HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bussey@meaddata.com (Greg Bussey)
Subject: Cheap DAT Portables??
Followup-To: Cheap DAT Portables??
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:22:30 GMT

>What is the current cheapest deal on a portable DAT recorder?  
>The best I've found so far in my search is an AIWA HDS-1 for $595 from 
>Audio Gallery [(310) 829-3429].  Anyone seen a better deal?
>Also, if you know of a deal on a used DAT recorder, lemme know.
> 
>Thanks.
> 
>Barry Sanders
>bsander@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu


Please post this information or cc bussey@meaddata.com  I'm looking
for the same thing. Also, can someone comment on personal experience
using the AWAI mentioned above?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Bussey                                       bussey@meaddata.com  
  If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice  (rush) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SteveSgt@cup.portal.com (Steven Eugene Sergeant)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Cost of digital multitracks
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 12:21:15 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <1992Aug24.042642.24711@ra.oc.com> <1992Aug25.015832.2158@bilver.uucp>
  <44654@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>

In article <1992Aug24.011130.13337@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
cms2839@ultb.isc.rit.edu (a.stranger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.180109.2785@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill
Vermillion) writes:
>>
>>But to say there are no good digital multi-track recorders is wrong.
>>To say there are no reasonably priced machines is correct.   You can
>>buy a new 24-track in the $30-$40k range for real pro machines, and
>>less in the semi-pro lines.   A 24 track digital will set you back in
>>excess of $175,000.    So you can buy 4 24-track analog machines or 1
>>digital.  The 32 and 48 track units cost more.
>>
>                          this is somewhat off the subject at hand
>, but it would be nice if someone could refresh my memory on this .
>didn't Sony just come out with a (well , relatively speaking)
>reasonably priced 24 track DASH machine ? i saw literature on it
>one day and neglected to xerox ; seems like it was in the 
>neighbourhood of $50K, although i could very easily be wrong on
>this . anyone heard it ? what do you give up to get it that
>" cheap ? "

	It was first shown at the NAB show in Las Vegas earlier this year. 
It's called the PCM-3324S.  It looks like a little PCM-3348 and it
sells for $61,000 with the less expensive of the optional remotes.  I
think they started delivering them this month.

	As for what you give up...  They have modularized the thing such that
if you want all of the features of the more expensive machines you have
to buy some option modules that bring the price up to the range of
$94,000 or so.  But still, that is cheaper than the $140,000 for the
older PCM-3324A.  The other think they did was use technology that had
already been developed for some more profitable products; they used
LSI's from the Pro-DAT machines (w/time code) and from the "scoopman"
(a pocket digital dictation recorder for radio news gathering.

	There should be several of them to play with at the upcomming AES show
in San Francisco...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Sergeant            Internet:  SteveSgt@torrent.sj.ca.us
3266 Tulipwood Ln.           Radio:  KC6ZKT [@N0ARY.#NOCAL.US.NA]
San Jose, CA  95132          GEnie:  STEVSERGEANT
(408) 945-0395                 FAX:  (408) 945-0543
Audio Engineering, Music, Macintosh, Bicycles, Backcountry, Japan
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Garland O Burton)
Subject: Re: Cheap DAT Portables??
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 05:17:11 GMT

cheap compared to what?

the standard pro dat head-drum size is 30mm.

the cheapie consumer crap may have a drum of smaller size.

why do i say crap?  the 30mm drums have very few dropout problems.
the less than 30mm drums are prone to dropouts.

you get what you pay for.

gb

-- 
gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu.............copyright 1992 gary burton........
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: QSound?
Keywords: QSound
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:42:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.172347.13806@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>> = kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>This is why ORTF and NOS pairs seem to preserve imaging information better
>>than a simple coincident pair.  
>
>OK, suppose you record an unamplified band direct to 2-track via a
>stereo mike.  Now correct me if I'm wrong:

A stereo mike is equivalent to a coincident pair.  There will be no phase
differences between channels with such a device.

>(1) if you listen to the tape with stereo headphones
>    then the phase & stereo image will be correct

No.  The only way that you can get a proper stereo image using headphones is
with binaural recording.  Incidentally, binaural recording is absolutely
incredible if you happen to be playing back with headphones.  Otherwise it's
rather poor.

>(2) you listen to the tape through a stereo system with loud speakers
>    then the phase & stereo image will be incorrect almost everywhere
>    in the room, except perhaps when you're exactly equal distance 
>    from both speakers.  In fact, no matter what you do, there will be
>    a phase problem almost everywhere in the room.

Precisely.  However, you can get a reasonable illusion of imaging and depth
at the sweet spot between the two speakers.  It's never all that accurate,
though.  This is mostly because there is a large amount of reflected sound
from the room, as well as the fact that no speakers have an even response off
axis.

Unless you are approximately at an equal distance between speakers, you will
never get reasonable imaging.  Nobody said it was a perfect world.
--scott
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Garland O Burton)
Subject: riding the faders
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:17:03 GMT

the scenario mentioned in the origional post reminds me of a sound tech
who knows how to set up the equipment, but not how to use it.  the proper
operation of audio gear, whether it is in a recording or sound reinforcement
situation, is that the board monkey must be qualified as a contributing 
musician.  the sound tech vs. artist is sad, but true, in too many instances.

if joe peavey is only experienced at listening to music with a 5 db dynamic
range, then he is going to, by habit, act as a human compressor/limiter.

loud is better to joe and he really doesnt sound like someone with a lick
of musical sense.  most bluegrass musicians are very good about "working"
the mic.  a good engineer can tell when the levels are right and be able to
leave them alone.  a sound tech AS artist is the one who should get the gig.

gb

-- 
gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu.............copyright 1992 gary burton........
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: riding the faders
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:48:53 GMT

[The original poster asked why SR people like to ride gain]

I'm not a live sound person, but I'll try to explain anyway.

Most engineers are used to working with perfomers who _don't_ have a good
grasp of how sound eqipment works, and thus they have to compensate for
performers' mishandling of the equipment.  Many performers will eat the
mike one minute and stand 24 inches away the next.  These distances are
a lot more critical in live sound than in recording, since you have to
watch out for feedback.

Usually an engineer will pull down an open mike to prevent a feedback
problem, or will ride gain if he senses that the performers aren't all
that swift with maintaining a constant distance from the mike.

Of course, as you say, that isn't the case in the genre in question, but
many SR engineers do it almost as a habit.  However, if specifically
instructed by the performers, there is no reason he should've done this.
Next time, tape a big sign over the faders saying "Hands Off!" :-)


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
From: mbreen@sdacs.ucsd.edu (Michael Breen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Ghost riders of the faders
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:02:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.17lpnuINNpsp
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: sdacs.ucsd.edu

Cool!  SR horror stories!  I've got a million of 'em!

I'm at work, though, so I'll just put up this:

I've been on both ends of the mic.  I've played with musician/engineers
behind the board, and drunken doormen sitting there.  I've also worked
sound for musicians of myriad caliber.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that it is an art to run sound, and
that art is hindered or helped by the performers.  It is *also* an art to
make yourself 'runnable' on-stage.  I've seen so many idiots trying to
pull a 'Daltrey' and swing their mic around.  I've also seen my SM58 *almost*
take out a waitress in a bar as a result.  That's just one of a thousand
examples of the stuff (we) musicians will pull on you, if we're not sensitive
to the needs of the SR crew.

I always talk to performers when I'm running sound, and SR crew when I'm
performing.  I can usually gauge what I'm 'in for' either way, and act
accordingly.  Communicate; no matter which side of the mic you're on.

Michael Breen
singing and philosphizing
(and taping the mics to the stands)
From: tony@robots.ox.ac.uk (Tony Hague)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: QSound?
Keywords: QSound
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:59:55 GMT
Organization: Robotics Research Group, Engineering Science Dept, Oxford, UK.
Originator: tony@lear.robots

In article <BtyCEn.1AF@news.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
>In article <1SEP199219051444@rigel.tamu.edu> r0r4661@rigel.tamu.edu (RUDD, RONNIE, JR.) writes:
>>What exactly is the QSound system and how does it work?  Are there any
>>opinions on the system?

And on this topic, does anyone have any solid information about the 
techniques used on the 'holphonic' recordings from Zucarrelli (sp ?)
labs ? The only examples I know of off hand are Pink Floyd's "The 
Final Cut" and Roger Waters "The Pros and Cons of Hitch-hiking".
I seem to remember that at the time the actual processing used was 
shrouded in mystery (or was it just bullshit ? sorry!).

Tony.
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: Dave J <djensen@claven.idbsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Mackie 1202 mixer - where's the catch?
Organization: Morrison Center for the Performing Arts
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:03:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.164501.22160@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
laucht@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (Matthias Laucht) writes:
>I have recently been made aware of the Mackie Microseries 1202 mixer. I have
>been offered one (new) for Cdn $475. Except for having only 4 mic (balanced)
>inputs (I'd prefer 5 or 6) it seems to have everything in terms of features
>and performance (on paper - I haven't actually seen it yet) that I could
>want.
> Stuff Deleted
>-- 
>Dr. C. Matthias Laucht, Assoc. Prof.    Internet: laucht@cs.umanitoba.ca
>Dept. of Computer Science               Phone:    (204) 474-6339 (direct)
>University of Manitoba                            (204) 474-8313 (messages)
>Winnipeg, MB, Canada  R3T 2N2           Fax:      (204) 269-9178
>

I have use one for recording. It is quiet and sounds (and is) great for the
money. There are two things I found annoying (but not enough to prevent me from
getting one). First the input gain pots are covering so much range and are so
small it is real difficult to make a small, fine adjustment. The other thing is
the input meter function is post fader so you have to turn each channel pot up
and all others down to read input gain. I don't know about you but I've grown
used to doing fast comparisons with solo swithches. It also makes looking at
the level of one mic impossible during the recording. What I ended up doing
with the 1202 is listening to the stereo headphone mix and balancing one of my
stereo pair to the other.

Dave Jensen                           You see...what you want to see,
djensen@claven.idbsu.edu              And you hear...what you want to hear. 
expressing only myself                    - Harry Nilsson, "The Point"

Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers,rec.music.marketplace
From: bussey@meaddata.com (Greg Bussey)
Subject: WANTED: 8 track recorder
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:50:53 GMT

The subject says it all. Please respond.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Bussey                                       bussey@meaddata.com  
  If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice  (rush) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky rec.audio.pro:1613 rec.audio:11990
From: plm@reggae.plm (Paul L. Mowatt)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio
Subject: 2 1200MKII's For Sale
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:21:34 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: /bdfs/users/plm/.organization


My friend who's going back to school and needs to raise some cash asked me to
post this message for him.

He has 2 Technics 1200MKII turntables and is asking $600 OBO for the pair.
They come with high quality cartridges.  I forgot the brand.  Send all
inquiries to me.

I know in this digital audio age most people think records are obsolete...NOT!
I have two Turntables + 2 CD players hooked up to my stereo via a mixer.
There's a lot more things you can do with a TT than CDP, especially when your
on a low budget.  The type of music I listen to is still being released on
vinyl and I think the quality is good enough. So I'm sticking with it.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
|Paul Mowatt               plm@reggae.cam.bellcore.com  "Materialism is wrong,|
|Bellcore, RRC 5H-127      plm@czar.bellcore.com         only when it's not   |
|444 Hoes Lane             (W) (908) 699-6947            evenly distributed." |
|Piscataway, NJ 08855-1342 (H) (908) 220-0570                                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: lnz@lucid.com (Leonard N. Zubkoff)
Subject: Re: Good multi-purpose stereo mic
Organization: Lucid, Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 04:53:34 GMT

In article <BtwHoE.2EM@news.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:

   >Is there a good, multi purpose stereo mic under $1000? A pair of
   >mics (each under $500) might also do.

   Personally, I'd recommend the Josephson Labs mikes in that price range,
   though there are a lot of good mikes out there.

I'll second the recommendation for a pair of Josephson Engineering microphones.
I have a pair of the hypercardiods and am very happy with the sound.
Unfortunately, I don't think you'll find a pair for under $1000.  Each cardiod
or hypercardiod seels for $380 (capsule) + $460 (amplifier body) = $840 total
per microphone.

		Leonard
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: muller@world.std.com (James L Muller)
Subject: Re: QSound?
Keywords: QSound
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:43:57 GMT

In <1992Sep3.010606.11828@news.weeg.uiowa.edu> smills@news.weeg.uiowa.edu
   (MuffinHead) writes:
>   Why wouldn't there be a phase difference with a stereo mic? The sound
>reaches each element at a different time - there ya go.

[Let's hope this discussion doesn't degenerate into a question of
terminology.]  I could be wrong but as I use the words, a stereo
mic is two mic directional elements in the same mount, giving them
essentially the same location.  The time difference between a sound's
arrival between them would be negligible.  The proper way to think
about this is to look at their separation distance compared to the
wavelengths.  Sound's wavelengths range from 50-some feet to a few
inches.  Get much closer than that and you won't have phase effects
worth bothering with except for the very top end, and even they might
be insignificant if the mics are close enough together.

>   What exactly is binaural recording and are there any commercially
>available examples?

Consider it as a dummy-head recording.  You record with both the spacing
and the directionality of your two ears.  You can also get the effect on
frequency response of your head's shadow and your ear shape, since these
are also subtle clues to direction.  Only problem with this is that it
more or less requires headphones to sound good.
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Keywords: QSound

In <1992Sep3.010606.11828@news.weeg.uiowa.edu> smills@news.weeg.uiowa.edu
   (MuffinHead) writes:
>   Why wouldn't there be a phase difference with a stereo mic? The sound
>reaches each element at a different time - there ya go.

[Let's hope this discussion doesn't degenerate into a question of
terminology.]  I could be wrong but as I use the words, a stereo
mic is two mic directional elements in the same mount, giving them
essentially the same location.  The time difference between a sound's
arrival between them would be negligible.  The proper way to think
about this is to look at their separation distance compared to the
wavelengths.  Sound's wavelengths range from 50-some feet to a few
inches.  Get much closer than that and you won't have phase effects
worth bothering with except for the very top end, and even they might
be insignificant if the mics are close enough together.

>   What exactly is binaural recording and are there any commercially
>available examples?

Consider it as a dummy-head recording.  You record with both the spacing
and the directionality of your two ears.  You can also get the effect on
frequency response of your head's shadow and your ear shape, since these
are also subtle clues to direction.  Only problem with this is that it
more or less requires headphones to sound good.
-- 
Jim Muller  muller@world.std.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro



It seems that Kurt only likes to see "expert opinion" postings when they
agree with his biases.

However:

THIS is rec.audio.pro, NOT wreck.audio, and I for one have been most
impressed with the high SNR here.  If you wanna flame Van Gelder, or anyone
who posts quotes from him, take it to that latter cesspool of audio "wisdom."



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.pro
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: QSound?
Keywords: QSound
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:23:47 GMT

> = kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>Your brain locates the position of sounds in space both by the difference in
>volume between the two ears and the phase difference between the two.  A sound
>to the left will not only be louder in the left ear, but it will reach the
>left ear first.
>
>This is why ORTF and NOS pairs seem to preserve imaging information better
>than a simple coincident pair.  

OK, suppose you record an unamplified band direct to 2-track via a
stereo mike.  Now correct me if I'm wrong:
(1) if you listen to the tape with stereo headphones
    then the phase & stereo image will be correct
(2) you listen to the tape through a stereo system with loud speakers
    then the phase & stereo image will be incorrect almost everywhere
    in the room, except perhaps when you're exactly equal distance 
    from both speakers.  In fact, no matter what you do, there will be
    a phase problem almost everywhere in the room.

-Brian
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeonly clueless old white boy)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Rudy Van Gelder: Digital vs Analog
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:43:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23555
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeonly clueless old white boy)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1992Aug26.005720.5908@lugb.latrobe.edu.au> MATGBB@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU (BYRNES,Graham) writes:
>  This **non-linearity**
Um, well, I wasn't referring to the truncation problem, but rather
the convergence problem.  Seems like I was unconcious when I wrote the
article.  I suppose we could argue about its linearity... Actually
that's more philosophy than math, come to think of it.

>> comes about from signals thave have non
>> zero energy at infinity,
IN FREQUENCY.   Oh sigh... Sorry.

> or have discontinuous first derivitives (those
Um, INIFINITE first derivitive.  Discontinuous in TIME. Sigh.
Earth to JJ.  Yawn.

>> The ringing one sees from a filter is not, strictly speaking, the
>> Gibbs Phenomina.   Look to the reproduction and convergence capabilities
>> of a fourier series.  >I'll second that.

P.S.  Fair use permits quoting a copyright article and using
parts of it in relevant debate.
-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
 Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
From: r0r4661@rigel.tamu.edu (RUDD, RONNIE, JR.)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: QSound?
Keywords: QSound
Date: 2 Sep 1992 00:05:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

What exactly is the QSound system and how does it work?  Are there any
opinions on the system?

Ron Rudd
r0r4661@rigel.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: Dave J <djensen@claven.idbsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Help me with CD skipping!
Organization: Morrison Center for the Performing Arts
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:10:07 GMT

In article <secJhca00iUy43=zUQ@andrew.cmu.edu> Shiv Swarup Pathak
<sp3u+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>
>Six months ago, I bought a Pioneer PD-7700 CD player.  It's design
>incorporate what Pioneer calls "the stable platter mechanism."  In
>otherwords, you put the CD upside down and the lens is mounted above it.
> Back when I got it, it was very difficult to get it to skip during play
>(I could shake it around over my head with no problems.)  But as time
>went on, It became easier to skip.  Now, if I tap it on the side, it
>skips.  Does Anyone know what is wrong?  Do I need to clean the lens? 
>Thanks in advance.
>
>-Shiv

Perhaps "shaking it around over your head" had something to do with
precipitating the gradual deterioration of stability. This would be known as a
"SWAG" in the audio.pro ranks (Scientific Wild Ass Guess)... as oppossed to the
simple "WAG" (Wild Ass Guess) commonly used by the uninitiated.

You should probably post your request for help in rec.audio.hifi, as one of the
gurus there will undoubtedly know the latest preferred method of striking or
shaking a CD player while operational. Most audio pros use a technique known as
"Hammer Modulation," but ONLY when the unit is non-operational.

In the meantime, maybe this will help...
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
Doctor: "So don't do that!"

Dave "they don't make 'em like they used to" Jensen