KVR Audio

wcharlw · Post by **wcharlw** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:56 pm

AdmiralQuality wrote:
wcharlw wrote:
Borogove wrote:What's the patent number?

wcharlw wrote:delivering a sound that is 40% better without risking distortion
Define for us, rigorously, what you mean by "better" here.
The patent is held by the company I work for - Dorrough Electronics (a twice Emmy award winning company). So if you are interested in working with us send me your credentials and please only serious applicants with solid credentials need to contact us.
If I apply it twice, will that make the sound 60% better? What if the sound is already 100% f**king awesome?

Sorry man, but the best way to get flamed in here is to come in spouting off about your awesome idea that's too great to even tell us what it is. Even though you claim to have patented it. And to talk to a group of DSP coders and explain your effect as something that makes audio "better"? Seriously?

Frankly, I think companies that patent software deserve a punch in the face. (Copyright sure! Patent, NO!) What if some a-hole had patented ASCII or IEEE 754 floating point format? Where would we be now? These days we have the likes of Apple patenting the f**king slider.

BTW, if your algorithm does anything, it's probably compression, and I guarantee you there's lots of others out there already violating your patent.

Well its not a claim that we have a patent we do have one (and if you want to punch me in the face I think now is the time:-)) and no it is not compression. I have to laugh at some of these comments and yes maybe I shot my mouth off so I do deserve some of the comment - but hey I got your attention

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:59 pm

(Copyright sure! Patent, NO!)

because you find it better that a company managed to trademark "apple"?

I'm gonna register every letter in the alphabet & pwn all your words.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:00 pm

wcharlw wrote: Well its not a claim that we have a patent we do have one (and if you want to punch me in the face I think now is the time:-)) and no it is not compression. I have to laugh at some of these comments and yes maybe I shot my mouth off so I do deserve some of the comment - but hey I got your attention

[/quote]

Yes, but unfortunately we all think you're a joker now.

P.S. Your website looks like it's from 1997. Maybe I'll send you a fax.

wcharlw · Post by **wcharlw** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:06 pm

AdmiralQuality wrote:
wcharlw wrote:
Borogove wrote:What's the patent number?

wcharlw wrote:delivering a sound that is 40% better without risking distortion
Define for us, rigorously, what you mean by "better" here.
The patent is held by the company I work for - Dorrough Electronics (a twice Emmy award winning company). So if you are interested in working with us send me your credentials and please only serious applicants with solid credentials need to contact us.
If I apply it twice, will that make the sound 60% better? What if the sound is already 100% f**king awesome?

Sorry man, but the best way to get flamed in here is to come in spouting off about your awesome idea that's too great to even tell us what it is. Even though you claim to have patented it. And to talk to a group of DSP coders and explain your effect as something that makes audio "better"? Seriously?

Frankly, I think companies that patent software deserve a punch in the face. (Copyright sure! Patent, NO!) What if some a-hole had patented ASCII or IEEE 754 floating point format? Where would we be now? These days we have the likes of Apple patenting the f**king slider.

BTW, if your algorithm does anything, it's probably compression, and I guarantee you there's lots of others out there already violating your patent.

Well its not a claim that we have a patent we do have one (and if you want to punch me in the face I think now is the time:-)) and no it is not compression. I have to laugh at some of these comments and yes maybe I shot my mouth off so I do deserve some of the comment - but hey I got your attention

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:07 pm

tony tony chopper wrote:
(Copyright sure! Patent, NO!)
because you find it better that a company managed to trademark "apple"?

I'm gonna register every letter in the alphabet & pwn all your words.

Then I'm going to copyright the blues!

And yes, every time you buy an Apple product you're helping pay for the Apple Corps/Apple Computer fiasco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corp ... e_Computer

That's trademark infringement.

Patent infringement is when you take somebody else's idea for a MACHINE, and steal it. Like when you take the Creative Zen and claim to have re-invented it as the iPod. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_laws ... nt_dispute

"Think different." They should try it some time!

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:11 pm

If it's patented you should be able to discuss it, yes? You're protected against anyone stealing your methods. Might as well tell what its number is.

Shabdahbriah · Post by **Shabdahbriah** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:15 pm

Let me help you with that:

wcharlw wrote:
AdmiralQuality wrote:
wcharlw wrote:
Borogove wrote:What's the patent number?

wcharlw wrote:delivering a sound that is 40% better without risking distortion
Define for us, rigorously, what you mean by "better" here.
The patent is held by the company I work for - Dorrough Electronics (a twice Emmy award winning company). So if you are interested in working with us send me your credentials and please only serious applicants with solid credentials need to contact us.
If I apply it twice, will that make the sound 60% better? What if the sound is already 100% f**king awesome?

Sorry man, but the best way to get flamed in here is to come in spouting off about your awesome idea that's too great to even tell us what it is. Even though you claim to have patented it. And to talk to a group of DSP coders and explain your effect as something that makes audio "better"? Seriously?

Frankly, I think companies that patent software deserve a punch in the face. (Copyright sure! Patent, NO!) What if some a-hole had patented ASCII or IEEE 754 floating point format? Where would we be now? These days we have the likes of Apple patenting the f**king slider.

BTW, if your algorithm does anything, it's probably compression, and I guarantee you there's lots of others out there already violating your patent.
Well its not a claim that we have a patent we do have one (and if you want to punch me in the face I think now is the time:-)) and no it is not compression. I have to laugh at some of these comments and yes maybe I shot my mouth off so I do deserve some of the comment - but hey I got your attention

vespers75 · Post by **vespers75** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:19 pm

DaveHoskins wrote: Or maybe it means it makes music shine like glistening rays of sunlight streaming through the beautiful fresh morning skies - or something.

I want an algorithm that does the exact opposite of that description.

Shabdahbriah · Post by **Shabdahbriah** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:23 pm

vespers75 wrote:
DaveHoskins wrote: Or maybe it means it makes music shine like glistening rays of sunlight streaming through the beautiful fresh morning skies - or something.
I want an algorithm that does the exact opposite of that description.

You want Ableton Live, then.

(kidding)

Borogove · Post by **Borogove** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:56 pm

wcharlw wrote:
Borogove wrote:What's the patent number?

wcharlw wrote:delivering a sound that is 40% better without risking distortion
Define for us, rigorously, what you mean by "better" here.
The patent is held by the company I work for - Dorrough Electronics (a twice Emmy award winning company). So if you are interested in working with us send me your credentials and please only serious applicants with solid credentials need to contact us.

Hmm, not seeing a lot here, but I suppose Dorrough could now own a patent filed by someone else.

http://www.patentbuddy.com/Company/Prof ... NICS/49772

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:11 am

Borogove wrote:
wcharlw wrote:
Borogove wrote:What's the patent number?

wcharlw wrote:delivering a sound that is 40% better without risking distortion
Define for us, rigorously, what you mean by "better" here.
The patent is held by the company I work for - Dorrough Electronics (a twice Emmy award winning company). So if you are interested in working with us send me your credentials and please only serious applicants with solid credentials need to contact us.
Hmm, not seeing a lot here, but I suppose Dorrough could now own a patent filed by someone else.

http://www.patentbuddy.com/Company/Prof ... NICS/49772

It's his world. Film. They just don't get audio. But yes, the bow-to-me-and-apply-and-only-then-will-I-explain-how-worthy-my-awesome-idea-is guys get on my nerves.

valhallasound · Post by **valhallasound** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:38 am

AdmiralQuality wrote: Frankly, I think companies that patent software deserve a punch in the face.

http://www.google.com/patents/about/778 ... 3UAAAAEBAJ

What are ya gonna do, INTERNET TOUGH GUY???!!!!!!

Sean Costello

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:43 am

Before things get 20% weirder, for the OP: A little information would go a long way in getting positive attention.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:02 am

valhallasound wrote:
AdmiralQuality wrote: Frankly, I think companies that patent software deserve a punch in the face.
http://www.google.com/patents/about/778 ... 3UAAAAEBAJ

What are ya gonna do, INTERNET TOUGH GUY???!!!!!!

Sean Costello

You see, that's EXACTLY the kind of overbearing patent of NOTHING that I'M talking about!

Geeze, virtually every video game sound engine does that! It's like patenting fire.

valhallasound · Post by **valhallasound** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:04 am

http://www.google.com/patents?id=Rgh4AA ... CD4Q6AEwBQ

Most recent audio patent that has the word "Dorrough" in it. Not sure if/how it applies to audio sounding betters - I haven't read through it in any sort of detail.

One thing I would caution the original poster on: Many of the "sound betterifiers" that work for analog/digital recordings of full bandwidth, absolutely fall apart when dealing with psychoacoustic based compression. Things that amplify the S in an M/S configuration aren't that useful, when the S channel is being used by the compression scheme to hide all sorts of nasty artifacts that are normally masked. So you will want to test this with real world compressed audio in order to make sure that things sound better, instead of "brighter but swirlier" or "wider stereo with extra burbles."

That being said, if your technique makes things sound better, more power to ya.

Sean Costello

Audio programming - programmer needed