HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ST101137@brownvm.brown.edu (Lee Silverman)
Subject: Tape Deck Survey
Organization: Brown University
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 20:40:41 GMT

Sorry if this appears twice; I'm using a flaky news interface
----------
   Hello!
   I'm not quite sure how to introduce this - It may sound
a little odd if you don't know who I am, or if you don't
understand what I'm doing.  It's a bit tough to introduce
myself in this setting, so I guess I'll leave that alone, but
I'll try to explain a bit about what I'm trying to do.
   Over the past year or so, I've volunteered or been
called on to run 'tape trees' for various groups like
rec.music.gdead and rec.music.phish.  If you don't know what
it is, a tape tree is a way of distributing tapes to a large
number of people: I have a tape that I want everyone to have,
so I make copies for 5 people, and each of them makes copies for
5 more people, and each of them makes copies for 5 more
people, and so on until everyone who's asked for them has
tapes.  (For Grateful Dead and Phish tapes, this is
completely legal, and is done with the blessing of the band.)
The whole thing is organized with two things in mind:
1)That nobody gets tapes from two people, and 2)That the
tapes lose as little of their quality as possible in the
copying.  To further the second cause, I always ask people to
tell me what kind of tape decks they'll be using to dub, and I put
the people with the best decks at the top of the list.
   Recently it has occurred to me that there are a LARGE
number of cassette tape decks out there, and I'm sure I don't
know about them all.  So what I'd like to do with this survey
is collect specs and features for a large number of tape
decks and put them together into a large list.  I think this will
benefit not only people like me who build tape trees, but also
anyone who is shopping for a new tape deck, or who is trading
tapes with someone and wants to know what kind of deck they
have.

   If you have a few spare minutes, please fill out the
form below and mail it back to me.  I'll post the list of
tape decks here sometime soon, after all the replies die down
and I get the thing organized.
   Thanks very much for your time and effort!

Manufacturer's Name:
Model Number:
What year was this deck produced?
Is this a single deck or dubbing deck?
If single, is this a three-head deck?

Next to each feature listed, please fill in yes or no:
Azimuth Adjustment/tracking (Nak only):
Auto Bias/Rec Level Calibration:
Closed Loop/Dual Capstan Mechanism:
Amorphous Heads:
Dolby HX Pro:
Bias Adjustment:
Record Level fine adjust:
Dolby (unspecified) (mostly on older decks, before C):
Dolby B:
Dolby C:
Dolby S:
dBX:
Record Level Adjust:
Automatic Music Search:
Auto Reverse:
Real-Time Counter:
Digital Counter:
High-Speed Dubbing:
Start-up Timer:
I, II, IV Auto Selection:
I, II, IV Manual Selection:
MPX Filter:

Other Features I may have forgotten about:

Anything else you want to tell me:


Thanks very much for your time!  I'll publish this list as
soon as I can, so keep an eye out for it.

Please send replies to me, Lee Silverman, at:
ST101137@BROWNVM     Pandion@Brown.edu
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: awesome Kilpshorns et. al.
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:18:13 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Apr8.214443.15537@sparky.imd.sterling.com> jim@IMD.Sterling.COM (Jim Nicholsen) writes:
>This thread is taking an interesting turn (an thus far avoiding a 
>religious war :->)
>
>The Klipshorn design is right around 50 years old and, judging from the
>posts, still accepted as a reasonable design  [ deleted]

  The basic IDEA of the Klipschorn is about that old, but the
  components and actual speakers themselves have had continual
  upgrades and improvements over the years.  To say that the design
  is 50 years old is pretty misleading...as Klipsch just released a
  new midrange and tweeter design within the last year or so...and
  they will upgrade models up to 50 years old if you contact them.

>
>50 years ago the sealed box designs that are currently in high regard were
>in very low regard (look at H.F. Olson's comments in his book "On
>Accoustical Engineering" from this period). The only attribute that the
>sealed box had going for it at that time was small size. 

   But you must admit the debates between Paul Klipsch and Ed
   Villchur or Ed and the Bozak folks in the 60's on good big
   speakers vs good small speakers were entertaining.?    

>
>Market pressure (as in "if you will build it, people will come") put the
>engineering into improving the sealed box. Consumers needed small speakers.
     Also the higher power amplifiers available beginning in the
     60's would mitigate the lower efficiency of the sealed box
     compared to the folded horn.

     A Dyna Stereo 70 would deafen you with a pair of Klipschorns
     but was pretty wimpy with a pair of Dahlquists...or even
     AR-3a's in my opinion.


     I think one reason you don't see so many of those grand corner
     horns is that they really don't sound at all decent in a
     smaller room typical of today's buildings.  It is a rare
     showroom which has the cubic space needed to make them sing.
Xref: sparky rec.audio:7279 rec.video:6143
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul H. Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.video
Subject: Re: CD rot -- who gives a damn?
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:58:33
Organization: CSUA/UCB
Distribution: usa
	<PHR.92Apr8212234@soda.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Apr9.140703.9496@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov's message of 9 Apr 92 14:07:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.140703.9496@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:


   In article <PHR.92Apr8212234@soda.berkeley.edu>, phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul H. Rubin) writes:
   if you buy a record or CD and don't play it for
   10 years then you shouldn't have bought it in the first place!  In 10
   years a record is going to be in incredibly bad shape under normal or even
   very light use.

Most of my records have been played only 2 or 3 times, partly for this
very reason.  When I buy a new record, if I like it enough to expect
to want to play it often, I tape it, and listen only to the tape.  I
actually do this also partly for convenience, as my record player is
cantankerous.  And I don't mind a little surface noise if the music is
good.  With a CD, enough bit errors render it unplayable rather than
just noisy (I have a few defective CD's that make my player go
completely haywire).

   I am happy with 12 years
   of perfect play -- I'll just buy new copies when and IF the old ones rot
   (and hopefully the problem will have been solved by that time.)

This is a problem too.  What makes you think the CD's you have
now are still going to be available 12 years from now?  Probably
some of them are out of print already.  What about 50 years from now?
The point of my earlier post was that if my dad had bought CD's
instead of 78's in the 1930's, I wouldn't have gotten to hear
some excellent music much of which was never reissued on LP or CD.
From: btdy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Imped. Matching w/ Resistors?!
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:43:03 EDT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cornell University

In article <s5bjcINNkqr@network.ucsd.edu>,
mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes: 
> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
> : In article <1380@frf.omron.co.jp> andrew@lsa.ncl.omron.co.jp (Andrew Walduck) writes:
> : >
> : >Actually the resistors will always be linear...and will always present
> : >a constant impedance to the amplifier of 2 ohms, unlike the reactive speaker,
> : >the impedance of which will vary widely depending on the frequency.
> : >(unless...the resistors are wire-wound...but that's another story...;-)
> : >
> :     The only truly linear resistors I have ever seen were zig-zag
> :     lines on a physics lecture blackboard.  In the electronics
> :     classes the non-linear nature of REAL resistors were noted.
> 
> What is the source of the nonlinearity?  I can't imagine any deviation
> from standard kinetic theory and Ohm's law J = sigma E
> in normal circumstances.  What I can believe, however, is that
> sigma is a function of temperature and if the power dissipated is high
> enough there might be an interaction there.  But still that would go away
> if the resistor had enough heat dissipation.
> 
> Or do you mean "dispersion", where resistance changes with frequency?
> (I wouldn't quite call that a nonlinearity, but connected with a transistor
> circuit, could make one).  Again, what's the magnitude of
> this at audio frequencies?  
> 
> I'd guess that the frequency where this starts to get important is around
> 1/mean_free_time_between_collisions of the electrons.  Does anybody know what
> this is?
> 
>
It's not that simple.  Rember that audio signals are AC, not DC as in most
computers, so the electrons are zooming back and forth (so the speaker can
zoom back and forth).  So the MTBC goes from infinite to some finite number
that again depends on the maximum velocity of the electron--but I wouldn't
want to calculate it.  But you hit on an important point.  The interactions
between the electons and the atoms in the conducting solid (resistor) depend
on a bunch of things: crystalline defects in the solid, the dielectric around
the solid, etc.  The electrons that are in your amp probably
never get to the speakers--it's the 'sea' of electrons throughout the entire
circuit that gets sloshed back and forth.  The speed at which the signal
gets sent to your speakers varies inversely with the square root of the
dielectric constant around your 'wires.'  Say you have teflon wires (Er = 3),
then the signal speed = 1.7E8 m/s (the speed of light divided by the square
root of the relative dielectric const.)

The electrons do not need to move at relativistic velocities to get the
signal there--coloumbic effects are rather efficient.

Feel free to correct me, I only got a 'B' in solid state physics.

Getting it clearly through alternate paths...

- Jeff
From: btdy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: If you had $1200...
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:19:21 EDT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cornell University

In article <92103.202508DHN101@psuvm.psu.edu>,
<DHN101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: 
> ...And were looking to buy a receiver and speakers,  what would you buy?  I am
> looking for recommendations, especially on equipment combinations.
> 
> I would like suggestions for 100W or more systems;  tuner/preamp and power amp
> suggestions also.

Look into NAD recievers.  Good performance/price ratio.  You can get nice
sound for $500.

Speakers, well get some Polk RM3000's of course ( ((see my post in the Ensemble
string for info).  I paid $700 about a year ago, but I'm sure you could
get them for $500 or so if you look around.

- Jeff
From: gt0869a@prism.gatech.EDU (WATERS,CLYDE GORDON)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Imped. Matching w/ Resistors?!
Keywords: damping amp
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:23:24 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Apr14.155623.7783@news.eng.convex.com> jgardner@convex.com (John B. Gardner) writes:
>In article <181050@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>>   amplifier being the lowest impedance you can get.....(within
>>   reason).     
>
>most tube amps, which "audiophiles" drool over and sell there Saabs
>to purchase (;-), have very LOW damping factors.  In fact, the
>
>So, are we flapping our jaws in the electronic breeze, or could someone
>explain how an amp with a damping factor of 6 can sound good, despite  

Not on bass, it won't. Tube amps hav damping that is proportional to frequency
due to the output transformers. (ie, dc-blocked-> damping of 0 at DC)
However, most home speakers have better damping on mids and highs (mechanical)
than on bass, so the lower damping factors don't have as much of an effect on
mids and highs. This is why there is a proliferation of hybrid amps (tube
pre-drivers, MOSFET or other semiconductor outputs), Counterpoint just being
one example. Also, this is why many systems I have seen have been set up 
with solid state on bass, glowing bottles on everything else. 

I have seen one example of what some audiophiles might consider the "ultimate
amp design"- an output-transformerless tube amp. The amp was built with 
massive parallel output circuitry,with extremely high loudspeaker impedence
(the system I saw used 4 Focal DVC 7" per channel on bass wired all vc's
in series, ie. 64 ohms, and electrostatic panels for mid-highs). Bass 
tightness was indistinguishable (sp?) from solid state IMHO. But, this 
was in most regards likely to the absence of transformers in the bass
power path.

REgards,
Gordon.
 
-- 
WATERS,CLYDE GORDON-Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta Ga 30332 
******<LANGUAGE IS A VIRUS! - Laurie Anderson-Home of the Brave>******* 
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0869a
Internet: gt0869a@prism.gatech.edu
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:15:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Audiophile Bashing, was CD rot -- who gives a damn?
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy
Newsgroups: rec.audio

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

>  In rec.audio, kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) writes:

>  ....one of the more content-free posts I have seen recently.  Kurt, was that
>  post supposed to contain ANY information or value whatsoever, or was it just
>  dumping more gasoline on the flames?

                 This post intentionally left blank.
From: hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Mini system question.
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:41:12 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Farul Ghazali asks about components as an alternative to a "mini
system", suggesting

>   Speakers $200
>   Reciever $200
>       CD   $120
>      Tape  $130

My observation is that there's a big difference in speakers as you
move even slightly above $200.  I think in a system where you're
trying to cut as many corners as possible, I'd spend less money for
the receiver and more on the speakers.  (My office system has a
Kenwood receiver that was more in the range of $170, and is fine.  I
use Altec Lansing 85 speakers, though I make no particular
recommendations for Altec.  The concensus in this group seems to be
Boston Acoustics and Celestion, and I'd also suggest listening to
Advent, AR, and maybe Tannoy.)  I'm not so sure about the CD.  My
instincts are to agree with CU and say that you're unlikely to hear
much difference in CD players, since generally I tend to be very
sceptical of the differences people claim to hear in electronics.
Unfortunately my ears don't agree.  I bought a "bargain" CD player
from Onkyo for the same office system.  (I think it was a bargain
because it was a closeout of the previous year's product line.  I
believe they've changed from multi-bit to 1-bit, so the new line may
sound completely different.)  The highs sounded terrible, everthing
the enemies of CD always claimed about CD's.  I ended up using a Sony
491, which is fine.  (It was around $170, though I suspect you could
get it for less at a discounter.  I relegated the Onkyo to my second
system at home, whose speakers aren't good enough to show subtleties
in highs.)  It may well be that money isn't the issue with CD players:
I may just have run into one that was badly designed.  But it does
make me worry.
Xref: sparky rec.audio:7014 rec.audio.car:1925
From: jsmith@ug.cs.dal.ca (Jeff N Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.audio.car
Subject: Sony D303 Discman
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:45:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada


	I was thinking about buying a Sony D303 Discman and I would like
to know if anyone has one or has heard anything about them.  Could 
anyone who has any information that Iwould find helpful please e-mail
me at jsmith@ug.cs.dal.ca or post in this newsgroup if the information
might interest anyone else.

Thank You for HELP!!!

Jeff Smith
Statistics Student
Dalhousie University,  Halifax, NS, CANADA.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: gwg33762@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Garret W. Gengler)
Subject: Adjusting tape motor speed on a Teac V-250 Cassette deck
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:46:02 GMT

Can anyone tell me where the kind engineers at Teac :) have hidden the screw
to adjust the playback motor speed?  I've adjusted the tape speed many times
on many decks, but for some reason, can't find anything to turn in this Teac
deck.  It's playing just a tad slow right now, but it's enough to really put
things out of tune.   

Thanks,
Garret
P.S. Yeah I know it's junk.  I got it for free from a friend who couldn't
     find the adjustment either.  :)

   .          ----------------------------------------------------------  
   . ____     Garret Gengler          "The tires are the things on a car 
    /o ~ \/|  g-gengler@uiuc.edu       that make contact with the road." 
    \____/\|  University of Illinois                    -- Phish 
              ----------------------------------------------------------    

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: garyc@lenny.acns.nwu.edu (Gary I. Chang)
Subject: Recommendation needed for built-in amp/power speakers
Reply-To: garyc@lenny.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 07:13:34 GMT

Hi,

Can someone recommend what and where to get a good pair but yet affordable  
(<= $100) walkman stero speakers which has it's own power and amp on it.   
I plan to connect it to my CD-ROM drive which is able to play either Music  
CDs or Computer ones; In addition to those, I would like to hook it up to  
my stero Hi-Fi VCR to see how much it improves over  my Mono 
Monitor/Receiver. I think MegaBass is a must,.........

	Many thanks.

Gary
From: n8846069@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Barry)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: KLH?
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:41:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Apr9.084139.7459
Organization: Western Washington University

vincentc@ocf.berkeley.edu (Vincent Y. Chen) writes:

>I have seen many advertisements for KLH speakers,
>in various catalogs such as Cambridge SW and DAK
>even Price Club.

>My question is are these speakers any good?
>What impresses me is that they are big and cheap
>A 100 watt speaker with 15" woofer for about $100?
>Is it a  good deal?

During a recent trip to Costco, I heard a pair of
these big $100 KLH's.

I thought they sounded like shit!  They are enough to give
me headache!

Extremely colored overall sound.  Booming bass.

The big cabnet and woofer are nothing more than gimmics
to attract buyers who are impressed by such things.

-Barry
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams)
Subject: Re: Listening
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:41:09 GMT

I agree that both extremes of the Subjectivist and Objectivist camps
have been right and wrong at various times in the past. 

However, I would like to point out that double-blind testing may not
work in all cases.  

As the objectivists know, when subjects know what components they are
hearing when, they can invent reactions.    It's a psychological
phenomena, the placebo effect, or whatever you want to call it.
However, when a subject knows that they are being tested, who's to say
that this does not have the inverse effect psychologically?  

Consider the following:

A) Double Blind testing has shown that many differences thought to be
heard between components are actually a result of placebo effects.

B) Studies have shown that Double Blind Testing masks audible
differences between components.

These results could have come from the same set of double-blind tests.
Triple-Blind testing is probably the way to go, where the subject does
not know that he/she is being tested. 

Last comment: A study actually showed that blindfolded, people were
not able to tell the difference or identifying (forgot which) between
scotch, burbon, and (I think) canadian.  Results like this show how
hard it is to use double-blind test results to draw conclusions about
the negative result.  The act of testing can have as much
psychological effect masking differences as knowledge of what is being
presented.  

I know there will be flames, and I know that many testers take great
pains to reduce as much as possible these effects, but it is possible
that there are more subtle differences which can only be perceived
when the mind is not concerned with testing at all.  

Alas, it may be very hard to prove this, unless someone has the
time/money/effort to set up a very long-term "audio vacation" for
audio reviewers and experts, where components are blindly presented
strictly for evaluation, as far as the experts  are concerned.  The
real agenda would be to see what they hear, what they don't, and what
they invent.  Or something similar.  

~~~Steve

--
/*************************************************
 *
 *Steven Abrams             abrams@cs.columbia.edu
 *
 **************************************************/
#include <std/dumquote.h>
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
From: krish@mercury.ICS.UCI.EDU (Umesh Krishnwaswamy)
Subject: Speaker decision
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Date: 16 Apr 92 07:51:19 GMT

I am in a slight fix. I am trying to decide between Celestion 5 and
Cambridge Ensemble II. All I want from a speaker is clean sound,
good imaging, decent bass (my room is only 12'x12'). If anybody has
heard both, I would be keen on hearing their opinions. This might
seem like comparing apples with oranges but well ... ;-|. I'll be
hooking the speakers to a NAD 7225PE.
Thanks in advance.
Krish.
From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:56:34 GMT
Subject: Re: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA