends with many in the industry and > they made sure he was sidelined. This looks like a reference to the obituary of MAG by Barry Fox, visit: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Ambisonic/faq_latest.html#SECTION26 Most of MAG's criticisms were targeted at the SQ system. My impression is that it was CBS who made enemies inside the industry, not MAG. For a different perspective on this, read the comments by Peter Scheiber at the end of a 1986 article in MultiChannelSound by William Sommerwerck. This article is available on my Google Site under "Ambisonic stuff"; visit: https://sites.google.com/site/mytemporarydownloads/ Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
