Say, let's All BE COOL here. We All have the same goals here, to try to accurately decode Quadraphonic material or just enjoy stuff for what it is. Decoding discussions are interesting. But not if it becomes about personal attacks or personalities. So please let's not go there. Let's let whatever was said in the past, be just that, in the past.
Because basically we are a very small "Niche audience," which means We NEED Each other. We are the only folks who actually care about this stuff now. In the future, in another era, "Niche audiences" such as our will grow into more of the mainstream (because this stuff is cool) and new markets created. Those folks from the future many years from now - long after we're all gone - will be really grateful for the work attempted now, no matter the approach. And for the fact that even though we may come at it from different angles, at least we tried when no one else cared. Because the original master Quadraphonic tapes are most likely Long Gone for many titles. Which is quite a shame.
It would seem to be, from us ignorant folks point of view who are trying to understand how this stuff decodes that the real action is in the math of how this stuff decodes. We also know other members here, who have not posted lately, but have posted in the past that have gone into looking into old patents that can be found online to see what "Math" was used to try to decode stuff back then. Of course since the 1970s we know much more but, what is the math?
Is it even possible to decode these strange formats 100% no matter how it might be achieved? Can we please work out what the Math is, and how that Math might be implemented? If the Math for decoding cannot be implemented 100%, why not? What are the obstacles from getting accurate decodes? Are we sure we have the proper Math? It would seem that the math is "where the action is" if a 100% decode is the goal.
There's a misconception around that you can decode these old matrix systems by not taking into account the , often, complex nature of them. They were designed to work in a particular way. The important thing, all these years later, is to delve deep within what seems like a very simple 'formula'. This is where most people fail. What seems to be, at first, simple, has a deeper complexity to it. Everything in the 'formula' is there for a reason, and cannot be ignored.
Your right in questioning whether these old systems can be decoded 100%. The answer is NO. BUT we can now, with today's knowledge, get very close, easily into the area of 90%, which gives remarkable aural results.
You mention we need each other. Actually, what is needed when working on these antique formulae is 'open mindness' and a willness to delve and research every aspect of them. In do so, it is possible to create results that were unthinkable of back then.
Another point about these old systems is you have to keep in mind the time they were created, and the limitations of electronics at the time.This is a top priority when it comes to designing a hardware decoder. There are issues that cannot be overcome using todays DSP's, and that is a rock solid fact. These systems relied on analogue processes that cannot be duplicated in modern, computer based, devices.
If you want proof of this: RIAA pre-amps. The only true way, especially when sound quality is concerned, is a good old fashioned analogue device. Even in the most expensive, complex piece of audio hardware, you want an input for your turntable, it's basic electronics even now.
