Hi,
I have designed a surround sound decoder without using any proprietary IS,s or algorithms. I am interested in getting my work recognised. Could anybody suggest me any guidelines to do so?
bimbla.
I have designed a surround sound decoder without using any proprietary IS,s or algorithms. I am interested in getting my work recognised. Could anybody suggest me any guidelines to do so?
bimbla.
I would suggest "Zeitschrift fur Physik"
or perhaps "Journal of Applied Physics"
just kidding -- if it's that good try the following: AudioXpress, Elektor or Nuts n Volts.
or perhaps "Journal of Applied Physics"
just kidding -- if it's that good try the following: AudioXpress, Elektor or Nuts n Volts.
RECOGNIZED
Hello,
Much depends on what you expect from being recognized.
Publishing it in a reknowned professional magazine or journal may give you recognition but won't prevent anyone else from using your work commercially.
The best thing to do if you want it for your own use or oblige others to take a license on your work is to consult a law firm.
Cheers&good luck,😉
Hello,
Much depends on what you expect from being recognized.
Publishing it in a reknowned professional magazine or journal may give you recognition but won't prevent anyone else from using your work commercially.
The best thing to do if you want it for your own use or oblige others to take a license on your work is to consult a law firm.
Cheers&good luck,😉
When you say you want your work recognised, do you mean you want many people to see your efforts with your name associated with the work, or do you want to make some money?
If you want many people around the world to see your work, I would suggest you contact some hobbiest publications, such as the excellent audioxpress at:
audioxpress.com
They have information about submitting articles.
There is also "nuts and volts" magazine and some european hobbiest magazines.
If you want to make money, you will have to first need to make sure your design is original (BTW: just because you have never seen the design before does not make it original)
Then proctect your design. This will require interaction with government agencies and/or lawyers. And research, research, research.
Once it is protected properly, you can then try to sell your design or build, distribute, and service your design.
You could also share your design here at the diyaudio.com forum.
Aud_Mot
If you want many people around the world to see your work, I would suggest you contact some hobbiest publications, such as the excellent audioxpress at:
audioxpress.com
They have information about submitting articles.
There is also "nuts and volts" magazine and some european hobbiest magazines.
If you want to make money, you will have to first need to make sure your design is original (BTW: just because you have never seen the design before does not make it original)
Then proctect your design. This will require interaction with government agencies and/or lawyers. And research, research, research.
Once it is protected properly, you can then try to sell your design or build, distribute, and service your design.
You could also share your design here at the diyaudio.com forum.
Aud_Mot
TOTAL RECOGNITION
Hello??
Where it would nicely fall into the public domain.....😀
Could'nt resist it.😎
Hello??
Where it would nicely fall into the public domain.....😀
Could'nt resist it.😎
bimbla said:
What exactly makes your surround sound decoder special? I understand that you say that it doesn't use any proprietary algorithms and such, but what exactly does it do? (not asking you to give away your design, just to elaborate on what makes your design special)
--
Brian
Surround Sound Decoder Specs
Thank you all for your opinions. Listed below are the features of my decoder. Your comments are invited.
Features of Surround Sound Decoder:
1. It does not need reference level signal for proper decoding. So it can be included after the volume/ tone control (With the balance control fixed at ‘0’).
2. It is a 2.1 Ch decoder and hence can be easily adapted using existing stereo tone/ volume controls.
3. There is no redundant sound information from any channels.
4. There is no dialogue leakage in the centre channel to the extent that it can be used in movie theatres where the front- back distance is large.
5. It does not use any form of delay for the rear channel and the decoder is free from issues like attack time and decay time.
6. The surround channel volume need not exceed the centre volume for the effects (separation) to be heard (noticed).
7. The dialogues are not lost during heavy passages of music and effects, thus eliminating the 'its too loud but I can't hear a thing' problem.
8. It maintains constant acoustic volume and therefore avoids fatigue due to prolonged listening, especially with the surround speakers placed very near to the listener.
9. There is no 'sweet spot' problem and no special consideration as far as the size of the listening room is concerned.
10. Decodes all existing technologies.
11. Application areas include: Home theatres, Movie theatres (With necessary pre-amp), On- board sound for PC's (Multimedia), TV's, Set top boxes etc.
12. Best price to performance ratio.
13. All decoding is done in analogue domain without degrading the original signal.
14. This decoder can be made available as stand alone circuit or as a system including tone controls and amplifiers.
15. It does not use any proprietary or patented IC's or algorithms.
The only area where a compromise is made is the front separation. But in turn this makes the system cost, bulk and quality in terms of decoding and separation favourable. However, a 4.1Ch decoder can also be made available.
bimbla.
Thank you all for your opinions. Listed below are the features of my decoder. Your comments are invited.
Features of Surround Sound Decoder:
1. It does not need reference level signal for proper decoding. So it can be included after the volume/ tone control (With the balance control fixed at ‘0’).
2. It is a 2.1 Ch decoder and hence can be easily adapted using existing stereo tone/ volume controls.
3. There is no redundant sound information from any channels.
4. There is no dialogue leakage in the centre channel to the extent that it can be used in movie theatres where the front- back distance is large.
5. It does not use any form of delay for the rear channel and the decoder is free from issues like attack time and decay time.
6. The surround channel volume need not exceed the centre volume for the effects (separation) to be heard (noticed).
7. The dialogues are not lost during heavy passages of music and effects, thus eliminating the 'its too loud but I can't hear a thing' problem.
8. It maintains constant acoustic volume and therefore avoids fatigue due to prolonged listening, especially with the surround speakers placed very near to the listener.
9. There is no 'sweet spot' problem and no special consideration as far as the size of the listening room is concerned.
10. Decodes all existing technologies.
11. Application areas include: Home theatres, Movie theatres (With necessary pre-amp), On- board sound for PC's (Multimedia), TV's, Set top boxes etc.
12. Best price to performance ratio.
13. All decoding is done in analogue domain without degrading the original signal.
14. This decoder can be made available as stand alone circuit or as a system including tone controls and amplifiers.
15. It does not use any proprietary or patented IC's or algorithms.
The only area where a compromise is made is the front separation. But in turn this makes the system cost, bulk and quality in terms of decoding and separation favourable. However, a 4.1Ch decoder can also be made available.
bimbla.
recognised?
Bimbla,
I think first you need to decide what you mean by recognised.
If you mean that you would like others to recognise that you are a very capable/creative engineer and have the pleasure of discussions with peers on your design, the best route would be to get it published in an authoritive journal (for example the British Electronics World, or, if it's really good, the AES Journal).
If you mean to be recognised in the sense that people actually pay for your design or license, you have to ask yourself at first: OK, the design is technically and possibly audibly better than existing designs. Do you think that that is enough reason for people to buy your design rather than a design from, say, Thomlinson Holman of THX? If your design is more costly in the end, do you think system design houses will think it is worth the extra money? (I am not sarcastic or anything here. I am dead serious. Anybody who has attempted this before will know what I am talking about.)
Also in this case you should consider a patent application. That need not be too expensive, you can do that yourself and you can continue with the other work without waiting for the actual granting. If it doesn't work out you just stop paying the yearly fees and your patent will lapse.
You can also try to get a company interested and ask them to sign a non-disclosure agreement before you tell them the details. If they are interested, you can license the technology and let them patent it.
A publication would be the first step here also and/or a demo unit at a large audio exhibition or consumer show.
Unless you are really wealthy, you must spend a lot of time looking for a financial backer to make your design production-ready and find someone who will really pay for it. Actually, you will get the feeling that the design effort itself was rather trivally compared to getting the show on the road.
But it has been done, and the (emotional) rewards are immense.
Just my 2ct worth.
Jan Didden
PS If you are really serious look at the nolo website. They have books on self-patenting, technology licensing and partnership agreements. Recommended.
Bimbla,
I think first you need to decide what you mean by recognised.
If you mean that you would like others to recognise that you are a very capable/creative engineer and have the pleasure of discussions with peers on your design, the best route would be to get it published in an authoritive journal (for example the British Electronics World, or, if it's really good, the AES Journal).
If you mean to be recognised in the sense that people actually pay for your design or license, you have to ask yourself at first: OK, the design is technically and possibly audibly better than existing designs. Do you think that that is enough reason for people to buy your design rather than a design from, say, Thomlinson Holman of THX? If your design is more costly in the end, do you think system design houses will think it is worth the extra money? (I am not sarcastic or anything here. I am dead serious. Anybody who has attempted this before will know what I am talking about.)
Also in this case you should consider a patent application. That need not be too expensive, you can do that yourself and you can continue with the other work without waiting for the actual granting. If it doesn't work out you just stop paying the yearly fees and your patent will lapse.
You can also try to get a company interested and ask them to sign a non-disclosure agreement before you tell them the details. If they are interested, you can license the technology and let them patent it.
A publication would be the first step here also and/or a demo unit at a large audio exhibition or consumer show.
Unless you are really wealthy, you must spend a lot of time looking for a financial backer to make your design production-ready and find someone who will really pay for it. Actually, you will get the feeling that the design effort itself was rather trivally compared to getting the show on the road.
But it has been done, and the (emotional) rewards are immense.
Just my 2ct worth.
Jan Didden
PS If you are really serious look at the nolo website. They have books on self-patenting, technology licensing and partnership agreements. Recommended.
Re: recognised?
Since opinions are cheap:
1) Your competition is not THX, it's Dolby.
2) The patent office seems to be going to hell, costing more,
taking longer, and the results are more sporadic. Even if you
get a patent, your problem is still Dolby's margeting juggernaut.
It is very unlikely that you can overcome that barrier.
3) Practically no company will listen to ideas or sign non-
disclosures anymore unless they have already decided they
want it.
I would go talk to Dolby, which is the only game in town IMHO,
and if the idea is good, maybe they will acquire it to keep it
out of the marketplace.
😉
janneman said:
Since opinions are cheap:
1) Your competition is not THX, it's Dolby.
2) The patent office seems to be going to hell, costing more,
taking longer, and the results are more sporadic. Even if you
get a patent, your problem is still Dolby's margeting juggernaut.
It is very unlikely that you can overcome that barrier.
3) Practically no company will listen to ideas or sign non-
disclosures anymore unless they have already decided they
want it.
I would go talk to Dolby, which is the only game in town IMHO,
and if the idea is good, maybe they will acquire it to keep it
out of the marketplace.
😉
It's interesting to see all the comments, which I think are very good. One thing that I think is important to understand is that getting a patent is only the first step toward achieving success with intellectual property. I don't have much first-hand knowledge, but I was involved in a patent filing once, and it was a fair bit of expense and trouble, particulary since we didn't ultimately find the idea to be very viable commercially. The whole point of the patent is to protect your ownership of an invention that you hope to make a return on financially. You must be prepared to defend the patent against others who claim that it infringes on their patent which came first, and those who try to infringe on your patent rights. That can be costly. If you can't do that, it's a lot of expense for little gain.
I was particularly interested in what Mr. Pass had to say, since I have often wondered about Dolby. They may be good technically, but my conclusion is that what they are really expert at is licensing and controlling technology. It seems that they are a real success story when it comes to the business of licensing technology. Can anyone point me to to someplace where I could read that story? I would like to understand just how they achieved such control and success in licensing.
I was particularly interested in what Mr. Pass had to say, since I have often wondered about Dolby. They may be good technically, but my conclusion is that what they are really expert at is licensing and controlling technology. It seems that they are a real success story when it comes to the business of licensing technology. Can anyone point me to to someplace where I could read that story? I would like to understand just how they achieved such control and success in licensing.
How etc
....and that is why a good patent attorney starts by trying to discourage you to do a patent filing. I once read about the percentage of patents that actually bring in money for its owners, I think it was less than 1% - that means 99 out of 100 patents are a waste of money. On the other hand, I have once done a self-filing for just a couple of 100 euro's, and although it hasn't brought any money in, I must admit it did give me a kick. Only too human, I guess.
Nelson's advice is probably the best one, although it is not very satisfying to see your invention bought and then shelved to protect invested interests. A classical story is the invention of the Stirling motor, which has a a lot of potential to improve on the automotive internal combustion engine, but is shelved to protect those multi-billion investments in car engine plants.
Jan Didden
....and that is why a good patent attorney starts by trying to discourage you to do a patent filing. I once read about the percentage of patents that actually bring in money for its owners, I think it was less than 1% - that means 99 out of 100 patents are a waste of money. On the other hand, I have once done a self-filing for just a couple of 100 euro's, and although it hasn't brought any money in, I must admit it did give me a kick. Only too human, I guess.
Nelson's advice is probably the best one, although it is not very satisfying to see your invention bought and then shelved to protect invested interests. A classical story is the invention of the Stirling motor, which has a a lot of potential to improve on the automotive internal combustion engine, but is shelved to protect those multi-billion investments in car engine plants.
Jan Didden
PATENTS.
Hi,
As usual.
Consider also the fact that by the time you actually do get your patent approved it will have cost you at the very least 12.500 Euro (if you're a European) and it could be a tenfold too.
A capital you could have spent to start up your own business, not to mention the fact that if your patent does get refused it's still going to cost you.
Add to that the fact that patents do expire...
Thanks, but no thanks from me.😉
Hi,
As usual.
Consider also the fact that by the time you actually do get your patent approved it will have cost you at the very least 12.500 Euro (if you're a European) and it could be a tenfold too.
A capital you could have spent to start up your own business, not to mention the fact that if your patent does get refused it's still going to cost you.
Add to that the fact that patents do expire...
Thanks, but no thanks from me.😉
On the other hand, excepting a picture of my wife, it's
the best looking thing you can hang on a wall.
😉
the best looking thing you can hang on a wall.
😉
Recognition!
Hello to all,
Thanks again for your well thought of suggestions. Special thanks to Halojoy.
I am a little surprised though that no body had commented on any of the features of the decoder. I was expecting some sort
of attack on me for the fact that it is an analogue decoder and that it is a 2.1Ch decoder. In fact these two in itself are
two of the features.
I am very thankful to all you people for you valuable time and suggestions.
I will consider all of them and keep you all posted on my progress.
bimbla.
Hello to all,
Thanks again for your well thought of suggestions. Special thanks to Halojoy.
I am a little surprised though that no body had commented on any of the features of the decoder. I was expecting some sort
of attack on me for the fact that it is an analogue decoder and that it is a 2.1Ch decoder. In fact these two in itself are
two of the features.
I am very thankful to all you people for you valuable time and suggestions.
I will consider all of them and keep you all posted on my progress.
bimbla.
Okay I will attack your decoder if no one else will........ just kidding.
Here are some thoughts though:
1) From a market standpoint, digital surround sources with 5.1 or more discrete channels are taking off at an incredible rate. With that happening, the actual market for what you are doing may not be huge.
2) In order for it to be cost effective, it will need to be incorporated into an IC. If you don't have the bucks for that, you will need to find someone who does.
3) There are other surround decoders on the market other than Dolby, some are synthetic, some are not. What you need to watch from Dolby, SRS, ADI, NJR, Harmon, and all the others that have implemented a method for surround, is that you do not step on their patents. Going back to #2, if you don't have the money........
4) Dolby may be a good avenue, but so could someone like a Marantz\Denon, Sony, etc. if there is truly a market. If you see this as something really niche, then perhaps one of the mid-hi fi companies such as NAD, etc. may be interested.
5) It all comes down to demonstration. While you may think it is good, you may want to get others honest opinions. If the consensus is good, then demonstrate it. Most people in the audio\video world love demonstrations. If it works, money can magically become available if you offer someone a competitive advantage.
Alvaius
Here are some thoughts though:
1) From a market standpoint, digital surround sources with 5.1 or more discrete channels are taking off at an incredible rate. With that happening, the actual market for what you are doing may not be huge.
2) In order for it to be cost effective, it will need to be incorporated into an IC. If you don't have the bucks for that, you will need to find someone who does.
3) There are other surround decoders on the market other than Dolby, some are synthetic, some are not. What you need to watch from Dolby, SRS, ADI, NJR, Harmon, and all the others that have implemented a method for surround, is that you do not step on their patents. Going back to #2, if you don't have the money........
4) Dolby may be a good avenue, but so could someone like a Marantz\Denon, Sony, etc. if there is truly a market. If you see this as something really niche, then perhaps one of the mid-hi fi companies such as NAD, etc. may be interested.
5) It all comes down to demonstration. While you may think it is good, you may want to get others honest opinions. If the consensus is good, then demonstrate it. Most people in the audio\video world love demonstrations. If it works, money can magically become available if you offer someone a competitive advantage.
Alvaius
Marketplace
Hi,
I believe that the marketplace for this type of surround scheme is not the home cinema market, since people buying that kind of hardware for their houses can find pieces for just $150 (US) and up (to rediculous amounts).
It is probably better off in clock radios, small portable radios/cd players and such. The cost for the license for DD, DTS and such is relatively small when you produce high volumes for the mass market. If you want to compete, you should probably find some niche which doesn't require fully discrete channels.
Are you sure you didn't reinvent Pro Logic?
//magnus
Hi,
I believe that the marketplace for this type of surround scheme is not the home cinema market, since people buying that kind of hardware for their houses can find pieces for just $150 (US) and up (to rediculous amounts).
It is probably better off in clock radios, small portable radios/cd players and such. The cost for the license for DD, DTS and such is relatively small when you produce high volumes for the mass market. If you want to compete, you should probably find some niche which doesn't require fully discrete channels.
Are you sure you didn't reinvent Pro Logic?
//magnus
- Status
- Not open for further replies.