Re: [Sursound] Advice on new loudspeaker array... Genelec 8010 speakers?

[Augustine Leudar]

Bah... (; hello Charlie hope you're well ! I just realised the x32 has 32
ins but only 22 outs you can expand it but probably end up paying more than
madi or adats...

On Thursday, 22 October 2015, Charlie Richmond 
wrote:

> Doorstop you say?? ;-)
>
> On 21 October 2015 at 17:30, Augustine Leudar  >
> wrote:
>
> > Daw ☺damn you autocorrect.
> >
> > On Thursday, 22 October 2015, Augustine Leudar <
> augustineleu...@gmail.com >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You should also look at the Behringer x32 - 32 channels, midas preamps,
> > > motorised faders, proven reliability,  works as a usb multichannel
> > > soundcard and door controller.  1000 pounds.
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, Michael Chapman  
> > > ');>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Fons Adriaensen wrote (Thu, October 15, 2015 6:47 pm) :
> > >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:59:46PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> We've seen all those outlandish claims of magical waveguides that
> > >> >> are just fractions of the wavelength in diameter and yet shape the
> > >> >> sound so wonderfully that a 20Hz beam will travel all the way to
> the
> > >> >> moon (using the revolutionary VacuProof™ technology that will
> > >> >> finally bring cinema-friendly space battles). The problem is, this
> > >> >> waveshaping is not physically possible.
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, it's a simple as that - not physically possible.
> > >> >
> > >> > If you think in ambisonic (spherical harmonic) terms it's
> > >> > easy to see why. Orders zero and one correspond to physical
> > >> > quantities, pressure and velocity, so these can be generated
> > >> > directly at any point. Higher order SH can't.
> > >> >
> > >> > Which means that you can have cardioid subs, or even
> > >> > supercardioid ones, but anything expected to create more
> > >> > directional beams will need to be of a size comparable
> > >> > to wavelenght.
> > >> >
> > >> > Can be (and is) done for open-air PA systems using very big
> > >> > arrays. But not in any normal room, there simply isn't the
> > >> > space to do it.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> There's something I've missed here ... for several years (as Feynman
> > >> commented <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTRVlUT665U> there's a
> point
> > >> when it's too late to ask idiot questions, but here goes;-)> :
> > >>
> > >> If X,Y,Z  correspond to velocity
> > >> then does W correspond to some displacement of (a notional membrane
> say
> > >> in) the aether in Jorn's vacuum of space;-)>
> > >>
> > >> If so ... by extension (always dangerous) ... then don't the next five
> > >> (second order) components relate to acceleration ?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> To rephrase the question with no idiot presumptions:
> > >> Why, in ambisonics, do we repeatedly refer to velcocity but never
> > >> acceleration?
> > >> (If one exists, then so must the other.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I feel an idiot even asking, so harsh replies accepted ;-)>
> > >>
> > >> Michael
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> Sursound mailing list
> > >> Sursound@music.vt.edu 
> > >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> here,
> > >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > www.augustineleudar.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > www.augustineleudar.com
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> >
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151022/52b67514/attachment.html
> > >
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu 
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >
>
>

Re: [Sursound] Advice on new loudspeaker array... Genelec 8010 speakers?

[Charlie Richmond]

Doorstop you say?? ;-)

On 21 October 2015 at 17:30, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> Daw ☺damn you autocorrect.
>
> On Thursday, 22 October 2015, Augustine Leudar 
> wrote:
>
> > You should also look at the Behringer x32 - 32 channels, midas preamps,
> > motorised faders, proven reliability,  works as a usb multichannel
> > soundcard and door controller.  1000 pounds.
> >
> > On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, Michael Chapman  > > wrote:
> >
> >> Fons Adriaensen wrote (Thu, October 15, 2015 6:47 pm) :
> >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:59:46PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> We've seen all those outlandish claims of magical waveguides that
> >> >> are just fractions of the wavelength in diameter and yet shape the
> >> >> sound so wonderfully that a 20Hz beam will travel all the way to the
> >> >> moon (using the revolutionary VacuProof™ technology that will
> >> >> finally bring cinema-friendly space battles). The problem is, this
> >> >> waveshaping is not physically possible.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it's a simple as that - not physically possible.
> >> >
> >> > If you think in ambisonic (spherical harmonic) terms it's
> >> > easy to see why. Orders zero and one correspond to physical
> >> > quantities, pressure and velocity, so these can be generated
> >> > directly at any point. Higher order SH can't.
> >> >
> >> > Which means that you can have cardioid subs, or even
> >> > supercardioid ones, but anything expected to create more
> >> > directional beams will need to be of a size comparable
> >> > to wavelenght.
> >> >
> >> > Can be (and is) done for open-air PA systems using very big
> >> > arrays. But not in any normal room, there simply isn't the
> >> > space to do it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> There's something I've missed here ... for several years (as Feynman
> >> commented <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTRVlUT665U> there's a point
> >> when it's too late to ask idiot questions, but here goes;-)> :
> >>
> >> If X,Y,Z  correspond to velocity
> >> then does W correspond to some displacement of (a notional membrane say
> >> in) the aether in Jorn's vacuum of space;-)>
> >>
> >> If so ... by extension (always dangerous) ... then don't the next five
> >> (second order) components relate to acceleration ?
> >>
> >>
> >> To rephrase the question with no idiot presumptions:
> >> Why, in ambisonics, do we repeatedly refer to velcocity but never
> >> acceleration?
> >> (If one exists, then so must the other.)
> >>
> >>
> >> I feel an idiot even asking, so harsh replies accepted ;-)>
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Sursound mailing list
> >> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.augustineleudar.com
> >
> >
>
> --
> www.augustineleudar.com
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151022/52b67514/attachment.html
> >
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



-- 
* Charlie Richmond - http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com
<http://www.richmondsounddesign.com/>
* Viber: +16047159441 Skype, LinkedIn & Twitter: charlierichmond
* facebook: charlie.richmond
* facebook.com/pages/Richmond-Sound-Design-Ltd/130195960832
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Richmond-Sound-Design-Ltd/130195960832>
* google.com/+CharlieRichmond google.com/+Richmondsounddesign
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151021/cbf514af/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Advice on new loudspeaker array... Genelec 8010 speakers?

[Augustine Leudar]

Daw ☺damn you autocorrect.

On Thursday, 22 October 2015, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> You should also look at the Behringer x32 - 32 channels, midas preamps,
> motorised faders, proven reliability,  works as a usb multichannel
> soundcard and door controller.  1000 pounds.
>
> On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, Michael Chapman  > wrote:
>
>> Fons Adriaensen wrote (Thu, October 15, 2015 6:47 pm) :
>> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:59:46PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
>> >
>> >> We've seen all those outlandish claims of magical waveguides that
>> >> are just fractions of the wavelength in diameter and yet shape the
>> >> sound so wonderfully that a 20Hz beam will travel all the way to the
>> >> moon (using the revolutionary VacuProof™ technology that will
>> >> finally bring cinema-friendly space battles). The problem is, this
>> >> waveshaping is not physically possible.
>> >
>> > Yes, it's a simple as that - not physically possible.
>> >
>> > If you think in ambisonic (spherical harmonic) terms it's
>> > easy to see why. Orders zero and one correspond to physical
>> > quantities, pressure and velocity, so these can be generated
>> > directly at any point. Higher order SH can't.
>> >
>> > Which means that you can have cardioid subs, or even
>> > supercardioid ones, but anything expected to create more
>> > directional beams will need to be of a size comparable
>> > to wavelenght.
>> >
>> > Can be (and is) done for open-air PA systems using very big
>> > arrays. But not in any normal room, there simply isn't the
>> > space to do it.
>> >
>>
>> There's something I've missed here ... for several years (as Feynman
>> commented  there's a point
>> when it's too late to ask idiot questions, but here goes;-)> :
>>
>> If X,Y,Z  correspond to velocity
>> then does W correspond to some displacement of (a notional membrane say
>> in) the aether in Jorn's vacuum of space;-)>
>>
>> If so ... by extension (always dangerous) ... then don't the next five
>> (second order) components relate to acceleration ?
>>
>>
>> To rephrase the question with no idiot presumptions:
>> Why, in ambisonics, do we repeatedly refer to velcocity but never
>> acceleration?
>> (If one exists, then so must the other.)
>>
>>
>> I feel an idiot even asking, so harsh replies accepted ;-)>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
>> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>>
>
>
> --
> www.augustineleudar.com
>
>

-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Advice on new loudspeaker array... Genelec 8010 speakers?

[Augustine Leudar]

You should also look at the Behringer x32 - 32 channels, midas preamps,
motorised faders, proven reliability,  works as a usb multichannel
soundcard and door controller.  1000 pounds.

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, Michael Chapman  wrote:

> Fons Adriaensen wrote (Thu, October 15, 2015 6:47 pm) :
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:59:46PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> >
> >> We've seen all those outlandish claims of magical waveguides that
> >> are just fractions of the wavelength in diameter and yet shape the
> >> sound so wonderfully that a 20Hz beam will travel all the way to the
> >> moon (using the revolutionary VacuProof™ technology that will
> >> finally bring cinema-friendly space battles). The problem is, this
> >> waveshaping is not physically possible.
> >
> > Yes, it's a simple as that - not physically possible.
> >
> > If you think in ambisonic (spherical harmonic) terms it's
> > easy to see why. Orders zero and one correspond to physical
> > quantities, pressure and velocity, so these can be generated
> > directly at any point. Higher order SH can't.
> >
> > Which means that you can have cardioid subs, or even
> > supercardioid ones, but anything expected to create more
> > directional beams will need to be of a size comparable
> > to wavelenght.
> >
> > Can be (and is) done for open-air PA systems using very big
> > arrays. But not in any normal room, there simply isn't the
> > space to do it.
> >
>
> There's something I've missed here ... for several years (as Feynman
> commented  there's a point
> when it's too late to ask idiot questions, but here goes;-)> :
>
> If X,Y,Z  correspond to velocity
> then does W correspond to some displacement of (a notional membrane say
> in) the aether in Jorn's vacuum of space;-)>
>
> If so ... by extension (always dangerous) ... then don't the next five
> (second order) components relate to acceleration ?
>
>
> To rephrase the question with no idiot presumptions:
> Why, in ambisonics, do we repeatedly refer to velcocity but never
> acceleration?
> (If one exists, then so must the other.)
>
>
> I feel an idiot even asking, so harsh replies accepted ;-)>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu 
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>


-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

[Sursound] Calrec Soundfield MKIV for sale (Kevin Campbell)

[Kevin Campbell]

I have a mint Calrec Soundfield MKIV microphone that I’m looking to sell
and am posting it first on the Surround group to see if anyone is
interested in buying it and/or the Audio+Design gear



Here’s what is available:



Calrec MK IV microphone (Control Unit serial # 059) (Microphone Unit serial
#660) with Carrying Case and Soundfield owner’s manual with schematics



Audio+Design Ambisonic UHJ Encoder/Transcoder (with manual/schematic)



Audio+Design Ambisonic UHJ and B-format Decoder UHJ (with manual/schematic)



20m Microphone Cable



100m Microphone Cable on a reel with 12 pin Din Connectors



I bought the MKIV in the late 1980’s and it’s been well taken care of.  I
used it mostly in New Mexico recording classical music. I sent the
microphone back to England in the late 1990’s to have it calibrated and
they said it looked good and even offered to buy it if I ever wanted to
sell it.



The microphone hasn’t seen much use these last dozen years, so it’s time
for it to find a new home.



Please contact me off list if you’re interested. I live in Portland Oregon.



Kevin Campbell

mrzimp...@gmail.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151021/a1285d98/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[tryphon]

I have that decoder (Integrex) 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: sursound@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 ask whether anyone here knows what an SQ
decoder actually did.  Despite all the BS Ben Bauer spouted when he
presented it to the AES in London (or was it the BKSTS?), I seem to
recall that it wasnt too sophisticated and perhaps, knowing this, one
can synthesize something better than the above in a DAW.


MAG's distaste for SQ is well documented,
and in December 1977 there was even a fight
between him and Benjamin Bauer on the
pages of New Scientist.  (This was refereed
by Barry Fox (writing as Adrian Hope).)

However, in July and August 1977 (refs at end),
Gerzon published the design of an Ambisonic
decoder that included an SQ mode (along with
nine other modes).   In Part 1, Gerzon wrote:
  "SQ decoders cannot be designed to give
   full ambisonic results; there is even a
   mathematical theorem to this effect.  The
   decoder for SQ provided is, however, less
   phasey in quality than the SQ designs on
   the market, and was designed specifically
   for incorporation into this design.  It is not
   in accordance with CBS Laboratories' SQ
   specification, but in the author's opinion, it
   is better than decoders that are."

In Part 2, the equations for decoding SQ are
given as:
   W'' = 0.73*Sum
   X'' = -0.73*j*Sum
   Y'' = 0.73*Diff - 0.73*j*Diff
   where Sum = Left + Right
   and Diff = Left - Right

As far as I can tell, W'' is the W' signal after
the shelf filters (and the SQ mode did not use
shelf filters).  Also the W' signal appears to be
the W signal after removal of the Sqrt(2)
weighting.  Anyone interested in implementing
this decoder will need to read the refs, which
will be somewhere in the Ambisonic
Motherlode.

Regards,
Martin

Michael Gerzon, "Multi-System Ambisonic
Decoder":
   Part 1: "Basic Design Philosophy",
   Wireless World, vol. 83 no. 1499,
   pp. 43-47 (1977 July).
   Part 2: "Main Decoder Circuits",
   Wireless World, vol. 83 no. 1500,
   pp. 69-73 (1977 Aug.).
   later parts never written & published.

--
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 - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on. 


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[Richard]

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 an SQ
  > decoder actually did.  Despite all the BS Ben Bauer spouted when he
  > presented it to the AES in London (or was it the BKSTS?), I seem to
  > recall that it wasnt too sophisticated and perhaps, knowing this, one
  > can synthesize something better than the above in a DAW.

  MAG's distaste for SQ is well documented,
  and in December 1977 there was even a fight
  between him and Benjamin Bauer on the
  pages of New Scientist.  (This was refereed
  by Barry Fox (writing as Adrian Hope).)

  However, in July and August 1977 (refs at end),
  Gerzon published the design of an Ambisonic
  decoder that included an SQ mode (along with
  nine other modes).   In Part 1, Gerzon wrote:
 "SQ decoders cannot be designed to give
  full ambisonic results; there is even a
  mathematical theorem to this effect.  The
  decoder for SQ provided is, however, less
  phasey in quality than the SQ designs on
  the market, and was designed specifically
  for incorporation into this design.  It is not
  in accordance with CBS Laboratories' SQ
  specification, but in the author's opinion, it
  is better than decoders that are."

  In Part 2, the equations for decoding SQ are
  given as:
  W'' = 0.73*Sum
  X'' = -0.73*j*Sum
  Y'' = 0.73*Diff - 0.73*j*Diff
  where Sum = Left + Right
  and Diff = Left - Right

  As far as I can tell, W'' is the W' signal after
  the shelf filters (and the SQ mode did not use
  shelf filters).  Also the W' signal appears to be
  the W signal after removal of the Sqrt(2)
  weighting.  Anyone interested in implementing
  this decoder will need to read the refs, which
  will be somewhere in the Ambisonic
  Motherlode.

  Regards,
  Martin

  Michael Gerzon, "Multi-System Ambisonic
  Decoder":
  Part 1: "Basic Design Philosophy",
  Wireless World, vol. 83 no. 1499,
  pp. 43-47 (1977 July).
  Part 2: "Main Decoder Circuits",
  Wireless World, vol. 83 no. 1500,
  pp. 69-73 (1977 Aug.).
  later parts never written & published.

  -- 
  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 - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
------ next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151021/21c1aa4a/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[Martin Leese]

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 an SQ
> decoder actually did.  Despite all the BS Ben Bauer spouted when he
> presented it to the AES in London (or was it the BKSTS?), I seem to
> recall that it wasnt too sophisticated and perhaps, knowing this, one
> can synthesize something better than the above in a DAW.

MAG's distaste for SQ is well documented,
and in December 1977 there was even a fight
between him and Benjamin Bauer on the
pages of New Scientist.  (This was refereed
by Barry Fox (writing as Adrian Hope).)

However, in July and August 1977 (refs at end),
Gerzon published the design of an Ambisonic
decoder that included an SQ mode (along with
nine other modes).   In Part 1, Gerzon wrote:
   "SQ decoders cannot be designed to give
full ambisonic results; there is even a
mathematical theorem to this effect.  The
decoder for SQ provided is, however, less
phasey in quality than the SQ designs on
the market, and was designed specifically
for incorporation into this design.  It is not
in accordance with CBS Laboratories' SQ
specification, but in the author's opinion, it
is better than decoders that are."

In Part 2, the equations for decoding SQ are
given as:
W'' = 0.73*Sum
X'' = -0.73*j*Sum
Y'' = 0.73*Diff - 0.73*j*Diff
where Sum = Left + Right
and Diff = Left - Right

As far as I can tell, W'' is the W' signal after
the shelf filters (and the SQ mode did not use
shelf filters).  Also the W' signal appears to be
the W signal after removal of the Sqrt(2)
weighting.  Anyone interested in implementing
this decoder will need to read the refs, which
will be somewhere in the Ambisonic
Motherlode.

Regards,
Martin

Michael Gerzon, "Multi-System Ambisonic
Decoder":
Part 1: "Basic Design Philosophy",
Wireless World, vol. 83 no. 1499,
pp. 43-47 (1977 July).
Part 2: "Main Decoder Circuits",
Wireless World, vol. 83 no. 1500,
pp. 69-73 (1977 Aug.).
later parts never written & published.

-- 
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 - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[Richard]

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.

  Or maybe it won't fit in the margin of this email...

  Paul

  -- 
  Paul Hodges

  ___
  Sursound mailing list
  Sursound@music.vt.edu
  https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151021/ce3d990a/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[Paul Hodges]

--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...

Paul

-- 
Paul Hodges

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

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
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT

http://stackingdwarves.net

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[Augustine Leudar]

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 did once share my work, in fact you and i have talked in the past, and
if you dig REALLY deep you'l find my earlly versions for SQ, which are at
least 1000% better than those two programs) but as others knew better i've
let them go their own way (which apears to be nowhere) and i've gone mine.
>
> The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
>
>
>
>
>   - 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 reveal what the
>   "advanced and mysterious decoding systems" really keep inside.
>   Right now, I couldn't find any practical solutions that anyone could use
>   from your site. That is why people keep using the programmes that I
>   linked to.
>
>   Until then,
>
>   cheers
>
>   Eero
>   ___
>   Sursound mailing list
>   Sursound@music.vt.edu
>   https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151021/90fbec49/attachment.html
>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>

-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151021/aa916687/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[Richard]

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 
dig REALLY deep you'l find my earlly versions for SQ, which are at least 1000% 
better than those two programs) but as others knew better i've let them go 
their own way (which apears to be nowhere) and i've gone mine.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say.




  - 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 reveal what the
  "advanced and mysterious decoding systems" really keep inside.
  Right now, I couldn't find any practical solutions that anyone could use
  from your site. That is why people keep using the programmes that I
  linked to.

  Until then,

  cheers

  Eero
  ___
  Sursound mailing list
  Sursound@music.vt.edu
  https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151021/90fbec49/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[Eero Aro]

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 reveal what the
"advanced and mysterious decoding systems" really keep inside.
Right now, I couldn't find any practical solutions that anyone could use
from your site. That is why people keep using the programmes that I
linked to.

Until then,

cheers

Eero
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[Richard]

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 trap that everybody falls into, that of 
misunderstanding these old matrix systems and the complexity that lies within 
what appears to be a simple equation.

I was most fortunate to have a 'pen-pal' relationship with Ben while i was at 
college in the early 1970's and as been said here a few posts ago, yes he did 
bang on about SQ, but nobody actually bothered to really listen, and lost the 
chance to learn how interesting/complex SQ really was.

Perhaps you should listen to a 'Pheonix' so you can hear just how good SQ 
actualy was. The issue with the system (as well as QS) was that technology 
wasn't up to the job at the time, which gace them the bad names they aquired.

But, we're in the 21st century now...






  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:

  Implemented Decoding Matrixes:

  SQ (CBS):
  LF = L
  RF = R
  LB = 0.707 * jL - 0.707 * R
  RB = 0.707 * L - 0.707 * jR

  http://www.hotto.de/software/quadrophonicmatrixdecoder.html

  Apart from that, I don't think see anything very "complicated" about that.
  (And I am very bad with mathematics.)

  Multipliers mean different gains, the needed phase shifts are simply +/- 90
  and +/- 180 degrees. There's plenty of phase-shifter plugins available 
  that do
  the job.

  Been there, done that in AudioMulch. Worked fine for me.

  Now, if you'd like to go the gain riding (logic, as they were called) 
  path of the
  analog decoders, that's where I raise my hands.

  Eero
  ___
  Sursound mailing list
  Sursound@music.vt.edu
  https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-- next part ------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151021/efab3bf5/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[Eero Aro]

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:

Implemented Decoding Matrixes:

SQ (CBS):
LF = L
RF = R
LB = 0.707 * jL - 0.707 * R
RB = 0.707 * L - 0.707 * jR

http://www.hotto.de/software/quadrophonicmatrixdecoder.html

Apart from that, I don't think see anything very "complicated" about that.
(And I am very bad with mathematics.)

Multipliers mean different gains, the needed phase shifts are simply +/- 90
and +/- 180 degrees. There's plenty of phase-shifter plugins available 
that do

the job.

Been there, done that in AudioMulch. Worked fine for me.

Now, if you'd like to go the gain riding (logic, as they were called) 
path of the

analog decoders, that's where I raise my hands.

Eero
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[Richard]

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 little world watching as the world goes slowly 
mad.




  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, October 20, 2015 11:02 AM, 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 an SQ 
  decoder actually did. Despite all the BS Ben Bauer spouted when he 
  presented it to the AES in London (or was it the BKSTS?), I seem to 
  recall that it wasnt too sophisticated and perhaps, knowing this, one 
  can synthesize something better than the above in a DAW.

  Thanks in advant for any pointers.

  David

  ___
  Sursound mailing list
  Sursound@music.vt.edu
  https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.



  -- next part --
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151021/c7f31b41/attachment.html>
  ___
  Sursound mailing list
  Sursound@music.vt.edu
  https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151021/f0a3c474/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] ADAT vs. MADI

[Emanuele Costantini]

Also the DirectOut Technologies EXBOX.UMA is an interesting box also for 
portable solutions:


http://www.directout.eu/en/products/exbox.uma.html

I have it for few months now and I cannot claim any issue with it. I am 
just a bit concernet about the lack of drivers upgrades release.
I am using it with OSX Yosemite and works flawlessly despite the driver 
is claimed not ready for it.

Price is very competitive.

Emanuele


On 16/10/2015 13:11, Ben Bloomberg wrote:

Jörn is absolutely spot on here.
If you are interested in a box with AES, ADAT, MADI and AVB, check out
MOTU's 112D.
It's a great unit.
Ben

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Jörn Nettingsmeier <
netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote:


On 10/16/2015 01:02 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote:

I am curious also about your comment that adat was unreliable - is this

your experience in general or just the original ada8000 ? The ada8200 has
no reports of unreliability since the.changed PSU. Unless he needs
his.computer more than ten metres from adat it puts the cost of 32
channels
from around 1500 euros to andiamo and madi around 5000 euros .


I wasn't talking about the Behringer converter, specifically. Yes, the old
one was notorious for its badly designed power supply - it died on me
several times. The new one is supposed to be much better.

But ADAT itself is a problem in fixed installations. The connectors are
toys (I usually apply a drop of hot glue, but that has its downsides :), th
plastic fibers are toys (get the right length, signal will drop a lot when
you coil them too much), and ADAT sync is one of these technologies that
are working most of the time. Which in my book is worse than something that
never works :(
Plus ADAT interfaces will pop loudly when you switch them in the wrong
order or hotplug a connector.

I already talked about ADAT cable length restrictions. Can be overcome,
but then you should factor in the costs of a dual-screen remote console in
the venue that connects to the rendering computer in the machine room.
Also, factor in the (small) cost of Wordclock sync to every ADAT device,
just to be safe.

Just providing a single MADI connector for visiting artists to hook up to
is often easier that re-routing a bunch of ADAT lines. Plus you don't want
to take your ADAT plugs through too many mating cycles, they will become
even more unreliable after a short while. BNC or SC are bullet-proof.

So yes, you can cut the budget a little, but I don't think it's the best
option. I feel I should be recommending something Audio-over-IP-based
rather than MADI, but with its strange renaissance, MADI gear is now quite
affordable and will be for another few years. Plus it's usually built to
broadcast standards, which means it's an investment that will last you a
while. And in terms of SNR, the Andiamo is a lot better than the Behringer
(not to say the latter is bad).



--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT

http://stackingdwarves.net

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
edit account or options, view archives and so on.


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] ADAT vs. MADI

[Augustine Leudar]

Ha ! But would the difference be audible in a level matched abx listening
test  I'm willing to bet you one English craft beer it wouldn't :)
maybe the preamps but not the sacs. I cant help thinking if the guy doesn't
need to have the converters far from the computer he'd be better investing
money in room treatment and basstraps etc than higher end DAconverters.

On Saturday, 17 October 2015, Jörn Nettingsmeier <
netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote:
> On 10/16/2015 11:37 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>
>> I've been using them for four years and not experienced those problems
>> (apart from original a da 8000's PSU problems) . The four adat set to
slave
>> are controlled by the raydat master clock no need for Wordclock.
>
> Agreed, this particular setup works well in my experience, too.
>
> The problem with ADAT for pro environments is that you cannot do distance
and you cannot have patchbays (well, you can try with Toslink connectors,
but it's very unreliable).
>
>> In fact
>> many people seem to regard external master clocks as snake oil.  Im not
>> going there.
>
> If you have really crappy clocks, an external master helps. But if you
have any RME equipment, you already have a very good word clock generator,
no need to pay for an extra one.
>
> What I'm saying is that some implementations of ADAT are notoriously bad
at locking and syncing (Yamaha desks come to mind - I've had to wordclock
them time and again because they were unable to sync to ADAT reliably). So
I would prefer having wordclock sync everywhere, which in the case of the
ADA8200s requires an extra wordclock splitter since they don't have WC outs.
>
>> Cable length is not a problem as I have computer and adats in
>> the same rack so cable length is not an issue.
>
> Well, if you can wire the ADAT once, inside a single rack, and never
touch it again, you're probably fine.
>
>> As for signal to noise ratio well I've seen
>> this discussed quite a lot with pre amps but rarely these days with dacs.
>> Thd and "noise " is well below audible levels in both units - I can point
>> you to measurements of ada800 if your interested certainly it held its
own
>> against more expensive units.
>
> It's true that the ADA8k is good enough for most applications, but the
extra price of a better converter does get you another 10-15dB less THD+N,
plus the THD at least in the old 8000s was quite nasty. I've just replaced
an 8000 with an Andiamo in my mixing environment, and the difference is
quite audible there. Probably not in your average live venue, though.
> Haven't had the chance to hear the new 8200s yet, from what I heard
they're a lot better.
>
>> The one place I do concede is the cables are
>> a pain but if you set it up right and dont move it there shouldn't be any
>> problems . My rig is mobile do the cables are annoying but not 2 thousand
>> pounds worth of annoying. I guess this is why large multichannel
>>   installations such as the wfs systems at Salford university or game of
>> life because the extra cost of madi is not worth the gain in performance
>>   (which audibly is none). Still i like the idea of one box out of
curiosity
>> does the Andiamo supply balanced outs ?
>
> Of course. Due to space restrictions (it's 32 AD/DA in one rack unit),
the balanced ins and outs are D-SUB-25. A bit of extra hassle - I made my
own breakouts for it. You can get them from RME or Directout, but they are
quite expensive.
> But since I'm also using it in the studio, the D-SUBs actually quicker to
connect than individual XLRs.
> And the new firmware comes with a complete matrix router that spans all
analog and MADI ins and outs. Quite handy, and you can run it
MIDI-over-MADI, so you don't need an extra cable there.
>
>
> --
> Jörn Nettingsmeier
> Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
>
> Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
> Tonmeister VDT
>
> http://stackingdwarves.net
>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>

-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151021/7017f54f/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[Dave Malham]

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 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 are so wrong it's hard to know where to start.
>
> I run a blog devoted to the decoding of (almost) all of the matrix systems
> and making avilable high quality decodes of these original surround
> recordings. I don't normally like advertising it like this but if you'd
> care to pop along to it then contact me on the blog's email address if you
> have any questions.
>
> https://dreamingspiresquadarchive.wordpress.com/
>
>
>
>   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.  Despite all the BS Ben Bauer spouted when he
>   presented it to the AES in London (or was it the BKSTS?), I seem to
>   recall that it wasnt too sophisticated and perhaps, knowing this, one
>   can synthesize something better than the above in a DAW.
>
>   Thanks in advant for any pointers.
>
>   David
>
>   ___
>   Sursound mailing list
>   Sursound@music.vt.edu
>   https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151020/afdd33e9/attachment.html
> >
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



-- 

As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.

These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University

Dave Malham
Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
The University of York
York YO10 5DD
UK

'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151021/723fa185/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] SQ QUAD

[David Pickett]

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 * L - 0.707 * jR

which seems likely.

Then this is what is claimed to be done on one of the websites quoted 
here earlier by Eero:


http://www.hotto.de/software/quadrophonicmatrixdecoder.html

David 


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.