HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: <MPA15C!ARTHUR@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com>
Subject: Re: Speakers for < $500
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:10:42 GMT
Comments: Automatic Return Receipt Requested

My two cents worth followed by a question:

The fact that extreme bass power is specifically not required leads me to
recommend products from the Fried Company out of Philadelphia.  Fried doesn't
advertise, which makes his wide-ranging line relatively underknown even to
seasoned audiophiles.  The consistency in sound across the product line is
impressive.  The strong point is the midrange, which in the higher-priced
speakers bests virtually anything I've ever heard at ANY price.  Reproduction
of piano and of voice is outstanding.  The products are quite forgiving of
placement, and are not difficult loads to drive.  The weakness is bass response,
which goes down reasonably far but is certainly on the "polite" side.  At the
price range in question, the Beta IV speakers run about $350 per pair, whereas
the Q/4 models are either $450 or $500 a pair.  They also appear on the used
market, i.e. Audiomart, with reasonable frequency (no pun).  I think anyone
interested in neutral reproduction should include this company amongst the
auditioning cantidates.  I speak as an entirely "classical" listener.

Martin Melhus mentioned the low-end Reel-to-Real products, and this prompts my
question regarding their top-end products.  After nine years of living with the
somewhat subdued bass of my big Fried G2-G2/A speakers, I'm ready for a little
more low-end power, if I can retain some semblance of the magnificent midrange
reproduction that's spoiled me for these years.  At the L.A. Stereophile show,
one could not fail to be awed by the massive Reel-to-Real Focus speakers, which
were IMHO one of the three best at the show (joining the Essence 10's and the
Watt/Puppy combo).  Even used, those would be a fairly nontrivial investment
for me.  The former top of the Legacy line, however, is the Signature II.
It's less than $3K, and appears once in a while on the used market at $1400 to
$1800.  I've never heard this model, and am soliciting feedback on its sonic
characteristics and strengths/weaknesses.  How does it compare to the big Focus?
Are there any dealers in the Southern California area, or does one book a flight
to Springfield, Ill. to audition these guys?  My initial impression of the Focus
is that it's something special, and hopefully the sonic qualities extend down
the product line.

  Arthur L. Shapiro        ARTHUR%MPA15C@TRENGA.TREDYDEV.UNISYS.COM
  Software Engineering
  Unisys Corporation       Speaking as a civilian, rather than for
  Mission Viejo, CA        Unisys, unless this box is checked: [ ]


Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: peterca@ento.csiro.au
Subject: Record cleaning solvents and the environment
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:19:15 GMT

I have been using the Nitty-Gritty "First" to clean records and recognised
the smell of the solvent as the same as the "Last" power cleaner.  Both are
sold for the removal of the mold release compound which can remain on
records after pressing.  The "Last" product makes additional claims for
further usefull cleaning.  Thinking that I recognised the smell and hoping
to find a cheap source of the same solvent I enlisted the help of some
friendly chemists.  By mass spectroscopy the "First" compound was
identified as 1,1,2-triclorotrifluoroethane.  A genuine sample af this
compound had the same smell, volatility, freezing point etc.  When I went
to a chemical catalogue the solvent was available in high purity grades at
less than the HiFi shop price but I also found that the alternative name
for the solvent is "Freon 113".  I am advised that this is one of the CFC
compounds on the phase-out list, is one of the worst of this class of
compounds for ozone destruction and is incidentally a very effective
greenhouse gas.  I understand that it is also commonly used for cleaning of
electrical parts and that non-CFC alternatives are now available.  Does
anyone know whether there are vinyl-safe alternatives?
I also use the other Nitty-Gritty cleaning fluid which appears to be a
distilled water/alcohol/detergent mix.  I have a recipe for such a mix
which was approved by the Australian Film and Sound Archive which I will
look up and post.  I stongly recomment a vacuum type cleaning machine.  I
have bought some very grotty second-hand records some of which were
unplayable untill cleaned and are now among my favourites.  Results are
very variable-some are never improved.  When most of the cleaning fluid has
evaporated in the bottom of the machine and I clean out the residue it is
brown, bitter tasting and smells of cigarette tar.    Health is not the
only reason for audiophiles to give up smoking!

----------------------------------------
Peter Campbell
C/O Div. Entomology, C.S.I.R.O.
Box 1700 Canberra A.C.T. 2601
Australia  (peterca@ento.csiro.au)
Ph.61-6-2464158 (w), 61-6-2516213 (h)
----------------------------------------


Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: case@infonode.ingr.com (Bill Case)
Subject: Re: Eminent Technology Model 8s
Summary: active/passive
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 13:53:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.173633.3698@novell.com>, bbaker@novell.com (Brad Baker) writes:
> 
> The point that I was trying to make was that had I listened to the 
> ET's through an active preamp with a "hotter" signal (higher voltage
> swing?), that they would have probably sounded quite different; 
> probably more dynamic with better bass.  You could equally say that
> had I used a more efficient power amp, or a CD player with a "hotter"
> signal, that the same could be true.  However, I believe that the
> VTL's work very well with passive units (does that mean low input 
> impedance?),

Last week,  I heard a system of Theta-Gen3, First Sound passive pre, 
Jadis Defy 7 (DeHong),  Watt3/Puppies, wired with Purist Colossus.  
Not bad :-)

The owner had heard,  and been impressed  with, the McCormack
DNA-1, and wanted to hear it on his system.    Although he raved about the
sound of the DNA-1, I really thought the sound became hard when compared
to the Defy.  We substituted the Jadis preamp,  which was going in on trade, 
and alot of the lush sound returned.  He decided to keep the original
system (First Sound,  etc).  Anyway, "tubes somewhere" really made the
Watts disappear,  and filled the room with sound.  Sorta like looking 
into a floating parachute of sound,  instead of fixed points of sound.
Yeah, the latter is suppose to be better, but the former pulled you in.
Beyond that,  the passive_pre->solid_state_amp sounded hard in a way that,  
back home, solid_state_pre -> solid_state_amp didn't. i.e.,  the DNA-1 
sounds tubey-smooth in alot of all-solid-state systems with active
pre-amps.

Somewhat related to this, I have clearly heard what some listeners refer to
as the superior micro-dynamics of tubes.  Small vocal accents or movements
around the microphone seem clearer.   Does anyone have an explanation
for this?

> and that the EAD has a high output voltage when compared
> to most CD players.

I really tried to like this DAC.  The company seems first class,  and the
bass and treble are fantastic.  Hitting metal sounds like hitting metal.
But alas,  on two separate systems I couldn't come to terms with what
really seemed like a recessed lower midrange.  Reminded me of old 
Janszen hybrid speakers,  which sounded so clear and right until you
heard another speaker with a full midrange.

All IMHO, and I'm a minority view on alot of this.  AbSound loves the
EAD.


...uunet!ingr!b11!casey!case    (UUCP)
ingr!b11!casey!case@uunet.uu.net (ARPANET)
case@ingr.com		        (Internet)

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: KLUDGE@AGCB1.LARC.NASA.GOV
Subject: Last and Record CLeaning Fluid
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:09:19 GMT

The Last material is not exclusively Freon 113, but that is the major
component.  I would much more recommend something like Alconox to clean
your records with, since the fluorocarbons can possibly leach out some of
the vinyl plasticizer.

I am not sure if the comments regarding removal of mold release compounds
are really correct.  The mold release is a silicone compound (usually a\
light silane-based cyclic volatile) which is mixed in with the vinyl.  It
isn't just placed on the vinyl surface.  Because it's fairly volatile, I
would not expect any residue on the surface to last terribly long or be
very difficult to remove.

Your mileage may differ.  Myself, I use alconox or De-contam for cleaning
very filthy records, and use Photo-flo (a very dilute solution of a wetting
agent in water) for more routine cleaning.
--scott
From: gt0213c@prism.gatech.edu (LENAKOS,JASON GEORGE)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: *Info Error*
Keywords: PSB speakers
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:20:39 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


Some time ago I responded to a post on PSB speakers.  At the end of my article
I mentioned that PSB speakers was owned by NAD.  This is an error, and I     
apologize for misleading anyone.  PSB is a completely independent company from
NAD.  However, both are marketed (for North America) by Lenbrook Industries in
Pickering, Ontario; Canada.                      
-- 
Jason Lenakos          		 |	"Nobody will fly for a thousand years!"	
Georgia Tech Aerospace		 |
gt0213c@prism.gatech.edu	 |	Wilbur Wright,1901, in a fit of despair
From: vvdag@alliant1.lerc.nasa.gov (Don Georgevich)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Should I buy Nakamichi?
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:36:17 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

I am contemplating the purchase of a Nakamichi preamp CA-5 and amplifier PA-5.
Both are used and in excellent condition with a very sweet price tag attached.
 
My only concern is that the preamp has no tone controls.  Will this be a problem for me?  Why did Nakamichi strip this preamp of its tone controls.  After all,
they sold it for almost $800 new.

Can someone out there offer me their advice on this equipment? 

thanks.

-don

vvdag@alliant1.lerc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: genillou@litsun.epfl.ch (Guy Genilloud)
Subject: Re: CD players, are they all the same ?
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Ecole polytechnique federale de Lausanne DI-LIT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:07:33 GMT
   with BSMTP id 8729; Thu, 20 Aug 92 13: 45:16 EDT
 BSMTP id 8919; Thu, 20 Aug 92 13: 43:34 EDT
 20 Aug 92 19: 45:39 SET
   Thu, 20 Aug 92 19: 45:38 SET
   with BSMTP id 7819; Thu, 20 Aug 92 19: 44:56 SET
 Thu, 20 Aug 92 19: 44:55 SET
          Thu, 20 Aug 92 19: 42:55 N


In article <9208191534.AA19488@sun60.src.bae.co.uk>, sheen@src.bae.co.uk, , 19 A
ug 92 16: 34:53 BST (Andy Sheen) writes:
   |>
   |>
   |> Can anyone tell me why CD transports can cost several thousand dollars
   |> (they can cost the equivalent of that over here :). It seems that it is
   |> possible to get a CD transport for a very few bucks which reads data
   |> correctly - the CD ROM drives springing up around here all read ROM
   |> disks correctly, without losing 1 bit (:-D) of information over several
   |> hundreds of MB. ...

   |> If you follow my reasoning to its logical conclusion, it should be
   |> possible to buy a cheap (few hundred dollar) CD transport and hook it
   |> to a decent D/A and get exactly the same sound as a very expensive CD
   |> transport through the same D/A assuming that the output circuitry were
   |> identical.
   |> Andy Sheen                                 Email: sheen@src.bae.co.uk
   |> FPC 267, British Aerospace PLC,            Tel:   +44-272-363547


This is a very interesting idea. It would usefull also for people who own DATs
and who do not have a digital output on their CD player.

The only problem that I see is the rate of reading bits - CD-ROM readers have
no hard real-time constraints to do this, while CD transports may have some,
depending on the communication protocol (or the lack of protocol) they have
with the D/A converters... I am afraid that the CD transport dictates the
frequency (and small variations around it) to the attached components (this is
no problem for a DAT, but it is one for a D/A...

In fact, I am just guessing this answer. Can somebody confirm my point?


Guy Genilloud
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DI - LIT                             (Laboratoire d'informatique technique)
EPFL                                 (Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne)
CH-1015 Lausanne-Ecublens
SWITZERLAND
internet: genilloud@litsun.epfl.ch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Need help for buying a $5000 system(rebuts)
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:03:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpsdlss3.16roqjINNmib
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

In article <1992Aug18.141611.29711@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, dg@mtqua.att.com (Duane Galensky) writes:
|> 
|> relationship of hearing to genetalia aside, what would be the 
|> purpose of taking along someone with better hearing to audition 
|> the equipment that you intend to buy, other than to convince
|> you to buy something more expensive than you personally can
|> appreciate?  is this really a practical method, or am i
|> asking a brazenly "mid-fi" question? 

   You may end up spending less in some cases. My wife joined a friend 
   and I on a trip to the CES awhile back, and at first she expressed
   some concerns about not knowing the equipment, how expensive it was,
   what was good and such, and I told her to not worry about the equipment. 
   I explained that the rooms were rarely ideal for listening but one 
   could still get a glimpse of what was possible, and that the only  
   thing that mattered was how natural a system sounded...does it sound 
   like a violin...a piano...someone standing there singing ? Very 
   quickly she caught on and enjoyed comparing systems and making 
   comments about what she liked or didn't like...she picked out a few
   systems that she really liked and I agreed with all of her choices.
   Needless to say we listened to some pretty expensive gear, and if
   nothing else it was clear that some of it wouldn't work in a small
   room.

   'Margin' is nice to have as you tend to detect problems after listening 
   to it for awhile. For a lot people it's also difficult to kick bad
   habits, so having someone along who isn't partial to a weakness like
   lots-o-bass can be helpful. If it's your other half that you're bringing
   along things like mutual respect, common courtesy, domestic tranquility
   and such also come to mind.

   John Ongtooguk (johno@sdd.hp.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: eacj@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Julian Vrieslander)
Subject: Re: Eminent Technology Model 8s
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 15:38:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.212605.3708@novell.com> bbaker@novell.com (Brad Baker) writes:
>In my case, the VTL amps were driven by the 
>EAD through a passive preamp.  I know the ET's are not very efficient, 
>which would account for their "absolutely dead" sound.  This is probably
>
> ...
>
>So to summarize, we could say that:
>
>ET's do not mate well with passive systems.
>Genesis's do not mate well with active systems. 

The two generalizations above indicate that Brad is a bit confused about
component matching issues.  There are two component interfaces that he
is concerned with: the preamp/power amp interface, and the power amp/speaker
interface.

Let's consider the preamp/power amp interface first.  Some passive
preamps do not match well with some power amps.  Usually, this is because
the power amp has an input impedence that is too low for the preamp, or
because the preamp cannot provide enough voltage swing to drive the
power amp to the desired output levels.  There can also be problems if
a passive preamp is used to drive long (or highly capacitive) interconnect
cables to the power amp.  I (or others on the net) can elaborate on these
issues, if more information is needed.

At the power amp/speaker interface, there is no "passive" vs. "active"
issue, since a power amp *must* be an active, power supplying device.  There
is no such thing as a passive power amp, since something must supply the
electrical power that the speaker converts into acoustical power.  There are
mismatches that can occur between speakers and power amps, but that's
another story.

A badly matched preamp/power amp combination may cause the signal
reaching the speaker to be distorted, limited in level, or altered in
frequency response.  Depending on the speakers that you use, and your
own perceptions, these effects may be (a) inaudible, (b) detrimental,
or (c) pleasant.  But it makes no sense to say that a passive preamp
(or active preamp) works better or worse with a given speaker, because
the preamp does not directly interface with the speaker.

>This is just another example of how tricky component matching can be and
>why in-home trials are so important. It also shows why you should only
>take equipment reviews as guidelines.  Trust only your own ears, because
>only you know what is "harsh" and what is not.
>
>
>Brad

Amen.

-- 
Julian Vrieslander 
Neurobiology & Behavior, Mudd Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853    
INTERNET: eacj@theory.tc.cornell.edu     BITNET: eacj@crnlthry
UUCP: ..cornell!batcomputer!eacj

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: phickey@NeXT.COM (Patrick Hickey)
Subject: Re: Good sounding VCR
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: patrick_hickey@NeXT.COM
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:07:35 GMT


In article <9208071535.AA10356@trc.trc.tellabs.COM>  
trc.tellabs.com!ken@uwm.UUCP writes:

> I just bought a Sony 595 Hi-fi stereo VCR for about $430 (I think it  
lists
> for about $500).  Not only is it a great VCR, with impressive a/v
> performance, it has produced the finest sounding recordings of CD's that
> I've heard.  

I have been using Beta Hi-Fi VCRs for audio recording since they were  
first released. Please note the distinction between Beta's helical scan  
Hi-FI and the miraculous VHS version, which may well be Nobel-level in its  
technical achievement due to the basically piss-poor design of VHS. I  
still marvel that VHS can provide Hi-FI.

(No flames. I have a couple of VHS units for rentals and time shifting and  
they are just fine, given their limitations).

Those of you really technical folks (and I defer to your knowledge) should  
listen to the audio portion of a Beta Hi-Fi deck before you generalize  
about AFM stereo. It is not subjected to the same forms of distortion as  
VHS and should not be classified in the same manner. It is arguably the  
most sophisticated ANALOG recording device ever manufactured.

"The world, as everyone knows, is analog." 

cheers
patrick
From: trc.tellabs.com!ken@uwm.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Snells, Thiels, Vandersteens
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:17:35 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
	(queueing-rmail) id 195928.11377; Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19: 59:28 EDT
	by trc.trc.tellabs.COM (4.1/smail2.5/09-08-89)
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

I own a pair of Snell J/III.  Very nice speakers.  All hand made as a pair
(even the wood grain matches) and tweaked to a reference before they leave
the factory.  That is why almost all Snells (of the same model) sound
exactly the same.  Natural sound, decent imaging (depending on what is
around them and what electronics feed them).

The only negative I hear is from store owners.  It seems that the people at
Snell are more interested in their speakers than P.R. with their stores.  I
have heard of more than one store dropping the line, despite having success
selling them for their sonic merits, simply because the store was sick and
tired of dealing with the Snell people.

I expect to have no problems with my speakers, and so this is not an issue
for me.  Nor should it be for you unless you expect to semi-regularly blow
tweeters or destroy grill covers.

The J's and E's are similar except the E's have a rear-firing tweeter
(supposedly to give it more air).  The C's are larger, and the brand new
B's, although Stereophile complains of too much bass, I've been told sound
super (for what that's worth).  The K's are smaller than the J's (cost
around $450), have a similar sonic signature to the J's.  I like them very
much for the money.

Unfortunately I've never heard the competition, so I can't make
comparisons.

---------------------------------------------------
Ken Laberteaux

ken@trc.tellabs.com
Tellabs Research Center
219-259-9818
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: bbaker@novell.com (Brad Baker)
Subject: Re: Eminent Technology Model 8s
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:20:12 GMT
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for rec-audio-high-end@uunet.uu.net); Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14: 26:07 -0700

In article <1992Aug12.203906.29705@newsgate.sps.mot.com> gossain@valhalla.sps.mot.com (Raj Gossain) writes:
>
>I must disagree with Brad's opinion, IMHO.  After a rather lengthy auditioning
>period of speakers <=$1500, I found the ET LFT-8s to have superb detail,
>good soundstaging and imaging, and I have had no problems with drivers
>"popping".  The bass integration has also not been a problem.  Everything seems
>smooth so far.  I purchased these speakers after listening to the Apogee
>Centaur Minors, Thiel 1.2, Spica Angelus, Vandersteen 2ce, and the 3-driver
>Genesis speakers among others.  I don't recall the Genesis model, but Brad,
>you really must be a detail freak, because the tweeter in these speakers made
>my ears bleed :-P.  I can only assume they weren't set up correctly because
>it looks like the source equipment was quite good.  I'm not writing this to
>justify my purchase of these speakers, only to present a very positive and
>musical experience I have had with them.
>

What was the rest of the system like?

Given that I have come to respect most peoples opinions on this news-
group, I'll take a guess and say that it probably had to do with
the rest of the system.  In my case, the VTL amps were driven by the 
EAD through a passive preamp.  I know the ET's are not very efficient, 
which would account for their "absolutely dead" sound.  This is probably
the reason for our disagreement in the sound of the Genesis's also.
Given that the Genesis's are efficient designs and extremely detailed,
I can see how they might seem bright or harsh when hooked up to an active
preamp and solid state amps.  In fact when I have recommended the 
Genesis to people, I always caution them that I don't know how they 
sound connected to solid state stuff, and that they might be overly
bright.  

I know in my system wich has tube amps and passive preamp, that the 
Genesis's are, yes, extremely detailed, but liquidy (is that a word) smooth,
without a bit of harshness. 

So to summarize, we could say that:

ET's do not mate well with passive systems.
Genesis's do not mate well with active systems. 

Anyone care to support or refute this generalization?


This is just another example of how tricky component matching can be and
why in-home trials are so important. It also shows why you should only
take equipment reviews as guidelines.  Trust only your own ears, because
only you know what is "harsh" and what is not.


Brad


Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end