HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sss@castle.ed.ac.uk (S S Sturrock)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: MiniDiscs -- What Are They?
Date: 23 Jan 93 14:12:51 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1993Jan21.153120.27597@nynexst.com> rsilvers@nynexst.com (Robert Silvers) writes:
>In article <30416@castle.ed.ac.uk> sss@castle.ed.ac.uk (S S Sturrock) writes:
>
>>Both DCC and MD are too new to start slinging stones around, CD sounded
>>utterly dreadful when it first appeared, now it can sound passable with
>>care, give the new technology time, let those who dived into CD first do
>>the same with DCC/MD and eventually your perception of good sound may be
>>lowered enough such that you can put up with the sound, Christ, if people
>>can put up with CD they can put up with anything. 
>
>	I wish you would save the money you spend on audio and buy a clue.
>Any audio limitations with CDs are not due to the 16 bit, 44.1 digital

Didn't say they were.  They are more the fault of wrecking the signal
before sampling.  No need for your tone of voice by the way.  How can you
expect a fruitful discussion if you are going to behave like this.  I know,
I used to be the same (as many of you may remember!) :-)

Doesn't get you anywhere so cut it out.

>sampling as much as the microphone - amp - amp - speaker chain.  Buy a good
>CD player.  I feel bad that you spent $10,000 on that turntable 10 years ago
>and need to rationalize the cost.  Try spending $10,000 on a CD player.  I bet
>it will sound better.

Odd assumption.  I was a confirmed CD fan but bought a cheap (ie 300 Pounds
UK) turntable so I would be able to play my LP collection which had been
gathering dust for some years.  My CD player was very good thankyou very
much, the Cambridge CD2 was acclaimed rightly so for it's sound.  Cost me
twice what I paid for the turntable but that sounded so good I drifted away
from CD and put more money into my vinyl and turntable.
>
>(The funny thing is, I bet many of your favorite albums were recorded on a digital
>master tape before the vinyl coloration was added).

Actually, no they weren't.  The ones I have that were digitally mastered
sound just like the CDs and I don't bother to listen to them.

-- 
Shane Sturrock, Biocomputing Research Unit, Darwin Building, Mayfield Road,
University of Edinburgh, Scotland, Commonwealth of Independent Kingdoms.  :-)

Civilisation is a Haggis Supper with salt and sauce and a bottle of Irn Bru.
From: sss@castle.ed.ac.uk (S S Sturrock)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Forget the DACs. How can transports sound different?
Date: 23 Jan 93 14:07:37 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <shetline-210193111206@128.89.19.74> shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline) writes:
>In article <30590@castle.ed.ac.uk>, sss@castle.ed.ac.uk (S S Sturrock)
>wrote:
>> are known to affect the sound significantly.  Incompatibilities in the
>> amplitude of signals used/expected between transport and DAC can adversely
>> affect the sound.
>
>This seems like something that might have merit. However, I haven't seen
>any ad copy touting the excellence of some transport's compliance with
>SP/DIF standards. The usually talk is of 'stability' and 'torque' and
>'positive disc clamping' -- stuff used to justify bloated price tags for
>something that could be achieved at much lower prices (as long as no one
>badly screws up the engineering).

Impedence matching is important, the standard is 75 Ohm, some transports
have been measured as 63 Ohm for example.  Also there is the problem of
active and passive digital inputs on the DAC.  I found the article I was
after but it is still at home, peeing down today so I didn't bring the mag
in.  I think the issue was covered in issue 93 of Hifi Choice in the UK,
and the Sept 1991 issue carried the article on matching DACs and transports
and refered to the issue 93 where they did a comparison of various
transports.

Stability does seem to help in the sound, hense the use of damping
rings/discs.  Pioneer make a CD player (quite cheap too) which uses a
turntable to hold the disc and prevent ringing.  Does seem to sound
smoother than other players in that price bracket (400 Pounds UK or there
abouts).
>
>>Civilisation is a Haggis Supper with salt and sauce and a bottle of Irn Bru.
>
>Well, call me a savage and keep your sheep innards off my plate! Do you
>know how high in cholesterol that stuff is? ;-)

Yeah, luvly :-)
>
> P.S.: I have no idea what 'Irn Bru' is, but that sounds a whole lot more
>promising!

Apparently it is available in the US although I didn't see any last time I
was over.  It is a soft drink mind you.  Now if we are really talking
quality brews a few pints of Auld Reekie 90 shilling goes down a treat and
believe me, there *IS* alcohol in that :-)


-- 
Shane Sturrock, Biocomputing Research Unit, Darwin Building, Mayfield Road,
University of Edinburgh, Scotland, Commonwealth of Independent Kingdoms.  :-)

Civilisation is a Haggis Supper with salt and sauce and a bottle of Irn Bru.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: TV sound through stereo
From: dmn@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Dan Nichols)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: Concurrent Engineering Research Center

TWIMC:

	I have a question regarding tv sound through a stereo. I have a Denon
amp/pre-amp combo (about 8 yrs. old) through which I have hooked up my TV so
that I can hear the tv sound through my stereo (The tv is a 32" Toshiba I just
recently purchased). The problem is that in order to hear the sound at a
reasonable level, I must turn the sound up very high on my tv (nearly two
thirds of the way). The volume knob on the Denon is kept around one fourth.

	I have been told that, in general, it is not a good idea to
play a stereo above half volume (too much distortion and heat could blow the
speakers is what I've been told). So, the question is will the volume setting
in my tv cause any harm to my stereo? If so, how can it be corrected?

	I don't believe I have hooked it up incorrectly since there is only
one RCA-jack connection that must be made. Thanks in advance for all comments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer : These are my opinions -- form your own.
Dan Nichols                             (dmn@cathedral.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu)
Concurrent Engineering Research Center  (Making the world safe for CE)
Drawer 2000 \ P.O. Box 6506 \ West Virginia University \ Morgantown, WV 26506
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski)
Subject: Re: Dolby S vs. DCC etc.
Reply-To: winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua NH
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:10:57 GMT


In article <C1HGp9.Jy7@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
v114qgu3@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Henri Defense) writes:
|>
|>	Almost a year ago, I remember reading a Stereo Review article on Dolby
|>S: a few audiophiles were given blind ABX listening tests to see if they could
|>tell the difference between CD and Dolby S.  I seem to recall that when the
|>listeners were given classical pieces (sans piano solos) and "modern" music,
|>they could not hear a difference almost half of the time.  Apparently, this
|>seems to be better than DCC or MD's record, seeing as how many people claim they
|>can hear a difference between PASC/ATRAC and CD most of the time.  This leads to
|>my question: Ignoring the fact that Dolby S is an analog format, which sounds
|>better... Dolby S, DCC, or MD?  (If anyone has listened to Dolby S, I'd love to
|>hear your reaction.)  Thanx.
|>

I would expect Stereo Review to say something like that.  Judd Hirsch & Co. are
notorious for propounding the theory that if you can't read it on a meter, it
doesn't exist.  I wouldn't believe anything that they say regarding listening
tests.

--PSW
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: CD vs. LP again (was Re: Preamp and Amp)
From: stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:07:02 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:

>In article <1jk9sdINNocs@transfer.stratus.com> rsud@sw.stratus.com (Rajiv Sud) writes:
>>	At present, a
>>decent analogue setup with a good lp sounds much more like an acoustical
>>instrument than does a digital source on the same system (but even analogue
>>doesn't come close to the real thing). I don't give a ducks ass about the
>>specs. The reference is real live unamplified music and the choice is what
>>comes closest to giving you the maximum musical experience in our own home
>>(and will also fit on your credit card).
>>
>   Aw-flippin'-men.  But there ARE some decent CD's out there if
>   you dig around.  We probably ought to quietly ignore many of the
>   ones from the larger source companies.   But given a sample of
>   even ONE superior CD and playback system, is it still correct to
>   blame the architecture rather than the implementation?

Tell me, people, what kind on channel seperation can ANY ( at ANY price )
practical LP system get ??. I will not mention the figures that I have
heard, but they are not impresive, and many 10's of db below that of
even quite cheap CD.

A common method of 'widening' a sterio image is to add an amount of each
channel to the other, often phase shifted. SOME people seem to like the
effect ( it is normally found on VERY cheap tape decks.. ), but it
could not be considered even medium-fi.

Perhaps you can see why I laugh when I read of people who find the 'sterio
image' of LP systems much more 'transparent' and 'detailed' than that
of CD.

just thought I'd throw that into the 'discussion'.. :-)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz


			>>>>In VI Where Available<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:21:04 GMT
Subject: Re: CD vs. LP again (was Re: Preamp and Amp)
Message-ID: <1190796@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>
Newsgroups: rec.audio


I think I know what it is that makes some people like CD better.
It's one of several things, like the euphonic sound of overbrightness.
I was told the latest rage in sound reproduction from the Las Vegas CES
is sizzle.  Sizzle is in.  Especially boom sizzle.  CD is great for that.
Then there's all that lack of detail that enhances a recording.  No detail
to muddy up on your mid-fi setup.  Perhaps it's grain.  Graininess to tingle
the ears along with sizzle helps those rock and roll ears hear what's
left of the highs they can perceive.  Maybe it's that euphonic "nails on the
chalkboard" distortion they like.  Analog people call that "etch", but CD
people call it "bitchin'."  Well, as long as they LIKE it.

Or it could just be the fact that their genitals finally measure up to the
disk they're carrying.  Maybe this is the reason 99% of the CD audiophiles 
are male.  It's got to be one of these reasons because there can be no other 
by scientific process of elimination.  

Face it, CD lovers just like euphonic distortion, or at least a better
comparison to their anatomy.  And if they like CD better than MD, they're
obvious Luddites, because MD is more advanced.

Well, I hope you like and agree with what I say because it's the kind of 
moronic shit I get to read from CD types here.  (From "experts", too.)

One more thing.  If people like jj don't like what I write about their 
opinions then I would like to see they don't write about mine.

---------------------
:re .sig.stupid

 "...the ability of the human mind to fool itself and
  attempt to spread the ignorance is amazing." - Lon Stowell, on making his
  case for CD.     

 "...this is in no way
 'digital' getting better, since all the "digital" portions have remained
 unchanged."  - Bob Myers, after reviewing CD schematics over the years.

 "For Sud, I think, it is something like a religion
 that one cannot question." - jj, after having gone into length questioning.


Har! Har! Har!  Here's to an improved sense of humor out there.  (God, they're
probably gonna quote *me* next. Yikes!)
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:30:52 CST
From: John Schulien <U21187@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: DAT, DCC and MD

It was suggested that DCC has an advantage over DAT due to the complexity
of the rotary head design. Somehow they can get VCR's into stores for well
under $200. A DAT mechanism is smaller, and while the tolerances may be
higher, it takes less physical material to manufacture a DAT transport
then a VCR transport. I speculate that DAT could theoretically bottom out
at around $100.00.

Likewise, a DAT tape uses somewhat less physical material then a DCC tape.
This would seem to tip the manufacturing advantage to DAT, for blanks at
least. A factory running at capacity should be able to produce DATs
DATs cheaper then DCCs. Of course, raw material is far from the
only factor ...

Also, I remember reading that DATs could be duplicated by contact printing.
Is this true, or did they run into problems?)

An interesting subject.

- John
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Skin Effect in cables - what is it ?
Keywords: Skin the Cat
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:06:36 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL

In article <1jq32eINNcki@male.EBay.Sun.COM> checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>Measured skin effect differences at 100 mghz is less than .01 percent
			                 ^^^^
Interesting notation.
100 milli giga Hertz.  Let's see now giga/1000 = mega.
Multiply by 100 - hm.  Works out to 100 MHz  :-):-):-):-):-):-)


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill@bilver.uucp
                - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Alignment tape for cassette deck?
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:23:27 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <93018.182753AFECU@CUNYVM.BITNET> AFECU@CUNYVM.BITNET (Aron Eisenpress) writes:
>Is there an alignment tape available for cassette decks?  Where?  I think
>one of the wells on my machine is a little off and would like to align it...
>or would I just mess it up more?

TEAC MTT-114N
It costs $38 and can be ordered direct from TEAC parts dept at 213-726-0303,
X720 or X757

Magnetic Reference Laboratory Inc.
229 Polaris Ave., Suite 4
Mountain View, CA 94043
415-965-8187

Standard Tape Laboratory, Inc.
26120 Eden Landing Rd. #5
Hayward, CA 94545
510-786-3546

I have tapes from MRL and STL.  I have never used tapes from TASCAM but I 
have no reason not to believe that they are as good as they should be.

Both MRL and STL do offer tapes at various levels and configurations.

My MRL cassette alignment tape cost me $80 three years ago.

If you are a skilled tape deck teck, go for it.  If not you still must
be a skilled test tech. 

You will need a service manual.
-- 
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.
From: hsu@acuson.com (William Hsu)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Home Theatre Speakers/Center Channel
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:59:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: acuson.1993Jan25.215923.12270
Distribution: usa
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California

mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Mike S.) writes:

>brambo@eco.twg.com (Mark Bramblett) writes:

>>In article <1993Jan20.051924.29623%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu>,
>>mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Mike S.) wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Does the C1 go low enough to use pro-logic Wide mode?
>>> 

>>I have set of 4 DT BP20's and a pair of C-1's.  I called the Baltimore
>>office and talked to the designer.  He said go with the pro-logic normal
>>because the bass was better represented that way instead of in wide mode.
>>He inferred that was because of the way the pro-logic decoder was 
>>designed.  

>>Anybody know if this is true or not?

>As far as I know, the only difference between Pro-Logic WIDE and
>NORMAL modes is that NORMAL mode redirects frequencies below 100Hz
>to the mains, whereas WIDE mode does not.

>Maybe he just likes his low frequencies to originate from two
>different sources.

Just the other day I was pondering whether to use NORMAL or WIDE mode with
my setup.  I have the Definitive C1 and Infinity RS4001 (8" woofers) as my
mains, and I don't have a subwoofer.

So I played back a bunch of blow-up scenes from T2 and Lethal Weapon 3.
What I found was that the bass in NORMAL mode was much more dramatic and
fuller than in the WIDE mode (as far as blow-ups are concerned).

Even though the Infinities are not as highly rated compared to the Defs, I
guess having bigger woofers and stereo bass outputs do help.

William
-- 
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| William Hsu				If it is bug-free, then I haven't     |
| Acuson, Test Engineering		got the chance to test it yet	      |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: ramirez@IASTATE.EDU (Richard G Ramirez)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Home Theater Advice
Keywords: JVC Infinity
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:00:19 GMT
Reply-To: ramirez@IASTATE.EDU (Richard G Ramirez)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Iowa State University

I bought the following:
    JVC RX-807VTN  - very happy with it
     Kenwood 6+1 7740 changer - great!
     working on the speakers, possibly Advent Heritage.

There are not many audio stores in my area, so I bought
from Crutchfield (catalog) and Best Buy (a discount store).
The Yamaha's are available from an audio store but the
price on the JVC was good ($485, no interest for a year).

I like the JVC's 7-band equalizer.  It continually displays
the sound wave and it is fun to watch (maybe silly but it
works for me).  
The remote is programmable but I haven't figured out how
to make it work.  I am still using remotes for the VCR,
receiver, and CD.

The Kenwood changer sounds great and the displays are easy
to read from my chair.  The JVC and Sony displays are not
easy to read from a distance. 
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: zellers@22_clancy.manassas.ibm.com (Cevin M Zellers )
Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 21:36:48 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

> I'm confused. Are you a critic of analog ?

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.

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
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: DAT, DCC and MD
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:11:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.200044.28433@smab.se> hans@smab.se (Hans C Larsson) writes:
>
>>ritc0003@student.tc.umn.edu (Kent Ritchie) writes:

>>>I can't believe what Sony and Phillips are trying to do with MD and DCC.
>>>I am offended that both of these companies think that I will be willing
>>>to pay top dollar for a music system that is inferior to what is already 
>>>available, CD and DAT.  I am even more upset by those who are seriously 
>>>considering purchasing one of the new formats.  

>I just read in NME that Philips has put USD 100+ million into DCC
>and Sony USD 200 million into MD...

Well, the consumer will have to decide. And they will.   The
$100 million that Philips invested, and the $200 million that
Sony invested, doesn't total up to the amount the RCA invested
in the CED Video disk player.  ( I seem to remember that they
were bout $400 million into that one, or am I confusing it with
another RCA product).

-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill@bilver.uucp
                - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Micing Acoustic Wind instruments?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:34:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.014828.23146@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:
>
>Both problems can be solved by that seldom used pattern - figure 8.

Alan Blumlein would be happy you said that, Bill :-)


--
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
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.video
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Sony TA-E2000ESD DSP A/V Surround Preamp
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:02:57 GMT

In article <brambo-210193101209@143.172.48.212> brambo@eco.twg.com (Mark Bramblett) writes:
>In article <C12s7M.2Ku@ampex.com>, dna@ampex.com (David Altekruse) wrote:
>> 
>> Michael J Kobb writes:
>> >  (Michael escribes his Sony TAE-2000ESD A/V pre-amp discovery.)


>On the TAE1000ESD you can't set up a custom equalization curve for your
>room, but you can for the other digital sound processing modes. To me that
>is screwy.  Is this possible on the TAE2000ESD?

Hm - you can't do that on the 1000?    Guess that means I'll
have to stop using the custom equalization curve for my room
then :-)

Actually - it would be nice to have a separate store and put
the other EQ on top.  But I have no use for some of their
'effect' like disco or stadium that use a lot of EQ in addition
to changing the reverberant characteristics.

What I did was use a UREI Soni-Pulse (it's dated but you use
what you can borrow - it's a pulsed-noise 1/3 octave analyzer)
and used the Sony EQ in combination with my crossover levels to
give me a smooth respsonse, similar to what I used the studio.

I just took their stock settings and copied them to the same
numbered user settings and put in the EQ I derived from above.

It's a band-aid.  What I REALLY need to do is modify the room -
add some traps, etc.   But that has to come later.


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill@bilver.uucp
                - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
Newsgroups: rec.audio