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] Sursound Digest, Vol 87, Issue 20
> > Message-ID:
> >
: Surround Sound discussion group
> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD
> > Message-ID:
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Kind of thought it might be that - purely manual,
>
> no
>
> > or was there any signal
> >
>>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:40:08 +
> From: Dave Malham
> To: Surround Sound discussion group
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Kind of thought it might be
>
> 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:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Well, I tracked down at least one source for my memory
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:44:35 -0400
> From: "Ronald C.F. Antony"
> To: Surround Sound discussion group
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD
> Message-ID: <8831d411-7334-4736-86a5-a450b42df...@cubiculum.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; char
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
> > To: Surround Sound discussion group
> > Sub
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:07:59 +
> From: Peter Lennox
> To: Surround Sound discussion group
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD
> Message-ID:
>
> <28f33490c302424e98cc6dc2531b2048010969e41...@mkt-mbx01.university.ds.derby.ac.uk>
&g
>
> 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:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Geofrey,
>Thanks for the info - now you men
Tel: 01332 593155
From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Ronald C.F. Antony
[r...@cubiculum.com]
Sent: 29 October 2015 17:44
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD
On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:22, Geoffrey B
On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:22, Geoffrey Barton wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2015, at 04:41, Dave Malham wrote:
>
>> Going back to this old theme, something which slipped under my radar but
>> reappeared when I was re-reading the Integrex decoder articles was
>> Michael's throw-away statement on page 3 that
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:
>
>
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: sursound@music.
@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 is to
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 Tate
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 a
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 not going to show it to you.
O
--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 fit in the margin of this email..
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
Lort
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 share it with them.
>
> I
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 you
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 reve
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 same
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:
Impleme
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 l
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 decoding of the 70's mat
At 21:56 20-10-15, Richard wrote:
>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 )
If the inverse matrix of these equations is:
LF = L
RF = R
LB = 0.707 * jL - 0.707 * R
RB = 0.707
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, Octobe
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 s
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:
http://www-user.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~junglas/SQd
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 n
Hi
As some here know i've spent quite a bit of the last five years devoted to the
accurate decoding of the 70's matrix systems, including SQ.
Decoding SQ is far more complicated than people think and i'm sorry to say the
two software programs you've been provided links for don't decode it, they
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 th
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
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 an SQ
decoder actually did.
34 matches
Mail list logo
