HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjn@FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland)
Subject: Re: circuit boards for lead vocal suppression
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:30:24 GMT
Reply-To: rjn@FC.HP.COM
Organization: Hewlett-Packard/WSY Ft.Collins,CO,USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Geoffrey L Yuen (yuen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:

> Saw this ad in Radio Electronics May 1992 issue about lead vocal removal
> circuit plans and boards which can work on any source (tape, phono, radio,
> CD, etc).  However, when I called them, the line was disconnected & phone
> is unlisted.  Does anyone out there have these types of circuits or know
> of kits.  pc boards available ?

To the extent that these remove lead vocal by assuming that "lead vocal" is
anything in-phase and balanced between channels, you can probably use any
Dolby Pro-Logic decoder to do the same job.  Just configure it as if you
have a separate "center/dialog channel" amp and speaker, but don't connect
one (or turn it off during karaokizing).

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland      Internet: rjn@FC.HP.COM               3404 East Harmony Road
                CompuServe:  71044,2124               Ft Collins CO 80525-9599
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: rsilvers@nynexst.com (Robert Silvers)
Subject: Re: WHY NOT USE A BIGGER DISK FOR SONY MD?
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 18:19:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.162322.7061@bmerh85.bnr.ca> shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally) writes:
>Gee if Sony used a bigger disk for MD, eg. the size of a CD then
>they would no longer have to use ATRAC for data compression but
>could record full bandwidth on the disk. It would have also meant
>they wouldn't have a proprietary format. The last thing Sony wants
>is to be compatible.
>
>At least with DCC, Phillips wanted compatibility with standard 
>cassettes and so had to use data compression to acomplish it.
>
>MD will go into the 'Sony Hall of Shame' along with Elcassette, Beta,
>etc..

	Gee, if MD was the size of a CD, it would not work very well
in walkmans, boom-boxes, or cars (or computers).  I feel bad about the
compression because I was hoping to have one format do it all.  This is
not happening -- and I will have to continue to use CDs for home.  I will
want a MD walkman and car unit though, and having MD be a consumer format
is great because the discs will be cheap making them practical for new 
computers.  To bad we are back to making duplicates for car use.  Most
people could just buy MD for everything though, as you need about a $2000.00
stereo to tell the difference.  (I heard that most people have lower quality
stereos).

	Anyways, who cares that DCC is backwards compatible?  Keep
your old tape deck, it will sound better than a DCC playing analog
tapes.  Tell Phillips that "It is just not worth it."  (Having
a new, non-random access format that wears out).  Reminds me of JVCs
argument for VHS-C over 8mm.  "Can its tapes play in your VCR?"  Who
cares, they can play out of the camcorder -- and I get better quality --
and I get more then 20 minutes of record time.

						--Rob.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Define "Headroom"
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:48:34 GMT

In article <5775@gold.gvg.tek.com> chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.134904.350@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> 
>chris@lightnin.Columbia.NCR.COM writes:
>
>>  Can someone enlighten me as to what is meant by "Headroom"?  Technical
>>descriptions as well as figurative descriptions would be helpful.

>Keep in mind that with crest factors of 12-20 dB audio can eat up
>power and you won't know it until you are out of power!

>There has been a lot of discussion on "do I really need a 200 watt amp"
>I have seen responses like " a (""better sounding") 100 watt amp can
>sound better than a 200 watt amp.

>All of this is true but for different reasons.  My basic observation
>is that lotsa a power is good.  Caculate it for yourself!  How much
>power does it take to reproduce the 12-20 dB crest factor of an audio
>signal using a speaker who's midband output is 90 dB, 1 watt, 1 meter?
>What is the power rating requirement for the speaker that is to
>produce this sound?  For this problem only, ignore the thermal
>compression of the speaker!

When you do the math properly, it sometimes comes out to be
cheaper to buy more efficient speakers than buy the amount of
power you need.   

>Gee I sure got off the topic!

No more than I normally do :-)


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill@bilver.uucp
                - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From: "herb chong" <herb.chong@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: questions on new
Date: 27 Dec 92 13:42:49 EST
Reply-To: "herb chong" <herb.chong@channel1.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

>> Yes, BUT, the major use of cassette tape is NOT music, but
>> dictating machines, telephone answering machines,
> etc.  Pedestrian uses, not music.  DCC may fail for music,
>> yet be a raging success in this much larger domain.

substantiate this. i'll bet there are many more Walkman-like and boom-box 
devices indivudually out there than the sum of the above and any other 
non-music application.

Herb....

---
  WinQwk 2.0 1 #314  If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: gre253@mis.csiro.au (Steven Green (+61 6 276 6813))
Subject: Re: rotel 955
Organization: CSIRO ITS
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 08:07:23 GMT

In article <24501@alice.att.com> andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume) writes:
>
>	given my 7yr sony discman just died, i went out and
>bought a rotel 955. initial sound was just ghastly. anyone
>care to comment about how long it took to ``burn in'' or
>for the sound to stabilise?
>
>		andrew hume

I heard there was an "operation" you could perform on the Rotel 955's.
Apparently there is a resistor between "somewhere" and ground, that, if
cut, yeilds much better sound, similar to the 855.

Could someone who know about this please help this guy out?
-- 
* Steve Green     *  "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outa my hat!"    *
* Comms Group     *  "That trick never works"                            *
* ITS Branch      *  "Nothin' up my sleeve - PRESTO"                     *
* CSIRO Australia *  "No doubt about it - I gotta get another hat"       *
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: mcobb@scott.skidmore.edu (mary cobb)
Subject: Re: Watts/channel question (Was: Sony ES vs. Sony A/V receivers)
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 14:31:23 GMT

Speaking of 1978, is it true that just about anything made in the 70's that
had to do with Audio was incredibly high-quality?  My dad has a Marantz
reciever, ~40watt/chan., hooked up to some Bose speakers with some really
funky plaid speaker covers.  They sound phenomenal (don't go very loud, but
the quality is there).  
 
Eric
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: kevink@samsara.tv.tek.com (Kevin Karth)
Subject: Re: RECOMMANDATION FOR WALKMAN ABOUT $100
Organization: Tektronix TV Products
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 06:05:10 GMT

In article <1190783@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> donrm@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Don Montgomery) writes:
>In rec.audio, frankc@faatcrl (Frank Coffman) writes:
>
>>     Sony sports.
>
>Of all the Sony yellow-cased "sport" manually-tuned walkmans I've looked at
>in the stores, more than half of them have had one or both knobs broken 
>
>I really liked the digital tuned Sony sports walkman, it's built like the
>
>Anyway, I'm still without a portable.
>
>> Have you looked at the Panasonic RQ-V520?  It's built well, but not in-
>> destructably.  It has a digital tuner w/ 18 station preset/mems., remote
>> control of all functions from the headphone cord, yet a standard mini-
>> stereo jack.  LCD display, auto reverse, DOLBY, "XBS" Bass Expander system,
>> mono/stereo and local/DX switches for tuner functions, "hold" sw. to lock 
>> keyboard from innadvertent accuation, really trick looking 4ch tape head.
>>
>> The performance:  FM sensitivity, adjacent ch rejection and dynamic
>> range of tuner are first class!  Frequency response of tuner and tape
>> are more than adequate.  You oughta' hear this rig with my Sony MDR-7506's
>> (Pro version of MDR-V6) plugged in!  The signal to noise and flutter of the 
>> tape transport are listenable but not world class (what walkman is?).
>> 'Best bang for the buck I've found and it fits in your shirt pocket with 
>> room to spare and wil set you back less than $100.00!

>> Good luck!

>> kevink@tv.tv.tek.com
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: CD Sound (again?)
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:36:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24496
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1hm6geINNhpi@gap.caltech.edu> andrey@cco.caltech.edu (Andre T. Yew) writes:
>kong@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kong Kritayakirana) writes:

>>>book by Oppenheimer, somebody, and Young, called, I think,
>>>_Signals and Systems_.  It's a red book.

>>Oppenheimer and Schaefer (forgive my spelling) "Discrete Time Signal 
>>Processing"

>	At last, I've found the reference.  It's _Signals and Systems_
>by Oppenheim, Wilsky, and Young.  It's a pretty good book that's
>easy to follow, if you're prepared to do some amount of scratchwork

Either book will convey more than a basic impression.  Taub and Schilling
will also help, as will Rabiner and Gold, Jayant and Noll, Crochiere
and Rabiner, or undoubtedly many more.

Note to who writes the FAQ, perhaps we need a list of the 
"10 most often stated misunderstandings about Nyquist/Shannon"
in the FAQ.  We could include the "22.05 kHz" issue, the "modulation"
issue, the "short signals get ignored" issue, and a general discourse
on time-frequency duality, with which all of the mistaken ideas
go away.
-- 
Extremism *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   in the    *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
  defense of     *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 liberty is no vice.  *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
From: avp@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Anthony Paul)
Subject: NAD 705/7100 Reccomendations?
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:25:36 GMT

Any info on the following would be greatly appreciated:

I am looking at getting a new amp/receiver.
I was looking at the:
	NAD 705
	NAD 7100
This is for a home system, I was wondering what experiences people
have had with these two, any reccomendations, etc.

I would like to think I won't be buying another amp for at least
10 yrs.  Will one of these serve that purpose?  Will the 705
produce enough volume (I know this is sorta vague, but does anyone
have one and think its not loud enough)?

Thanks you very much,

-- 
Anthony V. Paul:137 Rennies Mill Rd.:St. John's, NF:Canada:A1B 2P2       
avp@garfield.UUCP      || It wasn't me.           || Electrical  '9|| '90 
avp@garfield.cs.mun.ca || Boston Celtics in 92-93 || Engineering  4|| GTI     
||      The best defense is a good offense. --- How do you Drive?      ||
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Optimization dilemma...
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:24:51 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Dec21.195210.28052@ll.mit.edu> rhoades@ll.mit.edu (Captain Chaos) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.201807.12202@en.ecn.purdue.edu> syd@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Dennis P Hilgenberg) writes:
>>Bruce Gan writes:
>>
>> ...  Both chrome and metal tapes utilize the same 
>>(70us) equalization, ...
>
>I've wondered about this for some time.  It was also my understanding that
>the Type II and Type IV selection were both at 70us.  So why then do my tape
>decks have a separate position for II and IV?  

There were two different parameters involved, 'bias' and 'equalization'.
Chrome and metal want the same 'eq', but not the same 'bias'.  The tape
type selector switches switch both.  Simple.

>What is/was Type III?  My father's old Pioneer deck has an additional tape
>type called, I think, Ferric Oxide, which appears as though it might be
>Type III.  What are Type I and Type IV made of (the term 'metal' has always
>struck me as odd since last I checked, chrome was a metal)?

Tape types:

Type I   -- Good old fashioned ferric oxide -- rust -- the grandaddy of
            them all

Type II  -- Chromium (di-?) oxide.  Popularly just called 'chrome'
            tapes.  better frequency response and dynamic range than
            Type I, but need higher bias and different equalisation, so
            (when they were invented) older, type-I only, decks
            couldn't record well on them.

Type III -- Ferri-chrome.  Mixture of ferric and chrome oxides, maybe
            some bi-metal oxide compounds.  These were supposed to give
            most of the sound advantages of Type II, but to work using
            Type I settings so that you could use them on older decks.
            They were a pretty good compromise, but as more and more 
            decks came out with a Type II setting, the market for them
            collapsed, and they have since vanished.  Virtually, at least.
            A shame, because I rather liked them -- they were almost as
            good as Type II, but priced closer to Type I.

Type IV  -- Metal.  Originally, really did use particles of metal, rather
            than metal oxides.  Need even higher bias than Type II.  Now
            as likely as not to be iron or chrome oxides doped with 
            exotic compounds -- rare earth oxides, whatever...

Magnetic technology has taken some wonderful leaps 'recently', and so
in many cases the old names are not strictly accurate -- i.e. the tape
may be coated with something totally different -- but they are
traditional, and are still useful in that they do tend to correlate to
the performance design specs of the coating compound.  If you're a 
stickler for accuracy, though, you should drop the informal names and
call them 'Type whatever' instead.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bgan@bmerh136.bnr.ca (Bruce Gan)
Subject: Optimization dilemma... (more info)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 02:38:36 GMT


Someone replied (David H. I think...) that the Eq switch only affects
playback.  This may be so on the majority of decks but my Nakamichi CR-3A
gives you the option of recording normal, chrome or metal tapes at either
70us OR 120us (I rushed home to check my manual :)  Recording a chrome or
metal tape at 120us will add noise but will improve the higher frequency
response.  Not sure what recording a normal tape at 70us will do...

Bruce
---
My opinion not my employer's...
From: jeh@cmkrnl.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Please suggest Audio magazines!
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:41:23 GMT
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego, CA

In article <58091@dime.cs.umass.edu>, CARVER@Polyester.CS.UMASS.EDU writes:
> As for the "mass market" audio magazines...Stereo Review is pretty much
> useful only if you want to see what the latest bells and whistles are on
> the new crop of receivers or CDs.  Typically, everything meets its specs
> and sounds "fine" to Julian (since everything basically sounds perfect).

As you say, nearly everything except speakers, anyway.  

> Audio is pretty similar.  It occasionally has technical articles that
> are of some value, but it is schizophrenic on the sound of components.
> While some of the reviewers make listening evaluations, the main
> reviewer, Len Feldman, rarely finds anything to criticize sound-wise.
> My favorite lack of consistency is that he nearly always says that a CD
> player sounds great just like every other CD player---i.e., all CD
> players sound the same.  However, every couple of years or so he will
> compare a recent CD player to an older player and find that---to his
> utter amazement---the newer sounds better---e.g., the new one doesn't
> sound as harsh on CDs whose poor sound he had blamed on the CD rather
> than the player.  Which is it?  Do all CD players sound the same or not,
> and if they don't then do they only sound different after several years
> of changes or can different players of the same vintage, but with
> different size power supplies, etc. sound different?  Can/does Len hear
> or care about subtle differences or only more gross differences??

Once I saw an offhand reference in _Stereophile_ to the "dishonesty" of
_Audio_'s approach and to Julian Hirsch's "honesty".  And I have to agree,
based only on what I've read from the two.  Len *knows* that he's heard
differences in electronics and CD players, has said so on occasion, but even
so, he usually sticks to the "everything sounds the same" line.  

Whereas Julian Hirsch really does seem to believe that everything (except
speakers) sounds the same.  

And, let's face it -- if you aren't going to sit down and *listen* -- if you're
going to use a stereo system for what is essentially background music (whether
you're at home alone, or throwing a party) -- most of the subtle differences
between components are probably not very meaningful to you. 

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
Internet:  jeh@cmkrnl.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh
From: tat@voodoo.boeing.com (Tim Tallar)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: BIC Venturi AV/Center Surround Speakers Opinions
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:01:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boeing Graphics project, Bellevue WA

What are the opinions of the netters on the BIC Venturi AV speaker that
Consumer Reports has rated so highly?  A local shop is selling them for
$45 a piece, and suggesting to use them as both the rear surround chanels,
and the center mode speaker.  Sorry I have forgotten the model #.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Watts/channel question (Was: Sony ES vs. Sony A/V receivers)
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 16:23:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.143123.14229@scott.skidmore.edu> mcobb@scott.skidmore.edu (mary cobb) writes:
>Speaking of 1978, is it true that just about anything made in the 70's that
>had to do with Audio was incredibly high-quality?  My dad has a Marantz
>reciever, ~40watt/chan., hooked up to some Bose speakers with some really
>funky plaid speaker covers.  They sound phenomenal (don't go very loud, but
>the quality is there).  

In a word, No.

A lot of 1970's audio equipment, by virtue of using transistorized technology
which had not been perfected then, sounded downright awful.  There certainly
were some fine pieces made then, but a blanket assertion that all hardware
made in that period was of high standards is downright wrong.

Bose speakers?  I can't imagine anything of quality coming out of a speaker
produced by Dr. Bose and his pseudoscience, but hey... one never knows.


--
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: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Suggestions for mid-price CD player
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:00:53 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Dec29.173313.2576@news.ysu.edu> joe@avs.com (Joe Peterson) writes:
>I currently have a low end (Pioneer) CD player.  I really am not happy with
>the sound (what can I expect for $150!).  I really want to upgrade to
>a great sounding player - one with clean sound that has enough brightness
>as well as accuracy.  I also want optical digital output.  Do any of you have
>suggestions for a nice higher-end (around $500) CD player?  I'm not looking
>for fancy features; I just want quality sound.  I know the FAQ says a lot
>of people like Rotel in this price range, but I heard a posting recently
>that was negative about Rotel.  So what should I look at?

Rotel is generally pretty good.  There is some argument about whether
what they did to make the 955 (from the 855) was an improvement or
not.  I suspect it wasn't, since I believe that there have been a few
changes to the 955 since the first production runs.  965 is fine.  (In
any case, listen to things for yourself before you decide to buy.)

Cheap Denon's are also pretty good.  Also, Marantz CD52 and up; well,
actually, they're a bit bright for my taste, but if you want a bit of
brightness they could be OK.  Lot's of folks like them.  And, the Aiwa
XC-700.  (Don't know how the prices of these translate into American,
but they might fall into your range.)

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce)
Subject: Re: woofer advice needed
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:25:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.214359.2293@netnews.whoi.edu> eklein@whsun1.whoi.edu (Edgar Kleindinst) writes:
>I have four OHM C2 speakers that are over 15 years old. 
>The foam material surrounding the woofer cone is disintegrating and falling 
>out in large pieces. I contacted OHM about replacements and was told 
>"the company that made those woofers went out of business and 
>we could not find any speakers that came close so we discontinued them". 
>I was told that (for a limited time only) I could trade in the old ones
>for $500 off the small Walsh driver "Sound Cylinder" speaker system.
>
>Sounds like BS to me. I would imagine that speaker technology has come
>a long way in 15 years and there must be something that will work.
>

I tried EMAIL too and it bounced...

I am intimately familiar with these drivers, designated as "OTA255F"
drivers. They were made by first Peerless then by Precision Loudspeakers
who inherited the Peerless woofer line when they went belly up in about
1984, then Precision went belly up in 1988 (I know, I was the director of
engineering there and suffered a pretty thorough financial drubbing as a
result :-(, although I did get to be the cgairman of the Creditors
Commitee as a result (big deal!))

Call me directly if you want, I can give you some guidance as to finding
replacements. 

No, the standard foam surround replacements will, in all likelyhood, not
work. These drivers (or later versions of them) used polyproylene cones,
and there are damn few adhesives that will work properly on PP, none of
them are usable by us mere mortals who don;t happen to have heated
surround presses at home. 

-- 
|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX)      |