HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lipp@mtu.edu (JOHN I LIPP)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: time alignment?
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:16:11 GMT
Organization: Michigan Technological University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

>I was reading a book on Hifi (Good Sound, by Dearborn) which gave an 
>explanation of time aligning speakers.  It implied that this entailed 
>always putting the speaker magnets in the same plane because this is 
>where the sound originates.  The reasoning struck me as faulty for the
>following reason:  If the voice coil is reasonably stiff, the cone 
>will move at the same time as the voice coil.

You are right that this is non-sense.  Sound is the excitation of air particles,
so sound originates where the speaker diaphram (or cone or whatever is moving)
contacts the air.  However, the effective sound "center" which you try to align
in time aligned speakers can be very difficult to determine.  Consider the
cone of your standard speaker driver.  Sound is originating all over the cone
which does not have a unique center.  Do you use the average of the distance the
dustcap is from the front and where the outer edge of the surround?  Or is it
the geometric mean of these two.  And what about cone resonances?

The point I am trying to make is that by physical inspection it is hard to find
the acoustic center of a driver.  In general, it has to be measured and can be
a function of frequencies due to resonances and nulls in cone response (some
high quality drivers are intentionally designed to exhibit specific resonance and
null patterns and acheive superior performance; do not conclude that these
phenominon are always bad).

Also, time aligned systems suffer from the same problem that stereo imaging 
does--there is always a sweet spot based on speaker geometry, location and room
acoustics.  And often some of the design aspects of time-aligned speakers make
them very sensative to position (much more so than conventional speakers).

/***************************************************************************\
*  John Lipp   *  Loudspeaker design pseudo-expert and software developer   *
* lipp@mtu.edu * (Working on amplifier and surround-sound psuedo-expertise) *
\***************************************************************************/
From: caudle@owlnet.rice.edu (Chris Aaron Caudle)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Mark Levinson Digital Processor
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:05:43 GMT
Organization: Rice University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Keywords: Mark Levinson Digital Processor
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

In article <1j6fvnINN9qt@uwm.edu>, peterh@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (huang peter suway) writes:
|> I was wondering what the function of a digital processor is and how it is 
|> implemented into an audio system.  Is anyone familiar with the Mark 
|> Levinson No. 30 digital processor?  Is it worth anything near its price 
|> of $13,950?

"Worth" is a relative measure.  If I had $100,000 to spend on audio 
equipment, and I had a dedicated listening room/studio, then yes, I 
think that a Levinson No.30 would be worth $13000.  I have seen several
reviews of the No. 30, and every one found almost no flaw in the no. 30.

Most of the cost probably comes in in the fact that Levinson (the company,
not the man) spent five years researching and designing the convertor, it
has probably the best power supply built for non-instrumentation grade
equipment, has custom digital filter chips, uses two convertors per channel
for balanced operation, and is just generally built to impeccable standards.
"Is it worth it" depends on how fanatical you want to be about having the
best available equipment.

BTW, I haven't auditioned the No. 30 yet, so I offer no comment on it's
actual sound quality.  As an electrical engineering student, I can say that
electrically and mechanically, it is probably the best designed and built
digital audio equipment on the market.

Chris Caudle           
caudle@owlnet.rice.edu
From: schiesel-seth@YALE.EDU (Seth Schiesel)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Decent EQs?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 04:18:55 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

First, the flame-guard. I *know* a real audiophile doesn't use an EQ but I
listen to many, many "bootleg" recordings of live concerts (don't flame me
on that either, please, because the band I listen to allows it), and would
like to do whatever I can to make them sound better. So... I would
appreciate any recommendations on an equalizer that doesn't ruin the music
under $1000. Thanks,
Seth

-- 
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
I Seth Schiesel              Everybody's dancin' in a ring around the sun  I
I schiesel-seth@yale.edu           Nobody's finished, we ain't even begun  I
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
From: ctk4739@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Kozel EE)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Audio Concepts Sapphire IIti and Sub-1 Speaker Kits.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:37:03 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

I have been the proud owner of Audio Concepts speakers for about 3 years
now, and I've been THRILLED with their performance!  I have their Compact
Monitors (Dynaudio 17-W-75 6" woofers & D-28 tweeters) and the Pulse
Subs (2 AC10 woofers per side).  I now look foreward to upgrading to the
same setup you have in the near future.  

Good luck with them!

-Tom Kozel   
-- 
hi there
From: kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Want opinions on Paradigm 7se Mark II speakers
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:54:35 GMT
Organization: Shredding the water of SF Bay, HP-OCD

>I have listened to, and really like, Paradigm's 7se Mark II speakers.
>
>What I am looking for is any comments you might have on these, or any
>Paradigm speakers.
>
Good value and alot of us think they are worth listening to.

>Also, the local dealership here in Dallas is charging $500+tax for the
>pair.  Is this a good price?
>----------
I get mixed-up between the Names and the Numbers.  I like the "mini monitors"
which take a bigger amp (4 ohms) by far the best and they can probably be
had for $500 ($600 list).  If I'm not mistaken, the 1,3,5 and 7s are 8
Ohm and would probably work well with std Sony, Technics, JVC etc. receivers.

Kirk out
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: Frank@mindlink.bc.ca (Frank I. Reiter)
Subject: Re: Thiele cs2.2 opinions wanted...
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:35:19 GMT

> Shiv Naimpally writes:
>
> Speaker buying is very subjective - he should not buy speakers
> without hearing them first, under any circumstances. I think
> your neighbour is better of choosing amoung the 2 speakers
> he can hear. Both The Export Monitors and 2CE are excllent speakers.

I'll add to the above by saying that you don't need to be an audio expert for
this to be valuable.  I started looking at speakers a while back and was
reluctant to do the listening tests, prefering instead to read specs and ask
opinions of people I know who are more knowledgable about these things than I
am.  I suspected that my untrained ears would not be much help.

I did finally do some A/B tests at a local stereo shop and was surprised at
the very audible differences, even between high end speakers.  I'll second
what Shiv said above, encourage your friend to LISTEN to them, and do it
somewhere where they will let you listen to a few different sets all on the
same amp etc.

Frank.
--
___________________________________________________________________
Frank I. Reiter                 Internet: Frank@mindlink.bc.ca
MIND LINK! Communications Corp. Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally)
Subject: Re: Comments on analog music
Reply-To: shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 18:50:36 GMT

In article <1jjt2nINNiee@transfer.stratus.com>, rsud@sw.stratus.com (Rajiv Sud) writes:
|> Shiv,
|> 
|> 	Certainly none of us subjectivitists :-) !!!!! We've been saying this
|> since digital was first introduced and made our ears bleed. To be fair, digital
|> has improved quite a bit since but even now a decent turntable setup can trounce
|> the best of digital. Shiv, you are now in a realm where you are going to be
|> told how stupid you are and how fallible your senses are because you let your
|> ears decide what music should sound like instead of reading a bunch of specs.
|> Welcome!
|> 
|> ..Rajiv

Thanks for the support. Once I got a CD player I almost completely
stopped listening to vinyl because (a) its inconvenient since you
have to keep flipping  and (b) the surface noise and occassional pops and
ticks are annoying. When I played the album recently and listened to
it, I was shocked by how good it sounded - the smoothness, the
depth of the soundstage. I hadn't expected it to sound that good !
(I'm sure my recently acquired KEF 103.4s have something to do with it).
People have to experience it for themselves - it seems so contrary to
what you would expect.

CD has come a long way though, and some of the new techniques help - Sony
has a new 18 bit encoding scheme that is played back on existing
players with improved resolution.  
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: vivek gupta <vigupta@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Suggestions Wanted!
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 00:19:42 -0500

Hi,

I posted on friday asking some very generic questions, and have gotten
some nice responses. So I thought it was time for another question.

Let's say I had $2500 and wanted to start with either an A/V Receiver
or Integrated Amp and Speakers. This is for the purpose of using as the
center for a future A/V home theater and home stereo system. Also
suggestions coming under $2500 are even better since that allows
for buying a new CD player or tape deck.

Thanx in advance,
Vivek
vigupta@cs.indiana.edu (Please respond directly and if there is interest I
                        will post a summary.)
From: boop@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (joseph.a.lapenta)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Equipment for Sale
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:58:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1993Jan27.150035.24202@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
davisonj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John M Davison) writes: 
>In article <1993Jan24.211944.15087@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
>boop@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (joseph.a.lapenta) writes: 
>>EQUIPMENT FOR SALE:
>>Denon DCD-910 CD player.............................$259
>
>Recently I saw a new DCD-920 for $179 + tax.  What is so great about
>Joe's DCD-910 that he feels justified in asking $259 for it?
>
I'll tell you what's so great about it.  Nothing!  I was told buy
a local high-end dealer (who's heavy into tubes) that this is the
price for the 910 in the "blue book" (whatever the hell that is -- I
assume it is the audio equivalent for the NADA for used cars).

If someone wants to buy it, the price is not set in concrete.

I'm kind of new to this level of gear and selling audio gear over
the net.

If I've done something wrong, please let me know.  I don't want to 
step on any toes (except my own -- I've got two left feet).

Joe LaPenta
From: cj164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Ryan Glover)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
Date: 21 Jan 1993 23:14:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cj164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Ryan Glover)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, zellers@22_clancy.manassas.ibm.com (Cevin M Zellers) says:

>I recently witnessed another case of the analog sentimentalist trying
>to use the 'sampling' argument to lodge a complaint against Digital.
>
>It was MTV, with they're nifty diagrams showing how sampled digital sound
>loses information because of the 'choppy' digital waveform. Unfortunately,
>critics are pressing this argument and misleading the public, due to their
>ignorance of the Nyquist Sampling theorem. All of you digital skeptics, 
>please note that CD's capture ALL frequencies up to 44.5 KHz, reproducing
>them faithfully (butter than vinyl, I argue). Frequencies above 44.5 KHz
>don't matter, that's far above the threshold of hearing anyway :)
>
>Cevin
>
The Nyquist frequency is 1/2 the sampling rate = 44.1khz/2, or  22.05khz to be
exact.  Cd's will reproduce sine waves up to 22khz, which is all that matters
since non sinusoidal components of a waveform are present as harmonics well 
above the range of human hearing.



  
-- 
------------------------------|     
Jeff Glover		      | 	
cj164@cleveland.freenet.edu   |               	 
eaeu188@orion.oac.uci.edu     |	
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: graeme@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Graeme Gill)
Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
Organization: Labtam Australia Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:30:32 GMT

In article <shetline-200193174831@128.89.19.74>, shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline) writes:
> Anyway, I saw the same Luddite analog nostalgia bit on MTV and was really
> annoyed. The only counter-argument came from some guy saying that musicians
> who didn't like digital didn't like it because it showed the flaws in their
> performance: a real pointless sour-grapes opinion. That's all the air time
> the pro-digital side got.

	There could certainly be some truth in that. One of the recent
reviews of the Alesis (sp?) ADAT commented that they were upset that
switching from analog to digital multitrack showed up all the flaws
in the rest of their equipment. 

	It is noticeable that unlike high end audio fanatics, the
professional sound people are ready to admit that digital gear
is more accurate and flexible than analog gear, while still
noting that they often like the sound that analog gear imparts
on music. What they are really saying is that the older analog
gear was part of artistic process, while digital is transparent
and therefore outside this process. If you want to have "warm"
analog sound on CDs you have to add that to the master recording
artificially, rather than relying on analog tape and vinyl record
distortion to do it for you.

	Graeme Gill
	Design Engineer
	Labtam Australia
From: nodrog@byron.u.washington.edu (Gordon Rubenfeld)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Adcom info
Date: 28 Jan 1993 18:02:14 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: world
Reply-To: nodrog@u.washington.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: byron.u.washington.edu

Hate to distract you guys from the *fascinating* analog/digital debacle -
but I'm about to get an INCREDIBLY sweet deal on a used adcom gtp-400 and
gfa545.  My question: any big difference in construction quality, sound,
etc. between the gfa545 and the newer gfa545II.  I've read their pamphlet
describing "elimination of coupling capacitors . . .protective coils . . .
larger toroidal transformer . . .".  I've listened to both (no way to AB,
of course) and can't say I hear a difference.  Anybody out there have an
opinion? 

BTW, how about consolidating all the threads (preamp/amp,CD/LP, etc.) into
one?  It sure would make my life easier.  Alternatively, could one of the
rec.audio sane regulars (Cal??) assure me that this garbage is associated
with the phase of the sun and will soon die down.  ciao
-- 
******************************************************************************
nodrog@byron.u.washington.edu     |University of Washington Medical Center
Gordon D. Rubenfeld               |Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Subject: Re: DAT, DCC and MD
Organization: Fulcrum Communications
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:55:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.025120.11716@e2big.mko.dec.com> winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
> cheaper than RDAT players.  VCRs don't cost very much these days, and they're
> the same technology as RDAT.

Au contraire, VCR technology is expensive.  Cheap, nasty cassette
players cost ten pounds.  DCC's only expense over a grungy cassette
mechanism is the head, which isn't a moving part but is more complex
than a standard analogue head.  But in the digital domain problems like
wow and flutter can be addressed by buffering, and high mechanical
accuracy is what costs money.

On the other hand, a VCR costs at least 15 times that.  The mechanism is
far more complex and the mechanical accuracy required to track the heads
is not trivial.  DAT machines have the same strictures on smaller tapes
and far smaller track widths.  I looked inside my DAT machine recently.
There's a hell of a lot of ironmongery and a few small PCBs.

ian
From: DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: The Bose flame war: Equalizer Bunk
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:32:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1993Jan27.012250.9338@trl.oz.au> tpearson@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Trevor Pearson) writes:
>
>Gee Dick, you are totally correct BUT, a sealed system is described as
>high efficiency? As I'm sure you'd agree, equalization does not increase
>the efficiency of a system. I usually retain the term high efficiency
>for Horn loaded speakers, when describing speaker systems. I will
>admit the term is relative and used very loosely these 
>days.

Yeah, it's all relative indeed. But the technique that I described allows
you to get an efficiency constant that's 3 dB higher than otherwise
possible from the best possible sealed box (one with a system Q of 1.25 or
so, blech!) of the same size and cutoff frequency, and 4-5 dB higher than
a maximally flat selaed box system (with a system Q of 0.707). And it two,
will have maximally flat characteristics.

Sure, there ain't nothing like the efficiency of a horn. Then, there ain't
nothing like the uniquely indentifiable sound of a horn either :-(.

-- 
|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX)      |
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL)
Subject: Want opinions on Paradigm 7se Mark II speakers
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:18:21 GMT

Hello.

I have listened to, and really like, Paradigm's 7se Mark II speakers.

What I am looking for is any comments you might have on these, or any
Paradigm speakers.

Also, the local dealership here in Dallas is charging $500+tax for the
pair.  Is this a good price?

Thanks.
From: sss@castle.ed.ac.uk (S S Sturrock)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: DAT, DCC and MD
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:35:26 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1993Jan22.190811.28768@e2big.mko.dec.com> winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
>
>And DCC requires highly accurate thin-film fixed heads.  These also will always
>be more expensive than the 4-track heads required for analog cassette
>mechanisms.  Philips has had great difficulty getting DCC heads to track
>reliably.

And the solution they came up with is elegant and simple and solves the
problem well with just a simple guide mechanism as part of the cassette
shell design.


-- 
Shane Sturrock, Biocomputing Research Unit, Darwin Building, Mayfield Road,
University of Edinburgh, Scotland, Commonwealth of Independent Kingdoms.  :-)

Civilisation is a Haggis Supper with salt and sauce and a bottle of Irn Bru.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: hap@scubed.com (Hap Freiberg)
Subject: DYNACO address and 'phone number wanted.
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:47:26 GMT

Subject sez all. Thanks in advance... :-)

Hap
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: The Bose flame war
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:43:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.220713.29052@VFL.Paramax.COM> garyp@rmtc.paramax.com (Gary Palangian [RMTC/ISP]) writes:



>Most people voted for Clinton....

Hm - I had the distinct impression that most people voted for
someone other than Clinton.


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill@bilver.uucp
                - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: brambo@eco.twg.com (Mark Bramblett)
Subject: Re: Sony TA-E2000ESD DSP A/V Surround Preamp
Followup-To: rec.audio,rec.video
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:12:14 GMT

In article <C12s7M.2Ku@ampex.com>, dna@ampex.com (David Altekruse) wrote:
> 
> Michael J Kobb writes:
> >  (Michael escribes his Sony TAE-2000ESD A/V pre-amp discovery.)
> >
> >  So, anybody got one of these?  Do you like it?  Did you look at it
> >and get something else?  If so, why?  Anybody got comments on the
> >issue of power amps and surround/center speakers?  Are the Adcoms
> >really better than the Sonys?
> >
> 
> There has been a discussion of this unit (and the previous similar version
> the TAE1000ESD) in rec.video at various times over the past three years.
> Here is part of a note I recently posted there:
> 
> I've had (my Sony TAE2000ESD) for about three months now and am pretty
> happy with it overall.  I have some fairly minor complaints with it:
> 
	[stuff deleted...]
> 
>   7) (As has been pointed out), one of the TAE2000ESD more impressive features
>      is its digital parametric equalizers for not only the front L-R
>      channels but for the center and rear channels as well.  But I don't
>      think it is possible to do a good job of setting them just by ear, 
>      especially if you are trying to equalize all five channels for the
>      same in-room frequency response.  What is really needed is a built-in 
>      spectrum analyzer. 
> 
> This may sound like I'm not very happy with my Sony TAE2000ESD but all
> the features Steve described meet most of my needs and then some.  This
> Sony appears to be very well made, all the controls have a good solid feel
> to them, it runs cool, and most importantly, the audio from all channels 
> sounds outstanding, the video switching adds little if any noticable
> noise to the signal, and the all-digital Pro-Logic works very well with
> extremely high channel separation. 
> 
> - David Altekruse, dna@ampex.com

On the TAE1000ESD you can't set up a custom equalization curve for your
room, but you can for the other digital sound processing modes. To me that
is screwy.  Is this possible on the TAE2000ESD?

Thanks,
		      Mark

Mark Bramblett

VMS Program Mgr
The Wollongong Group

brambo@eco.twg.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: Marc Dionne <dionne@pop.cis.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Comments on analog music
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A78B1008AE016F6A@je-college-node.net.yale.edu>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 26 Jan 93 20:58:00 GMT
Organization: W.A.S.T.E.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d13
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:58:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.135419.11498@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> carl.w.muhlhausen,
ledzep@cbnewsh.cb.att.com writes:
>I'm not familar with GRP. What kind of music do they have?

Unfortunate jazz-influenced elevator music.

Marc
--
(bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronnt-
uonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!)
From: allana@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Allan Armstrong)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:33:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Direct vs Reflecting speaker designs
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)