HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Danmark AIWA AD-R707 Cassette Deck???
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:01:45 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Apr3.182231.29132@uceng.UC.EDU> fkrauthe@tomcat.ece.uc.edu (Frank John Krautheim) writes:
>Is the AIWA AD-R707 a good unit??  Does anyone know anything about
>this deck and have you have any good/bad experiences with it??
>
>What I am 
>wondering is should I get this deck, as I am thinking of upgrading my
>system, or should I wait and get a 3-head deck like an Onkyo or Yamaha
>at about $200 more???

(As I keep saying :-) Aiwa decks are generally good bets in their price
ranges, at least their range of decks with 3-digit numbers.  In
particular, the 707 is a good one.  On the other hand, the 3-head
Yamaha which is likely to be the '$200 more' one is a better deck -- no
conflict, that's not the same price range.  Whether it's $200 worth of
better is a matter of personal opinion, and you can only decide that by
finding somewhere where you can compare the two decks.  Unfortunately,
if you're thinking mail-order, you can't.

My guess would be that if cassettes are your favorite musical medium
for your hifi, you should go for the more expensive 3-head deck.  If,
on the other hand, you mostly want to record things to listen to on a
Walkman or a car player, record off the radio, and maybe occasionally
play a tape on the hifi, you should go for the Aiwa and hang onto the
$200 to put towards whatever you decide to upgrade next.  However, for
best results you REALLY should arrange to try them yourself.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Xref: sparky rec.audio:7280 rec.video:6145
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul H. Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.video
Subject: Re: CD rot -- who gives a damn?
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:15:32
Organization: CSUA/UCB
	<58076029.1b2f0@digital.sps.mot.com>
	<1992Apr9.142411.20801@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: tmkk@uiuc.edu's message of 9 Apr 92 14:24:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.142411.20801@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) writes:

   I'd like to know more about this CD Rot. Since you appear to be
   knowledgeable on the subject, perhaps you could answer the following
   questions for me:

   1) How many rotten CDs do you have?

I have a couple of unplayable CD's.  I don't know whether the problem
is caused by CD rot or some other kind of damage.  Damage or wear on
an LP would lead to pops or surface noise, either of which I can live
with.  The discs I have somehow confuse my player into going nuts
with no way to play beyond the bad spot (I guess because information
on the disc has gotten clobbered which was supposed to tell the
laser where to go next, or something like that).

   2) What does CD rot look like?

I don't see any damage on my discs by casual inspection.  I haven't
looked under a microscope or anything like that.  I've heard of other
people's discs (years ago, not just on the newsgroup) developing
cracks or flakes in the metal but I've never seen this except on discs
that have been zapped in a microwave.

   3) What exactly *IS* CD rot? A clouding of the acrylic on the data side?
   Oxidation of the metal in the data layer itself?

   4) What causes CD rot? Manufacturing defects? Poor handling/storage by the end
   user? Laser Bacteria?

Most of my information on the subject comes from articles on rec.audio
and alt.cd-rom over the past month or so (i.e. both before and after
April Fools' Day).  Several culprits have been mentioned including
oxidation and manufacturing defects.  I have also heard of CD's being
damaged by heat.  I may worry about CD rot more than most people
because my main interest in CD's is data storage (i.e. cd-roms) where
loss of even a small amount of data can be disastrous.  Also, I took
the Sony/Philips press conference article seriously (the one that
turned out to be a joke), which convinced me the problem was worse
than it maybe actually (so far) is.

There is a parallel situation in photography.  Film makers used to
not worry much about the archival properties of film, which is why
old prints look faded.  They pay a lot more attention to the issue now.

   Thanks for enlightening me.

You're welcome.
From: bjbartlett@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (The Bart-Man)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: TODD at andrew.cmu (re:SONY CD Remote)
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:48:25 GMT
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"


  I need your address again.Our system ran out of disk space the other r 
day and your message didn't get saved after I read it, and I also need to 
send you my address, but I don't remeber your exact e-mail address.  Sorry 
this is taking so long!

-Brian
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: neidorff@uicc.com (Bob Neidorff)
Subject: Re: Improvement to cost ratio of moving speakers
Originator: neidorff@makore
Organization: Unitrode Integrated Circuits Corp., Merrimack, NH
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:35:01 GMT


If you can indeed change the sound quality dramatically by speaker
placement, as one poster observed, and you can make a good speaker
sound worse with bad electronics, as many have proposed, then why
should we as consumers put any faith in our own ears and auditioning
at three different salons of three different products?  The room is
completely different, the electronics are very different, and the
placement is tailored mostly for convenience of the store to display
all of their wares at fairly good positions (wall of sound?).  Yuk.

To add insult to injury, you never listen to the same music when
auditioning, right?

Now, there ARE really objective comparisons.  You can take speakers
home and compare them in your own "environment".  But who ever does?
Few of us, I suspect.  I helped a friend with a comparison of speakers
at his house.  We had three pairs lined up.  We listened for hours.  We
finally concluded that despite the fact that all three were different
constructions and different brands, you got what you paid for.  In that
single instance, the $4000 Infinities sounded better than the $3000
Magnats which sounded better than the $2000 Snells.  (Your mileage may
vary).

I am writing this to tease and solicit response from the subjectivists
who claim that "when I heard XYZ, it sounded great/tinny/different".
I wonder how good we humans are at assimilating the sonic "signature"
of electronics, rooms, and speakers.  Let alone cables, power line
quality and other more controversial differences.

I remember that when friend S heard speaker X at store B, it sounded like
dog dung.  When he was at store C a month later, he again heard the same
model X and it sounded like spun gold!  He was blown away and bought it.
I know friend S is a critical, sensitive listener with a very refined
ability to distinguish nuances in sound.

I welcome any flames at all.  I really am asking for them.  I even
welcome support for this tenuous position.
-- 
Bob Neidorff                  |  Internet: neidorff@uicc.com
Unitrode I. C. Corp.          |  UUCP    : uunet!chillon!neidorff
7 Continental Blvd.           |  Voice   : (US) 603-424-2410
Merrimack, NH  03054-0399 USA |  FAX     : (US) 603-424-3460
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: ashton@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Michael King)
Subject: Re: Sherwood?
Organization: NCSU CATT Prog  
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:28:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.034549.28667@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gunter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:
>markw@hpcss01.cup.hp.com (Mark Williams) writes:
>
>>Like Marantz, Harmon Kardon, Fisher, Crown, and Scott, Sherwood
>>was an old respected American firm which withered under the Japanese
>>onslaught in the early 1970s.  Mostly the names were picked up in bankruptcy
>>court by the Japanese multinationals.  Sherwood gear today is made in Korea,
>
>No your very wrong here.
>
>Marantz is owned by Philips and always was.
>Harmon/Kardon is German and still is and always was.
>but



No, Marantz was bought by Phillips within the last two years.
Phillips is doing away with Magnavox.  Phillips is discontinueing
there high-end equipment with the Phillips logo.  Phillips does not 
make any more 'Phillips High-end'.  The Phillips logo will replace the
Magnavox logo.  I have already seen commercials where Phillips is placed on
Magnavox equipment.  Phillips will take the low end Marantz off the
market.  They are doing this to let people forget the Marantz logo.
After a year or so, they are going to introduce a brand-new top of the
line High-End stereo equipment!  This equipment is suppose to surpass
the quality of the existing high-end Phillips!  



                                                     Michael

******************************************************************************
*                    ashton@catt.ncsu.edu                                    *
*                                (Michael King)                              *
******************************************************************************
From: kettyle@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (john.jr.kettyle)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: NAD 2400X THX Amplifier
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:55:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


A while ago there was talk about this amplifier and someone wanted to
know some of the specs. While cleaning out my car this weekend I came 
across this torn spec sheet. I hope I am not missing and major details.

So here goes:

STEREO MODE
Continuous Average Power Output Into			100W (20 dBW)
8 Ohms ( Min RMS power per channel, 20Hz-20kHz,
both channels driven with no more than the rated
distortion.)

Rated Distortion (THD, 20Hz-20kHz)			0.03%

Clipping Power (maximum short-term power		130W
per channel)	

IHF Dynamic Headroom at 8 Ohms				+5.7dB

IHF Dynamic Power (maximum short term		8 ohms	370W (25.7 dBW)
power per chanel)				4 ohms	400W (26 dBW)
						2 ohms	440W (26.4 dBW)

Slew Factor						>50

Slew Rate						>30V/msec

Damping Factor (ref 8 ohms, 50Hz)			100

Input Impedance						R=20k ohms
							C=600pF

Input Sensitivity			for 1 W out	100mV
				    for rated power	1.0 V

Voltage Gain						28x (29dB)

Frequency Response, THX input				3Hz to 100kHz
							+0,-3dB

Infrasonic Filter, NORMAL Input				-3 dB at 10Hz
							12 dB/octave

Ultrasonic Filter, NORMAL Input				-3 dB at 80kHz
							12 dB/octave

Signal to Noise Ratio, A-weighted			98dB ref 1W
							118dB ref rated pwr.

THD (Total Moronic Distortion, 20Hz-20kHz,		<0.03%
from 250mW to rated output.)

SMPTE I.M. (Intermodulation Distortion,			<0.03%
20Hz + 7kHz, 4:1, from 250mW to rated output.)

IHF I.M. (ICCIF IM Distortion,				<0.03%
19 + 20kHz at rated output)

BRIDGED (MONOPHONIC) MODE

Continuous Average Power Output Into			300W (24.7 dBW)
8 Ohms ( Min RMS power per channel, 20Hz-20kHz,
both channels driven with no more than the rated
distortion.)

IHF Dynamic Headroom at 8 Ohms				+5.7dB

IHF Dynamic Power (maximum short term		8 ohms	800W (29 dBW)
power per chanel)				4 ohms	880W (29.4 dBW)

Physical Specifications
WidthxHeightxDepth					43.5 x 12.06 x 38.1cm
							(17.1 x 4.75 x 15in)

Net Weight						10 kg. (22 lb.)

Shippinh Weight						12.02 kg (26.5 lb.)

Power Consumption					60Hz 120V. 390 VA


Best of luck,

John Kettyle, Jr.
Kettyle Associates
185 Mechanic St.
Red Bank NJ 07701

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Destiny is not a matter of CHANCE, it is a matter of CHOICE.
It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be ACHIEVED!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: floyd@wam.umd.edu (Jim Matthews)
Subject: Re: Info wanted for Non-audiophile
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:36:02 GMT

Steve Fuller writes
> I am looking for titles of books, magazines, or magazine articles
> that would help me become a bit more informed about audio terms
> and how the things they describe relate to what the best
> equipment to buy is. I would prefer material that is unbiased
> towards any particular manufacturer or type of system.
> 
> Examples of terms that need explaining: headroom, sensitivity,
> bandwidth, etc. Articles that are borderline technical are fine,
> though my knowledge of electronics is cursory at best.

Stereo Review had a series of articles that spanned many issues and described
a lot of terms and concepts on many aspects of audio.  I guess it was about
a year ago - does anyone have the dates?  Check it out!
								-Jim
--
 ____                           |
(   /	   floyd@wam.umd.edu    |       University of Maryland
   /._ _         eng.umd.edu    |          Computer Science
\_/// X \         ni.umd.edu    |        Standard Disclaimers
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:36:07 -0400 
From: "Robert W. Igo" <ri09+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Audiophile Bashing, was CD rot -- who gives a damn?
	<1992Apr8.213313.23949@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>
	<1190699@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>

No matter what you believe, people with cheap systems and people with
expensive ones both achieve the same state of relative pleasure....  Perhaps
not the same stage of absolute pleasure...  However, the people who have
cheap systems still have money for things like food and heat...
:):):):):):):):)
(I really don't wanna be flamed)
:):):):):):):):)

--Bob
From: CCEB001@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: portable CD player for the car (Re: Home CD changer in a car?)
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:07:54 GMT
Organization: THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

I have a Sony Discman (D11) and it plays acceptably in the car or on
the go, but it definitely does skip from time to time.  It plays
noticably better on external power than it does on the internal
batteries.

There is a current ad for Isuzu Troopers (I think) where they load a
cd player and storm off road across the country to a canyon rim for an
elegant dinner.  It would be interesting to hear what the CD player
REALLY sounded like on that trip.  Hint: that part seems to have fallen
to the cutting room floor.

Mike Coyne
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Array speakers questions
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:37:55 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Apr15.213032.24339@Princeton.EDU> goodnuff@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David W. Goodnuff) writes:
>
>	Sorry if this has been addressed before.  I am thinking of
>building a pair of "array" speakers this summer.  By array speakers I
>mean taking 16 small 3"by5" oval speakers and wiring them up in a 4
>speaker by 4 speaker grid.  Each row of 4 wired in series and each row
>wired in parallel to end up with 8 ohms total impedance.  Does anyone
>have and input on overall sound quality and possible problems?
>
   Why not get cute and add time delay to the outer speakers to make
   them sound like a point source driver?  


>Oh yes, we will have a good EQ and subwoofer next year to alleviate any
>imbalance or lack of base problems.  Thanks!
>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: gmc@mlb.semi.harris.com (Jerry Cotreau)
Subject: Slew Rate & distortion was (Re: requesting CD player advice)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:57:01 GMT
Reply-To: gmc@mlb.semi.harris.com (Jerry Cotreau)
Organization: ANALOG

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

  >kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
  >:
  >: How are you measuring distortion?  I gather that you are talking about a
  >: THD rating, but a system that has a poor slew rate may have excellent
  >: THD and still sound poor because it doesn't follow transients well.
  >
  >I don't understand.  How is having a 'poor slew rate' any difference
  >from high-frequency dropoff in response?  Intuitively, they seem to be
  >two ways of describing the same thing, though "poor slew rate" provides
  >a bit more physical intuition.
  >
  >Or perhaps "poor slew rate" is a code word for "distortion at high
  >frequencies"?


     Slew rate limiting is not the same thing as high frequency dropoff.
High frequency dropoff is caused by limited bandwidth attenuating
harmonics, while slew rate limiting describes the inability of the amplifier
to move the output node quickly, and is usually determined by internal
currents charging the capacitances at internal nodes. Slew rate limiting
is a function of signal amplitude as well as frequency, and occurs when
the maximum rate of change of the output node equals the slope of
the harmonic at zero crossing. An wide bandwidth amplifier can have
outstanding distortion for certain signal levels, and be slew rate
limited for larger levels. The effect of slew rate limiting is to
limit the ramp rate of pulses, which is somewhat similar to the effect
of limited bandwidth on pulses, but they are completely different 
mechanisms.

     If the input is given by Vmsin(2pi x freq), then the frequency at
which slew rate limiting occurs, or to phrase it another way, the
bandwidth for which no limiting occurs, is given by

                            Slew Rate
                   FPBW =  -----------     (Full Power Bandwidth)
                            2pi x Vm


     Higher slew rate or smaller amplitude gives gives a higher
bandwidth for no slew rate limiting.


----------------------------------------------------------------------




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Saturday, 11 Apr 1992 22:31:04 EDT
From: ari solomon <ASOLOMO@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Upright Turntable?

   Does anybody else remember an upright turntable, made by Mitsubishi, from
 the early 1980's? This was a *beautiful* table, with a unique design: It was
 as if you took a turntable and pulled it forward so that it sat vertically on
 it's front end -- and then played records on it, holding them in place with
 a big clamp! Unfortunately, its acoustic properties were less impressive --
 subject to buzzes and resonances for one thing.   If anyone has memories of
 this unit I'd like to hear about them -- and I'd be interested in buying one
 at the right price, used.     E-MAIL to ASOLOMO@AUVM    -- Thanks
From: shawn@litsun.epfl.ch (Shawn Koppenhoefer)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Pre-Amps
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:28:56 GMT
Reply-To: shawn@litsun.epfl.ch
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
In-reply-to: frankm@ampex.com's message of 3 Apr 92 18:30:51 GMT


Frank> preamp could be looked at as simply a switching device that sends
Frank> the choosen output (tape deck, tuner, cd player) signal to the 
Frank> power amp for amplification.  The amplified signal is then sent
Frank> to you loudspeakers. 


So... if I understand things correctly.... I should be able to buy one
of these mini compact disk players for headphones....(things you see
people carry to work now and then) and plug it, with my walkman, into
the pre-amp, then the pre-amp into the amp, then the amp into the
speakers. 

	ordinary CDman  ---|====
                           |                             ___ speakerLeft
	walkman -----------|==== PREAMP ===== AMPLIFIER |
                           |                            ---- speakerRight
	minerature --------|====
	t.v.

right? So, if I go out and buy a Preamp, amp and speakers, I can plug
my walkman into this and listen to nice music????
I realize that a ton of the people may think this is obvious (or not)
but indulge my stupidity in this area... thanx.
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sunday, 12 Apr 1992 01:10:05 EDT
From: ari solomon <ASOLOMO@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Upright Turntable?

   Yeah, Mark -- I remember the Sharp/Optonica unit now that you mention it!
   That was a neat one, too -- especially the extended play feature. But this
   Mitsubishi was really *gorgeous*; it was styled a lot like a Revox, with a
   really lustrous brushed satin finish and a massive black rubber clamp. It
   had this stylized control panel with oversized buttons, very simple and
   very modern. I can't help wondering how its look would have aged over the
   past ten years....
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:26:49 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
X-Bytes: 

pbern@next.com writes:

|I really wish the people that go on these open-loop flame throwing rampages  
|whenever anyone even mentions anything about audiophile would just go and  
|LISTEN. Take a few hours and go to a high end store and check out the  
|differences yourself. 

That's the problem. Many of us have, which makes us even more
sensitive to bullshit being presented as fact.

Sean
-- 
                  |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey        | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Mini system question.
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:05:01 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

>In article <1992Apr8.041449.8519@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> fag2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Farul A Ghazali) writes:
>>Has anyone ever compared some of those high end "mini systems" (eg.
>>the Sony MHC 3600, Panasonic SC-CH10, Kenwood UD-70, etc) to a sort of
>>low end component system of similar setup ($1000 gets speakers,
>>receiver, CD player)? What I'm asking about is sound quality, since
>>obviously, the expandability of the mini system is quite limited. I've
>>listened to the models above quite extensively, but I'm quite clueless
>>about anything else. Opinions, anybody?
>
In article <1992Apr13.120212.25696@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>If I were to contribute a one-liner I would say the size of the speakers
>will have most effect on your final sound quality.
>
    To degrade the moral tone of the discussion, I would say that
    judging equipment by its size is a sure way to
    disappointment...in many endeavors.  
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: D1SAR@AKRONVM.UAKRON.EDU (Steve Rimar)
Subject: ADCOM
Organization: The University of Akron
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:16:46 GMT

If anyone has has ADCOM equiptment please let me know what you think of it.
 
Steve
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: New LP-CD flame material
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:57:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.ku1ib2INN2kp
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu

jgardner@convex.com (John B. Gardner) writes:
: Just for the sake of "truth", I've never said explicitly or eluded to in
: any way that: "all CDs are perfect and sound the same".  I can say that I 
: have IMO heard clear differences between CD players.

Let's remember this.

: Anyway, Kurt (or anybody) have you an opinion on DCC (or MD)?  A recent
: article in SR or Audio indicated that extensive ABX tests with a wide
: variety of source material (and test equipment) found that there was *no*
: reviewer who could indicate any difference what so ever between DCC
: processing and straight-wire.

I bet that if the same test were done, but with standard CD technology A/D 
and D/A vs. straight wire, one would get the same null result.

And yet, how do CD players sound different if digital sounds like nothing?

I find it very plausible that some of the CD players one buys off the shelf
are measurably "out of spec" compared to the prototype A-D/digital
processing/D-A hardware that the engineers rigged up for a scientific test.
Perhaps quality control is poor enough that different units of the same model
can have widely varying performance.

:    /\ /_  _    jgardner@convex.com


Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu