HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: j_adams@hpfcbig.SDE.HP.COM (John Adams)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Rewriting a Sony MD
Date: 24 Sep 92 21:28:43 GMT
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO

In rec.audio, km@mathcs.emory.edu (Ken Mandelberg) writes:

>To what extent is the new Sony MD rewritable? Do you have to erase the whole
>disk and rewrite it sequentially? I would hope there is some way to rewrite
>tracks, selections, etc.

>Any one know about this?

Yes.  The format employed is similar to a standard computer disk.  If you
have two tracks and re-record track #1 with something longer in duration
the "extra" portion will be located elsewhere on the disk.

Since the MD unit has a 3 second buffer it can seamlessly splice the
disjointed segments togather.

Try that with your DCC deck!


John Adams
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: gfl@hera.uucp (22402-lenahan)
Subject: Re: need recommendation for preamp/amp
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 13:25:02 GMT
Summary: suggestions re: pre/amp for cs3.5s

In article <1992Sep30.085158.1@acad.drake.edu>, system@acad.drake.edu writes:
> I have recently purchased a pair of Thiel 3.5 speakers and am looking to

Do you mean 3.5s (discontinued) or 3.6s (new)?

> upgrade my aging electronics (Hafler DH101 and Phase Linear 400).  I 
> listen almost exclusinvely to classical music and have a limited budget.
> I also like to listen at realistic levels.

George;

Your amp and preamp are obviously well below the level of
your new speakers, whichever they are...

The Hafler 101 preamp was never as good a value as the DH200
power amps .. their cheap parts quality made 101s degrade very
quickly (sonically), and the result was bright and gritty.

The phase 400, also tended to be bright and "electronic" sounding,
although I never owned one or had one in my poassession ...
this is repeated hearsay.

If you have older 3.5, which are also bright, you are
creating a problem: bright + bright + unforgiving = headache.
If you have the new 3.6s, they are less bright, but so GOOD
that they deserve attention.  I'll presume you want to spend
about the same on the amp/pre as speakers, or $3-4K.

Several possibilities come to mind:
	Aragon
	Electrcompaniet
	Sonogy
	Coda
I personally would avoid the Adcom pieces; they have
an "electronic" signature that will not match well to
your 3.5s (unless you like that sound.. i doubt it).
B+K makes some nice pieces for the money, but again,
they are not in the class of the big Thiels.
Both adcom and B+K combos can be had for less than
the above, say $1000 => $1600.

Thiel makes some great products.  Shop carefully and
you can get some fine music out of those speakers.

Cheers,

Grant



Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: jsmith@ug.cs.dal.ca (Jeff N Smith)
Subject: Help in designing a subwoofer enclosure!
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:50:05 GMT

Help!

I am looking for any information on designing a folded horn subwoofer box.  I would
prefer a computer program but any information would be useful.  I have Perfect
Box 4.56, Rockford Fosgate Installers Guide (this is where I saw the design)
and the Stillwater Designs (Kicker) Speaker builders guide and none of these 
have any information.  

This type of box is odd in size (unusually large) but will play VERY LOW.

Finally I would like to know if there are any other computer programs
available other than PerfectBox, Kicker mention one called LEAP.

Any information on complex enclosures would also be appeciated (isobaric,
band pass, 4'th and higher order, folded horn, transmition line etc.).

E-mail or post any info you may have (I would prefer E-mail)

THANK YOU

Jeff Smith		Dalhousie University
jsmith@ug.cs.dal.ca	Halifax, Nova Scotia CANADA
From: stud1b53@bnr.ca (Vilhelm Boggild)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: need recommendations for center channel speaker
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:31:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmerh85.1992Oct05.183115.10141
Reply-To: stud1b53@bnr.ca (Vilhelm Boggild)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <5376@gold.gvg.tek.com>, chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen) writes:
|> I would say forget the $40 center channel speaker!  Save it up to
|> build on the the system!
|> 
|> Even though the discussion went off to the esoteric I believe that
|> general useful information was disseminated.
|> 
|> My general recommendation for someone who is contemplating the
|> construction of a home theater:
|> 
|> Go for three full size front speakers, Left Center and Right.  Also go 
|> for a subwoofer.  The surround speakers need not be full range units but 
|> should very closely match the front speakers in the bandpass of 100 to 7Khz
|> (both response and phase).  A surround speaker that was the same make and
|> used the same midrange and tweeter.

I agree completely.

|> The surround speakers should be located
|> behind the viewing position and the surround speakers should be like a "wall
|> of sound"  behind you.  you do not want localization of the surround
|> source.
|>

When you say "behind the viewing position", you run the risk of misleading
people into believing that this means that the surround speakers must be
mounted on the rear wall of the room (ie: on the wall directly opposite of
the television/screen).  This need not be the case.  For example, dipolar
surround speakers are expressly designed to be mounted on the side walls,
though I concede that they should still be slightly behind the viewing
position.  A large room may also benefit by side-mounting conventional
surround speakers, as long as "localization of the surround source" does
not occur (thus, this arrangement won't work if the room is narrow).  Sorry
about picking nits here, but I've had too many salespeople try to
tell me the wrong way to build a home theatre was the only way. :-)

 
|> Then sit back and enjoy!
|> speaker might just be ideal.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Chris Christensen                  The opinions I express are my own,
|> chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com            and sometimes they are wrong!
|> 916-478-3419 FAX 916-478-3887      After all, I *AM* only human.

-- 
Anshu Prasad
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: DCC and the built in cassette recorder
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:16:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: gold.5372
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <BvGpEy.GvD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> davidric@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
(david ricardo) writes:
>I am currently looking for a good cassette recorder (3head/HXpro etc.)
>but soon to be released DCC decks have me thinking I should wait
>6 months to a year. I make lots of cassette tapes for my friends to 
>trade and so forth so I am interested in the cassette deck built into
>the DCC decks.

From the articles I have read the DCC machines are cassette
compatiable for PLAYBACK ONLY.

Don't wait for DCC if you need to record cassette format.

I have read a few of the discussions on DCC and I for one think it
will be great for the masses but that it will fall apart for serious
use.  Just my opinion.


-- 
Chris Christensen                  The opinions I express are my own,
chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com            and sometimes they are wrong!
916-478-3419 FAX 916-478-3887      After all, I *AM* only human.
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Does Bang and Olufsen make good equipment?
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:00:57 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Oct5.195353.2700@stortek.com> v035550@stortek.com (Steve Monroe) writes:
>I have VERY limited knowledge of consumer electronics.
>I have the opportunity to buy a used (but new) Bang & Olufsen
>stereo system.  IS B&O a Danish company that OEMs Japanese 
>stuff or is the stuff actually built in Denmark?  Is it any
>good?  Responses appreciated via email or postings: your choice.

B&O isn't BAD, but it's also not audibly 'exciting', and an awful lot
of the (high) price is going towards the styling.  I know several
people who own their systems.  They are well-integrated, covenient and
easy to use, and they make music in a way which I (personally) find
totally acceptable as background or mood music.  It's also not
unpleasant to listen to, but at the same time it's not really
'engaging' -- doesn't pull me in and make me feel involved.

At full price, I vote against them -- you can get a lot better sound
for the same money, and even most of the convenience features.  If
you're getting a good deal, though, then it might meet your desires,
but you have to decide what they are.

-- 
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: bruce@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Bruce Sams)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: QUAD 44 and 606 Reliability, Cost, Sound?
Date: 28 Sep 1992 13:08:47 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


Hello Netters


I recently sold my long-time amplifiers (Dynaco MK VI) becuase I herad
them in comparison with some newer equipment, and they sounded too soft
and very flabby in the bass.  Nice vocals though.  Anyway, with the money
from the sale (2,000 DM = $1,350) I am contemplating new equipment.  My
local Hi-Fi dealer has some Quad gear he got on trade in: A Quad 44 pre-amp
and Quad 606 power amp. They will cost me about another $300 over what I
got for the Dynas, or about $1750 all total.

Does anyone out there have comments regarding the Quad equipment and
its reliability?  Is this a normal price for Quad gear by American
standards?  If I buy the gear, I'll be bringing it home to the US
in about a year or so.  Is there good support/repair for Quad equipment
in the US?

Any comments are welcome.


Many thanks,


Bruce Sams
From: Joe Roberts <72411.533@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Edgar Midrange horn
Date: 29 Sep 1992 12:57:34 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

I recently read an old Speaker Builder article about the Bruce Edgar
midrange horn, a cone driven wooden mid horn. Anybody out there in Net Land
ever had the opportunity to give a pair of these low spouse appeal
transducers a listen?
 
If they're any good, how can I get a pair?
 
Any input appreciated.
 
Joe Roberts
72411.533@compuserve.com
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Leaving it on
Date: 29 Sep 1992 12:57:19 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


> I say, leave everything on all the time.  It's no big deal.

My power amp, while it sounds very good, unfortunately draws 750W while idle,
and dissipates it as heat.  This makes it difficult to leave operating 
continuously over the summer months (although it would be pleasant during
the winter).

I don't bother leaving my other components running continuously, either.
They generally come up to proper operation within a half hour, while the
power amp takes a good hour to get up to its best sound quality.  So, I
just turn them all on together.

I have seen old tube gear bake itself into oblivion, after being left
in continuous operation for a few years.  On the other hand, the risk
of filament damage is reduced considerably.  Back to the first hand, how
many times have you had to replace a tube because the filament has gone
out; they generally change in sound long before then.
--scott
From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: DAT problem
Date: 28 Sep 1992 13:08:45 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


In article <87F605548040C57B@LANDO.HNS.COM> MCNINCH@LANDO.HNS.COM 
(Wayne) writes:
>Rithea Hong sites a problem with dropouts on an Aiwa portable HD-S1 DAT
>recorder/reproducer.  I have the same machine which exhibits the same problem. 
>Examination of the tape in the area of concern shows a long crease (a few
>inches) seemingly at the angle of the helical scan. I've been meaning to send
>it back, but I'd guess it's an engineering defect in the transport. 

A mechanical _alignment_ fault is what I suspected and That's why I
suggested a physical inspection of the tape.

I wouldn't say that it is a mechanical design flaw but it is posible.

>I suspect I should have paid the extra bucks for a "Pro" portable. 
>I also know of 3 Sony DTC-700 DAT machines which jam tapes on loading.
>The same tapes load fine in Panasonic SV-3700 "Pro" machines.  
>My feeling: DAT is great, but stay away from all "consumer" machines to
>avoid these types of problems as well lack of support
>for the failed DAT format in the consumer marketplace, not to mention the SCMS

I use condumer decks in a professional application (Denon DTR-2000).
I use them because the have consumer features that I have seen removed
from the Pro machines.  Things like a direct access "keypad"  The
thinks that I wish I had and don't is the shuttle/jog knob.  I don't
worry much about SCMS at the moment because I don't copy in the
digital domain. 

The portables, consumer AND PRO  will all suffer some ills due to the smaller
headwheel assy. 

>nuisance.  DAT is skyrocketing in the Pro domain. I'm looking at the TASCAM
>DA-30 for less than $1k locally -SCMS jumper defeat is identified now by TASCAM
>and it supports single-ended and balanced audio and digital I/O. 
>I'm interested in hearing from anyone who's sent an Aiwa HD-S1 back for
>repair of this problem.

I would be interested in comments from people who know:

Are Pro machines transports the same as consumer units?  I believe
this to be the fact.  

Were Pro units offered for sale firts or were consumer decks sold
first.  I saw the prototypes at trade shows in the 1986 time frame.  I
believe that the consumer decks were offered first and then the pro decks.

-- 
Chris Christensen                  The opinions I express are my own,
chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com            and sometimes they are wrong!
916-478-3419 FAX 916-478-3887      After all, I *AM* only human.
From: philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: "Ultimate" headphones
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:51:47 GMT
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Distribution: na
Reply-To: philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


In article <5796@osc.COM> osc!dk@amd.com (Dan Koren) writes:

   > Not only are these not wireless, they require transformer boxes to step 
   > up amplifier voltages. 

   This is incorrect. The Stax and Grado use tube amps to provide correct
   voltage and impedance matching, as well as polarizing voltage for the
   electrostatic membranes in the case of the Stax. Any transformer would
   probably degrade the sound.

Only the most expensive Stax use a direct drive amp as I recall.  My
SRD-6 Stax "adaptor" for my Stax electrostatic headphones (SR-5) is a
transformer that ups amplifier voltage to a few thousand volts plus
something like a 1000V DC power supply to bias the membrane.

Transformers do degrade the sound, but not as much as running a high
voltage device with the 10V signal coming out the back of a receiver
:-)

Philip Greenspun
MIT Department of Electrical Engineering
From: hera!gfl@uunet.UU.NET (22402-lenahan)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Source for high-quality pots / impedance questions
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 15:46:25 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Summary: Z-matching
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

In article <1992Oct1.194011.5555@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, eric@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Eric Hansen) writes:
> Hi all -
> 	a friend of mine mentioned that he had heard of a company which sells
> high-quality potentiometers and stepped attenuators installed in a nice-looking
> chassis. 

Visionary systems, maybe?  They use P&G POTS.

> 	Also, how do you know if your line-source impedance is "compatible"
> with the input impedance of your amp?  I think the CD's output is 120 ohms,
> and the amp input is 22 kilohms.  Do they need to be the same? 

This system should work fine, although I'd prefer to see
a higher input impedance on your amp.  The concept of
matched impedances does not really apply to most home 
audio.  Matched impedances has two goals:

	-maximum efficiency in power transfer
	-minimize reflection of waves

re: efficiency
Its not really an issue in audio. If you lose some power, just
crank up the volume (gain) a little.  The losses are also quite
small, since most amplifiers react to voltage, not power.

re: reflections
reflections are not good, but consider the following.
To reflect, the distance of the transmission line
(your cables, in this case) must be at least 1/4
wavelength of the ac signal (shortest one).  While
this is critical in long-distance telephony, and 
where frequencies are very high (high frequencies
have short wavelengths), audio waves are VERY VERY
long.  I'm not about to calculate now, but we're
talking significant fractions of MILES.

a better model:
You shoudl be most concerned with the output of your CD
(or whatever) being undistorted.  Since all inputs are
non-linear to some degree, you want to minimize its loading
effect.  Thus, what you want is a low output impedance
(this means high current) and a high load resistance
(this means easy to drive).

Keep in mind that when you use a passive box your
output impedance is no longer 120 ohms, but the 
combined 120 ohms plus whatever the series resistance
of the POT is at a given point.  I'm NOT a fan of
such devices if the alternative is a really top-notch
preamp.  If the alternative is a mid-price job, well...

Does that do it???

Grant
From: Shiv Swarup Pathak <sp3u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Bose 10.2 speakers
Date: Thu,  1 Oct 1992 16:52:33 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
To: info-high-audio@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

>From: dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
> 
>I'm considering purchasing some new speakers. I've heard good things
>about Bose speakers, and I've seen an ad for their model 10.2 tower
>speakers at $1,030 a pair. My main music is older rock (eg. Jethro Tull),
>with occassional forays into classical.
> 
>Opinions?
 
I think I've listened to most of the speakers from the Bose line. 
Although I believe the 10.2s to be the best sounding of he bunch, I
don't think are worth the money.  In support of Bose (well, sort of),
the 10.2 do sound good, but not great by any means.  You could do a lot
better with money.  Don't listen to stereo magazines (they are very
commercial, targeting the wannabe audiophile,and very bias).  Audition
the Bose yourselve and compare them with other loudspeakers.  Even
audition the Boston Acoustic SubSat 6 ($300-$400) Sat/Sub system, you
might be surprise how well a relatively inexpensive system can sound- I
was.  You could also listen try out the Cambridge Soundworks Ensemble
($500) with their new Powered Subwoofer ($600 ea).  This system will
undoubtely put the Bose to shame (IMHO, of course).  Also listen to the
KEF and Phase Technology lineup.  Good luck.

-Shiv
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: High End is Humorous
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:08:38 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

fpf@gasco.com (Frank Ferguson x3584) writes:

>...What I don't understand is why the honest interest of a group of
>people in high fidelity, and their empirically grounded belief that certain 
>equipment reproduces music in a superior manner should stimulate such
>a torrent of outrage from non-participants.

Speaking as a part-time participant, who is usually rather more
annoyed than outraged, I'm not at all bothered by someone making
a recommendation for some particular piece of equipment, or a tweak,
based on his experience. It is simply a data point. Amusement is a more
accurate term for my response to the earnest and often muddle-headed
pseudo-technical jargon used to describe the inevitably "dramatic" 
improvement that results from the latest change in cables, fuses, capacitors,
line cords, connectors, or PC substrate. (I really wonder why no-one has, 
as yet, recommended using silver solder for the construction of audio
electronics; what a marvelous way for increasing the price of such
equipment without appreciably affecting the engineering. Of course,
since wave soldering is out, it'll all have to be done by hand, but think
of the status it confers upon the equipment! Hand-assembled by skilled
American craftsmen (well, actually underpaid women) using only the Highest
Quality Ingredients!)

Occasionally I do get annoyed when a recommendation or tweak is accompanied 
by gratuitous pseudo-scientific speculation whose technical content aspires  
to advertising prose. My gorge rises even more when some self-anointed 
Golden Ear proclaims the supremacy of his subjective experience, and 
objective tests be damned; "If I can hear it, and tests don't, then the 
tests are wrong!" seems to be a common attitude for this kind of person, 
especially when A-B-X tests are recommended.

Well, the tests certainly fall far short of measuring everything
that is audible, but the hubris of some people gets to be a little hard to
bear sometimes. The other side has its share of these kinds of people as
well, and the authoritative braying of an engineer who's conviced that
his tests cover everything, and he doesn't have to listen, is just as
annoying. However, there seem to be rather fewer of these; most of
the posts from technical types I've read were a bit more even-handed.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
From: jlsims@ucdavis.edu (Jonathan Sims)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Vandersteen 2CE power handling question
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:44:40 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
To: rec-audio-high-end@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


  I recently purchased a pair of Vandersteen 2CEs along with a B&K
ST202. The documentation that comes with the 2CEs really tries to put
the fear of God into to you about their power handeling.  What have been
the experiences of 2CE owners when it comes to playing the speakers at
moderately high levels? Should I be afraid of my amp (150W/ch) smoking
the 2CEs (assuming I play at a volume that sends little distortion to
the speakers)?

Jonathan Sims
jlsims@ucdavis.edu

P.S.  Does the "100 hour" break in period really make a dramatic
difference in sound?