HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Low range
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:56:05 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <702613596.11504.0@unix1.andrew.cmu.edu> ri09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert W. Igo) writes:
>What *is* the low range of human hearing, anyway?  Is there one?  I'm speaking
>of Hz, not dB.  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.

    Well, your reasoning might not be cause->effect.  I presume I
    would merely annoy you if I mentioned the 20-20 range?
    
    I am not sure that "hear" is the correct term for very low
    sounds...you tend to literally feel them in your bones, chest
    area, etc.  16 Hz is a rare, but often encountered, frequency
    for big pipe organs.  
    
    The sound is more of a low toneless rumble than a pitch..at
    least to my ears.  If you have speakers which can reproduce this
    range audibly, your walls, doors, windows, loose objects in the
    room, will tend to resonate.   
    
    The most common "low note" is closer to 32 Hz.  Don't recall any
    other instrument except a big pipe organ which goes much lower
    than 20.   There are many common sounds which do, waterfalls,
    aircraft, etc--also elephant gossip.
    
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:38:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: requesting CD player advice
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy
Newsgroups: rec.audio

In rec.audio, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:


>   No vinyl recording even approaches the fidelity or dynamic range of a CD.

To quote the basketball sportscaster last night "WITH AUTHORITY!!!"
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 12 Apr 1992 20:25:08 EDT
From: <DHN101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: If you had $1200...

...And were looking to buy a receiver and speakers,  what would you buy?  I am
looking for recommendations, especially on equipment combinations.

I would like suggestions for 100W or more systems;  tuner/preamp and power amp
suggestions also.

Thanks.
Dean N.
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Imped. Matching w/ Resistors?!
Date: 11 Apr 1992 00:24:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu

lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
: In article <1380@frf.omron.co.jp> andrew@lsa.ncl.omron.co.jp (Andrew Walduck) writes:
: >
: >Actually the resistors will always be linear...and will always present
: >a constant impedance to the amplifier of 2 ohms, unlike the reactive speaker,
: >the impedance of which will vary widely depending on the frequency.
: >(unless...the resistors are wire-wound...but that's another story...;-)
: >
:     The only truly linear resistors I have ever seen were zig-zag
:     lines on a physics lecture blackboard.  In the electronics
:     classes the non-linear nature of REAL resistors were noted.

What is the source of the nonlinearity?  I can't imagine any deviation
from standard kinetic theory and Ohm's law J = sigma E
in normal circumstances.  What I can believe, however, is that
sigma is a function of temperature and if the power dissipated is high
enough there might be an interaction there.  But still that would go away
if the resistor had enough heat dissipation.

Or do you mean "dispersion", where resistance changes with frequency?
(I wouldn't quite call that a nonlinearity, but connected with a transistor
circuit, could make one).  Again, what's the magnitude of
this at audio frequencies?  

I'd guess that the frequency where this starts to get important is around
1/mean_free_time_between_collisions of the electrons.  Does anybody know what
this is?


In sum, I guess that resistors aren't ideal, but I'd guess the deviations
to be very very small at audio frequencies.  It's the last place I'd worry.

Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:02:27 GMT
Subject: Re: New LP-CD flame material
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy
Newsgroups: rec.audio

I just love the responses that come out when people feel attacked about CDs not being absolutely positive proven superior.  They have the damn
things all over the store and they worry about a little article criticizing
that they aren't perfect for everyone.  I feel so sorry for them.  Boo-hoo.
From: bruce@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Bruce Stock)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Improvement to cost ratio of moving speakers
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:58:56 GMT
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

From article <4265@gold.gvg.tek.com>, by chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen):
> Bingo! You have discovered just how important the acoustics of the room 
> will effect the reproduced sound in that room!
> 
> The other items that will effect the reproduced sound is the size,
> shape and radiation pattern of the speakers.
> 
> THis effect is the reason people spend hours, days even  weeks positioning
> speakers in a listening room!  Those same people also relate that
> final positions are source material related!  And it is true.  Different
> types of music use the audible spectrum differently and the effects of
> the rooms modal response will greatly effect the way the music sounds.

As one recently returned to critical music listening by the advent of CD's,
and being the happy owner of new and vastly improved speakers, I want to
emphatically second this.  Newcomers take heed -- you are not getting
the sound you paid good money for until you do extensive positioning
testing.  I have been at it for about 6 months and am still finding out
what a new position improves and what it degrades.  You need to be patient and 
methodical, and you need to live with and listen to each new position through
a variety of program sources.  It will be worth it.

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bosco@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Bosco)
Subject: Preamp with surround sound
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 00:36:15 GMT


Hi I wanted to know if a unit with the following characteristics existed:

	1- Preamp
	2- Dolby Pro logic surround decoder (with or without buil-in amp for
	   rear and center speakers)
	3- Fully remote controlled

Does such a unit exist?
If it does, what is the approximate price (anything over $500 is too expensive)

If such a unit doesn't exist, I would have to go for separate decoder / Preamp.
Can anybody make any reccomendations?

Thanks,
   Eric
.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: derek@au-bon-pain.lcs.mit.edu (Derek Chiou)
Subject: WANTED: Linn LP12
Organization: MIT Lab for Computer Science, Cambridge, Mass.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:47:36 GMT

Hello,

I'm looking for a used Linn LP12 with an Iitok or Ekos arm.  If anyone
has any combination of the 3 pieces that they want to sell, please let
me know.

Derek Chiou
derek@abp.lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: teh1@cec2.wustl.edu (Trent E. Hemmings)
Subject: Request for info on DIY speakers.
Keywords: speakers do it yourself
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 07:01:52 GMT


I haven't been able to find any speakers that fit my ears
and my pocket book, so I'm thinking about making my own.

So, I need references, references.....

(and any recomendations/experiences you want to share).

If you've made your own, or even considered it, send me 
info on...

	o Books/Articles    

	o Mail order suppliers of hardware

	o Companies that sell 'kit' speakers.


Thanks.

Trent Hemmings

(teh1@cec2.wustl.edu)

P.S. if their is any interes I'll post a compilation
     of the info I get.
From: sbhattac@sales.GBA.NYU.EDU (Shankar Bhattacharyya)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: rec.audio.DIY <--- anyone interested?
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:05:48 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

I don't want to dampen any enthusiasms, but:

A couple of years ago I raised the same subject on this newsgroup. About
six people seemed enthusiastic, and I have benefited a good deal, in many
ways, from exchanges of messages with them since then.

About six others dismissed the idea as silly, and some of them sounded
slightly world-weary about all this newbie enthusiasm on my part. (They
were right.)

The low s/n on rec.audio makes the idea appealing.

However, there is simply not the volume to support a separate group.

A reasonably good strategy is to post articles of interest to builders to
rec.audio.high-end. The traffic is low, and it is easy to take the group
over for a while, and the non-builders just ignore the builders over there.
They know we are just misguided bench-slime, and we know they are just
morally inferior buyers (you have to say "buyers" through clenched teeth),
and so things are nice and orthogonal. Also, posts on rec.audio.high-end
get archived, so one can go looking for old posts on a subject of interest.

The only loss, and this is not trivial, is that some of the more
technically informed people avoid rec.audio.high-end as if everyone over
there had wire-transmissible rabies. And there is the issue that not
everyone gets rec.audio.high-end.

On rec.audio everyone who has ever even thought about building tends to
chime in with an opinion, and on rec.audio.high-end there is some tendency
for discussions of building to transmute into discussions of film
capacitors and solder. But on either group it is possible to sustain a
useful exchange until the better informed people have said what they have
to say.

And there is no reason to suppose that a new group will not eventually
suffer both problems either.

With the benefit of some hindsight I suggest that a separate group is
really not necessary. I find it quite adequate to scan subject headers so
I can choose the threads I want to follow. I have sought information on
several occasions, and it has been readily available within the present
framework.

I think the question to ask is this: Suppose there were a builders' group,
would we still read the other audio groups. If the answer is yes, there
seems little reason to create another low-volume group. As long as the
subject header suggests clearly that the thread is about building stuff,
that should serve just fine.

OK, so I've got a little world-weary too.

- Shankar
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.
Keywords: flame bait, CD accuracy
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:05:00 GMT
X-Bytes: 

You know, fluff like this really irritates the fuck out of me. Golden
ears indeed. More like: "I've spent thousands of dollars on this
turntable. I really need to justify my obsession and show that clicks
and pops and analog mastering really do give more accurate sound. I
mean, I spent thousands of dollars. Thousands and thousands of
dollars. It's got a zero mass tonearm and an antigrav base. It sounds
better."

I ought to develop a DSP that "warms" sound by recreating the
inaccuracies in analog equipment. For that matter, I could add a click
and pop generator. Yeah! That's it.

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: ric@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ricardo.g.irvin)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Using filters to remove surround-sound hiss??
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:50:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <12064@tamsun.tamu.edu> dkf8117@tamsun.tamu.edu (Duane) writes:
>I have a Sony1070AV receiver (I like it, no flames) and have been trying
>....
>rarely contains anything higher.  Could someone in the know advise me to
>the feasibility of adding some sort of "filter" to chop out everything
>above mid-range ont the way to the speakers??
>
>Duane
please post the response

	Ric. Irvin
"Ignore him. He has a PhD." Silence Of The Lambs
From: btdy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Nonlinearity vs. non-flat frequency response.
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:27:29 EDT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cornell University

In article <34233@unix.SRI.COM>,
henry@ginger.sri.com (Henry A. Pasternack) writes: 
> 
>    Gary Coffman writes:
> 
>>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.
> 
>    What does it mean to be "200 times more faithful?"  Please consider
> the following:  A machine with 7% distortion is 93% "faithful", yes?  A
> machine with .03% distortion is 99.97% "faithful".  Therefore the machine
> with .03% distortion is 99.97/93 = 1.07 times more "faithful".

I agree.

> 
>    Unconvinced?  Consider two machines, one having 10E-10% distortion
> and one having 10E-110% distortion.  All other things being equal, these
> machines will have IDENTICAL sonic performance (we assume 10E-10% distortion
> is below the threshold of audibility).  Yet you would say the second machine
> is ten-to-the-tenth times more "faithful"?
> 

I agree again.

>    It's this kind of shady logic that typifies the mass-market hype
> mentality.  "My machine is over A MILLION TIMES more faithful that your
> machine -- Check the specs!"
> 
>>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.
> 
>    "Distortion", in the sense of "harmonic" or "intermodulation" refers
> to the generation of frequency components that are not present in the
> source signal.  It is different from "non-flat frequency response", which
> is the variation in the emphasis (gain or attentuation factor) of signal
> components at different frequencies.  Distortion is caused by component 
> nonlinearity; non-flat frequency response is not.  This seems to be a 
> common source of confusion, such as the article that referred to the change
> in speaker system response due to series resistance as "nonlinearity."
> 
>    "Muddiness", to complete the thought, is often used to describe ill-defined,
> bloated, or underdamped midbass that obscures pitch discrimination at low 
> frequencies.  It is a consequence of non-flat frequency response in the bottom
> octaves, not distortion.
> 
>    While I agree that a "muddy" sound is "unfaithful", I would not equate
> "muddiness" and "distortion."
> 

I don't agree, and neither do you.  Look at the first sentence in the third
paragraph above this one.  Henry, you say that Distortion is 
"the generation of frequency components that are not present in the source
signal."  Wouldn't an under-damped midbass fall into this category--the speaker
keeps moving after the signal is no longer there, generating frequency 
components that are NO LONGER in the source signal.  What's the deal ?

Am I missing something?

- Jeff

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: collin@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Collin Ong)
Subject: Re: Sherwood?
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 08:43:30 GMT

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,
>but I think the parent company is Japanese.  They go where the labor cost 
>is lowest today, so only the high-priced gear is still made in Japan.

Can anyone provide info on the fates of the other grand ole American
stereo companies?  I know Marantz has been picked up by Phillips, and
Harmon Kardon is run by Harmon International which also owns JBL.  What is
the ownership of Harmon International?  Also, which Crown is the old
American firm, the maker of incredibly cheap cd players/boom boxes, or
the power amp company?  Was Lloyds ever a real company or just a brand name?
From: tomb@hplsla.hp.com (Tom Bruhns)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:12:03 GMT
Subject: Re: portable CD player for the car (Re: Home CD changer in a car?)
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.audio

S. Graham writes:

>With Sony's shock mount plate firmly attached to a horizontal surface
>(maybe even other than horizontal?), there should be next to no skipping.

My Sony D9 skips when horizontal (even when not mechanically shocked).
In the car, it rides in a Sony shock mount plate on a gooseneck, and 
it's at about a 50 degree angle from horizontal.  Doesn't intrude on the 
passenger seat as much that way, and skips less ;-)  It only skips on
farily serious bumps, which I try to avoid anyway.
Newsgroups: rec.audio

In rec.audio, jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:

>
>   All in all, I'm still extraordinarilly happy with CDs and will continue to
>   spend too much money on them!  Meanwhile all of you audiophiles can run
>   around and spend several thousand US dollars on a record player that sounds
>   about as good as my cheapo portable CD player and complain to the record
>   industry that they aren't producing enough records anymore.  Oh, and don't
>   forget to put green marks around the edges of the CDs you do own and maybe
>   deep freeze them as well -- you must know what you're doing!

I guess it's people like you who lump people like us into one category (like
Peter Su wrote me).  I'm so happy you like your cheap stereo so much. 
So all you audiophile-haters can run around and spend nothing for sound 
quality and proclaim your "system" perfect and yourselves more informed.  
You must know what you're doing!  In the dark ages, that is!
From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Blind Listening
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:49:20 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1190709@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com 
(Kurt Strain) writes:
>In rec.audio, chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen) writes:

>>   This is total bull!  The musicians ARE very concerned with room sound
>>   and the quality of Timbre is their LIFE.  Where do you get off with
>>   these statements!  To state that a musician in an orchestra isn't a
>>   listener is correct, after all they are only creating the gawd damn
>>   shit!.
>
>Oh, so from now on in order to tell how good a new jet is, we'll go to
>the real experts, the assemblers, not the test pilot.

For a fleeting moment I thought that I had you on the ropes!

Interesting analogy.  I think that you have it wrong though.

The test poilot is an application specific team member not related to
the process of music.  Byt to kep with the thread......  The musician
in the pit isn't just a simple assembler of the piece.  The composer
and the arranger did that.

I would put the conductor as the pilot, the aircraft as the piece of
music, the musicians as the engines.  I would further put the
recording engineer as the "co pilot"

The audience is the passengers!  That puts you along for the ride!

Some prople really like to fly, some people don't like to fly, some
people really get off on the sensations of flight.

Then ya got yer light planes, your medium planes, and ya got yer
heavy weights.  IMHO there is a great deal of interesting sensation
when a 747 takes to flight.  A flying building......

The quality of flight is different but it's still flight!!

I'm really not good at clever analogies,  I like the real thing!

Have a nice day sir!  And thank you for a civil response.  The tirade
that I unleashed could have been responded with fire and furry.


So Brian, how's this?  Is my spelling better?  How may typo's did I
do?  I worked at being better!  Oh and thank's jj.

-- 
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.
Xref: sparky rec.audio:7229 rec.video:6105
From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Audiophile Bashing, was CD rot -- who gives a damn?
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:45:42 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1190699@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com 
(Kurt Strain) writes:
>In rec.audio, jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:

>>   All in all, I'm still extraordinarilly happy with CDs and will continue to
>>   spend too much money on them!  Meanwhile all of you audiophiles can run
>>   around and spend several thousand US dollars on a record player that sounds
>>   about as good as my cheapo portable CD player and complain to the record
>>   industry that they aren't producing enough records anymore.  Oh, and don't
>>   forget to put green marks around the edges of the CDs you do own and maybe
>>   deep freeze them as well -- you must know what you're doing!

Gee Kurt I don't read this as Audiophile bashing,  sounds to me that
Mr. Jonke is just funnin you! I do freely admit that I am taking the
above paragraph out if context.

>I guess it's people like you who lump people like us into one category (like
>Peter Su wrote me).  I'm so happy you like your cheap stereo so much. 
>So all you audiophile-haters can run around and spend nothing for sound 
>quality and proclaim your "system" perfect and yourselves more informed.  
>You must know what you're doing!  In the dark ages, that is!

This is where you kick me off Mr. Strain,  you speculate that Mr.
Jonke is unable to enjoy his less expensive stereo just because he
does enjoy it!  And acuse him of being an audiophile-hater?  Maybe he
is,  I don't know. Oh and I didn't read that he proclaimed his system
as perfect.  Just that he thought  that his cheep CD player soundes as
good as an expensive turntable.

I just think that you are strung  bit tight and take comments too
critically.  

"One persons comments are another persons flames!"   DRCC, 1989

-- 
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.