Mr Desper,

Seeing as the analouge/digital debate came up in our discussion, I wonder if you would be interested in having a look at www.sa3.com . I first came across these guys a few years ago, and they really seem to be on to something. They claim to have new technolgy based on a new type of wave theory, and from what they are delivering it seems very possible to me.

There are a lot of things in wave theory that are perfectly explain, but one or two, such as the result of double slit refraction experiments that have never been explained. I've always felt there is a fundemental misunderstanding in the realtivity of waves and the properties of different waves, and that there may be a better physical explanation for some things, and that their might be logical roots to all sounds... and anyway check it out. The a-b samples on there are pretty cool.

[Before I answer Mr. Wheeler, let us try to keep this impersonal. I think Mr. Wheeler is doing a good job at that. It's nothing personal between Wheeler and myself in this discussion. His input is valued by me. Thanks.]

That's mighty gentlemanly of you to say so. I don't think it is a personal thing either. I don't know you personally, so how could it be personal . My reaction was my honest reaction and impression gained from your webpage.

It is obvious that you make some great and informative posts here, and I wouldn't want that to stop for a moment. I came here to post as my name came up, and as I read a post from yourself that said I would be welcome to post. I'm sure that you appreciate that I wouldn't post a toned down or sanitized version of my opinion.

All the best

Rob Wheeler

Before I answer Mr. Wheeler, let us try to keep this impersonal.  I think Mr. Wheeler is doing a good job at that.  It's nothing personal between Wheeler and myself in this discussion. His input is valued by me.  Thanks.

Mr Desper,

Ok, thank for your detailed reply. If your 360Surround device really was the business, then I commend you on your independant style of invention and production. I will say that I said "ropey" and not "dopy".

Your reply prompts some further questions, and prehaps some further probing on questions that I feel remain inadequately addressed.

I had already read the webpage that desribes the procedure. The question I feel I have to ask is, are you effectively remastering each disc from scratch through you system? Are you not holding an iso and just reburning it? And does that actually require manual mastering, or is that something you can leave running in the background? Even if you are treating each disc individually, I suspect that you have the same legal standing, being it in or against your interest.

I feel there is a difference between copying from your cd to your own computer. That is covered within the Home Recording Act, and is fair use.

As I understand it, in America, when a cd is played on the radio, one of the two major mechanical music licensing companies act to recover fees from airplay and pass it on to the licence owners. So those dudes get paid. To the best of my knowledge it is not illegal to play a cd on the radio. There maybe restrictions against this marked on the disc itself, but by andlarge they are not applicable, andas the vast majority of records held by radio station are promos, and most stuff is held digitally off disc anyway, it is not an issue. Also, record companies are by and large one hundred percent behind their recordings being played on the radio, because it shifts more records.

By the way, in the UK at least, over the last two years cd sales have been way way way down.

I find your reasoning over you rates for this service to be a little confusing. You say you've retired from the business, but you need to protect your rates, but at the same time, its still not really clear how much work you are doing on this. Are you really remastering the same record over and over again everytime you get an order?

Both the formats I referred to, Dolby Pro Logic and SQ were actually analog. I've got a healthy set of decent vinyl that I've hunted down over the last few years. I am familiar with the analog sound. I think Dobly Digital AC3 is a pretty aweful format. i know the differnce between a digital piano and a real piano, and I'd take a real piano any time. You made some assumptions about what I think, Mr Desper. I don't remember bringing numbers into it either.

I'm interested in how the software availible on the Spatializer website differs from the hardware version. I know your hardware analog version is heavily refined, but would it be worth me buying the winamp pluging anyway, as it theoretically based on the same technology, or is it really not worth the bother?

The real problem is, sometimes you talk like you are mastering, and sometimes like you are copying. So what exactly are you doing? Are you copying or mastering? I was quite suprised when you said that I don't understand becasue "mastering is an artform" because generally, this whole process has been describesd as "copying" or "transfering" through your device. All of a sudden mastering comes into it. It is very easy to get confused.

Even if you are carrying out a full remastering of every disc from scratch, I doubt the legal basis in taking money for it. At the end of the day comes night, and my whole involvemnt in this discuss came from somebody posting a message regarding your service, to which I replied "thats sound illegal to me". Even if you have gone to great lengths to remain with in the law, I think you're on seriously shakey ground. Even if you think it is not a scam, (and if your shares still have any value then I doubt you need that sort of money) the chances are, even when working on such a small scale, a legal authority would not view in such a way.

As  I said originally, I think your work with the Beach Boys was awesome, and I know you had major contributions to the  Spring album as well. If you really are doing it as a labour of love, then fairplay, but it is vey unfortunate that you are charging money for the service, as I seriosuly doubt the legality. On the surface, unfortunately it appears as crass profiteering on past glories.

As I mentioned in my original post on this thread, the amount Mr Desper charges for his time is irrelevent. It's like say, ok, I'm going to rob a car to order for you, but as I'm normally a car dealer, I'll charge you the rate I work for that on top of the cost of the car. It makes no odds, I do not think Mr Desper has the right to do it. I have another issue with the basic premise of sending out a disc for money, but I will wait for Mr Desper to respond before I address it.

(snip)
As for the $20 fee, I'm sure if you were to sit down and calculate how much Mr. Desper's time is valued by the hour, $20 would barely cover the time for him to sit down, burn you a cd, put it in a package, and send it back to you. So cut him some slack, he wants to help BB fans get true engineered sounds from the albums he worked on.

If you're having a problem on affording the $20, maybe we can start a drive?

I was just stating what was obvious from looking at the picture, and that was explicit in the original thread and the post here. The claim the device was a high quality well built audio device was hard to justify when you looked at the little box with silver male phono's sticking out of it.

I said all along it may sound fantastic in spite of that, but the picture did little to convince me.

I read it, Robert.  What astounds me is your assumption of how well the thing works based on a photgraph of it.  It is a SOUND DEVICE.  One must actually HEAR IT before one can make a judgement on how it works.

This isn't my fight...i just think you should hear what the device does before you denegrate it.

Replace your jaw and read it again Susan. I quite clearly say that it may sound amazing but it looked like a piece of junk. I was commenting on the fact that the blurb on the website said it was of a high quality build with high quality connectors, but it did not look it fromt he picture. You did in fact quote that whole piece of text.

I know I'm not going to win any friends by criticising the actions of a Beach Boys engineering legend, but you could at least do me the decency of reading what I actually wrote

In regards to my comments I made on the device, I was referring to the 360Surround device. I've got no idea what your analog box looks like. But that domestic 360Surround thing looked really ropey. It was advertised on your site as being of a high quality build with high quality connectors, but it looked like a piece of junk to me. That's my opinion. As I said in my original post, I've never heard the thing, so it may be amazing for all I know. But it didn't look high quality to me.

That is one of the most ignorant things i've read in a long, long time.  A sound device LOOKS like junk...so without hearing it, you assume it doesn't work.

I'm speechless. 

Ok, it seems that you guys are referring to my response to a thread on www.BrianWilson.com. Originally I couldn't be bothered to argue the toss on this, but seeing as I'm being referred to by name, I might as well put it direct to the man.

First of all Mr Desper, I think the stuff you did with the Beach Boys was awesome. In the current era when engineering aspires for plainness and invention within the confines of accepted boundaries, those who ignore and innovate beyond those boundaries are in short supply.

However, I can not see any way in which you can justify charging $20 for the act of simply copying a disc. I understand that you feel that you have a right to do this under the terms of the Home Recording Act. At best you may have the right to recover basic media and copying costs, but there is no way you have the right to recover costs against previous commercial development. That is clearly outside the bounds of the Home Recording Act. I also fail to understand how, if you have built multi-million businesses around it and have all these valuable patents on the technology, why you would need to recover costs for development from this scheme. You have no right to recover costs on a technology you have developed on the back of master recordings owned by someone else.

You may charge $200 an hour for work, but this is not professional work you are doing, and again if it was then it would be clearly outside the boundaries of the Home Recording Act. You give the impression that you are just dedicated to the music and the fans hearing it in the way you feel as the engineer, is the best way to hear it. Yet if it was purely a labour of love, you not be charging $20 for it.

Non of that adds up to me.

In regards to my comments I made on the device, I was referring to the 360Surround device. I've got no idea what your analog box looks like. But that domestic 360Surround thing looked really ropey. It was advertised on your site as being of a high quality build with high quality connectors, but it looked like a piece of junk to me. That's my opinion. As I said in my original post, I've never heard the thing, so it may be amazing for all I know. But it didn't look high quality to me.

Regards the possibility of modeling the device in software: As I understand it from elsewhere in this thread, you have already produced a digital hardware version of the professional device. I would be really surprised if it was not possible to emulate the functions of such a device in software. It can only be a matter of processing power if it is difficult. Seeing as many filters such as Dolby Pro Logic and SQ are possible to recreate in software, I find it hard to believe that a technology encoded into a record in the early 1970's could not be decoded in software in 2006. There needn't be any costs involved in developing such a decoder, its the sort of project the open source community would pounce upon. Again it's not about developing algorythms. The chances are you could probably emulate the device component by component if need be. However, I think it would probably be easy to write the algorythms within the community.

I understand that you have valuable patents on the work and opening up such technology would potentially devalue that technology. But, it just seems silly that you have this technology that you say is so fantastic, but it is not available to anyone, unless they have your handmade device. Exploited commercially the software route could make your patents really deliver profits for you. If you sold that software for $20, I would probably buy it, if I was convinced that there was any real benefit to using it. In fact if there was a product available for $12.95 that plugged in to winamp, I'd be right up for it.

Do you think the product at http://store.yahoo.net/spatializer-estore/spatstreamfo.html could do that? That is the company that owns your patents isn't it? It must be a totally different technology, because, as you said before, it would be very difficult to translate your technology into software, that you could buy for a PC for $12.95. Surf's up and Sunflower do sound quite interesting through this plugin though, with the default settings anyway.

And this is my last problem with the whole thing. I don't understand what this device or process or whatever it is is supposed to be doing. It's a spatializer isn't it? What makes it different to other spatializers? I've got quite a good understanding of wave physics theory, can you refer me to the patents numbers so I can research what is actually going on?

So I'm afraid I remain of the opinion that it is a scam, Mr Desper.