HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: collin@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Collin Ong)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: B&O Penta loudspeakers
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:42:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

strong@tc.fluke.COM (Norm Strong) writes:

>In article <9204131628.AA25064@fozzie.nrl.navy.mil> phillips@FOZZIE.NRL.NAVY.MIL (Lee Phillips) writes:
>}
>}    I am auditioning a pair of these at home.  They are the tall, thin
>}towers, each with its own 150 watt amplifier built into the base; they
>}list for about $3200 a pair, but I can have these for $1500.  I don't
>}usually consider Bang & Olufsen equipment, considering it overpriced,
>}sleekly packaged (and well made) stuff that is sold to a market for
>}which sound quality is not the primary consideration.  However, at the
>}price, these speakers may be a buy.  Another consideration is their
>}unique shape, which fits into the home less obtrusively than other
>}"full range" speakers.  So far, I am impressed with their performance.
>}    If anyone has any relevent experience or knowledge to share, I am
>}all ears.

>You like the looks, you like the sound.  Buy them!  Just think, you
>don't have to figure out what kind of amplifier will drive them.  Hey,
>you don't even have to worry about Monster Cable.  :-)

But also consider what other types of speakers you'd be looking at in the
$1500 (or $1000 + amp) range.  Should be getting into some somewhat heavy
hitting stuff.
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:55:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: CD rot -- who gives a damn?
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy
Newsgroups: rec.audio

By the way, the important things about audio are not on the Audiophilese
Dictionary, it's in the Engineeringese dictionary.  You can't just sit 
there and describe the performance of something, you need data sheets.
It's not dynamics that counts, it's dynamic range.   It's not timbre that
counts, it's THD.  It's not soundstaging that counts, it's crosstalk. 
I just wanted to make that clear to those audiophile-types that they sure
are gullible and don't know anything.  After all, they usually spend
too much on the system and not enough on software.  If they were smart
they would get into overpriced software and hardware made exclusively from 
ICs to properly balance that out.  Get those priorities straight.  And all
those audiophiles like to believe in the darndest things, like green ink
and cryogenic CDs.  Boy, all those audiophile-types, you know, the ones
with expensive turntable systems that they have to always rationalize,
yeah, them people, well, they think power cords help, too for god sakes. 
I wish them audiophiles would sit down and quit rocking the boat.  It is
such a pitiful sight when I'm CD shopping to run into them handing out
anti-CD flyers.  Have you seen them?  They have their heads shaved and all.
Gawd, what a bunch of maroons.  Well, as long as they THINK they're alright,
and it makes them happy.  Of course, we know they only lie about audio 
just to keep up that stupid belief system.  They can't hear anything.  I
heard most audiophiles have bad ears, too.  I think they should be strung
up like a bunch of fags.  That'll learn them.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: requesting CD player advice
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 22:13:34 GMT


In a previous article, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) says:

>
>>A CD player can have .0001% distortion, but if it has a tinny sound who the
>>heck is gonna buy it. Probably the guy that doesn't take the time out to 
>>compare one player to the other...  Conversely, if another player has .001%
>>distortion but has a muddy sound, who the hecks gonna want it either. What
>>we are looking for is the one that sounds the most natural, regardless of
>>the distortion level, provided it's not around 10%.
>
>My dictionary defines distortion as a deviation from the orginal signal
>waveform. It doesn't define "muddy" in any useful way. When you get the
>same signal out of a recording that was put into it originally, that's
>no distortion. A machine with .03% total distortion is over 200 times
>more faithful to the orginal recording than a system with 7% distortion.
>Whatever "muddy" means, it has to show up in the total distortion figure,
>or you are describing the orginal signal, and there's no helping that.
>
>Gary
>
well, all the measurements for distortion, only measure a certain types,
surely you do not think Total Harmonic Distortion, is the same measurement
as InterModular distortion? as far as i know, there exists no practical
*total* distortion measure. also, it would not tell you what are tolerable
distortions and intolerable ones. some kinds, the ear and brain is more
"forgiving" on. 
-- 
In reading a novel, any novel, we have to know perfectly well that the whole
thing is nonsense, and then, while reading, believe every word of it. I talk 
about gods, I am an atheist. But I am an artist too, and therefore a liar. 
Distrust everything I say. I am telling the Truth.  -Ursula K. Le Guin
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: case@infonode.ingr.com (Bill Case)
Subject: Re: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.
Summary: beam me up, Sony
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:39:49 GMT

In article <3512@rosie.NeXT.COM>, pbern@next.com writes:

<somebody else wrote>
> > Come down from planet nine.

Isn't there a difference in opinion in how anything can "come down"?
Perhaps a CD advocate would believe in the transporters which digitized
transmitted,  and reassembled a "perfect" Kirk (not Kurt :-).  Perhaps 
the analog  advocate would believe that a certain continuity would be 
lost in such as transfer,  and the reassembled person would lack a 
certain, ..well "life",  and the interpolated pieces would differ from the 
original in some meaningful way.

I think this is what alot of CD critics refer to when they claim that
something curious is getting lost in the reassembly.

The claim is heard that digital can't really reassemble the complexity of
an analog  music signal.  You see these incredibly complex signals from
something like a piano chord.  Has anyone demonstrated  that such a
signal can be digitized and reassembled in a way so that the trace 
"perfectly" overlays the original?  Just asking. I don't know.  
> 
> 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 about all I do. I believe alot of the audiophile approach is to
share subjective experiences and look for common threads or intersection
points of experience which may reveal some truth or at lease something 
interesting.

Just a another opinion.


  "Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that man doesn't
   have to experience it"
				Max Frisch

Bill Case					
...uunet!ingr!b11!casey!case    (UUCP)
ingr!b11!casey!case@uunet.uu.net (ARPANET)
case@ingr.com		        (Internet)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: gunter@uniwa.uwa.oz.au (Gunter Ahrendt)
Subject: Sherwood?
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:22:13 GMT

Where is Sherwood gear made? What country does the company come from?
From: rps5646@usl.edu (Sasser Richard P)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Mini system question.
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:46:35 GMT
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana


   You might also try the Paradigm 'Titans' and that series of speakers.
I have a pair of Titans and I'm very pleased with them.  (Especially for
the price, poor college students don't just pick up the best set of
speakers, they have to shop.)

As for recievers, I'd skip it.  Go integrated amps at least.  Most recievers
really suck. (Except for Luxman, and maybe McIntosh, but those are WAY out
of the 200$ range)



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|From the labs of The Alchemist         | "I'm not prejudiced....         |
|rps5646@usl.edu                        |  I hate everyone equally"       |
|Richard P. Sasser                      |                                 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, it says so right here on
the label.  If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these 
attributes simultaneously then I have something to sell you, no checks please
small denomination bills only."  R.H.
The wording may not be correct, but the spirit is there.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: tmajni@sequent.com (Tim Majni)
Subject: JBL SPEAKERS FOR SALE
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 07:41:28 GMT


JBL L250 speakers for sale.

    Mint condition (boxes and manuals)
    Beautiful furniture: walnut finish.
    Artistic statement: triangular with sloped front.
    Great sound: One of JBL's best speaker systems.
    4-way with 14" woofers, 8" midrange, 4" midrange, dome tweeter.
    Tall - 52 inches.
    7 years old.
    Sell new for $5000. (yes, JBL still makes these speakers)

    Firm Price: $1200 for the pair. (will ship)

    Tim Majni
    home: (503) 591-8221
    work: (503) 578-5194
    email: tmajni@sequent.com

Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: tmajni@sequent.com (Tim Majni)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: ADCOM
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:37:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Apr7.003713.29557
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <Apr.6.16.20.10.1992.6369@yoko.rutgers.edu> mohan@yoko.rutgers.edu (Sunil Mohan) writes:
>Read the April issue of Stereophile, where they grade the components
>they have reviewed. Includes some Adcom equipment, which they like at
>the price.

I have heard rumors that they can't find the Adcom gear that was
auditioned by Stereophile, that it has disappeared from the face of
the earth.  Perhaps they don't want anyone to take a look inside ;-).

I guess Stereophile is a place to start when looking for gear, but I
trust my ear more than their columns.  Adcom is significantly
over-rated IMHO.  I know, I used to own a 555 stack :-(.

Tim Majni
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:54:38 GMT
Subject: Re: More Psuedoscience...: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy
Newsgroups: rec.audio

In rec.audio, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:

    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.

You'd never know it by the lack of description about these experiences.
One visit and you're an expert on it all, right?
From: sowellrm@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Analog vs. Digital
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:21:16 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Apr7.223501.29239@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, carton@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (John C Carton) writes:
> 	Well, since no one from this newsgroup bothered to advise me on
> some components, I am now going to ask some questions of what the salesman
> said. He talked about Yamaha Receivers as the only ones in modest price range
> that has digital surround sound. It that true ? Also, that if I want DSP,
> then I have buy a unit with Pro-Logic, which is basically my budget for
> components. Realizing that DSP is going to cost alot, I decided to get a
> good amp and a simple cd-player. Could someone e-mail of brands to look at ?
> 
> John Charles Carton
> 
> ps. Don't waste any bandwidth flaming this, instead please answer my questions.
>  

Kenwood receivers have digital surround sound.
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Spinal Tap (was: Re: Thought for the day).
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:49:55 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <3301@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch) writes:
>
>As far as I know, Spinal Tap was a group invented for the film, which
>was a send-up of "rockumentaries".  The fictional group of three British
>musicians, played by American actors Harry Shearer, Christopher Guest,
>and Michael McKean, recently appeared on Letterman to promote their
>"comeback" album.
>
   You are absolutely correct on all counts.  However, the original
   posting was a twitting....that it was a (n actor portraying)
   a british musician that made the famous "11" quote.  

   And the group follows a few others...the Monkees come to mind.
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Low range
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:39:53 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

>In <702613596.11504.0@unix1.andrew.cmu.edu> ri09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert W. Igo) writes:
>
>> I keep thinking of that poster who mentioned the 16Hz pipes
>> on the pipe organ CD, and wondering exactly how low that is.  Obviously, if
>> the information is accurate, we can at least hear down to 16 Hz, or else no
>> one would have invented that particular pipe.
>
In article <andrewb.702779193@suite.sw.oz.au> andrewb@suite.sw.oz.au (Andrew Bettison) writes:

>That would be a 64 foot pipe.  For most people, the 16 Hz fundamental
>is felt, not heard.  The harmonics (32Hz, 48Hz, 64Hz, etc.) are
>definitely heard.  Note that not many home stereo systems are able
>to reproduce the fundamental or even the second harmonic.
>
    I was that poster--referring to the Don Dorsey version of the
    theme from 2001 on Telarc.  

    Some other poster suggested that the frequency on THAT version
    was closer to 40 Hz.  

    I finally dragged out the test gear and measured the note....and
    the other poster was more correct!

    There IS a trace of 16 Hz tone on that track, but they were
    right [ forgot the name or would e-mail them $0.25 ] and the
    32 Hz dominates.  I can't really tell if the 16 Hz stuff I see
    is an artifact of my measuring techniques or if there is really
    a signal at that frequency present.  But using a Q=20 parametric
    EQ, most of the energy IS at 32 Hz.

    I can't really tell if I can HEAR a 16 Hz note or not...as the
    vibration of my bodily parts (and the windows, walls, etc.)
    tends to be the most noticeable rather than really hearing
    anything as such.  

    It takes a pair of M&K's biggest subs to produce it...I'm still
    working on a quick-reversing electric fan to reproduce even lower
    frequencies...  >:-)

    There are some big organs with 64 foot pipes, but they are few
    and far between.  I miss the liner notes of the LP's...they
    always detailed such trivia (and it was from a liner note of 
    an LP that I got the 16 Hz number for the sustained organ pedal
    for Thus Sprach Zarathustra...).  



>--
>Andrew Bettison - Softway Pty Ltd
>
>Phone	+61-2-698-2322	  Internet	andrewb@softway.sw.oz.au 
>Fax	+61-2-699-9174	  UUCP		uunet!softway.sw.oz.au!andrewb
Xref: sparky rec.audio:7083 rec.audio.pro:397
From: kenyee@ksr.com (Ken Yee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: awesome Klipschorns and speaker lifespan
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:40:45 EDT

kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
>Part of the reason that you don't see many old speakers is that the advances
>in speaker designs over the last ten years have been pretty significant.  I
>still have a pair of AR-4Xs in my bedroom, but it's surprising the number of
>cheap speakers out there that sound a lot better.  The advancement in speakers
>has been much greater than the performance improvements in electronics.
  That I can vouch for...I know someone who has Sansui speakers that
  sound better than the ancient Bose 300's I have currently.

>(Oh, the B&W 801s are the best dynamic speakers I have ever heard.  Don't
  here's a dumb question: what's a dynamic speaker?
  I dug up an old review of 801 series II in Audio magazine..they said
  the base and equalizer were needed...

 ken
From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Re: requesting CD player advice
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:18:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpfcso.7490151
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

> 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.   On the
> other hand, if you define distortion as any deviation from the original
> waveform, every CD player will have 100% distortion because there is a 
> major phase shift (sometimes as much as 30 years or so with the CDs that
> I buy) in the waveform.

So what's wrong with simply defining "distortion" as "any deviation from the
original waveform, exclusive of pure time delays (so long as such delays are
equally applied to all channels of information)?"  That is, after all, the
commonly-accepted meaning.


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
From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Imped. Matching w/ Resistors?!
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:22:58 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

> So, are we flapping our jaws in the electronic breeze, or could someone
> explain how an amp with a damping factor of 6 can sound good, despite
> what everyone is claming here.
> 

I don't think Lon (or anyone else in recent memory) ever claimed that the
people spending all those bucks for the "audiophile" tube amps knew what the
hell they were doing!  (1/2 a :-))


Bob Myers  KC0EW   Hewlett-Packard Co.      |Opinions expressed here are not
                   User Interface Tech. Div.|those of my employer or any other
myers@fc.hp.com    Fort Collins, Colorado   |sentient life-form on this planet.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan)
Subject: Re: Mail Order From Crutchfield
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:09:04 GMT


In article <1992Apr07.201355.165808@zeus.calpoly.edu> jhosee@zeus.calpoly.edu (Hip Hop Junkie) writes:
>
>Has anyone ever ordered something from Crutchfield through the mail?

Yes.

>How do you rate thier service? How do they handle returns?

Their service is good, and they handled my return item promptly and with
no questions asked (and no hassles). Their prices are a bit on the high
side, especially for mail order stuff, however. I've seen stuff for sale
in local stores with lower prices than Crutchfield. However, if you find
something with the right price, I wouldn't hesitate to order from them.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 18:39:31 CDT
From: <U58402@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.

Why hasn't anyone put forth the proposition that the difference between
analog and digital sound is due to the software, not the hardware?

Okay, maybe I will.

Analog recordings have been made for over sixty years. Over that
period of time, mike placement, reverb/tone control, and mixing have
been refined to the point that "audiophile" recordings (whatever that
means) are held to be the ultimate in sound reproduction. Now digital
recordings are being made. What once was a proper mike placement for an
analog recording may not be the proper mike placement for a digital
recording, since the EQ inherent in analog sound reproduction has been
changed. (Note that I did not say either for the worse or for the
better.) So, the first digital recordings may sound "steely" because
recording techniques for analog may have boosted treble response a bit
to account for the lowered treble response in an analog system. For
digital, decreased treble response is not a factor, and the result is
shrill violins. I know that over the past ten years of digital
recordings, mike placement and frequency response of mikes have changed
as recording engineers gained more experience with digital recording.
Digital recordings being released now are better than recordings
released 8-10 years ago, on average.

Wilbur Pan
(aka u58402@uicvm.uic.edu
 at the ever so friendly and personal univ. of ill. at chicago)
From: u-magpie@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu (Mark Dadgar -NeXT CC)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Thought for the day
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:37:13 GMT

In <WOOD.92Apr6173905@wood.uk.tele.nokia.fi> wood@uk.tele.nokia.fi (Peter Wood) writes:

>>>>>> On 3 Apr 92 20:30:50 GMT, lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) said:

>-> In article <1992Apr3.142522.24187@bristol.ac.uk> P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>>
>>In the intro to one of his last numbers he said 'There's one thing
>>you've got to understand about us Americans.  We believe that if it's
>>louder, it's more real.'  I immediately thought of rec.audio.
>->    
>->    Wasn't Spinal Tap a BRITISH rock group?   

>No.

YES.

- Mark

--
          Mark Dadgar         |        A pretty sight it seemed to be
  UCSB NeXT Campus Consultant |          An avenue of eternal peace
   u-magpie@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu  | But he said "What is here can soon burn down...
       Bill & Opus - '92      |         I'm the King of Sunset Town" 
From: rjn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:15:29 GMT
Subject: Re: CD-rot,the corrosive label scenario
Organization: Hewlett-Packard/WSY Ft.Collins,CO,USA
Newsgroups: rec.audio

In rec.audio, johnson@wrs.com (David Johnson) writes:

> If you want to see what the "rot looks like:
> Take a CD (lazer discs work better) and put it in the microwave for
> 30 to 120 seconds---it kind of looks like that. The sparks that chase
> over the surrface of the disc are not to be missed! 

Don't do this at home, kids.  You can also blow out the magnetron in the
microwave, and your dad will spank you after he writes that $150 check to
get it fixed.

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland      Internet: rjn@FC.HP.COM               3404 East Harmony Road
                UUCP: [hplabs|hpfcse]!hpfcrjn!rjn     Ft Collins CO 80525-9599
From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:05:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Ground loop hum, what is it??
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
From: reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci)
Subject: Does class D exist?
Summary: are there any class D amplifiers?
Reply-To: reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:48:53 GMT

  I once read about the design of a Sony amplifier which was actually marketed
in the US in the early 80's or even earlier that called itself class D. It
had a pretty interesting design. What is the exact definition of class D?
Does it really exist? If so, has anybody seen examples of them? Thanks

Reha Elci
From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:30:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: requesting CD player advice
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.audio

> well, all the measurements for distortion, only measure a certain types,
> surely you do not think Total Harmonic Distortion, is the same measurement
> as InterModular distortion? as far as i know, there exists no practical

Funny, I've never HEARD of "Intermodular distortion."

Would this be the distortion which happens between two modules in your
system?  Or maybe it's distorting the sound of two modules of some sort
crashing together?


....or maybe you mean "intermodulation distortion?"    Nahhhhhhh.......



Bob Myers            | "There's no sense in being precise when you don't even
myers%hpfcla@hplabs. |  know what you're talking about." 
hp.com               |                        - John von Neumann