HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Need recommendations (turntable, laserdisc) & info
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:39:18 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Apr15.211835.16920@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> syd@ei.ecn.purdue.edu (Dennis P Hilgenberg) writes:
>Can anyone comment on these?  A significant attraction (for
>my brother) is that they make both a standard (33/45 rpm) and
>a dedicated 78 rpm turntable (he's contemplating buying both).
>How does Revolver compare with the "audiophile" favorites:
>is it even in the same league?  

I've only just gotten into thinking about a new turntable, so don't
have direct experience, but I've gotten as far as reading reviews and
chatting with my dealer.  It appears to me that the prevailing opinion
is that the Revolvers are worth checking out, but that some people
might feel that they garble the bass a bit.  (And, one reviewer
reported 'motor breakthrough' -- i.e. the cartridge may pick up
vibrations from the motor.  I think they felt this wasn't an
unavoidable problem, but that there was a design flaw which made it
easy to misadjust it so that this would happen.  Another reviewer
warned that if you buy one, check the one you are going to take to make
sure the spindle is straight.  They got sent a review sample with a
bent spindle, sent it back and got a second ditto, and finally hit it
lucky on the third try.  Doesn't inspire confidence.  Still, they are
on my personal list of possibilities for me.)

Far as Linns go, prevailing opinion (again) seems to be that if your
budget limits you to the Basik, you might do better with some other make,
but if you can afford one of the higher-priced Linns they are worth a
listen.  However, again the Basik gets enough compliments that I intend
to give it a listen.

Finally, there's the Rega Planar 3, which I have heard, and which I think
(pending checking out a few others) might be a good bet, at my sort of
price level anyway.  If you went for that, could also buy a Rega Planar 78,
which is a dedicated 78rpm version of the Planar 2 (its little brother),
and have a matched set. :-)

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.audio.pro
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Limitations on speaker lifespan
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center And Storm Door Company
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:59:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.182803.17239@tc.cornell.edu> eacj@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Julian Vrieslander) writes:
>
>I have also been told that some ribbon drivers have a finite lifetime
>before they have to be replaced.  The person who told me this was specifically
>referring to Magnepan's ribbons.  Can anyone confirm this?

Yes.  The problem is that the ribbons are made of very thin aluminum, which
tends to oxidize over time.  The resistance builds up, and the oxidation is
hastened.  Eventually it breaks at some point.  They can usually be repaired,
but at that point they are sure to break soon someplace else.

This was definitely true for the older models.  The folks at the company have
told me that it won't be true of the newer units, but I don't think they have
been around enough for anyone to really know for sure.
--scott

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: gfl@hera.uucp (27223-lenahan)
Subject: Re: Corey Greenberg's Unity Gain Preamp.
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 13:00:40 GMT
Summary: comments on costs

(PREMTHAMKORN, PRAKIT) writes:
> I itchs to try it but the parts are not cheap (Buff-3J, millitary spec.
> cost $65 each, Welborne labs' PS-1 power supply costs $95, etc).  Is it worth 
> the investment?  Please comment.

1.) BUF-3 cheapo commercial grades sound the same in ambient termperatures
that you can operate in, and cost $15-20 each onesy-twosy.

2.) $95 for a really good power supply is cheap. (I dunno if 
Welbourne's is good for audio).

3.) COrey's preamp circuit is not my favorite, but its really
detailed, and quiet.

Have fun.

Grant

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: hap@scubed.com (Hap Freiberg)
Subject: Re: Vortex Speakers
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:00:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.182250.27873@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> vento@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dan Vento) writes:
>Does anybody out there have any experience with Vortex speakers? 

Is Vortex still in business? I seem to remember that the owner/founder has
gone to work for Counterpoint designing their new line of speakers. ?

Hap                                                                            
                                                                              
                                                                          
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: mather@sees.bangor.ac.uk (Tories Out!)
Subject: Re: CD rot
Organization: Centre for Applied Obfuscation.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:57:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.131931.25004@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, p.mather@sees.bangor.ac.uk (Tories Out!) says:

> >I can't say for certain that this is an April Fool's joke---probably
> >it is---but if so, it is probably based upon an earlier announcement about
> >"CD rot" which I read in the Guardian (a UK national daily newspaper)
> >and picked up by the rest of the media, oh, a couple of years ago now.
> >
> 
> the poster admited that it was a joke. 
> i can try to find the post if you want....

Thing is, I wasn't referring to the newspaper article that the poster
reprinted.  I was referring to a story that was carried a couple of
years ago by the media here in the UK.  A *different* story, albeit
on the related theme of "CD rot."

Cheers,

Paul.

-- 
e-mail: p.mather@sees.bangor.ac.uk

If your mailer can't reach me, I'm obviously not worth talking to.
From: wash@mamacass.etdesg.trw.com (Michael Washington)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Mail Order for AKG Headphones
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:13:20 GMT
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA

In article <6399@shodha.enet.dec.com> robinson@akira.ogo.dec.com (will robinson) writes:
>
>Anyone out in Net-land(tm) priced AKG headphones
>from the 15 odd mail-order houses that addvertise
>in the back of Stereo Review/Audio?   Or do I have
>to get on the phone and do it??
>
>Any reccomendations???
>
>thanks
>will

I have a pair of AKG headphones and love them.  
Don't pay more than $89.00 for them though.  Otherwise you can
get them at a neighborhood stereo store and get them right away,
not waiting for them through the mail (for the AKG-240's).
I had some Sennhieser headphones before.  I liked them, but the
foam kept dying and I got tired of trying to locate the foam and
replacing it.  Hope this helps!

Live Long and Prosper!  --  Michael N. Washington
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle)
Subject: Re: Imped. Matching w/ Resistors?!
Keywords: damping amp
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp., Hillsboro  OR
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 19:16:13 GMT

jgardner@convex.com (John B. Gardner) writes:

>I've seen this several times in this thread - that high damping is
>critical for accurate reproduction.  Well hold on just a second here,
>most tube amps, which "audiophiles" drool over and sell there Saabs
>to purchase (;-), have very LOW damping factors.  In fact, the
>Carver Silver Seven's which cost about $17,000 and are pretty much
>universally revered in the audiophile ranks, have a damping factor of 
>6!!!  Yes, that's 6!!! Compare this is to solid state amps which are
>typically >200.

>So, are we flapping our jaws in the electronic breeze, or could someone
>explain how an amp with a damping factor of 6 can sound good, despite
>what everyone is claming here.

	1) Depends on the speakers you are using.
	2) What do you mean by "sound good"?

	1) Planar (Magnepan) and electrostatic types are damped mostly
	by air! The only instance you will notice damping problems is
	with big cone woofers. They are damped by a combination of
	air tight enclosure and amplifier output impedance.

	2) I've not heard the Silver Sevens, but I've heard low damping
	amps used with conventional woofers, and the lack of damping is
	noticible and "no good" to me. I remember when McIntosh came out
	with a solid state power amp that had transformer output. It too
	suffered low damping and it was audible and "no good" to me. I can
	only surmise that the Silver Seven would sound "no good" to me with
	conventional speakers. Then again I have Magneplanars.

		George

>thanks,
>-- 
>   /\ /_  _    jgardner@convex.com
>   \//_//_/
>   /     /     "Poor is the man whose pleasures depend
>  /    \/       on the permission of another" -Madonna
From: btdy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Improvement to cost ratio of moving speakers
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:45:53 EDT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cornell University

In article <1992Apr10.135319.22398@city.cs>,
lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes: 
> The other day I was polishing the walnut veneer on my speakers. I moved
> them a couple of feet into the room. I did this while music was playing
> through them. My wife immediately noticed the difference in sound.
> After polishing them, I changed the toe in by a few degrees and the
> siting by a few inches. There was a big improvement in sound quality.
> Using purely non technical terms I would describe the new sound as more
> open or airier, the bass less heavy or thick.
> 

Turning the speaker cabinet slightly can prevent acoustic anomalies like
low-frequency resonance between the cabinet and the wall directly behind it.
Generally these effects are noticed when the speaker is close to the wall
(i.e. several inches).  Turning the cabinet can prevent some of this since
standing waves cannot be set-up due to destructive interference--that's
why even a few degrees can 'clear up' muddy bass by removing the resonant
tones.

I've found that the placement of my bass module (I have a 3 speaker system)
greatly effects the 'nature' of its performance.  In a corner, the bass is
more strongly enhanced (tho not always positively) than say along a wall, or
sitting in the center of the room.

Stereo 'imaging' is very dependent on the placement of the midranges and
tweeters.  The way their signals reflect off walls/ceilings/floors,
as well as how they interfere with each other, will make or break your
sound system.  A good stereo store will spend lots-o-bucks to make their
sound rooms image well.

Getting it clearly through alternate paths...

- Jeff
From: sbhattac@sales.GBA.NYU.EDU (Shankar Bhattacharyya)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Blind Listening
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:02:14 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Apr16.220724.4187@intelhf.hf.intel.com> labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:

>	I second this! Musicians notoriously have "poor" stereo systems.
>
>	I think the quality of sound is simply not noticed by them, for the
>	most part - just like you can watch a good movie and get all of
>	its meaning in black and white!

I know I'll regret joining this argument, but here are my own set of
prejudices :

I think musicians notice the quality of sound just fine. I know a fair
number of musicians, and they have good ears.

I think they just have much better perspective on how little difference there
is between audio systems than do most of us audio enthusiasts.

We enthusiasts spend a lot of time and energy on the rather small
difference in quality between low-end audio and high-end audio, quite
thoroughly indifferent to the enormous difference between high-end audio
and the real thing.

I have a modestly respectable system, and I have heard very good ones. But
I have never heard anything which sounded remotely as good as the
Philaldephia Orchestra sounded to me in Carnegie Hall, from a seat in the
front of the balcony, where they have the second cheapest seats in the house.

I've spent a fair amount of time at Carnegie Hall, though not recently,
and, all things considered, I don't think I am reacting just to the social
ambiance of a live performance. I cannot, of course, know that for a fact,
but I doubt it.

We audio enthusiasts regard the difference between a low-end system and a
high-end system as the entire spectrum. The musicians see the range from a
clock radio to a good concert hall, and see the range of interest to us
audio enthusiasts squashed in somewhere very close to the clock radio.

Yes, I move my loudspeakers around. Yes, I pop the top off my preamp and
swap capacitors. Yes, I think about crossover slopes and what I should do
about things like that when I re-engineer my crossovers. 

But I have absolutely no expectation that my system, or anyone else's, is
going to sound like a concert in Carnegie Hall.

Many audiophiles have never figured that out.

Some have, but mess with the sort of minor fiddling around that is possible
with reproduced sound all the same.

I have no particular argument with either situation. The survival of
humanity does not depend on any of this. It may not be terribly rational,
but it's just a hobby.

On the other hand, many musicians have figured out the range of quality
available in music reproduction systems early in their lives, and just
don't find these trifling little perturbations worth pursuing.

They know the difference. They just have better sense than we do.

- Shankar
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: PLEASE HELP ME...I'M CLUELESS
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:07:13 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Apr8.173608.11325@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> ...@cs.utexas.edu:ibmaus!auschs!YOURCOMPUTER.austin.ibm.com!YOURLOGIN writes:
>i'm looking for a pro-logic surround sound amp, a cd carousel w/ all
>the great features for lazy people like me, a unified remote, &
>long-lasting quality speakers....unfortunately, i have a small
>budget...around $1000  :(
>
>should i go w/ kenwood?  jvc?  sony?  i can't afford the top of the line stuff

I suspect you'll have difficulty getting all those features on a budget
like yours, but never mind, we try.  There's also Technics.  To get
everything you're after, I suspect you'll need to go for one of these
'mass' brands, and my (very own personal) opinion is that I'd check
Technics first, then Sony, then Kenwood, then JVC.  If you get separates,
you can then upgrade to 'top of the line' stuff one box at a time as you
feel richer.  (Hey, don't you Texans all own oil wells anyway?)

>and also, where should i buy the stuff?  (i live in austin, tx)  i'm afraid
>of getting screwed by all those salespeople at the smaller stores

You'd really be better off (and, you might find you can get better stuff
from 'proper' hifi manufacturers) if you DO find a small store which
specialises in audio gear only.  Should be a few in Austin.  Crude way to
pick a good one:  First, walk in and look around a bit.  If you recognize
the brand names on all the boxes, it's not good enough; if you can't see
anything you can afford, it's too good.  Either way, try another one.

When you find one that passes that test, find a friendly salesperson,
and tell them what you're looking for and how much you want to spend.
If they immediately try to high-pressure you into a particular setup
('oh yes, we've got just the thing right here'), walk out.  If they ask
you a bit about what sorts of music you like, and then offer to let you
listen to a few boxes to see how they sound, you've got a good one.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
From: andrewb@suite.sw.oz.au (Andrew Bettison)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Low range
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:26:33 GMT
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd

In <702613596.11504.0@unix1.andrew.cmu.edu> ri09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert W. Igo) writes:

> What *is* the low range of human hearing, anyway?  Is there one?  I'm speaking
> of Hz, not dB.

There is no clear cut-off point.  You have to consider the minimum
audible field contour, which plots the threshold of detectability
of pure tones (in dB sound pressure level) against frequency.

   dB SPL


   140	|
	|
   120	|
	|
   100	|
	|
    80	|
	|*
    60	| *
	|   *
    40	|     *                                       *
	|       *
    20	|          *                           * *   *
	|               *  * *  * * * *     *      *
     0	|                                **
	|
   -20	|.____.____.____.____.____.____.____.____.____.
	20   50   100  200  500  1k   2k   5k   10k  20k   Hz


The bottom limit for `true' hearing of pure tones probably lies at
about 16 Hz.  Experiments suggest that pure tones below 16 Hz are
not heard in the normal way, but detected by virtue of the distortion
products they produce after being transmitted through the middle
ear.  At about 4 Hz, the threshold of audibility is about 120 dB
SPL.  Compare this with a 2 kHz tone at the same sound pressure
level - it is almost painfully loud because the threshold of pain
for middle frequencies is between 120 and 130 dB SPL!

(Source: An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, 3rd ed., by
Brian C.J. Moore.  Academic Press, 1989.)


> I keep thinking of that poster who mentioned the 16Hz pipes
> on the pipe organ CD, and wondering exactly how low that is.  Obviously, if
> the information is accurate, we can at least hear down to 16 Hz, or else no
> one would have invented that particular pipe.

That would be a 64 foot pipe.  For most people, the 16 Hz fundamental
is felt, not heard.  The harmonics (32Hz, 48Hz, 64Hz, etc.) are
definitely heard.  Note that not many home stereo systems are able
to reproduce the fundamental or even the second harmonic.

--
Andrew Bettison - Softway Pty Ltd

Phone	+61-2-698-2322	  Internet	andrewb@softway.sw.oz.au 
Fax	+61-2-699-9174	  UUCP		uunet!softway.sw.oz.au!andrewb
From: jdt@voodoo.boeing.com (Jim Tomlinson)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: mid- (low-?) range advice needed
Keywords: amp, carousel, HK, advice
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:25:16 GMT
Reply-To: jdt@voodoo.boeing.com
Organization: BoGART To You, Buddy


    My brother-in-law has decided to buy his folks a new CD player and
amp for their retirement.  He wants to go carousel on the CD player,
and spend a total of $600 on the two components.  I know it ain't much,
but his folks aren't real audiophiles, and whatever he gets will be
head and shoulders above what they have now.  My question is, does
anyone have recommendations on what he should get?  He likes HK amps,
an opinion seconded by our resident expert at work (although he also
recommended that we give the Adcom 535 a listen).  So far the only
advice I've gotten on CD players is "go with Sony; you won't go
wrong".  What do y'all think?  Rec's for either or both components
greatly appreciated; plz email and I'll summarize if there's interest.
-- 
Jim Tomlinson    BoGART Project    Boeing Computer Services    Bellevue, WA
jdt@voodoo.boeing.com       ...uunet!bcstec!voodoo!jdt        (206)865-6578 
         "Airplanes are cool." - the man on the street in Seattle
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: fkrauthe@tomcat.ece.uc.edu (Frank John Krautheim)
Subject: Danmark AIWA AD-R707 Cassette Deck???
Keywords: Cassette AIWA Danmark
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 18:22:31 GMT


I have a question about the AIWA Cassette deck that Danmark has in
their latest catalog for $169 plus $7.50 s/h.  I have checked the
prices in the latest SR and this seems to be an excellent price and I am
familiar with Danmark's reputation (good/bad).  What I want to know is:

Is the AIWA AD-R707 a good unit??  Does anyone know anything about
this deck and have you have any good/bad experiences with it??

It seems to be a pretty good deck.  Auto-Reverse, Dolby B-C NR HX-Pro,
wireless remote, music search and all the other features.  What I am 
wondering is should I get this deck, as I am thinking of upgrading my
system, or should I wait and get a 3-head deck like an Onkyo or Yamaha
at about $200 more???

Any information about this deck and your experiences with AIWA would be
greatly appreciated.

--			      ______________		   _
                              )_____________)     ________/ \________
   John Krautheim                       \\       (________   ________)	
				         \\         /   / \_/
   fkrauthe@thor.ece.uc.edu               \\_______/  _/ There's no intelligent 
   University of Cincinnati		 _/ ..  ...    \  life down here.
   Department of Computer Engineering    \_____________/   Beam me up Scotty.

--
			      ______________		   _
                              )_____________)     ________/ \________
   John Krautheim                       \\       (________   ________)	
				         \\         /   / \_/
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Mini system question.
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:06:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.scf2dINN4k4
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

The suggested "mini-system" breakdown was:

>   Speakers $200
>   Reciever $200
>       CD   $120
>      Tape  $130

This is a pretty tight budget.

My thought on this is that a $200 receiver is going to have
a pretty crappy tuner section, and a $130 tape deck is no prize
either.  So you might be better off spending considerably more on 
speakers, buying an integrated amp instead of a receiver, and 
(don't laugh guys) buying a $60 ghetto blaster to serve as tape 
and tuner.  This way, you'll have a nicer system now for listening 
to CD's, and when you come into more money can buy a real tuner and 
tape deck to replace the blaster.

Good luck...

-- steve
Xref: sparky rec.audio:7258 rec.video:6124
From: bootle@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Lee Booth)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.video
Subject: Re: Dolby surround encoder available??(corrected request)
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:37:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: pdxgate.5296
Distribution: usa
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <5270@pdxgate.UUCP> bootle@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Lee Booth) writes:
>Ok, does anyone know of a "box" that will take four audio channels as input
>and encode them into the two channel format that a Prologic decoder uses??

OK, someone pointed out that it isn't really an encoding process, but more
mixing, etc.  So, what I am looking for is something that will take four line
inputs(left, center, right, surround) and do the proper mixing and tweaking to
output the two channel format all the wonderful [:-)] decoders can handle.

>If such a beast is not available, does anyone know how to make one?
>[No, I don't need to be able to offically say it is Dolby-encoded... :-)]
>Please reply via email, I don't want to have to hunt through the groups, not
>to mention our site has fairly quick expiration....    
>Can't remember if I fixed my sig, so use bootle@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
>TIA.
> 
>Lee Booth       bootle@rigel.cs.pdx.edu  
>STRESS = The confusion created when one's mind overrides the body's basic 
>desire to choke the living daylights out of some jerk who desperately
>deserves it.


Lee Booth       bootle@rigel.cs.pdx.edu  
STRESS = The confusion created when one's mind overrides the body's basic 
desire to choke the living daylights out of some jerk who desperately
deserves it.
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA