HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce)
Subject: Re: Liquid Cooled Speakers?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 13:16:12 GMT

In article <palane.727767466@pv7426.vincent.iastate.edu> palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
>In <5070326@hplsla.hp.com> kens@hplsla.hp.com (Ken Snyder) writes:
>
>I have a modest problem with the terminology the manufacturer is using.
>Any system I used that is "liquid cooled" means that I'm forcing liquid
>around devices which produce heat (lasers, magnets, etc.) It appears that
>the manufacturer is using ferrofluid as a heatsink. I may be picking a
>nit, but dubious advertising annoys me.
>

Well, I think this is an utterly minor nit. However, there may be a real
reason behind it. The word "ferrofluid" is, to the best of my knowledge, a
registered trademark of Ferrofluidics, Inc.. They are not the only people
who make the stuff, but they own the name. It is likely that the drivers
that are advertised as liquid cooled may not use the genuine article, thus
cannot use the genuine name.

Further, to the kind of people that often buy speakers that are "liquid
cooled" (this is the name attached most often to the white van speakers
and $300 monster rack systems), the term ferrofluid may be utterly
meaningless. "Liquid cooled" certainly conjurs a comprehensible image that
"ferrofluid" does not.
-- 
|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX)      |
From: kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:10:28 GMT
Subject: Re: surround sound recording on VCR
Organization: Shredding the water of SF Bay, HP-OCD
Newsgroups: rec.audio

Greg A Buechler:
>I have a high-fi VCR that plays surround sound movies quite well, but I 
>seem to not be able to record a surround sound show off the TV and get
>the effects.
>
>Any suggestions?
>gb
----------
You probably have the TV connected to the VCR with the rf (Type F) 
connector.  When playing back recorded movies from cable or an antenna,
you need to connect the audio outputs from the back of the VCR to
either the audio inputs on your monitor or into an AUX input on your
preamp or receiver.  Most HiFi VCRs I've even hooked up for friends
(all I think) don't put stereo onto the rf output, but rely on the
user connecting the audio output to where ever you want it to go.

Kirk out
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: rsilvers@nynexst.com (Robert Silvers)
Subject: Re: MiniDiscs -- What Are They?
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:11:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.140434.1218@cmkrnl.com> jeh@cmkrnl.com writes:
>In article <30340@castle.ed.ac.uk>, sss@castle.ed.ac.uk (S S Sturrock) writes:
>> 
>> This is not a valid test unless the recordings are both played through the
>> same DAC, CD players sound different from each other, some better, some
>> worse, why should DCC be any different?
>
>This is silly.  You might as well say that "The Frobisher-Larosch x.y speaker
>sounds fine, if only you replace the tweeter and woofer"! 
>
>If I am evaluating a DCC deck I'm evaluating the whole deck, DACs and
>subsequent analog stages included. 

	I don't totally agree with you.  Technically, what you are saying is true,
but for now, people are deciding which system to go with.  Should they start buying
tons of DCC media or MD?  Well, in order to decide the ULTIMATE sound potential of
each relative to the other, you should listen to their compression algorithms through
the SAME DAC.

							--Rob.

From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:51:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Skin Effect in cables - what is it ?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.audio

> At audible freqs, skin effect does not come into play.
> Our simulation tools here at Sun, do not look at skin effect on
> signal transmission until we approach designs of well above 80 mghz.
> Audible freqs, run out at 20,000 hz.
> Measured skin effect differences at 100 mghz is less than .01 percent
> from the outside of the wire to its core.
> You tell me if that makes any difference. NOT !!!!!!

Assuming that by "100 mghz", you mean what most folks would write as
"100 MHz" (i.e., 100 x 10^6 Hz), I would (1) get a new simulation program
and (2) read up a bit more on the "skin effect."   (I may be wrong - I'm
assuming that you're talking about some sort of normal conductor like
copper.  If you've found a conductor that doesn't suffer from this phenomenon
up to 80 MHz, I think you're on to something...:-))

Skin effect is definitely noticeable WAY below 100 MHz; as someone mentioned
earlier, it's even "detectable" at audio frequencies, if you consider the
upper 10s of kHz range to be "audible."  The effect is negligible for any
realistic cabling even up to 100 kHz, though, and even if it weren't you could
more than adequately compensate for it by simply going the next larger wire
size.


Bob Myers  KC0EW   Hewlett-Packard Co.      |Opinions expressed here are not
                   Systems Technology Div.  |those of my employer or any other
myers@fc.hp.com    Fort Collins, Colorado   |sentient life-form on this planet.
From: kong@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kong Kritayakirana)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: for Dzung Pham
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:55:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

Dzung:

I got your DAC diagram. Thanks very much. I tried email to phantom@seas...
but it bounced. Mail me when you get this message. I have comments.

Kong

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry guys for using your badwidth for something personal
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Inline attenuator (RCA-->reduce volume-->RCA)
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:03:04 GMT

Can somebody point me to a source for an inline attenuator (preferably
by mail order)?  Some friends have a *very cheap* integrated system,
plus a standalone CD player, the problem is that the entire range
of listenable volume is between 0 and 1 on the control. 

(No, the CD player does not have an adjustable output, but thanks for
asking.)  What would be ideal is a cable, about three feet, with
two RCAs on one end, a little box with a trimpot in the middle, and
two RCAs on the other end.  Yes, I could make something, but I was
hpoing for something a *little* tidier.  Thanks!

-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
From: strong@tc.fluke.COM (Norm Strong)
Subject: Re: CD Sound under attack again. Was: Re: Preamp and Amp
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:14:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.014644.14794@midway.uchicago.edu> cal@gsbux1.uchicago.edu (Cal Lott) writes:
}kong@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kong Kritayakirana) writes:
}
}>In article <1993Jan19.172138.29081@bnr.ca> Dave Dal Farra <gpz750@bnr.ca> writes:
}>>CD may, one day, surpass vinyl as the high-end medium of choice.  
}>>But not yet.
}>
}>How did you arrive at this conclusion? Golden-earing doesn't count.
}
}	I would like to second Kong's question.
}
}	I don't know what he means by "golden-earing", but I can certainly
}respect someone's opinion if they think that vinyl sounds better. However, 
}stating that vinyl is "the high-end medium of choice" is a different matter
}entirely. I'd be curious as to what criteria you used to arrive at this
}conclusion, Dave.

Where I come from, high-end medium of choice means that those who
consider themselves high-end audiophiles, choose to listen to LP's more
than any other medium.  Quite frankly, I don't believe that is the case.

Of course, if you define 'high-ender' as someone who prefers LP's, then
your statement becomes a tautology and is meaningless.
LP's than to any other medium.  
-- 

Norm Strong  (strong@tc.fluke.com)
2528 31st S.   Seattle WA 98144   USA
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: Dave Dal Farra <gpz750@bnr.ca>
Subject: Re: Comments on analog music
X-Xxdate: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:57:40 GMT
Organization: BNR Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:48:20 GMT

In article <185085@pyramid.pyramid.com> Lon Stowell,
lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com writes:
>    I'd much prefer some of the additional bandwidth of future
>    digital audio standards be allocated to recording additional
>    channels of information.  Say, front main, front ambience, and
>    rear ambience...and possibly front center.  That way you'd have
>    a pretty good odds of capturing the real sound of the original
>    performance as if you were there.  

Good suggestion.  Read the Lipshitz paper in the JAES on even
more insight into what's required for a truly convincing 3-D illusion.

Dave Dal Farra
BNR Ottawa
Audio and Acoustics
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: kong@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kong Kritayakirana)
Subject: Re: Preamp and Amp
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 20:54:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.164550.1069@bnr.ca> Dave Dal Farra <gpz750@bnr.ca> writes:

>a.  A/B testing problems (long term exposure is not factored in).

That's not the problem with A/B testing. They can take ALL THE TIME in the
world to listen to A or B as long as price and brand names are withheld and
the levels of A and B exactly matched using meter to within 1%. I do not have
any problem with people coming up with differences between A and B as long as
the above 2 conditions (1. No price/brand info released and 2. Level matched)
The problem with most "golden ear" type of review is that none of the above
condition is met. And hence any conclusion drawn is an assertion from a fault
method of evaluation. And when these reviewers get to listen to A/A comparison,
they came up with night and day difference on A and A!

>c.  The concept that Golden-Ears are self professed ego-maniacs and that
	[unimportant stuff deleted]

If their ears are so golden, how come these golden eared people refuse to 
participate in A/B comparison? Do they need their eyes to see the brand name
in order to make their golden ears work? What if they are asked to replicate
their listening evaluation "result"? What they are saying is not much different
than saying "Hey, this guy can run faster than doped Ben Johnson at 100m dash.
But you see, you can't use stopwatch or anything. It would put enough pressure
on him that he will not perform up to his absolute maximum potential."

>Dad's system

FYI, my earlier posting was misleading. >$5K was spent on just turntable+arm+
cartridge alone. The rest of the system adds up to more than $25K. Not to 
mention that everything is all "tube" stuff.

Kong
From: kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:16:45 GMT
Subject: Re: testing again
Organization: Shredding the water of SF Bay, HP-OCD
Newsgroups: rec.audio

>	So, what, Kirk, do you have some kind of strange
>	disease that if you don't post at least 5 (generally
>	worthless) articles *every* day your head will implode?
>	I think rec.audio already chomps enough bandwidth
>	without inane follow-ups to inane articles (of which
>	I am now apparently at least partially guilty).
>
>	Living better through chemistry,
>	Mike "Pi" Freeman
>	MJF9968@rigel.tamu.edu
>
----------

Sorry to hear that most of what I write is worthless in your opinion.
Oh well, can't be liked by everyone.  I will try to reduce the silly
posts, but if ya can't take a joke...Aw forget it.

Kirk out
From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Anti-aliasing on the recording end?
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:52:51 GMT
Followup-To: rec.audio
Organization: BBN
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

It has obviously become popular in digital playback systems to use
oversampling as a way to provide digital-domain filtering, allowing for the
use of much less severe analog filters. But what's going on these days on
the recording side?

I realize that the answer to this question would most likely depend on the
application. I imagine that most consumer DAT, DCC, or MD units employ
steep input filters and call the job done. However, I suspect that some
(most?) of the pro gear, and maybe even some high-end consumer stuff, would
use higher sampling rates (>50KHz) with more gentle filters.

The problem is, you'd need *real* higher sampling rates (as opposed to
computed oversampling), and the processing power to perform the sampling
rate conversion with digital filtering.

Anyone out there got the scoop on this?

-Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: cal@gsbux1.uchicago.edu (Cal Lott)
Subject: Re: Audible CD improvements
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:52:06 GMT

bstdenis@mailbox.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Brian St. Denis) writes:


>I have a Sony CDP-45 that I purchased a long time ago.  The drawer sticks
>most of the time.  I can hear the motor spinning but the drawer won't
>open.  I usually rap the front of the drawer with my finger which causes
>the drawer to open.  Once open, the motor continues to spin and usually,
>the drawer closes a few seconds later by itself.
>
>I saw the suggestion about replacing the belt.  I'll give it a try.
>
>What I want to know is how much better do current CD players sound now
>compared to the old CDP-45?  I paid right around $300 for it.  How
>would the $300 Sony of 1993 sound in relation to my current one?

	The amount of improvement that you notice will be influenced by
the rest of your system, so it's hard to say for sure.

	I had the first Sony portable, an MD-1. (?) It served me
faithfully for many years, and then I bought a Denon DCD-560 as its
replacement. The difference, even through the very modest sytem that I
owned at the time, was easily heard. All of the very early CD players
will sound harsh and shrill in comparison to the latest models.

						-Cal
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal Lott          "Oh, I see-- I thought 'no' meant 'spoon'!" --Dan
Email me, baby!   cal@gsbux1.uchicago.edu   cjl1@midway.uchicago.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:12:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Comments on analog music
Organization: Shredding the water of SF Bay, HP-OCD
Newsgroups: rec.audio

/ hpcc01:rec.audio / kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom) / 11:07 am  Jan 25, 1993 /
>(Kirk Lindstrom) wrote:
>> and could hear that they knew what they were doing.  Even now I'm leary
>> of buying CDs unless I trust the engineering:  GRP, Chesky, Schefield
>> and Telarc though I think the first 3 are "more musical" as a whole at
>> times.  I've heard some good remastering done on the "Verve label" that
>
>Be careful, Kirk. I don't think it's politically correct on rec.audio to
>say anything nice about Telarc. And to mention Telarc in the same breath
>with Schefield? You're in trouble now! :-)
>
>-Kerry
----------

Thanks for the warning Kerry.  Why is it NOT PC to type "Telarc?" in 
wreck.audio?  Is it because 

1)  Telarc breaks too many egos and systems?  
2)  Maybe they use a/d/s/ speakers for organ works which I don't see on any
    venerated "Stereophile Magic A/B/C/D/ List"?
3)  ???

Read an Interesting article today in the funnies, uh Stereophile I mean,
while on the can (loo for Shane).  Seems the guy was reviewing XLO or
something cables and discussed how they made his base sound "faster"!!!!
I haughed so hard, the mess almost hit my feet!

So what is "faster base?"  Must be a mantra or Flat-Earther's entry in some
oxymoron contest......

Kirk (talk about blowing credibility...) out
----------
From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: CD Sound under attack again. Was: Re: Preamp and Amp
Followup-To: rec.audio
Date: 24 Jan 1993 03:17:55 GMT
Organization: BBN
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <Jonas.Palm-230193200025@fastpath-37.orgk2.lth.se>,
Jonas.Palm@orgk3.lu.se (Jonas Palm) wrote:
> It would be interesting to hear their opinion of what the limiting
> factors usually are in the production of a finished recording

The musicians. ;-)

-Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce)
Subject: Re: Speaker vent placement question
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:53:42 GMT

In article <C19v5p.IzJ@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wakeland@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (ray s wakeland) writes:
>Recently someone asked how the placement of a speaker port affected its 
>performance.  Dick Pierce wrote that the placement of the port has little 
>effect, and also that it is a bad idea to put the port on the back of a 
>bookshelf speaker which will probably be put against a wall.  (I hope I got 
>that right!  I've seen what happens to people who mis-quote Pierce.)  I can 
>also see why a designer of a larger floor-standing speaker would put the 
>port in back.  For example, the drivers of my B&W DM640's cover most of the 
>front surface of the speaker, so it is probably just easier to put the port 
>in back.  This speaker is not meant to go near the wall.
>
>I am mistified, however, by the Energy 22.3's.  These speakers have TWO 
>ports, one in front, below the woofers, and one in back in the center of the 
>speaker.  Why would they do this?

There may be a variety of reasons. There's no reason, first of all, you
can't use two port, properly sized, instead of one. Now, if the enclosure
resonance is low enough so that the two ports are a small fraction of a
wavelength apart, put them where you want. There are some issues about
mutual vent coupling and driver-vent coupling, but they are a small part
of the total volume velocity contribution by the entire system.

>Another question:
>About the same time, there was much bashing of piezo tweeters.  My last 
>speakers were a used pair of Dalquist DQ-10's, which I believe made quite a 
>splash in the mid 70's.  They were 5-way speakers, with a piezo tweeter at 
>the very top.  Why? (multiple choice)
>a) Dalquist was foolish.
>b) It was 1973, and the piezo was the best he could get.
>c) Dalquist was an exceptional designer who managed to use the piezo tweeter 
>effectively dispite its drawbacks.
>d) Other

Yes :-)

Current piezo tweeters are just as bashable now as they were then. I
cannot guess why John Dalquist used them. I cannot see them has having any
place in a reasonable speaker system. They are, however, the ultimate
indestructible driver, it would seem.
-- 
|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX)      |
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: davidv@davidv.sco.COM (David Vangerov)
Subject: Re: Can I get Surround Sound with existing equip?
Organization: Apathetic Surf Club (we don't surf and we don't care)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:35:21 GMT

i might point out that the VSX-511S A/V reciever from Pioneer already
*is* Dolby Pro-Logic. the only thing the original poster will have to
do is buy a set of rear speakers and a center channel. 


-- 
"The way to a woman's heart is through the back, down a bit and to the left"
David Vangerov, Sr. Systems Analyst - Internal Support, Information Services
Voice: 408-429-4512 | Email: ...!uunet!sco!davidv | Your favorite disclaimer
Fax:   408-427-5460 |        davidv@sco.com       | of liability here.
From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:55:25 GMT
Followup-To: rec.audio
Organization: BBN
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1993Jan22.053032.18507@labtam.labtam.oz.au>,
graeme@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Graeme Gill) wrote:
> In article <shetline-200193174831@128.89.19.74>, shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline) writes:
> > annoyed. The only counter-argument came from some guy saying that musicians
> > who didn't like digital didn't like it because it showed the flaws in their
> > performance: a real pointless sour-grapes opinion. That's all the air time
> > the pro-digital side got.
> 
> 	There could certainly be some truth in that.

I didn't doubt the element of truth in it. But it's not always true, and
it's not the strongest pro-digital argument. The man made came off sounding
snide. It's a bad argument to leave standing there all alone.

-Kerry
From: gb@cup.portal.com (Greg A Buechler)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: surround sound recording on VCR
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:56:01 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

I have a high-fi VCR that plays surround sound movies quite well, but I 
seem to not be able to record a surround sound show off the TV and get
the effects.

Any suggestions?

gb
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: Jonas.Palm@orgk3.lu.se (Jonas Palm)
Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
Followup-To: rec.audio
Organization: University of Lund, Sweden
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:15:34 GMT

 zellers@22_clancy.manassas.ibm.com (Cevin M Zellers ) wrote:
> Before I get torched to death, I should restate that I am not necessarily a
> critic of analog (praise our audiophile roots) but an advocate of digital.
> 
> In a few short words, if the music is recorded and mixed in Digital, the
> noise floor is simply MUCH lower (20+ dB) and analog distortion is reduced.
> This gives you better headroom and more listening fun.
> 

Er... 
I'm not a digital-basher by any means, but modern analog recorders
with Dolby-SR actually have a sligtly _wider_ dynamic range than 
16-bit digital recorders. Even the 'semi-pro' Dolby-S multitrackers do
easily as well as their 16-bit digital counterparts in that respect.
In real life, microphone+electronics or recording locale noise is going 
to dominate anyway.
Nor do the analog recorders display the low level linearity errors of 
many 16-bit digital recorders in use. (Try the Chesky sampler for a 
demonstration of the audible effects of that one.)

Dolby-SR and Dolby-S also pushes modulation noise and asperity noise to
very low (insignificant?) levels.


> But to go back to John Galloways argument, you state that only the 'canine
> inspired' can diffentiate between a 20KHz sawtooth and a sine. But thats
> enough for me to take my signal generator down Audio Buys (D.C.) and give
> this experiment a first-hand-test. Roof Roof :) :)
> 
> If I can tell the difference, I may just have to scrap my CD's and plug in
> the old vinyl player until you guys pull the sampling frequency out another
> 50 KHz!
> 
> Cheers, 
> Cevin

What makes you think that there is generally higher frequency music signals

present on the LP, compared to the CD of the same recording? Consider the
frequency response limits of the mikes used, the electronics in the chain,
the digital and analog recorders, and the LP itself. Even in an all analog
recording, it would take a small miracle to actually get accurate
supersonic
information from the performance -> out of your loudspeaker. In real
life...

But do the test anyway! I know I would!

If you think you hear a difference,and post about it, I'm sure rec.audio
will supply you with a barbeque the like of which you've never seen :-)

                                             Jonas Palm 

                                         
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: byrns-j@gamma.corp.mot.com (John Byrns)
Subject: Re: MiniDiscs -- What Are They?
Organization: Motorola
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:39:40 GMT

In article <24676@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj, still grouchy and out of sorts) writes:
> 
> (you left out the signal cycling between l and r)
> 
That reminds me, does any one know how DCC (and MD for that matter) codes the
two stereo channels. Are they codded as left and right or sum and difference,
or maybe even something different. Is the compression of the two channels
linked so that they track?

Just curious,

Newsgroups: rec.audio