HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.car
Subject: Re: Alarm for carjacking
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:06:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov12.155212.18452@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mgarber@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Max D Garber) writes:
>The above sounds good, but if the car is running and the keys are in it, 
>isn't your remote dangling from the steering column??

	I thought I mentioned to carry the romote seperate from the keys.
I know I always carry my house keys seperate from my car keys, etc...
And, I never carried the car keys on my remote, as they had the tendencies
to bump the buttons, etc, which wore down the batteries faster. 
	Right now, I'm in OH, and my car is in FL, so I don't ever carry 
either around :-)

	" Carjack my '78 Fairmont, PLEASE! "-bumper sticker seen on a 
'79 fairmont...
^^^ :-)
From: brad@buck.viewlogic.com (Bradford Kellogg)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: PNP vs NPN Output Stages
Keywords: Lock
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:41:53 GMT
Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc.
Originator: brad@buck


In article <1992Nov9.214606.3791@sei.cmu.edu>, rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Nov9.113458.16272@EE.Surrey.Ac.UK>, Rob Bish writes:
|> 
|> > ***** if you like Bach use NPN *****
|> > ***** if you like Chopin use PNP ***
|> > 
|> > ...Has anyone else observed this effect, and can they shed any light on the
|> > cause?
|> > 
|> > Rob Bish.
|> 
|> I've noticed the same thing, and furthermore, I get better depth perception
|> when listening to baseball and football broadcasts through FETs.
|> 
|> Rich

In fact, the very best thing is a passive mechanical amplifier. Remember 
those record players with the clamp-in steel needles connected to a 2 inch
vibrating diaphagm connected to an ever expanding tubular arm connected
to what was in essence a bull horn, like those things pictured on the
old RCA Victor records called His Master's Voice with the dog looking
in the bell of the horn ? Remember ? Huh ?
From: 00kjfehn@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: EQ Help Needed Badly!
Date: 9 Nov 92 05:55:58 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

I have recently purchased an ADC EQ (used, cheap, couldn't pass it up) and 
can't figure out if I have it hooked up correctly.  It has a LINE IN and LINE
OUT and a TAPE IN and TAPE OUT.  I can currently only run the tape deck and
CD player through the receiver and I would like to get the VCR EQ'ed too, but 
I can't figure out how too do it.  A friend told me of a way to get all 
of my components EQ'ed by using the tape monitor but I can only get the 
CD player this way. Please help me.

I this helps, its an all Yamaha system running on a RX-450

Keith "novice EQ user" Fehn
00KJFEHN@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU

P.S.: Anybody know the Bose shipping number?
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: jmw@angelo.amd.com (jmw)
Subject: Re: PNP vs NPN Output Stages
Keywords: Lock
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:37:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.113458.16272@EE.Surrey.Ac.UK> R.Bish@EA.surrey.co.uk (Rob Bish) writes:
>
[nonsnese deleted]
>
>Has anyone else observed this effect, and can they shed any light on the cause?

Trying breathing more deeply the next time you 'toke'. 
--
J. M. Wincn                           jmw@angelo.amd.com (408) YUP-BEER 
               Standard DISCLAIMER available on request.
From: matthews@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Thomas W. Matthews)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: PNP vs NPN Output Stages
Keywords: Lock
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:14:31 GMT
Organization: Division of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, UC Davis

As part of the fun going on with the NPN vs PNP topic, a writer states:

>I'm not sure if the original posting is serious or not, but there could be
>some foundation to it (ack!  burn me if you will).  I could be mistaken,
>but the PNP transistor is usually lower in noise than the NPN transistor,
>due in part to the lower mobility of carriers in the PNP transistor (which
>are different in the NPN transistors).  Whether this lower noise floor is
>perceptible, I'd probably doubt it since most amps spec. out a SNR at
>100 dB or so.

I looked up some information on bipolar transistor noise sources.  To make 
a long story short, the only device-dependent noise sources are a 1/f
noise in the base current and the thermal noise associated with the 
base spreading resistance.  These sources and two others (shot noise on the
base and collector currents) can be modeled as an equivalent input current
noise and an equivalent input voltage noise.  

The 1/f noise constant is device-dependent, but there is no suggestion in my
references that it is generally better in PNP or in NPN devices.

I frequently see PNP transistors used in transformerless microphone 
preamps, in which the amplifier should have a low noise figure when
driven from a low source impedance (source impedance makes a big difference
in noise calculations - for low source impedance the equivalent input
voltage noise source dominates).  However, I can find no evidence
that PNP transistors have a better 1/f noise constant or a lower
base spreading resistance.  In the latest Analog Devices data book,
their low-noise PNP and low-noise NPN transistors are comparable in 
noise specs. 

It seems that there is no fundamental reason for PNP and NPN transistors 
to have different noise specs.  But I wonder:  could it be that the 
N-type material in the base of the PNP transistor, having a HIGHER 
carrier mobility, would give the transistor a lower base spreading
resistance?  A low base spreading resistance is required for a low
noise figure for an amplifier operating with a low source resistance.
Also, custom-designed NPN transistors could use special construction
to lower the base spreading resistance, thereby mitigating the 
apparent advantage of PNP transistors.  Does anybody know?

I don't think that one can find a simple relationship between
carrier mobility and "noise".  Also, to understand how the
various noise sources present in active and passive devices affect
the overall signal-to-noise ratio, one must take into consideration
many of the circuit parameters.

Tom Matthews
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.audio.pro,comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard,comp.multimedia
From: cs902125@ariel.yorku.ca (SHUK C YIP)
Subject: Re: Interface Digital Audio <---> Computer ???
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:41:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.144423.7532@rhrk.uni-kl.de> luitz@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Steffen Luitz [RHRK]) writes:
>
>what about an interface digital audio (DAT, CD optical or coax) to 
>a computer system (perhaps SCSI or a PC-board  or ...) ?
>Nooo, I don't want to make my backups with my DAT recorder, but it
>would be very interesting to edit my recordings in some way with 
>the computer and the most obvious way seems to copy data from DAT
>recorder to the computer, do the cutting, filtering ... and copy
>everything back to a DAT tape.
>

How about AD516 for Amiga. It gives you true CD quality 16 bit with 8
tracks stereo (never found on any other computer platforms) plus a time
code reader and a DSP chip.

1. Record in stereo, direct to hard drive with 16 bits at sampling rates
up to 48,000 samples per second.

2. Allows 8 track playback from hard drive.

3. Synchronize and chase SMPTE time code at 24, 25, 29.97, and 30 fps.
(drop or non-drop frame)

4. Designed to exceptional audio standards, it offers 15Hz to 22KHz
frequency response and 85dB dynamic range.

5. It can record 2 tracks while playing up to 8 tracks.

6. Up to 8 samples can be edited per window with real time mixing and
special effect with no generation loss.

7. Cue list and SMPTE support can lock sounds frame accurately with
video.
From: matthews@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Thomas W. Matthews)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Passive Bi-amping
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:06:07 GMT
Organization: Division of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, UC Davis

In posting number 14052,
A "passive biamp" system has been proposed, in which two power
amplifiers driven with full-spectrum audio are connected to
LF and HF loudspeakers through appropriate passive filters.

One drawback to this approach is that the amplifier driving the
HF unit (through a high-pass filter) must also respond to the LF
signal at its input.  Although the HF amp does not "see" a load
at low frequencies, its output voltage still must follow the 
complete waveform.  The presence of the low frequency component
takes away the extra headroom and lower intermodulation distortion
that would exist with a truly biamped system.

The intent of the proposed system was to use the manufacturer's
built-in passive crossover, based on the assumption that it
is the best crossover for that speaker system (I think that
a number of cheaper brands save money on crossover parts, so
that assumption may not be true).

I am very interested in crossover design, but by no means an
expert.  I do know that once a crossover frequency has been chosen
(based on power handling, directivity, the individual driver's
frequency response, etc.) the designer cannot continue by
modeling the drivers as pure resistors with flat frequency response.
For example, if a LF driver has a single-pole (first order) roll-off
within a decade above the crossover frequency, the drivers phase
lag at the crossover frequency can cause a significant deviation
from the mathematical precision the designer thought he/she was getting.

That reminds me:  If a speaker box has separate LF driver and HF driver
connections, and each pair of terminals goes through an internal
filter (as implied in the "passive biamp" posting) how could one 
use a true biamp system with an active crossover anyway?  An active
crossover is designed to produce complementary LF and HF outoputs,
but if one inserts another filter (even a passive one) the total
LF and HF responses will likely not sum to equal a flat response.

IMO, biamping with active crossovers will get the most performance out
of the amplifiers and the speakers.  However, as another writer has 
implied, generic components cannot just be assembled to produce a
good SYSTEM.  

However, us amateurs ought to go ahead and experiment.  We might
fry some speakers, but learn something in the process.

Tom Matthews
From: dcb@sequoia.wpi.edu (David Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Hunting Good Speakers in Boston Area
Date: 13 Nov 1992 01:41:55 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sequoia.wpi.edu

Anyone know where (else) I can find: 

Vandersteen			[Music Box, Wellesly]
PSB (Stratus Gold?)		??
Snell				[Natural Sound, Framingham]
Theil				[Audio Vision (name?), Arlington]
Spica				??

speakers in the Boston area (stretching out towards Worcester)?

Many Thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. D. C. Brown, AI Research Group,     DCB@CS.WPI.EDU    Phone: (508) 831-5618
CS Dept, WPI, Worcester, MA 01609, USA.                   FAX:   (508) 831-5776
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.audio.pro,comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard,comp.multimedia
From: hscohen@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Harvey S. Cohen)
Subject: Re: Interface Digital Audio <---> Computer ???
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:35:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.144423.7532@rhrk.uni-kl.de> luitz@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Steffen Luitz [RHRK]) writes:
>what about an interface digital audio (DAT, CD optical or coax) to 
>a computer system (perhaps SCSI or a PC-board  or ...) ?
>Nooo, I don't want to make my backups with my DAT recorder, but it
>would be very interesting to edit my recordings in some way with 
>the computer and the most obvious way seems to copy data from DAT
>recorder to the computer, do the cutting, filtering ... and copy
>everything back to a DAT tape.
Turtle Beach Systems (+1 717-843-6916) makes a ISA-bus board and MS-DOS
software that reads from audio CD or DAT, edits and mixes, and writes
to audio DAT. Ours cost about $1500. It might be cheaper by now.
-- 
	Harvey S. Cohen / att!honet6!hsc || hsc@honet6.ATT.COM
	AT&T Bell Labs / HO 3B532 / 908 949 0173
	Crawfords Corner Rd. / Holmdel, NJ  07733 / U.S.A.
From: dhembrow@eoe.co.uk (David Hembrow)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Dolby B/C dubbing on Dual Decks
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:58:36 GMT
Organization: EO Europe Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Gabe M Wiener (gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
 ( much othe stuff deleted ... )
: As for making copies, here's the way to do it:
: 
: 	- In a dual-deck machine, just drop it in and hit copy.
: 	  Dolby or not, it's gonna copy and that's that.
: 	- In two single deck machines, you have two options.  
: 	  You can turn BOTH Dolby circuits off and copy the
: 	  tape, thus copying any encoding present on the tape,
: 	  *or* you can decode on the source and re-encode on
: 	  the destination machine.

There is a problem with this approach of turning both dolby circuits off!

Dolby is level sensitive. The effect of the dolby circuit is dependant on
the signal level. Because of this, you would have to match levels
exactly when trying to copy like this to avoid quite severe 'pumping' on
the copied tape. Using a decode section going into an encode section
avoids this problem.

I would imagine that a simple compander type of noise reduction would probably
work reasonably ok even if you didn't get the levels right.

: The decode/reencode system is only useful if you feel compelled to put,
: say, C on a B-encoded tape.  You have to decode the B and then put C 
: on.  However, I'd advise against this, as you're going to be doing so 
: much companding and EQ on the recording that by the time you're done,
: it's going to sound, ah, less than desirable.

While I agree that the amount of processing done is less than desirable,
I think you'd find that effect much more subtle than that of the levels
being incorrect for the dolby circuit to behave correctly.
-- 
David Hembrow                   EO Europe Ltd.,
email:  dhembrow@eoe.co.uk      Abberley House, Granhams Road,
                                Great Shelford, Cambridge CB2 5LQ, England
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: LP Problem
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:59:55 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Nov9.184838.26230@menudo.uh.edu> wjin@cs.uh.edu (W. Woody Jin) writes:
>
>I have some LPs which makes noise whenever volume goes up.
   
   Do you mean that the noise appears to increase on louder portions
   of music?

   It could be that your tracking pressure is TOO LOW.  Beg, borrow,
   or steal a GOOD tracking pressure guage and check yours.  

   SOME cartridge manufacturers specify a lower pressure than others
   because they think the lower number looks good.  With most modern
   cartridges, you will do WAY more damage with pressure that is too
   low than a bit high.   

>Does it mean that the those LPs are already damaged ?
   
   If it is due to low tracking pressure, the music just bounces
   your stylus around on high passages.  The stylus gouges a small
   hunk of vinyl out every time it lands.   

   I'd try checking the tracking pressure, and setting it to the
   higher side of the manufacturer's rating....

   You COULD have a arm/cartridge mismatch or resonance, but you'd
   need advice from a high-end shop for that...

   Usually the passages which are sounding noisy IF due to low
   tracking pressure (or poor compliance and match of arm/cartridge)
   are said to 'shatter'.  The term is pretty
   self-explanatory...loud passages sound like they are being played
   thru a concert of breaking glass.  
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: tds32845@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tony Shan)
Subject: SONY CFD-475 or CFD-757??
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:59:23 GMT
Keywords: sony, boombox, suggestion

     Hi!  I am looking for suggestions as to which of two SONY cd boomboxes: 
the CFD-475 or CFD-757.  I know that both of them are really nice
(I guess for starters like me).  Both of them pack a lot of features at 
attractive prices.  The problem is, I do not know which one I should get.  

     If you have used them or know about them, I would really appreciate any
opinions/suggestions from you.  I would also appreciate any suggestions on
some other good boomboxes that you know about.  I am mainly looking for a
portable unit with AM/FM digital tuning with presets, one or two cassettes,
CD unit, detachable speakers, and preferrably ( :> ) with remote control.

     Please send any replies to me at "tonys@uiuc.edu".  Thanks a bunch!

..Tony
..tonys@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Dennon vs. Sony
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:49:52 -0800
Organization: Sonoma State University

The last time something broke(stereo equipment), it was
a chip that was overstressed.
I have fried transistors before, but only by doing something really stupid.

I trust transistors much more than an IC.

In fact, the only equipment that I have to date that is over three years old
is my old NON-IC equipment.
Lost to date:
3 sony's-tuner, amp, and tape
1 jvc tape player/"box"
plus a plethora of devices that use IC's
I am right now replacing my 2nd modem. why? seems that something got fried
from excessive heat due to overuse(?).

Few things with IC's seem to last more than 3 years around me.
Maybe it is bad Karma, but I don't think so.

My amp gets hot enough(old transistor type) to set things on fire.
Don't know how hot that is, but I figure that it is way too hot for
my liking, hence the fan.

About the MTBF for heat, I lost my JVC "boombox" one day.  Amplifier chip
just up and quit.  Nice whisps of smoke.  And you know what? yep, it was
during a 110 degree day.  MTBF be dammed.  Nobody lives in a test-lab.

IC's are MUCH more fragile than transistors.  Voltage spikes have accounted
for two of those dead items.  Funny thing is that the transistors seem to
have survived the same spikes.   My power is not too stable here, but is not
hopeless, either.  I guess if you have your stereo plugged into a
line-conditioner, you should have no problems.

P.S.
I have seen transistors subjected to things that would make an IC smoke.
(old wire-types).  Newer, surface-mount technology is a whole lot worse 
than the old beasts, in terms of abuse-ability.  It all comes down to heat,
and how much mass there is to absorb it.

I'll take my transistors, thank you.
From: allana@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Allan Armstrong)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:21:09 GMT
Subject: stolen audio gear
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: rec.audio

While I was out of town this weekend, my home was burglarized. The
thieves took my audio system. If you should see any of this gear on the
used market, please contact me and/or the Santa Rosa police.

Speakers: DCM Time Windows, S/N 38420, 38421
Amplifier: David Hafler DH-220, S/N 2240020
Preamplifier: David Hafler DH-110, S/N 8236027

I have not yet found serial numbers for my signal sources. The signal
sources are all consumer-grade equipment (Yamaha, Sony) so I am less
concerned about replacement cost.

I understand that the DCM Time Window is no longer made. DCM now makes
the Time Window 7 at a substantially higher price. Is this similar gear
or not? Can anyone advise me on the replacement value of this equipment?

Thanks,

Allan
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: PNP vs NPN Output Stages
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:23:43 GMT
Keywords: Lock

In article <1992Nov10.004153.9424@viewlogic.com> brad@buck.viewlogic.com (Bradford Kellogg) writes:

>In article <1992Nov9.214606.3791@sei.cmu.edu>, rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) writes:

>|> In article <1992Nov9.113458.16272@EE.Surrey.Ac.UK>, Rob Bish writes:

>|> > ***** if you like Bach use NPN *****
>|> > ***** if you like Chopin use PNP ***

>|> > ...Has anyone else observed this effect, and can they shed any light on the
>|> > cause?

>|> I've noticed the same thing, and furthermore, I get better depth perception
>|> when listening to baseball and football broadcasts through FETs.

>In fact, the very best thing is a passive mechanical amplifier. Remember 
>those record players with the clamp-in steel needles connected to a 2 inch
>vibrating diaphagm connected to an ever expanding tubular arm connected
>to what was in essence a bull horn, like those things pictured on the
>old RCA Victor records called His Master's Voice with the dog looking
>in the bell of the horn ? Remember ? Huh ? 

As a matter of fact I do remember.  I have one.

But the technology differns significantly from NPN or PNP.

Since the Needle connects to a Plate which then connects to a Horn this
is known as an NPH !.   


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill.vermillion@oau.org
                - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: portable CD player
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:34:58 GMT
Reply-To: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Distribution: na
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

In rec.audio, sorsha@wam.umd.edu (Dreaming) writes:
>I realize this is an FAQ, but does anyone have a recommendation for
>buying a portable CD player?  I lean towards one that can be used in a
>car as well, but that's not necessary.
>More specifically, I have a catalog that lists the Sony CarDiscman  ....

I recommend the CarDiscman for genral portable use.  There are three
models - the 180, the 802, and the 808.  I think the 180 has been discontinued
and is stilled being sold by some at a discount, ususally under 200.
I personally have the 802; it's essentially a good no-frills player
with lighted controls (only when external power is used) and MegaBass.
It takes standard AA batteries.  It is supplied with a cassette adapter
and both AC and car DC power adapters.  I'm very pleased with it's performance
and it handles all but the ost severe bumps.  I use nicad batteries
and leapfrog two sets; an external (not supplied) charger is used.
The 808 is  little thinner and has programming and compression.  It
costs about 70 more.

My opinion ia that you need a Car Discman for true portability.  The
others are merely trans-protable, but won't play when carried and require
a stable surface.
   /|/| /||)|/  /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~   |   Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
  / | |/ ||\|\  \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_|  |      goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======