HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Stereo Review (was Re: Very expensive cables)
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:30:43 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Oct9.180112.20750@e2big.mko.dec.com> owen@emds.enet.dec.com (Steve Owen) writes:
>
>An analogy to this whole cable issue is to that of cars and tires.  I feel 
>there are three types of cars and drivers:
>
>1)	Joe Blow who has his car for transportation, even if it is a bit 
>	luxurious.  If Joe was to trade the Sears tires on his car for 
>	Pirrelli's (sp?), he wouldn't know the difference.
>
>2)	Guy II drives a Porsche, but he's not an enthusiast.  He can't really 
>	feel the control difference between two different types of tires.
>
>3)	Guy III drives a Porsche and is a driving enthusiast.  He's driven 
>	enough that he knows every little nuance in his car.  Mess with the 
>	tires, and he feels it.
>
  4)    Guy IV who designed the @!#$%@#@#$% Porsche and is aware of
	how few drivers REALLY know enough about driving to know the
	difference in 0.5 lb tire pressure and how many drivers
	THINK they do.   

  5)    Guy V who owns a Diablo and snickers at Porsches.


>I believe cables are very much the same.  Only the music enthusiast with fairly 
>high quality equipment is going to be able to tell the difference.  Others 
>think he's a nut... but the others aren't an enthusiast like he is.
>
   That's horsecrap and you know it.   It's just the good old
   "dollar effect" argument that you must spend millions of dollars
   on your system to hear subtle differences like green ink and
   cables with comparable physical parameters.  

   Another way to look at it is that the "others" aren't quite as
   self-delusional....


>I was running 6 foot lenghts of radio shack cheap cheap cable from my CD player 
>(Sony... not the highest model, but not the lowest) to my Adcom equipment.  
>When I replaced the cable with Monster M350 (?) cable, I noticed an immediate 
>improvement.  Instruments were more articulate.  There was more information.  
    Ummmmmm, nobody said that ALL cables are alike.  If you go from
    a Pinto to a Porsche you are gonna notice a few subtle
    differences.   Or your wallet may insist that your brain hear a
    few that aren't really there.....

>
>How about this for an experiment (for those who MUST have scientific proof)... 
>Record a CD using analog connections to a DAT tape deck.  Use cheap cables for 
>one test, expensive cables for another.  Are the bits the same once the DAT 
>encodes them?  If not, then something is different...
>
    To make it valid, record the CD multiple TIMES using the same
    cable and see if a 'diff' of the resulting DAT files shows a
    difference.  

    Don't bet your shorts that they'd be the same....


    [Of course it WOULD be interesting to see if the variation in
     the differences is less with the higher priced cable....]
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: fkrauthe@vlsilab.ece.uc.edu (Frank John Krautheim)
Subject: Placement of Rear Speakers?
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:02:33 GMT

I finally got my home entertainment system completed!!!   I decide
to go with Polk RTA-15TL's as the front mains, CS-100 center and
M3's for the rear.  I am using the Denon AVC-3030 surround
amplifier and LA-3100 MLD player.  Viewing equipment consist of
Mitsubishi CS-3525R monitor.

I have got one question conserning the placement of the M3's.

These are the small speakers made to mount in corner or on the wall.
The room is about 20 x 10 with the monitor and mains on the 20' wall
in front.  This size and arrangement of the room makes the viewing/listening 
seating position totally against the rear wall, see diagram:

	  --------------------------------------
	  |  |15|    |monitor|     |15| 
	  |                             
	  |                             
	  |     ___________________     -------
	  |b    |      couch      |    b|
	  |a                           a|
	  -------------------------------

not to scale, but you get the idea.  Now for the rear placement,
is it better to mount the M3's in position b near the ceiling (~8' high) 
firing downward towards the seating position, or in position a about 6' to 7' 
high firing outwards into the room?

Diagram of M3:

	|\
	|  \
	|____\

it can be mounted in the corner, vertically or horizontally and
has about a 45 degree sloping bezel.

So I would like to hear your opions on the optimun placement.

Thanks in advance,
John

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

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: DAT Royalty Bill, passed and sent to the President
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 13:41:39 GMT


According to the folks at the Home Recording Rights Coalition (HRRC) in
Washington (1-800-282-TAPE), the DAT royalty tax bill was voted and passed
by congress just before it adjourned last week.  The bill is now before the
president for his signature or veto.  The HRRC folks dd not know as of
this morning (10/13) if the bill has been acted on by the president.

So, if you are against the bill, you might consider calling the White
House and mentioning that if the President signs it you'll consider it
just another tax and that again goes aginst his once promised (and
recently repromised "never again") statements of "no new taxes."

I believe the bill is refered by name as the Audio Home Recording Act
of 1991.  

Just as a reminder, the bill introduces a royalty tax on ALL blank
DAT tapes and on all new DAT recording equipment.  The "royalty tax"
is then somehow distributed to holders of recording copyrights based
on some degree of the total market share of individual performers.
Bottom line is the BIG recording names get the vast majority of the
bucks.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: YKWON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Speaker recommendation ($1500/pair)
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:49:45 GMT
 <1992Oct8.164429.1493@newshub.sdsu.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

How about Vandersteen 2Ce ($1400), if you are interested in
classical orchestral music?

-Youngjoon
From: robert@csustan.csustan.edu (Robert Zeff)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Looking for speaker circuit models
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:58:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CSU Stanislaus


I am looking for circuit models of speakers so that I can
simulate the speaker response in the time and frequency
domains.  Does anyone know where I can get this information?

Thanks,

robert@csustan.csustan.edu

-- 
robert@csustan.csustan.edu
Cserve 70323,1251
fax (209) 577-8548
voice (209) 577-4268 X101
From: wleeper@en.ecn.purdue.edu (William A Leeper)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: MAIL ORDER FOR NAKAMICHI?
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:11:20 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <6296.71.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> erich.lim@cutting.hou.tx.us (Erich Lim)  writes:
>-> Hi!  This is probably a tired question, but can anyone tell me of a
>-> good mail-order place for Nakamichi equipment?
>-> (Particularly their tape drives?)
>
One mail order supplier of NAK is Harris-Allied if you are interrested in
Tape players.  Harris-Allied is mostly a professional dealer, I am not 
certain of how they take normal orders(I use Purchase Orders) 
If you want their address EMAIL me at wleeper@en.ecn.purdue.edu



-- 

:  "To many good things happen to   	:    Bill Leeper
:   good people to be attributed to	:	wleeper@en.ecn.purdue.edu
:   anything but a carring God.    "	:
From: jeh@cmkrnl.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Recommendations for High Sensitivity Tuner?
Date: 10 Oct 92 10:59:44 PDT
Followup-To: qaea@hoqax.att.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego, CA

In article <1992Oct6.223707.23668@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>,
 qaea@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (ernest.anglade) writes:
> I'm looking for a reasonably high sensitivity tuner in the $300 range.
> Is there such an animal?    Your input on this would be much
> appreciated.     Thanks.

The standard response to folks looking for a "supertuner" (wrt sensitivity and
selectivity, anyway) is to point them at the Onkyo T9090-II.  However, at $750
list, it is a bit out of your price range.  _Stereophile_ recently said that
the Pioneer Elite Reference F-93 was in the same league, but it costs $900.  

Here is an unconventional response:  Investigate car stereos!  Really, I'm not
joking.  Car tuners are expected to operate under very poor signal conditions
and are (sometimes) designed accordingly. 

I have a Sony 7280 in my car; with just the car's whip antenna it easily pulls
in stations that my home unit misses.  Selectivity is also excellent: When I'm
in Los Angeles, it can often pick up San Diego stations that are sandwiched
between LA stations on adjacent channels!  I wonder what it would do with a
real antenna... The 7280 is no longer made, but the XR-U220 has the same tuner
section, has line-level outputs, and is available for $300 by mail order
without looking hard.  Add a 12 V power supply (doesn't need to be a big one if
you're just using the tuner section) and you'd be all set.  Note that audio
fidelity is not going to be as good as you would get from something like the
Onkyo, but ... life is full of tradeoffs, eh? 

Most mail order dealers, and even some stores these days, will allow you to
return a unit within some reasonable time, even if it works perfectly but you
"just don't like it", so this wouldn't be a big gamble.  

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
Internet:  jeh@cmkrnl.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: rej@sal.wisc.edu (Randy Jones)
Subject: Re: Stereo Review (was Re: Very expensive cables)
Organization: Boredoms Fan Club USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:46:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.180112.20750@e2big.mko.dec.com> owen@emds.enet.dec.com (Steve Owen) writes:
>How about this for an experiment (for those who MUST have scientific proof)... 
>Record a CD using analog connections to a DAT tape deck.  Use cheap cables for 
>one test, expensive cables for another.  Are the bits the same once the DAT 
>encodes them?  If not, then something is different...

Cute idea. But you're not going to get the same bits until you can synch-
start the CD and the DAT to within, let's see... 1/44100 (sampling freq.)
times 1/65536 (alignment within the sample at highest reproducible freq.)
seconds... about a quarter nanosecond.

N.B. I formulated the above results through truly marvellous amounts of
hand-waving which, unfortunately, the margin is too small to contain.

-- 
| Randy Jones           | "The electron tube is a marvelous device. It makes
| rej@bob.sal.wisc.edu  |  possible the performing of operations, amazing in
|                       |  conception, with a precision and a certainty that 
|                       |  are astounding."     -- RCA Receiving Tube manual
From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: need recommendations for center channel speaker
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:13:11 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1992Oct07.143450.4708@bmerh85.bnr.ca> stud1b53@bnr.ca 
(Vilhelm Boggild) writes:
>In article <5386@gold.gvg.tek.com>, chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen) writes:

> <<LOTS DELETED>>

>|> The position where the "dipolar" speaker may be of use,  is mounted
>|> BEHIND the viewing position with the speakers pointed to the sidewalls
>|> and the null pointed to the listening position.

>  Everything I've read or heard concerning "dipolar" speakers (by the
>way, why is this in quotes?  Is it the wrong term?)

I believe that the correct term would be bipolar, but I won't refute
any speaker manufacturer's claims, assertions, or recommendations as
we all know "ther are right"     :-)

>, stated that they
>should not be mounted as you have suggested.  I always figured that
>such a configuration would result in a null being created between
>the surround speakers. 

>"Thus the "wall of sound" from the rear would
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ tm Christronics 

>be lost (or at least partially diminished).  

With the null at the listening position the surround information would
come from reflections off the rear wall.  Not ideal but better than
was proposed.   My primary assetion is that the surround speakers
should be mounted on the wall behind (and above) the listening
position.

I recently read a suggestion by another poster to locate the surround
speakers on the side wall, pointed forward.  This positioning
_excluded_ the listener from the surround sound field.

>However, I haven't really
>given much thought to this arrangement.  If it works, great!  This
>weekend I'll try and arrange a sound demo of just this arrangement.
>Thanks for the info/suggestion!  Well, back to lurking...

I will be interested in the results of your tests.  Please post.

-- 
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: DPierce@world.std.com (Richard d Pierce)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Speaker building question
Keywords: speaker building
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:19:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Oct7.143635.2581@news2.cis.umn.edu> vanm0005@student.tc.umn.edu () writes:
>In article <marcel.718464571@convex.convex.com> Marcel Bourque writes:
>>When you calculate the volume of speaker enclosures using the
>>various formulas in the Loudspeaker Designers Cookbook, does the
>>calculation assume the driver has no volume? In other words if
>>the calculations come out to 870 cubic inches and I estimate the
>>driver occupies 80 cubic inches, do I build an enclosure of
>>870 or 950 (870+80) cubic inches?
>>Thanks;
>>Marcel
>
>I believe (I'm not sure about this, but I read somewhere for some formula)
>that the calculated value of the enclosure includes 10% for bracing and such.
>(Crossovers, wire, speaker?)
>

Absolutely not correct. The formulas derive only the free volume of the
enclosure and do not (and cannot) account for aother things that might
take up valume, such as the driver itself, bracing and so on. So yes,
indeed, you do need to compensate accordingly. How such a formula might
know exactly what the volume of all these things are is a mystery. 

Your new volume of 950 cubic inches (assuming tyhat both the 870 and the
80 figures are right to begin with) is correct.


-- 
|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX)      |
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally)
Subject: Re: Stereo Review (was Re: Very expensive cables)
Reply-To: shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 21:35:05 GMT

As I have mentioned many times before, I am sceptic when it comes to
anything , and especially audio claims. I bought some speaker cable
at $1 a foot - OFC, thick stuff - spent $15 in all. I had hooked 
up one speaker (the other had regular speaker cable - the cheap stuff
you get at Kmart that they use for lamp cords), I left the room
for a minute and my wife turned my stereo on. When I came back
the diff was obvious - the speaker that was hooked up using
thicker cable had clearer highs. I was not expecting any diff, so
there was no 'psychosomatic' effect. I was in fact quite amazed at
how big the diff was. I think it was $15 well spent. It is not
a rip off and the results are audible.

After circling a reader service ard Bryston once sent me a newsletter
and in it one of their engineers explained why thicker cable
helps (note Bryston only makes preamps and amps, they do not make
speaker cable). Something about reducing the back EMF.

Try it out. Buy $5 worth of thick cable (you can even get it Radio
Shack) and hook it to one speaker and keep your 10 cents a foot
lamp cord on the other and LISTEN ! It will only cost you $5 to
find out ...
From: nyberg@willow.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Jason William Nyberg)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Black rubber CD rings - Any good ?
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:08:17 GMT

resou@darcy.mi.uib.no (Odd Arild Urtveit) writes:
-In article <1992Oct7.090051.15754@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>, smills@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (MuffinHead) writes:
-> gre253@mis.csiro.au (Steven Green (+61 6 276 6813)) writes:
-> 
-> >I have often seen adds for these black rubber CD rings in hi-fi magazines and
-[...]
->    The only thing they DO do is keep the edges from chipping if you happen
-> to drop the CD on concrete. They do NOTHING for the sound. It's another
-> Green Magic Marker phenomenon.
-> 
-
-Hi MuffinHead!
-
-I've been experimenting with what you call 'Green Magic Markers' for a[\n]
-while and have diskovered that they makes big improvement to SOME CDs,[\n]
-not all.  In the beginning I thought, like you, that this would not work,[\n]
-and on the first CD it didn't.  The truth is that the effect of theese[\n]
-(well, I've actually just tried one, the 'CD Stoplight') green pens are[\n]
-very much dependent on the CD.  On some CDs the effect is neglible but on[\n]
-others it may open a new world to you.  The effect may also vary from on[e\n]
-[pl]ayer to another.  And one improtant thing:  If you use a realy good pair[\n]
-of headphones, like the Stax Lambda (the one I'm using), you should be able[\n]
-to hear differences on almost all CDs.  I once turned a disbeliever into a[\n]
-believer in a snap by 'painting' one of his bad sounding CD with the[\n]
-Stoplight.  He spent the rest of the night listening to the CD.
-
-One CD I've discovered big improvement on is Paul Simon's 'The Rythm Of[\n]
-The Saints'.  On one of the tracks there are lots of 'jungle noises'.[\n]
-Without the green marker it feels like you are standing in the beginning[\n]
-of the forrest, but with the marker you are standing in the middle of it[\n]
-with the sound comming from all directions.
-
-Odd Arild Urtveit.

I didn't see any smileys, and I can't decode that name into anything
humorous (I never was good at Scramble type games), so here goes...
Go to school, you Golden Eared gullible waste of biomass!
Your equipment is wasted on you.  Learn about digital audio, sampling
theory, etc. etc.  I hear that if you shove a green marker into each
ear,  really deep,  you will hear tighter bass from your system and subltle
nuances within the music which have gone undiscovered will be plainly
evident due to having more cerebral cortex exposed directly to the music.
Really.  Another Golden Ear told me...
I have also noticed that if I color the edge of my hard-disk, samples that
are digitized on it seem to be reproduced more vibrantly and clearly...

NOT!

God I hope your post was a joke.  If it was, "Just Kidding! :)"

:) anyways for the Humor Impaired.

-- 
Jason Nyberg                Amiga... The Eagle Talon of Computers
nyberg@ctron.com

"Work is the curse of the drinking class"      W. C. Feilds

Disclaimer: My opinions are just that...
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke )
Subject: Re: Speaker building question
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:44:03

In article <marcel.718464571@convex.convex.com> marcel@convex.com (Marcel Bourque) writes:

   When you calculate the volume of speaker enclosures using the
   various formulas in the Loudspeaker Designers Cookbook, does the
   calculation assume the driver has no volume? In other words if
   the calculations come out to 870 cubic inches and I estimate the
   driver occupies 80 cubic inches, do I build an enclosure of
   870 or 950 (870+80) cubic inches?

The basic design equations assume that the port, driver, crossover,
and cabinet bracing don't exist.  Some people publish formulas and
tables that include a few percent overage for such things.  I can't
remember if the LDC does.  In general, if it isn't mentioned as being
taken care of already, I'd assume that you should add up the volumes
of the driver, bracing, etc. and increase the internal dimensions of
the cabinet to compensate.

Happy building,

Tony
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Satellite recommendations?
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:19:32 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <3150@voodoo.UUCP> jdt@voodoo.boeing.com writes:
>
>I'd like to get new satellite speakers for my system.  I've got an
>M&K VX-4 sub, which I'm very happy with, but my satellites are (gulp,
>prepare to be grossed out) Minimus 7's.  Some of you are no doubt
>snickering, while a few (and I know who you are ;^) will be thinking
>'hey, someone else did that!'.  Anyway, I'm ready to relegate the
>Minimus' to surround duty if I can find a pair of satellites that
>complement the sub, are about the same size as the 7's, and won't run
>me more than ~$400.  Any suggestions on what I should be auditioning?
>If there's interest, I'll post a summary.

    The M&K satellites will blend real nicely with your VX-4.  I
    think the SX-4's are right at the top of your price range.  The
    better models of M&K sats have twin midrange and tweeter
    drivers.  Most of their drivers are Vifa, which are reasonably
    good.  

    One problem with the M&K with OTHER satellites is the way they
    handle the crossover...they DON'T.  [this is in your owner's
    manual, if you have it...].

    The connections on the back of the M&K VX-4 (speaker level) just
    parallel the subwoofer onto the speaker leads.  A full range
    signal, complete with bass, is sent to the satellites.  The M&K
    satellites are sealed boxes with a natural roll-off below 45 Hz
    and are also sufficiently sturdy that no bass signal is gonna
    hurt them.  

    You MAY need to get an external crossover to limit the bass to
    some mini-speakers as satellites.  

    If those are a bit high priced, check out the small Infinity's
    or other speakers in that range.  I'd avoid vented mini's, they
    really don't match well.   DCM, small Polk, Pyramid, MB Quart
    are other nice brands....
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: case@infonode.ingr.com (Bill Case)
Subject: Re: Ultimate Cable?
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:48:38 GMT

>> >lifetime support agreement for free.
>> >
>>    You just said the magic words.

Nah, you need "transferrable" in there.  The ultimate only stays
ultimate for 90 days.  No Ultimate pursuer would keep it.
Organization: Sophomore, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA