HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paisley@mars.SLCS.SLB.COM (Gary Paisley)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: EV-177x
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:04:50 GMT
Organization: Schlumberger Austin Systems Center


I recently bought a used Electro Voice EV-177x (last character illegible)
cardiac condensor microphone. It can use an internal battery for power
(the internal label indicates a NED 523 4.5 volt battery), which appears
to be transformer coupled via center tap to the +/-/gnd on the XLR inputs.
I am using a 22.5 v NED 505 with no problems but would rather use 48 v phantom.
Does any one have specifications on this mike, in particular allowable phantom
supply voltage, freq. resp. , etc ?

thanks,
Gary Paisley
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: cms2839@ultb.isc.rit.edu (a.stranger)
Subject: Cost of digital multitracks
Originator: cms2839@ultb
Organization: Minimalist Music for Hyperactive Children (MMHC)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 01:11:30 GMT

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 ? "

-- 
       @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
       @       "Imagination keeps the shadows away  -  Xymox       @
       @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@
       @ a.stranger - CMS2839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu - PGP key on req. @
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: cms2839@ultb.isc.rit.edu (a.stranger)
Subject: Re: Mackie 1202 mixer - where's the catch? <- correction of my
Originator: cms2839@ultb
Keywords: mixer, Mackie
Organization: Minimalist Music for Hyperactive Children (MMHC)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:00:46 GMT

				previously , i had stated that the
Mackie 1202 has no channel inserts . i double - checked the AdLit and
this is not entirely correct . it appears ( though no one , including
Mackie and a review is really explicit about this ) that channels 1 - 4
have inserts , while 5 - 12 do not . they , alone , are located on the
back panel of the unit , so you can't see them in the photographs . 

-- 
       @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
       @       "Imagination keeps the shadows away  -  Xymox       @
       @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@
       @ a.stranger - CMS2839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu - PGP key on req. @
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: ted@dgbt.doc.ca (Ted Grusec)
Subject: Re: QSound?
Keywords: QSound
Organization: The Communications Research Centre
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 00:59:33 GMT

In article <Bu09s8.Ltw@news.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.010606.11828@news.weeg.uiowa.edu> smills@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (MuffinHead) writes:
>>kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>



>>
>>   What exactly is binaural recording and are there any commercially available
>>examples?
>
There were recordings made in Germany: Audio Electronics GmbH + Co.
KG; POB 1401 . D-400 Dusseldorf 1  was the Sales office address.  The
record label is AUDIOSTAX and I don't know of North American dealers.

I might mention a common problem with these recordings, which were
made with a Nemann Dummy-Head KU 81i, is that things which are
supposed to be at the front may appear to you to be at the back. This
is true on those recordings and in recordings I made for use in
research using the same dummy-head.  In my research, a given person
would sometimes localize separate instances of the identical sound as
at the front (where it was, objectively) and sometimes at the back.  I
find it very disturbing to find myself in the audience with my back to
the performers.
-- 
==========================================================================
Ted Grusec    Communications Research Centre    (Govt. of Canada, DOC)
 3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ont.K2H 8S2, CANADA  Internet: ted@dgbt.doc.ca
  Compuserve: 73607,1576  (613) 998 2762   Fax (613) 993 8657
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Good multi-purpose stereo mic
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:08:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.045334.13946@lucid.com> lnz@lucid.com (Leonard N. Zubkoff) writes:
>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.

They have a low-cost line for about $550 per mike.  Definitely cheaper than
anything else of similar quality.  The off-axis response is as good as the
B&K mikes, I swear.
--scott
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 13:06:23 GMT

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?

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.  

With pop/rock multimiked recording, normally every instrument is recorded
seperately and panpotted into position; the pan control just varies the volume
between the two channels like a balance control.  Thus the only positional
cues are volume ones, not phase.

The Qsound system basically has a pair of digital delay lines for each
channel with permits the engineer to adjust the phase as well.  Unfortunately
the system is extremely crude.  There is no attempt at matching phase and
volume cues either; it's left up to the fellow doing the mix.

Overall it's crude, but it can improve imaging somewhat if used properly.
Unfortunately it's mostly been used in a very heavy-handed manner.  Not
only does this cause annoying effects, but it causes major problems if
the recordings are played back in mono.

If a signal is recorded with a phase difference between two channels, when
the channels are summed, there will be a comb filter effect.  If you play
an ORTF recording back in mono, you'll notice it, and it may be rather annoying.
Qsound recordings generally have much greater phase differences between
channels than is realistic, and so the problem is made much worse.

The radio folks are very concerned about mono compatibility, and a lot of
stations have flat out refused to play Qsound recordings because of the
problem.  This has pretty much killed Qsound, since the radio is such a
major force in pop music.
--scott
From: vermilye@Oswego.EDU (Jon R. Vermilye)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: EV-177x
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:13:54 GMT
Reply-To: vermilye@oswego.Oswego.EDU (Jon R. Vermilye)
Organization: Instructional Computing Center, SUNY at Oswego, Oswego, NY

In article <1992Aug26.210450.18896@asc.slb.com> paisley@mars.SLCS.SLB.COM (Gary Paisley) writes:
>
>I recently bought a used Electro Voice EV-177x (last character illegible)
>cardiac condensor microphone. It can use an internal battery for power
I believe that it is a EV 1776.  I have a data sheet if you need a copy.

>(the internal label indicates a NED 523 4.5 volt battery), which appears
>to be transformer coupled via center tap to the +/-/gnd on the XLR inputs.
>I am using a 22.5 v NED 505 with no problems but would rather use 48 v phantom.
>Does any one have specifications on this mike, in particular allowable phantom
>supply voltage, freq. resp. , etc ?
>
The only way I know to phantom power the mike is to send it back to
Electrovoice.  For a small amount, they will change it over to phantom
power. The mike is a electret so you only use the power to drive the preamp.
I notice from the schematic that output transistor is a 2N5087 which is listed
as a 50 volt device so you might be careful going to a higher voltage battery.
It is possible that EV changes the preamp when they change over the mike.
>thanks,
>Gary Paisley


Jon R. Vermilye                          		         315 341 2138
Department of Theatre, Tyler Hall                  vermilye@oswego.oswego.edu
SUNY Oswego                                         ..rutgers!oswego!vermilye
Oswego, NY 13126                                     vermilye@snyoswva.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Cheap DAT Portables??
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:13:10 GMT

In article <Btnvwu.147@news.cso.uiuc.edu> bsanders@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Barry Sanders) writes:
>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.

The cheapest portable DAT machine right now is the Sony DATWalkman, which
sells as low as $499 in places.  The cheapest one that sounds good is the
Tascam DA P-20, which is available from Allied Broadcast Supply ($745) if you
don't mind waiting six months.  I got mine and I am pretty happy with it,
and will give a full report once I have done a couple of sessions with
it.

The new Denon machine at $900 might be worth looking into as well.  It's
got bitstream converters but I am told it doesn't howl badly.  The price
ought to be dropping soon once they start getting them out.  The bad news
is that it doesn't have balanced inputs and uses mini plugs for mike inputs;
those won't last five minutes in my road kit.
--scott

(Gee, anybody want to sell their old, grungy, worthless Nagra, now that
 these fancy new DAT machines are available?  Well, it was worth asking.)
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:43:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Rudy Van Gelder: Digital vs Analog
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro

In rec.audio.pro, myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:



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

I remember all too well what happened to me for doing the same.  Excuse
me while I wretch at your comment.  Every post I made was responded by
some thing who had to make life miserable.  You can't complain about
the guy you trained to act like this.

>  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."

And you could have been less hypocritical by placing your post there.  If
you wish to continue demeaning me here I feel somewhat obliged to add to your
noise here.  By the way, what signal?
From: alex@fiskville.mc.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Cost of digital multitracks
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:32:11 GMT



Regarding the ADAT... I read yesterday that Alesis has ceased preoduction  
on this device and has advised their resellers not to sell any more of  
them. Something about a problem with the transport mechanism.  I believe I  
read this in Electronic Musician but I could be mistaken.

The one ADAT I have seen in the flesh (as it were) made a nasty squeaking  
sound at times... definitely a problem.

Caveat emptor.
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: muller@world.std.com (James L Muller)
Subject: riding the faders
Summary: Why?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:43:33 GMT

I just came back from performing at a bluegrass festival (things
went just fine, thank you) where there was a problem or two with
the sound re-inforcement system.  The guy working the board for
the audience's mix kept riding the faders up and down, which
frustrated the performers (and finally the organizers too).  The
trouble with this is that bluegrass is rather full of in-and-out
backup fills and dramatic instrumental entrances that the guy
on the mixing console just can't anticipate.  Unlike music with
electric instruments, the players have very good control over
their volume by moving in and out to/from the mics, so the guy's
job should be limited to subtle balancing of the instruments
and voices as the performers' energy changes (unintentionally)
during the set.  The question is, why do sound guys ride the
faders like this, even when asked by both the performers and
organizers to stop?  I recently proposed in a bluegrass-oriented
mailing list that perhaps they are trained to do so for rock
shows because it is safer to pull down unused mics and because
electric players don't have as much subtle control over volume
since they can tweak their on-guitar knobs but the mic-to-amp
distances are fixed.  Some folks disagreed with me, and pointed
out that it is far too common a problem for that.  (The guy at
this festival had been hired from Peavey.)  Indeed it is a
far-too-common frustration at bluegrass shows that the sound
guy doesn't seem to understand that the performers want the
mics to be on all the time so they can move in and out at will.
I have done wuite a bit of s.r. so I know the story from my end,
but I don't really know it from rock's end.  Some people tell
me that the best rock shows are also the ones where the sound
guy doesn't tweak the faders.  So the question is, why do they
do it?  Some people tell me it's just a power trip.  Or maybe
they just get bored and need something to do...
Jim Muller
From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: riding the faders
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:05:33 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

There has been a lot of good discussion on this topic and I will throw
out some of my own experience and an additional kernel to chew on!

Geroge Grove is one of the fine musicians that make up the Kingston
Trio.  I have done several shows with these guys.  George *always*
gives me the same instructions:

"Set up the house mix on the first song and then leave it alone...."

I do tend to do that, for the most part.  They do really do know what
they want to sound like (George has done record engineering and
producing).  

The things that I will change, even with the specific instructions is:

1.  Reverb level and length (to reflect the type and tempo of the current
song).

2. I will adjust the level of the guitar on a ballad (usually up a
nudge).

3. I will increase the level of the microphone that the front person
is using while talking between songs.

4. Adjust/mute for all/some of the valid reasons already
described....

But, for the most part, the balance of the mix stays just where it
landed George :-)

***********

I am always mystified by the sound technician/engineer who will sit
there and talk, at length, with their buddies, firends and casual
acquaintances while they are supposed to mbe mixing a show.  

The performers are playing their hearts out and this guy is *not*
paying attention!

This is bad for a lot of reasons.  If you are mixing monitors from the
house you need to be aware of those requirements. 

Also if the Banjo picker wacks the gut mic outta the holder you _may_ be
able to hit the channel mute switch before the mic hits the stage!

One of my pet peeves........

Oh ya and the people who stand beside/behind the mix position and talk
while I'm paying attention!  AHHHHHHHHHH! Take it away from me!

Another per peeve!......
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: sklower@diva.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Sklower)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Cost of digital multitracks
Keywords: Alesis Digital Recorder
Date: 26 Aug 92 09:19:37 GMT
Organization: /etc/organizaton

In article <1992Aug25.015832.2158@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:
}... I will reserve judgement on the Alesis until I hear it.   The
}critical analog sections of any digital unit play a big [part] in how good any
}unit (digital or analog) sounds.

Amen to that.

}I can't see any way you can get really great quality with an average of
}$500/channel for electronics....
}There is only so much you can cut corners in and still have
}quality. 

Well, VLSI wasn't as practical or widely deployed when Bill left the pro
audio field 8 years ago (by his own statement), and it has cut costs
enormously in other areas of electronics.  We saw orders for the
BurrBrown op amps at $2.50 for a dual piece, and the PCM 63 D/A for under
$25..... It doesn't look like it would be completely out of the question
to me ..... But then I'm only a software weanie ;-)
From: g_house@goes11.enet.dec.com (Greg House)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Mackie 1202 mixer - where's the catch? <- correction of my
Keywords: mixer, Mackie
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:38:40 GMT
Reply-To: g_house@goes11.enet.dec.com (Greg House)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


Seemed pretty clear to me from the ad's that they put in virtually 
every magazine dealing with recording that there are inserts on 
channels 1-4 (the ones with the mike preamps).  Guess they figured 
you wouldn't need inserts on inputs that took line level signals already.

Greg
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: muller@world.std.com (James L Muller)
Subject: Re: riding the faders
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:49:05 GMT

In <1992Aug27.171159.16534@guinness.idbsu.edu> Dave J
   <djensen@claven.idbsu.edu> writes:
>There is one instance I can think of that would require a mixer to ride the
>mics...wind noise.

Reminds me of a show we did in Owensboro, Ky. two years ago, one of the
Outreach shows at IBMA.  In this case, it was a public Noon concert on
the lawn at the Owensboro town hall.  The stage was one of those reverberant
trailer-stages, and the day had a hard, cold autumn-ish wind.  The guy who
set up the concert help do sound check but couldn't stay for the show, so
they had a guy from the Owensboro city maintanence department run the
board.  When we were done with soundcheck, he promptly pulled all the
faders down to zero, apparently because the original guy had told him
that was one way to remove the wind noise.  Needless to say, the mix
for the show was done on-the-fly by this guy who didn't really know
what he was doing!

Chris Christianson presented a bunch of other good reasons for acutally
tweaking the faders during a show.  I agree with some of them.  Some
could be considered made necessary by poor mic technique, such as
not talking into a mic in a way that can be heard even though it is
hot enough for music.  Other situations I have seen are where the musicians
re-arrange themselves and swap mics, and where they unintentionally change
the energy level of their performing during the course of a set.  That's
why you have a person sitting at the board, in case something should get
out of whack.
Jim Muller
From: laucht@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (Matthias Laucht)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Good multi-purpose stereo mic
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:33:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

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

It/they would be needed for minimalist recording of classical vocalists,
pianist(s), ensembles, choirs and orchestras in stereo.

Ideally I might like to try the AKG C 426 B comb mic but its way out of my
league (and price range). It would permit either XY or MS pickup.

A liklier possibility (on paper) is the Shure VP88 (MS with forward-facing
cardioid cartridge). What is its list/selling price? Is it a good
general purpose mic? I have been told that because my dat (Panasonic SV3700)
and a small mixer I'm considering (Mackie 1202) are both relatively crisp
I would need a slightly warmer mic? How could one characterize the VP88?
(I've sent for literature but it hasn't arrived.)

Are there any other mics to consider? (Silly question - of course there are.)
I am not wedded to the notion of a single MS (and preferably XY) mic but it
would be convenient. I would however consider getting a pair - that would
provide more flexibility.

-- 
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
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Rudy Van Gelder: Digital vs Analog
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:17:24 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL

In article <714723353snx@black.demon.co.uk> tchannon@black.demon.co.uk (Tim Channon) writes:

>>You are talking about cassette machines.  Analog machines used to
>>master are much better than that.  I measured a Studer A-800 at +6
>>operating level (320 nWb/m) to have a -3db down point at 33kHz.   It
>>was virtually flat to well past 30kHz.

>I was thinking of Studer running fast as a good example.

Well it sounded as though you were talking cassettes, as they are all
usually measured at -20dbm.

>>Many pro studios did, and most SPARS studios did it as a matter of
>>routine.  While most specs calibrate the peak meters at +6 over the vu
>>reading using a sine wave for calibration, SPARS settled on +8.

>Peak or PPM?

Hm - I don't recall exactly as it's been about 8 years since I got out
of the business.   We had 200 unit gas plasma displays for meters.  We
would calibrate the vu side with a 1000Hz tone, then switch to peak
metering and set the meters to be 8db lower.

>
>>One of our machines had 26db HEADROOM over the standard operating
>>level.   So at +6 we still had 20DB left in the record electronics.  We
>>found that the more inexpensive the machines the less headroom.

>This talk of headroom seems to revolve around the electronics which as you 
>well know is unusable unless you want to use the tape machine as a compressor. 

If you refer to the roginal article you will note that I mentioned
meausring response to 33KHz - 3db down point, at plus 6.

Given the EQ curve, we had no problem getting about 10db above the +6
levels in the 1000Hz range.  So we could actually get about +16 on tape
before compression set in.

Some of the cheaper machines had electronics that would NOT handle this
so the limits were imposed by the recorder and not the media.  Studer
was the other way around - it was primarily media limited.   I'd sure
like to get back to that machine and try the new Scotch tape at plus 9.

That machine would handle it.  Others wouldn't.  The Stevens we had
would also be media limited.



-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill.vermillion@oau.org
                - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill