HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:48:31 EST
From: Jeff Dubin <JDUBIN@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: CD's dig out to PC

Would it be too hard to connect the optical out of a disc player or DAT to a PC
so that it would be used as an audio source?
If there is a schematic available, could someone post it or just mail me so
we could find a way to get it onto the net?  Thanks!

Jeff
---
==============
Jeff Dubin              20 Minutes Into                  Undergraduate at Large
jdubin@american.edu      The Future...          Intended Major:  Complaints and
jdubin@world.std.com                                          General Criticizm
From: YKWON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Stereo Review's critical judgement
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:04:15 GMT
 <palane.726127411@pv7427.vincent.iastate.edu> <C0CEJH.82o@CAM.ORG>
 <1993Jan5.012705.7136@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1993Jan5.012705.7136@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu
(trygve lode) says:
>
>Well, this isn't exactly scientific, but I did do a single-blind test
>years ago when I picked up a Magnavox CDB-650 to replace an early-80's
>Sony CD player.  (My brother had copies of the same CDs that I did,
>which made AB and ABX testing much easier.)  I didn't have the most
>impressive stereo around back then, but I recall getting somewhere in
>the neighborhood of a 100% score in being able to guess which was which.
>
>Trygve

Quite similar experience I had a few years ago; since my old
mid-80's Pioneer CD player was beginning to show some skipping problems,
I brought home a (then) new NAD 5425 CD player ($300) and tried a
comparison.  As my roommate had many CD's which are the same copies of
what I had, it was easy to set up the test. I just switched between the
two CD's of exactly same kind in two different players. The sound difference
was subtle but unmistakeably clear.

This is just one more data point to this debate.

-Youngjoon
From: jcm11@po.CWRU.Edu (John C. Mackey)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Klipshe or Paradigm?
Date: 7 Jan 1993 08:07:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: jcm11@po.CWRU.Edu (John C. Mackey)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I recently purchased a Paradigm center channel speaker and I REALLY like
it.  It's been nice to hear a more "true" sounding speaker than the
Bose 301s I've been using for a little over a year.  Anyway, the quality
of the Paradigm has so turned me off to the Bose that I'm going to purchase
a new pair of speakers this coming summer (when I again have some $$).
I'm willing to spend $600-ish, and Paradigm makes a fine speaker (7seMkII)
that falls right around that area.  Klipshe (sp?) also seems to make a pretty 
good speaker in that price range.  (That's what I've been told - I haven't
actually heard much of these speakers.)
I know that you guys (& gals) have definite opinions on certain things,
especially, it seems, speakers.  How do these speakers compare, or is it
like comparing apples to, say, pears?
Paradigm seems to pride itself in it's "unprecedented value," whereas I've
heard that Klipshe may be a little more overpriced.
Just for the record, I plan to listen primarily to classical music with these
speakers.  (Of course, they'll also be playing Queen, and maybe even The
Red Hot Chili Peppers now and again.)
Any feelings concerning $600-ish Klipshe speakers and/or any of the
mid-end Paradigm (MkII series) speakers?  Send 'em my way!

-John
-- 
John C. Mackey  -  Music Composition major at Cleveland Institute O' Music
-----------------
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: How can different digital cables sound different?
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:23:55 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

In article <1ibf9gINNo2k@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>I doubt it's really a significant problem.  Consider all the bits
>going in and out of your CPU to memory, and your hard drive.  When's
>the last time one of them screwed up?  Take e.g. memory errors.  I've
>seen one in a year among 10 computers with >=16 megs.
>
   "Real" computers use single-bit and even double-bit encoded
   memories so that single bit errors are corrected.  Some cheaper
   computers only maintain parity so you'll know you got an
   error...and some computers don't do parity at all.  Just like the
   RS coding on CD's error detection and/or correction costs
   overhead.  Errors are much more common than you would think...ask
   a computer QA type or field service engineer.  

   And I hate to tell you how bad hard drives are....but you won't
   believe me until yours munges your thesis which you've just spent
   months on and you haven't backed it up properly.   Service
   personnel carry a violin around to "play a sad song" for users
   who refuse to believe that computers DO have errors....

>
>If the envelope were anywhere close to causing worry for digital audio
>computers just wouldn't work right.
>
   Ummmmm, frequently they DON'T.  And you'd be surprised how often
   it is due to improperly implemented busses, cables, etc.   

>
>What's the typical physical length of a LAN network connection? Don't
>most LAN errors because more than one transmissions start at once?
>
   Nope, you are thinking only of Ethernet.  There are several other
   LAN technologies where it just don't happen.   

   Many LAN errors are usually due to implementation or
   architectural problems in the stations and protocols using the
   LAN.  However physical errors (media) are about equally common.

   How far the LAN reaches is highly dependent on the type of LAN,
   the bit rate, the modulation method, the media...and how well the
   LAN's architecture (and the protocols using the LAN) tolerate
   errors.   

   Some vendors provide interfaces, media, and installation
   instructions which keep you WAY inside the safe margins.  Others
   are notorious for pushing the envelope.  There are always
   cost/performance trade-offs in the real world.
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Mr. Pierce responds to Re: Class C amplifiers, says Mr. Pierce.
Date: 6 Jan 1993 03:50:59 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
NNTP-Posting-Host: grissom.larc.nasa.gov

In article <41619@unix.SRI.COM> henry@monod.biol.mcgill.ca (Henry A. Pasternack) writes:
>
>   Bob Myers writes:
>
>>Henry, you're going to confuse a lot of people with that last bit - most
>>commercial AM transmitters DO use a class C output stage.  The trick is
>>that the modulation is done at the output - the output stage is NOT amplifying
>>an already-modulated signal, and so amp linearity is unimportant.  (SSB
>>transmitters are another story altogether, even though SSB is a "subset"
>>of AM.)
>
>   Hmmm.  I didn't know that.
>
>   I guess when you get into very high-power stuff, this kind of circuit
>becomes practical or desirable.  My frame of reference comes from my ham
>redio days, when a typical transmitter would run a pair of 6146B's in
>Class C for CW and Class AB1 for SSB or AM.

You mean a typical linear amp.  Most AM ham "transmitters" actually have a
modulated final, but any outboard amp you would use would be class AB1.

When you are putting out 50 KW, though, the added efficiency is crucial.
Our local 10 KW AM station is using an old Crosley transmitter with a
modulation transformer that comes up to my waist.  They get about 60%
efficiency between input power and output power, which isn't great by
modern standards but isn't anything to sneeze at.  You can calculate
the dissipated power, by the way.... they don't use heat in the winter.
--scott
Xref: sparky rec.audio:18269 rec.video:15774
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:47:48 -0500 
From: "Eugene M. Feinberg" <ef23+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Wanted: Pre-amp


I'm looking for a simple, and inexpensive preamp.  I am looking for 
basically a volume knob and input switcher.  I'm sorry if this board
is not for want/for sale, but I have never ventured into the realm of
audio.  Thanks.

Gene Feinberg
ef23@cmu.edu
From: tsreddy@gaucho2.Eng.Sun.COM (Srinivas R. Thimmiah)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Lexicon CP3 crossover-digital/analog?
Date: 4 Jan 1993 19:36:30 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: gaucho2

In article <1993Jan4.030727.1401@fcom.cc.utah.edu> dave@news.ccutah.edu (dave martin) writes:
>Is the 80hz crossover in the lexicon CP-3 an actual crossover from lucasfilm
>(or elsewhere), or do they implement it digitally?
>
>dave@csulx.weber.edu (ignore the header address, its probably wrong)


     I'm not sure how they implement it, but I'm sure that lucasfilm does not provide
the crossover. They only set the requirements for THX certification but are not
involved in manufacturing any of the products. One of the requirements for a 
THX processor is that it provide a sub-woofer output.
From: kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Losing My Religion (Was...many times tangentially removed)
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:05:59 GMT
Organization: Shredding the water of SF Bay, HP-OCD

Gavin Maltby:
>My Wadia X32/3200 combination CD player supports all the interfaces.
>I started with the coax link.  I paid a fair bit for that high quality
>coax.  At the time the DAC had toslink receiver electronics installed,
>in addition to the coax link.  Comparing the two gave no conclusive
>evidence, even in a rather revealing system.  I could not justify the

But, you could hear a difference?  I can hear differences, but not
worth $ from what I've listened to to date.

>expense, really.  A friend with the same CD had the AT&T receiver
>electronics installed, and we did a comparison.  With the transport
>next to the rest of the system things were better, but not massively
>so.  Then we removed the transport to the next room (using the 6m
>optical cable).  The difference was amazing, as though we'd changed
>some major component.  I have since installed the AT&T stuff on my
>DAC, and have similar results.  It seems that the biggest, and definitely
>worthwhile, difference was getting the transport out of an area where
>it could be vibrated.
>
>Something to think about?
>
>Gavin

Interesting.  Do you mean it sounded BETTER if you located it to another
room?  Did you use the ST fiber?  I'd suspect you could run out of power
and/or get pretty jittery with 6 m of the 1mm plastic fiber.

My guess would have been that the vibration isn't what matters unless
the vibration is adding jitter to the S/PDIF data stream.  It could be
that you now have the digital supply on a different circuit.  Have you
tried IDOS or other power conditioning things (wedges, Home brews,
etc.?)  with both in the same room?

Kirk out
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: How can different digital cables sound different?
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:01:03 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

In article <gmaltby.53.726741859@unpcs1.cs.unp.ac.za> gmaltby@unpcs1.cs.unp.ac.za (Gavin Maltby) writes:
>
>In non-esoteric systems, I've heard cable only make rather small differnces.
  
  I'd have to agree with Kerry....it is on POORLY designed
  interfaces that you would expect to see the artifacts of
  cable/DAC personality mismatch.      If your system is really 
  that good, one would expect nice clippers, buffers, and reclocking
  that you could use barbed wire for cabling.

  In other words, IF the cable makes a difference it is due to
  compromises elsewhere...so I'd expect cables to make more of a
  difference in the modest price ranges.  

  Now if they'd only use the ST for fiber....
From: seghers@hpkslx.mayfield.HP.COM (David Seghers)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:36:18 GMT
Subject: Re: WANTED: Indoor FM antenna advice
Organization: HP Response Center Lab
Newsgroups: rec.audio

>/ hpkslx:rec.audio / wayne@ultra.com (Wayne Hathaway) /  5:33 pm  Jan  8, 1993 /
>it; apologies.  My question relates to INDOOR FM ANTENNAS (antennae?).
>In particular, our house is what is known around here as "over the
>hill," and FM reception is spotty at best.  I bought a Radio Shack
>"dipole" antenna (otherwise known as a T-shaped chunk of twin-lead)
>and it helps, but (a) is still marginal, and (b) looks like hell
>hanging on the wall.

Other than looks, the folded dipole you bought is usually better than
all the "hi-tech" passive antennas.  It is rather directional, so 
you might try hanging it on another wall, or just moving it around.
One thing wich has worked for me is to get an FM antenna from Radio
Shack and mount it in the attic (one of those that you would normally
mount on a mast).  

>
>Is there anything else I should try?  I saw a little "powered FM
>antenna" at Good Guys the other day, but I'm somewhat skeptical of
>such things.  And we do NOT (currently, at least) have any sort of
>outdoor antenna, since we are hooked to cable.  (Anything I can do
>with the cable connection for FM reception, he asks hopefully?)

Even better than all sorts of antennas would be if your cable company
carries FM startions.  I have heard some FM stations advertising to
have people request their station be carried on cable.  Have you asked
them?  It may be as simple as using a VHF/UHF/FM splitter.

>
>Thanks for all ideas!
>
>    Wayne Hathaway               domain: wayne@Ultra.COM
>    Ultra Network Technologies     uucp: ...!ames!ultra!wayne
>    101 Daggett Drive             phone: 408-922-0100 x132
>    San Jose, CA 95134              FAX: 408-433-9287
>----------


David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730

************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)

Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
From: Matt.Ion@p106.f7040.n153.z1.ship.wimsey.bc.ca (Matt Ion)
Sender: UUCP@ship.wimsey.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Maximum Interconnect Cable Lengths?
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 13:54:54 -0800

 AG> I'd like to hook up 2 receivers to each other so they
 AG> can both play from the same source (in different rooms)
 AG> I'd like to run the tape-out from receiver 1 to the 
 AG> aux-in on receiver 2.  Is there a maximum "safe" length
 AG> for the wire?  

 AG> I tried this a couple of years back with 25 foot cables
 AG> and that worked ok, but what is the danger of making these
 AG> cables a bit longer (like 50 feet)?

As long as they're decent-quality cables (note: we're not talking $20/foot
esoteric SuperDuper cables here, just something above run-of-the-mill Radio
Shack $5 jobs) there should be no problems.  Your main worries will come from
EMI (electromagnetic interferene) being picked up by the cables; the longer
the run, the more the chance of picking up noise.

The best thing is simply to reduce the chances of this.  Use a quality coax
cable with a braided or foil shield.  Cheaper cables have only a center
conductor and stranded "ground" wrapped loosely around it.  Braided or foil
shielding will go a LONG way toward blocking any EMI.  More important is to
simply avoid running the cables near such EMI sources.  AC motors, flourescent
lights, power transformers, and things of that nature are great at generating
noise.  Avoid running the cables parallel to AC wiring, and if you have to
cross an AC line, do it at right angles.  If you must run parallel to it, keep
the wires a good distance away (minimum two feet is a probably a good place to
start).

Quality cables will also help minimize signal loss (which should be minimal at
1V line levels), and a stronger signal also means less chance of 'noticeable'
noise getting in there.
From: andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: audio FAQ archive
Date: 6 Jan 93 03:44:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24560
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ


	with most profound apologies, i have to issue
a correction to the FAQ just posted. For administrative reasons,
the FAQ is available only by anonymous ftp on research.att.com
in the file dist/audio.faq . it is there now.

	sorry for any inconvenience.

	andrew
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: philipn@bmdhh202.bnr.ca (Philip Nortey)
Subject: Re: CD player skips...
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, Maidenhead, UK
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:01:37 GMT

You can try cleaning the lens of your CD player by purchasing a lens
cleaner from any good audio store. These are quite cheap to buy.

If the lens cleaner does not work then it is not worth sending the
CD player in for repair. You will be able to buy a brand new player
for not much more than the repair costs.
From: mike@banana.fedex.com (Mike Bearden)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: FOR SALE: PURIST DIGITAL CABLE
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:45:59 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Federal Express Corp.











In article <1993Jan4.203144.27955@banana.fedex.com> mike@banana.fedex.com (Mike Bearden) writes:
>
>      FOR SALE: Purist Audio Design Digital Cable -----    $165
>      List price: $350

what follows is some excerpts of comments i have seen on the net recently.

>>Are you crazy?  Is this an RCA cable designed for coax digital
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>connections?  You can get a PAIR of Monster cables, 1 meter, for $20 to
>>$30.  Sorry, I have never tried to shoot down someones "for sale" ad
>>before, but this one is hard to believe.  (We are talking about digital
>>signals here, I mean, a computer is less tolerant of bit errors than a
>>DAC, and people don't sell this hocus-pocus stuff for computers).
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>>Perhaps you should invest the money salvage from this sale into a
>>digital system design course.  What you will learn will save you from
>>being ripped-off again by so-called 'better' digital cables.  Ditto for
>>your two friends. The phenomenon is called 'groupthink'. It also explains
>>why crowds have a mental age of about 4. :-)

  

    i will never say that i am not crazy, but i'm at least smart enough to
    not argue with people who say i am.

    i see that my forsale post sure stirred up a lot of activity on the
    net.  i am not a technical type and am not really interested in
    all the intricacies of how all the music reproduction business
    works.  however, my hat is off to those that do; otherwise there
    would be no one advancing that art/science.

    when it comes to selecting audio equipment, i trust my ears.  if
    others a) don't care to listen, b) don't hear differences, or    
    c) simply claim there are no differences because i can't scientifically
    prove them, then i have better things to do with my time than to beat
    my head against the wall trying to change their viewpoints.
    there are plenty of people out there
    that understand the objectives in building an audio system and share my
    zeal and love for this hobby.  i guess we will go on our merry way
    and have a good time being crazy.  :-)

    over and out,

    mike
From: kega@nobeltech.se (Kent Gabrin)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: What the heck is a Scoopman?
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:32:51 GMT
Organization: NobelTech AB

In article <64320010@hpcss01.cup.hp.com> mikef@hpcss01.cup.hp.com (Mike Forman) writes:
>I first heard about the Scoopman (AKA Sony NT-1) on a flight back from Japan
>last April.  Steve Wozniak was on the flight, and he'd just bought one...
>It's really cool.  It, as you know, uses stamp sized cassettes for recording.
>Each cassette is 60, 90, or 120 minutes in length (two-sided) with _digital_
>recording.  It can record from a supplied microphone or from an analog
>source.  It uses one AA battery, with about six hours of life in continuous
>playback.  

   At last I read the first (actually reply) post of NT (Non Tracking)
device. I was waiting for NT comments. In our Swedish edition of the
SONY catalogue of year 1993 you can read that the sampling frequency
is 32kHz and I think that it has a nonlinear 12 bit quantisation (Like
the Long Play mode of DAT). As I don't have the catalouge on my desk I
am not able to inform you further.

...Deleted stuff...

>The sound quality is "near CD" quality.  With my failing ears, I can't hear

   More near FM (concerning frequency response) and NICAM (Stereo TV).

...Deleted stuff...

BTW, Non Tracking means that when reading the track(s), it is not vital
that the head is "on track". The heads read a lot of tracks at the same
time and then figure out the right order of all the bits => Simpler
construction.

   Now I just wonder if the NT format should go the same way as
ELCASSETTE and Betamax did.

Kent Gabrin   NobelTech Systems    ! My thinking is not as great as
S-175 88 Jaerfaella      Sweden    ! Oliver Berendinus Bumble /Will Try
KEGA@nobeltech.se ! DAT owner and now waiting for DAB to arrive.
From: cmh@eng.cam.ac.uk (C.M. Hicks)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: CD Sound Quality (again?) -- Ideas
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:27:05 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

kong@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kong Kritayakirana) writes:

>Digital Recording: Part I: ADC
>------------------------------
>Assuming you have good microphones and pre-mics, etc. needed to make good 
>sounding recordings. You should use something like 22-bit 128x oversampling 
>ADC. (Hey maybe we'll be able to get away with 20 bits but I love 
>overengineering) Why?

Ho Hum... It's dificult enough to make 18-bit audio converters; If you want
          all 22 bits at 128 times the normal audio sampling rate, you've
          got serious engineering problems :-) (I'm not saying that it
          won't happen sometime in the future)

          Perhaps 20 bits at 200 ksample/second is more a more realistic
          medium-term standard to aim at.

>Why 22-bit?
>-----------
> 
>Why 128x oversampling?
>----------------------
> 

Lots of good arguments FOR deleted, but you didn't examine the other side of
the coin. The major problem with what you suggest is cost - a  good
16-bit studio converter already costs around 1000 pounds per channel. A 
really good one costs a lot more.

Christopher Hicks

--
 ==============================================================================
 Christopher Hicks    |    If it doesn't fit...
 cmh@uk.ac.cam.eng    |                        ...you need a bigger hammer.
 ==============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito)
Subject: Re: Those b*s*a*ds in the white van - I hope they got them.
Organization: The Software Engineering Institute
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:02:26 EST


In article <1it6teINNem@calamari.hi.com>, Andrew Roger writes:
> In article <1it0shINNap6@early-bird.think.com> Philip Mucci writes:
>>	I got taken quite a number a years ago by the very same people...
>>...Then again, some liberal judge
>>will probably let them off, so they can keep selling they crap.
> 
> Yes, and we all know how much progress the consumer protection movement
> has made during 12 years of Reagan-Bush federal/Supreme court appointments...
> 
> AWR

Ha!  What's with you guys?  Do you need your mother with you all the time to
keep you from realizing you don't get something for nothing?  Sheesh, a
college student yet buying from the back of a van!

Well, it was probably the best education you could get for your tuition money.

Rich