HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Selecting an LD Player
Date: 4 Jan 93 02:28:22 GMT
Followup-To: rec.audio,rec.video
Organization: BBN
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1993Jan02.211639.2621@uhura.neoucom.edu>,
wlrc@uhura.neoucom.edu (William R. Cruce) wrote:
> For a detailed discussion of 'digital jitter' as it applies to D/A
> playback from CDs see Robert Harley's article on p.114 of STEREOPHILE
> for January 1993.  He summarizes papers presented at the Audio Engineering
> Society and discusses and instrument Stereophile has used to measure
> 'digital jitter.'  While it is not the total answer there is some
> correlation with subjective sound differences between D/A converters.
> 
> You may disagree on scientific grounds but I think this issue has
> moved out of the realm of 'bogus techno-hype.'

I went looking for this article at newstands (couldn't find it) and the
local library (could only find the December issue, not January). I'll still
try to read the article, but after checking out a December wire (oops,
INTERCONNECT) review, I'm certainly not going to consider merely the fact
that such an article appeared in Stereophile as grounds to discard my usage
of the phrase 'bogus techno-hype'.

-Kerry
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Clipping questions
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:39:33 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

In article <1992Dec31.045956.15376@midway.uchicago.edu> cal@gsbux1.uchicago.edu (Cal Lott) writes:
>>
>>   The amplifier is clipping INTO THAT SPEAKER LOAD....whose fault
>>   it is is a matter of personal opinion.   
>
>	True, but still not helpful in determining what should be
>changed in the particular system.
>
   Well, obviously you want to play louder than your speaker/amp
   combination will play.  Whether you buy more efficient speakers
   or a more powerful amplifier would be highly dependent on WHICH
   speakers and amplifier you own and which you value more.   
   These are matters of highly personal taste, but I'd be glad to
   make a suggestion about like I'd be glad to choose your
   girlfriend for you.

>
>	Well, the rattling sound was actually coming from the
>speaker's 6-1/2" passive radiator, as far as I could tell. The
>overall sound was not harsh, and there were no other unpleasant
>sounds other than a nasty thumping sound.
>
   
   If I recall the amp was a Fisher.  This might just be a truly
   cheesey amplifier with high internal impedance, more commonly
   known as poor damping.  It might sound OK with sealed speakers or
   vented/passive radiator types as long as their resonance is low
   enough.  

   When a poorly damped amp tries to drive a vented or passive
   radiator speaker at frequencies below the speakers resonance, the
   cone or passive radiator is pretty much unloaded and flaps in the
   breeze.   

   I've honestly never heard complaints against the Polks unless you
   really brutalize them or drive them with lousy amps....you may
   want to see if you can borrow an HK, Adcom, etc. before you
   change out the speakers.  Ordinarily I'd say you are likely
   looking at new speakers, but if the amp is an old Fisher I'd cast
   a real fishy eye at it.
From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: questions on new digital formats
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:57:35 GMT
 lumbia.edu> <1992Dec29.204744.7518@adobe.com> <725768980.2401.0@elara.esl.acs.cmu.edu>

Ken Zuroski <kz08+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Speaking of the new digital formats, I've yet to see either DCC or MD
>pre-recorded media for sale in music shops. My questions: how are they
>gonna package these things? I assume the DCC can fit into the old analog
>cassette containers, but what about the MD diskettes? With all the fuss
>from the record stores about CD packaging, I'm interested in what the
>record companies have planned for the new formats. 

I've seen both in stores.  DCC's have special tape cases, and MINI discs
have small plastic cases as well.  They resemble the actual plastic CD
boxes more than the cardboard things.  If you mean how are they going to
put these things up for display, I saw DCC in tape racks (though I'm not
sure if they were the same kind of tape rack as used for conventional
cassettes), and the MD's I saw were in a special display.
-- 
               -  Ishir Bhan -  ibhan@husc.harvard.edu  - 
                                     - - - 
           "The sky and the impossible explode..." -The Cure
From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:28:32 GMT
Subject: Re: CD Sound Quality
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.audio

> Say you sample at 44 KHz.  The maximum theoretical limit of frequency
> you can capture is half of this, 22 KHz.  However, at this rate there
> are only two samples per cycle.  With two samples per cycle, a sine
> wave will sound the same as a square wave.  Surely this is not hi-fi?
> Suppose you say that you cannot hear this high a frequency.
> Well, at 11 KHz, there will be 4 samples per waveform.  How close
> to a pure sine wave can you get with 4 samples?  By looking at it,
> not very.  I'm not sure how noticable the difference in the sound is.
> I guess it wouldn't be difficult for someone with a computer with
> reasonable sound capabilities to try this out.
> 

God, not this again.  Here, let me introduce you to my good friend, 
Mr. Fourier, and his friends, Mr. Shannon and Mr. Nyquist.....
 
Once more, with feeling: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 22 kHz SINE WAVE
AND A 22 kHz SQUARE WAVE UNTIL YOU CONSIDER COMPONENTS AT 66 kHz AND ABOVE.
If you think you can hear that high, fine.  44.1 kHz sampling can reproduce
ALL components up to 22 kHz EXACTLY.

There.  I feel much better now.  I know it won't really do much good, but
I feel better anyway.



Bob Myers            | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but  
myers@fc.hp.com      |  most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."
                     |                        - Winston Churchill             
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally)
Subject: Re: 'Bookshelf' Speakers???
Reply-To: shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 18:24:12 GMT

Also check out the B&W201s.
From: scott@psy.uwa.oz.au (Scott Fisher)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Integrated Amplifiers
Date: 22 Dec 1992 07:15:46 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: wapsy.psy.uwa.oz.au

slr3e@Virginia.EDU ("Stacy Lee Roach") writes:

>I'm looking to buy a integrated amplifier with a decent amount
>of power ( about 100 watts ) for somewhere under $500.  I want

The Rotel RA980BX fits this description

>something that is very clean sounding with almost no extra's.
>I would really like something that is simple but sounds
>excellent.  I will be driving a pair of NHT 1.8's with it.  By
>the way if you haven't heard a pair of NHT's yet do yourself a favor and
>go listen to them.  They are one of the best pair of speakers
>that I have heard and are not extremely expensive.  If you have
>any ideas about a clean integrated amplifier of a pair of
>separates let me know.
>				slr3e.virginia.edu

It has tone controls (that are able to be switched out) if that is
"too" complicated :-)

Spec: (not that they mean much).

POWER: 100W RMS both channels driven into 8 Ohms from 20Hz-20kHz with < 0.003% 
       THD

DAMPING FACTOR: 1500 (20Hz-20kHz, 8 Ohms)

FREQ RESPONSE: Phono = 20-20kHz +/- 0.2 dB (S/N, MC 70dB, MM 80dB)
               CD/Tuner/Tape1&2/Aux = 4Hz-100kHz + 1.0 dB / - 3.0 dB  (S/N,
               100dB)

WEIGHT: 24.2 lbs (11 kg).

DIMENSIONS: 17-3/8"*4-13/16"*11-11/16"

Regards Scott.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott Fisher [scott@psy.uwa.oz.au]  PH: Aus [61] Perth (09) Local (380 3272).                
                                                             _--_|\       N
Department of Psychology                                    /      \    W + E
University of Western Australia.      Perth [32S, 116E]-->  *_.--._/      S
Nedlands, 6009.  PERTH, W.A.                                      v       

Joy is a Jaguar XJ6 with a flat battery, a blown oil seal and an unsympathetic 
wife, 9km outside of a small remote town, 3:15am on a cold wet winters morning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke )
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: JJ, be nice! (was re: CD SOund QUality, 16 bits, etc)
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:06:30 GMT
	<1992Dec21.213820.2737@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> <24463@alice.att.com>
	<Jonas.Palm-221292205230@fastpath-37.orgk2.lth.se>
	<24473@alice.att.com>
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43

JJ -- you're pretty hard on recording engineers that turn out CDs with
clipping and/or underutilization of all 16 bits!!

If these are DDD pressings, and especially if they contained material
from live sessions, I have to emphathise with the engineer.  16 bits
stinks, and not just for "poor engineers".

If, by "poor engineer", you mean, "that poor engineer, he's got to
contend with a choir and an audience that refuses to produce an
accurate "0dB" reference level before the show starts", then I agree,
18 bits would be nice, and your use of the term "poor engineer" is
appropriate.

If, by "poor engineer", you mean, "Gee, that engineer is poor, he
can't afford an Apogee A/D with builtin soft limiting", then I also
agree, and an 18 (or 20!)  bit recording system would be a boon,
assuming it didn't cost more than the outboard A/D, that is.

I do a lot of live recording, and I'm currently struggling with the
philosophical (and financial) decision as to whether the ills of an
extra analog component or three (IE, a VCA, some buffers, etc) in my
signal chain is better or worse than the signal degradation caused by
the 14-15 bit recordings that I often make.  I know for sure that a 16
bit recording made with the aid of a limiter can't possibly sound
worse than the occasional 17 bit recording that I try to turn out!

On the other hand, if you're talking about a studio session, or a
session in which the engineer has had the chance to attend numerous
rehearsals or performances in the same hall by the same artists with
the same orchestration, or if you're talking about a transfer from an
analog recording, yeah, anything less than normalization to 16 bits is
the sign of a poor engineer (or a poor customer, that won't pay a good
engineer to be patient!)


Tony (waiting for an 18 bit DAT machine) Berke
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: eric0139@student.tc.umn.edu (Grant M. Erickson)
Subject: Re: Watts/channel question (Was: Sony ES vs. Sony A/V receivers)
Followup-To: rec.audio
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:03:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.061858.1039@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>,
billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) wrote:
> 
> eric0139@student.tc.umn.edu (Grant Erickson) writes:
> : 
> : My parents purchased a Sony GXR-47ES A/V Receiver (much to my dismay) last
> : fall, and it boasts only 35 or 40W per channel. It is driving one pair of
> : Polk RTA-8L's.
> : 
> : With the volume control at ANYTHING near half, it will clip with reckless
> : abandon. So, if this is indicative of the entire ES receiver line, I'd make
> : sure you get a receiver with a HIGH power rating.
> : 
> : Just for contrast, downstairs, they have a 1978 Marantz 65W/ch receiver
> : driving two Marantz Mk VII speakers. I have thrown everything I possibly
> : can at that receiver and those speakers, and they still sound great, never
> : distorts before my ears hurt and has never clipped once.
> 
> Not really a valid comparison. You are driving two different sets of
> speakers - which do not have the same efficiency.  For a more valid
> test, you would have to take the Marantz speakers, and drive them with 
> the Sony Receiver.  If they clip also, then you can say that the Marantz
> has a lot more headroom.
> 
> Bill

Last weekend, I did just that. Swapped both pairs of speakers between the
two receivers. The Polks did fine with the Marantz, and the Marantz
speakers clipped just as did the Polks.

So, I'd say that the Marantz has more headroom.

._____________________________________________________________________.
| Grant Erickson                                                      |
|   eric0139@student.tc.umn.edu   University of Minnesota/Minneapolis |
'---------------------------------------------------------------------'
From: BARRON@RHQVM14.VNET.IBM.COM
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:09:00 EST
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Port Frequencies

A rather simple question....
Could someone explain the formula that describes the relationship
between a ports tuning frequency and the diameter and length of the port.

This would be for a 4th order bass reflex enclosure (single port, single
driver)

Thanks....
Reply-To: BARRON@RHQVM14.VNET.IBM.COM
Organization: Advantis Network Engineering and Planning
Disclaimer: This reflects the poster's views, not those of Advantis
News-Software: Usenet 3.0
X-X-From: Dave Barron

Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.video
From: michael@Canada.lsil.com (Michael Smith)
Subject: Selecting an LD Player
Keywords: Laser Disk, fiber optic output
Reply-To: michael@Canada.lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation of Canada, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:14:05 GMT

This is probably a FAQ, but if nobody ever-asked the question, it wouldn't be
a FAQ, would it...?

I've been thinking of replacing my Denon CD player (I think the model number is
DCD 1200 Mark II) with a LD player which would also of course have a CD player
built-in.  I've just begun looking at LD players, so I'm pig-ignorant about them,
so, here come the questions.

I want an LD player with a fiber output, so I can later purchase an outboard
DAC.  Presuming that I do take this step, do all LD (and all CD players for
that matter) players spit-out the same optical data for a given disc?  In other
words, can a player manufacturer screw-up the digital data coming off of the
disc?  (Error correcting comes to mind here).  If the only "audible" differences
between players comes from the DAC portion (plus power supplies, etc), then with
an outboard DAC, all CD/LD players should sound identical.  Is this a true
statement?

What is the resolution of the LD medium?  I've seen Pioneer LD players with 425 lines
of resolution, do any other players do better, or is this number a function of
the medium itself?  The best S/N ratio I've seen is 50 dB, is this also a function
of the medium?

Do any LD players perform picture enhancement, colour blooming removal, or any
other DSP type functions on the video image?

I've looked briefly at the Pioneer 701, can anyone make any comments on this
unit, or recommend other above-average LD players?

Thanks for any feedback or comments.  If I've missed anyother important questions,
please let me know.


---
     Michael Smith - Chipset Design Engineer

Phone: (416) 620-7400         michael@canada.lsil.com
Fax:   (416) 694-5005

    _/     _/_/   _/_/_/   _/                   _/
   _/    _/        _/     _/ 
  _/      _/_/    _/     _/     _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/
 _/         _/   _/     _/     _/  _/ _/  _/ _/ _/
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/   _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/
                                        _/   LSI Logic Corp. of Canada, Inc.
                                   _/_/_/   Suite 1110, 401 The West Mall
                                           Etobicoke, Ontario
                                          M9C 5J5


Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: kong@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kong Kritayakirana)
Subject: CD Sound Quality
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 09:07:25 GMT

co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato) writes:
 
> >people can't hear the difference between 15 and 16 bit.
>  
> But they CAN hear the difference between 14 and 16 bits...
> and I'll bet they can hear the difference between 16 and 18 or 20
> bits.
      
Maybe they CAN hear the difference between 14 and 16 bit which 
correspond to 86.1 and 98.1dB of dynamic range respectively (using 
Dynamic Range (dB) = 6.02 x #bits + 1.78) But 18-bit and 20-bit?
That corresponds to 110.1 and 122.2dB dynamic range. If you see my 
earlier posting, the lowest background noise achievable in anechoic 
chamber (a pretty darned good one) is about 30dB above our threshold of 
hearing. So dynamic range above 90dB (which is 120-30dB) should be 
enough. This, of course, assumes highest level on CD is recorded at 0dB 
and proper dithering is done.
 
> I simply cannotat the ear, the most dynamic and          
> sensitive mike created, especially the discrimiating ear,
> can be satisfied by 16 bits.
>  
> I don't think 16 bits can truly represent what our ears were
> ment to hear. people aren't supposed to be able to hear
> the difference between cd and md, but I CAN on a good system
> with simultaneous a/b comparison.
 
Well, as I said earlier, I did not go into discussion about data 
compression used by DCC and MD. I believe you that you CAN pick out CD 
and MD in a blind test, but see above about going beyond 16bit in linear 
PCM encoding.
 
> I say lets leave it at ONE disc format for simplicity,
> and work on a 32 bit 96KHz sampling system.
 
32bit = 194.4dB dynamic range! Wow, you should lend your ears to those 
psychoacoustic folks. They can rewrite a book on human hearing which is 
known to have "maximum" SPL tolerance of 1W/squaremeter=120dB and the
minimum threshold is 1picoWatt/SquareMeter which corresponds to 0dB.
 
9 6 k H z   s a m p l i n g   r a t e ? :) Again, you should lend your 
ears to those psychoacoustic folks about highest audible freq. :D
During medium transfer, 44kHz should prove adequate. Of course, a LOT of 
oversampling has to be done during ADC and DAC in order to keep Nyquist 
happy. :) Mail me for details about why oversampling is needed during 
ADC and DAC.
 
> Of course i may be wrong but i'm willing to take the bet.
> any combacks?
 
Well, Can't say ANYONE is RIGHT about ANYTHING.
 
Kong Kritayakirana (kong@leland.stanford.edu)

Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.video
From: ted@dgbt.doc.ca (Ted Grusec)
Subject: Re: Radio Shack garbage
Organization: The Communications Research Centre
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 05:43:37 GMT

In article <C09GL2.E4@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umhaugh0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Bruce A. Haugh) writes:
>In <1993Jan2.214615.6951@wam.umd.edu> bladin@wam.umd.edu (Ilana J. Getz) writes:
>>>> Radio Shack makes total garbage; most likely your problem is all Radio
>>>> Shack's fault.  I would never buy a Radio Shack product.  
>>>
>>>This is a trifle overstated.  RS's upper-end scanners, for example, are widely
>>>considered to be among the best available, and they have a long history of
>>>reliability.  Many of their short wave (now often called "world band") radios
>>>are also well-regarded (these are relabelled Sangean units, so I guess you 
>>>could say that they're not really a RS product).  

>>I worked at good 'ol RS when I was in college, and I think I can provide
>>some insight.
>
>>Radio Shack manufactures about 50% of th stuff they sell, and the rest is
>>farmed out to other suppliers. For example, when I worked there, they made
>
>>What's the bottom line? A total lack of consistancy. You simply cannot say
>>that "all of the RS gear is bad," or even that all of one particular
>>line of products is good or bad. They may all come from a different place.
>
>>I agree that it is best to avoid RS products in general, but not because
>>they are all bad. Rather, there is no way to know which ones are bad.

Well, if you follow whatever sources you deem are reliable, you CAN
know that a particular product is good.  As one of the above stated,
they are known to put out terrific scanners (e.g. the Realistic
Pro-2006) and these are well-known to serious radio people who have
written about and reviewed them. (There is a newsgroup devoted to
radio, forget its name).  Radio Shack is, to a large extent, a
marketing, rather than a manufacturing company, so it's not meaningful
to deal with the "RS" label as a brand name.  No doubt much, perhaps
most, that they sell is low end but one shouldn't dismiss them
completely without specific information about whatever your interested
in.  The converse hold true of other companies, of course - e.g. a
known high-end company may turn out many superior products yet bomb on
a few, sometimes quite a few.
>
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Grusec - Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Ont., Canada
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Analog CDs (was: CD Sound Quality)
Date: 27 Dec 92 11:12:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24489
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <1hjeinINNc3c@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato) writes:

> THis guy is a die-hard Analog freak, and after listening to
> some of his discs, i have to say he has a point. outside of
> Dynamic range, and a little surface noise, There definitely
> seems to be some sort of "fullness" to the music that simply
> isn't present on CDs.

Once upon a time I got a new turntable and discovered that it
sounded much less "alive" than the old one.  After some careful
listening, I found that what I was really hearing was that
the new turntable had much less rumble than the old one.

Not all distortions sound bad.  Before setting out to rededign
the world, you might want to determine just what the problem
is that you're trying to solve.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.antiques
From: gail.ridley@cs.utas.edu.au (Gail Ridley)
Subject: Classical Figurine Query
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:19:33 GMT

Hello,

I'm hoping someone out there can give me a few clues on how to date a classical
style white figurine.  

It's of a nude female with hair coiled up on her head and she has some flowing
drapes.  She appears to be made of alabaster and stands around 30cm,(12"), 
high.  She's on a highly polished marble base, which is a square shape with 
cut off corners.  The marble is a dark green-brown and the base is about 2cm,
(1"), high.

The figurine is in an antique/bric brac shop.  The proprietor wasn't sure of
the age of the piece as it came from a deceased estate where there had been
a mix of old and reproduction pieces.  However, the shopowner thought the 
figurine was very recent as it was in such good condition, smooth, and the 
base was so polished.  She thought it could have been made in the 70's.

The base made me think it was not very old, too.  The squared base looked a
little odd because of its shape, its small height and the material of the
base.  However, these are just gut reactions and not based on any experience
of such figurines.  The base reminded me of the solid, chunky, highly polished 
granite headstones that were seen around the 60's and 70's.

I would appreciate any comments on the likely age of the piece. I would also 
be interested in learning what sort of base I should expect to find on an older
figurine, plus perhaps an indication of a likely price range.  In $US would be
fine.

Thankyou,
Gail
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 31 Dec 1992 00:17:00 CST
From: <U35162@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.antiques
Subject:    request info on old watch

I just found an old watch that belonged to my father, who
wore it until he died in 1968. I thought someone out there
might be able to tell me something about it. It has a plain
whitish face with the markings "Hamilton", "automatic", and
"swiss". The back is marked with "Hamilton" and "14 Kt gold".
Any info on the watch or the maker would be appreciated.

Aaron S. Field
University of Illinois at Chicago
U35162@uicvm.uic.edu