HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: backwards audio on old reel to reel
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:03:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.130626.3431@ryn.mro4.dec.com> roth@3d.enet.dec.com (Jim Roth) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec11.003333.20970@bilver.uucp>, bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes...

>>If it was made prior to the mid-50's, he could have had a "B"
>>wind tape.

>>That has the oxide facing out on the reel.  That would account
>>for the backwards audios if all other methods fail.

>Why would they do that?  The only thing I can think of offhand
>may be to locate the heads further from the reel motors or something.
>Otherwise, I just can't make any good sense of it.

Location re: reel motors doesn't really enter in to it.  It really
doesn't make any difference, however the original Brush used a very
convoluted path.   It used a cork capstan and a felt hold back.

The tape path on on iso-loop type transport - eg Technics home machine,
and 3M pro-decks would take a longer path.

Placed properly outside oxide can have just the same contacts as inside
wind.

Typically the pinch roller comes from the outside of the tape path, eg
it presses against the back, and I have seen some machine whose capstan
was worn down by constant rubbing against the oxide.    Using a "b"
wind on the early machines could have been for less contact againt
oxided by anything but the heads.   Those tapes were pretty poor
compared to todays' tapes.

In about '61 or '62, when I was a KXLY Radio in Spokane Washington, we
had just tuned up an Ampex 350 to be just about as flat as possible to
to 15kHz.   We found a reel of the original Brush tape - black oxide on
paper base.  On the same Ampex were were barely able to get 5 kHz out
of that tape.

A or B wind really makes no difference except for positioning of heads.
A cassette is a 'b' wind if you want to look at it that way.  And film
can be either depending on whether it is a print, or a reversal, or a
print from a reversal.

>(I also wonder how it would have gotten wound the "normal" way on
>the reel then.)


Someone probably thought it was 'backwards' to start with and gave it a
half-flip on a rewind.


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill@bilver.uucp
                - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From: kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:23:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Digital-to-Digital copying
Organization: Shredding the water of SF Bay, HP-OCD
Newsgroups: rec.audio

>bypass it?  What exactly does the law (if there is one) say?  Forgive
>me.  I know that all of this has been discussed before, but I guess 
>some of us were asleep.
>-- 
>William R. Nau

As I understand it, the Copyright law makes it illegal to SELL or give
away copyrighted information to a 3rd party that might otherwise be sold
to said 3rd party without paying royalties or getting permission from
the originator.  For example, it is illegal for me to buy software such
as Lotus123 and give a friend a free copy to run on his PC.  OTOH, it is 
legal for me to bring my 123 disc over to my friend's house and run 123
on his machine even if it is still loaded on mine as long as both aren't
being used at the same time.

All this SCMS, DAT tax, etc. annoys me in that it ASSUMES that I will 
break the law so they award damages to the offended party (DAT tax) for
an action I probably will never engage in.

Funny, HP color copiers make pretty good copies of paper money and yet
the Govt. doesn't make me pay a special tax on blank paper just in case I
decide to go into the money printing business.

For what it is worth, SCMS doesn't bother me since unlimited copying has
no real use other than reselling copyrighted software.  You can buy a
pro deck if you want to go into business and sell your own music.  What I
don't like are the damages one is forced to pay the plaintif for a supposed
crime that may never happen (DAT tax).

Kirk out
=> "We are what we pretend to be."  -  Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kirk Lindstrom - OCD Product R & D | Hewlett-Packard Co.  M/S: 91UA |
|   Engineer/Scientist, Hardware     |                                |
|------------------------------------| Optical Communication Division |
|       kirk@hpoclpa.hp.com          |                                |
|    Kirk Lindstrom / HP0100/UX      | 370 W. Trimble Rd.             |
| ph 408 435 6404 | fax 408 435 6286 | San Jose, CA  95131-1096       |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: >Why do people buy speakers that cost >$1000/pair ?
Date: 18 Dec 92 23:17:34 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <Bz2F5I.6GC@comp.vuw.ac.nz> brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Brian Boutel) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec10.192809.16117@ohsu.edu>, bellutta@ohsu.EDU
(Paolo Bellutta) writes:
> [If I cannot hear the difference, I don't buy the more expensive item.]

>Suppose for a moment that there are differences, and that you can *learn* to hear
>them. In that case, should you learn, and then need to buy better cables, or not
>learn, and save money?  

Suppose for a moment that you have a finite amount of money.  Would
you rather spend $500 on fractionally better sound that you might
someday learn to hear, or would you rather spend $500 on expanding
your collection of music?

David Chase
Sun
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: stud1b53@bnr.ca (Anshu Prasad)
Subject: Re: Opinion on M&K sub
Reply-To: stud1b53@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 16:37:00 GMT

In article <0f=BXAq00Uh7M400xu@andrew.cmu.edu>, Bambang Suryanto <bs3f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> Anybody has comment on M&K sub espessially the MX-70? Good or bad?
|> Anyone ever try to connect it with DR-7?
|>

  I think M&K subs are fantastic.  For the money I think they sound
(and feel) much better than comparably priced Velodynes.  The MX-70 is
the one I've tentatively picked to go with the Def Tech BP-10's (in
a home theater application).  I'm going to have to audition it in my 
sound room before I make the final decision.  I think the MX-70's dual
8" drivers in push-pull configuration outperform even M&K's 12" single
driver systems.  It should sound just as good with the DR-7's (which are
pretty much the unipolar equivalents of the BP-10's).

-- 
   __ ___  
  /\ \ \ \  Anshu Prasad                        stud1b53@bnr.ca
 /--\ \/_/  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
/_/  \_\    All opinions are my own, not my employer's, BNR Ltd
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: wwein@scott.skidmore.edu (warren wein)
Subject: Re: Recommendation on boombox/bookshelf
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:15:59 GMT

	What mini-systems have you looked at so far?  I opted to get a
Sony MHC-300 over a boom box and many other alternatives that I had
considered.  It only has a tuner and cd player but that is all that I
use.   I got it for $299, which I think is pretty cheap for a mini.

wwein@skidmore.edu
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In no sense?  Nonsense." AON

"Female Cathons pick their mates by the size of their balls" -TN
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Do I really need 200W?
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:05:02 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

sorin@techunix.technion.ac.il (Goldenberg Sorin) writes:

>What's the difference between the P.M.P.O and R.M.S power ratings ?

One's bogus and makes a 2 watt amplifier appear on paper as if it were a
400 watt job, the other is slightly less bogus but still open to interpretation
by unscrupulous sales cretins.

PMPO = Peak Music Power Output
RMS = Root Mean Square.

The RMS term is the slightly less bogus one but it's meanless without the
accompanying test conditions that the RMS figure was arrived at.

Eg Take an RMS measurement very quickly (<0.5 sec) before the power supply
starts to sag and claim that.

'Continuous RMS' is a better figure.

PMPO is worthless and usually is taken as meaning 'crappy amp with grossly
inflated power claim to make it appear better than it really is'

Dave
-- 
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: joe@avs.com (Joe Peterson)
Subject: Re: analog pride
Organization: Advanced Visual Systems Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:54:58 GMT

Norman P. Tracy (znpt01@trc.amoco.com) wrote:

: I'm just reporting what I've read.)  Sometimes they will take a certain set
: of tracks, say the drums, and bounce from a digital recorder to analog and
: back to digital to get 'that analog sound'.  Or as in the case of this album

This makes me think of TV shows that are filmed (using movie film) rather
than video (like Cheers as opposed to most sitcoms).  Film gives a more
unrealistic, softer look.  The crispness of video makes shows look "cheap".
Maybe this is just because we are conditioned by movies...

						Joe
From: kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:46:05 GMT
Subject: Re: MiniCD's
Organization: Shredding the water of SF Bay, HP-OCD
Newsgroups: rec.audio

>	One of the reasons why CD's have to be so "large" is the high wavelength
>of the laser used.  Currently the lasers are infrared (970 nm).  This places a
>limit on how small the CD's pits or MD's Kerr spots are.  I've read that JVC 
>and/or Philips have tried using visible blue lasers of higher frequency, which
>can read smaller pits.  Apparently, by switching to blue lasers, it was possible
>to cram all the data on a 4 3/4" CD onto a disc MiniDisc-sized.
>	Although I am not certain if the size of the Kerr spots on a magneto-
>optical disc can be shrunk using a higher frequency "heating" laser, I think we
>shouldn't set our sights on re-recordable CD's, but on MiniCD's using MiniDisc 
>technology and higher frequency lasers.
>	
>	I'd welcome any comments.
----------

I thought CD lasers ran at 800nm (some are 780nm, 820 and 850, but I'm not sure
which one is actually used in Cd players).

Also, I believe semiconductor lasers are limited in read/write ability
by their noise and manufactures broaden their spectrum to reduce this noise
(don't want the laser to use the CD pit as a mirror to lase off).  There is
continuing effort to reduce the wavelength to increase memory density, but
these other problems are limiting it.

Kirk out
=> "We are what we pretend to be."  -  Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kirk Lindstrom - OCD Product R & D | Hewlett-Packard Co.  M/S: 91UA |
|   Engineer/Scientist, Hardware     |                                |
|------------------------------------| Optical Communication Division |
|       kirk@hpoclpa.hp.com          |                                |
|    Kirk Lindstrom / HP0100/UX      | 370 W. Trimble Rd.             |
| ph 408 435 6404 | fax 408 435 6286 | San Jose, CA  95131-1096       |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: mow@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com (Mark Payne)
Subject: DAT and using DDS Tapes
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:38:26 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Response Centre, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Greetings,

My question is this:

Are there any bad effects of using Digital Storage (DDS for computer system backup) Tapes in yer DAT machine.. I have used a couple with no problems that 
I can hear. 

Are Computer DDS Tapes manufactured to better, the same or worse standards
compared to Audio DAT tapes.

Any Ideas ??

Cheers 

Mark


--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mark Payne | Mail: mow@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com | I've still only got a 12 band
           |                                | FOH graphic.. so There !
___________|________________________________|_________________________________
Hewlett Packard, Amen Corner, Cain Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 1HN

I think you will find that HP are not, in any way involved in, influenced by
or responsible for opinions that I express here.... I think....

Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: cms2839@ultb.isc.rit.edu (a.stranger)
Subject: Re: Soundcards
Originator: cms2839@ultb
Organization: Minimalist Music for Hyperactive Children (MMHC)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:59:12 GMT

In article <DkLXVB1w165w@tfsquad.mn.org> mike_d@tfsquad.mn.org (mike diack) writes:
>The options seem to be
>1 : Mediavision pro audio 16 @ $200
>2 : Turtle beach @ $500
>both having 44.1 k stereo 16 bit linear sampling
>Q : why does 2 cost so much more than 1

				it has a complete E-Mu Proteus ( 1 ) on
board , and is made by Turtle beach , among other things . . . 

>Q : are there any other options

				there's the Microsoft Sound System at
$289 ( MSRP ) . the 20th November , 1992 issue of PC Magazine reviews
them both , in the " First Looks " section . check this out for more
info .

-- 
       @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
       @       "Imagination keeps the shadows away  -  Xymox       @
       @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@
       @ a.stranger - CMS2839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu - PGP key on req. @
From: matthews@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Thomas W. Matthews)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Condenser Mic "preamp"
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:27:31 GMT
Organization: Division of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, UC Davis

I have a question about the amplifier inside of a condenser microphone.
Is it simply a source follower, or is it another topology that provides
voltage gain?

I have heard the term "self noise" with regard to a condenser microphone
(but only once).  How is this defined?

Thanks, 

Tom Matthews
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: amarit@cs.titech.ac.jp (Amarit Laorakpong)
Subject: Nakamichi Amplifier 1
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Distribution: rec.audio.pro
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:54:19 GMT


I'm thinking of buying Nakamichi Amplifier 1, cause I live in Japan and 
here audio stuff under Nakamichi name are not popular (strange?) even 
audio magazine is rarely give comment on it. Would anybody give me some 
comments on this amplifier?

Thanks in advance
-Amarit  (amarit@cs.titech.ac.jp)
From: bo@yenta.alb.nm.us (Bo Farley)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: PEAVEY HDH.......ETC.....
Summary: hurl!
Keywords: peavey
Date: 17 Dec 92 09:36:13 GMT
Organization: yenta unix pc, rio rancho, nm

This is true, the Peavey HDH system doesn't totally suck BUT:
 If you dilike the Peavey 22A or 22T HF driver your really in for a treat;
there are 4 of them on a manifold on each horn. (the very thought makes me -
shiver) The HDH is just a knock off of alot of the processed system developed
by Renkus Heinz, EAW, etc...... If the HDH is the best system you've heard,
 you've obviously never mixed on the EAW Virtual Array series or any other top
 of the line concert system. I own an EAW system consisting of:
6 KF-600 3 way boxes, 6 SB-600 sub woofers with the appropriate processor.
I use Crown power amps, Lexicon effects, TDM EQs, I own a TAC Bullet, and a
 Yamaha 3204 FOH. Monitors are McCaully Sound 2-12 w/2" and are mixed on a 
Yamaha 2408. I don't know how serious you are about your sound but for myself;
 having the right tools for the job (including a decent act) makes the job much
 easier and more rewarding. I mix for a living. I can't mix night after night
 on equipment that needs to be "massaged" a certain way to get the results that
 should be available as published or silkscreened on the mix desk, ie.. EQ knobs that say + - 15 db when they are actually more like + - 3 db!!!
 A true stereo 4 way system with great stereo effects can be truly orgasmic!!!
 My 2 cents........ Bo
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Distribution: world
Organization:  One of these days for sure
X-News: HERMES MMAIL 1.10 Rev. Nov 25 1992
Subject: Re: Monitor System Peaks
	<H.eg.cnUg2o3Z0Mw@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca>
	<1992Dec19.033011.2156@acme.gen.nz>
	<Dec20.181619.10369@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 13:25:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In <Dec20.181619.10369@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
		gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts) writes:

>With onstage monitors, the placement of anything onstage will affect the
>resonant modes (feedback), even the location of people.  One of the best 
>things I've found that really works is (if time permits) to get a few
>stagehands and have them stand at the mics with their fingers in their ears.
>Ring out the system this way, and you'll have minimally few problems when
>the band comes on for soundcheck.  It even helps to have someone sit in 
>the drum kit (no playing!!!) and ring that out,  but you know the drummer
>will come on and change everything anyway.

	If you have stagehands, try the opposite approach sometime. Get the
stagehand to adjust the eq at your direction, while you talk into the
mike and tell him to boost or cut frequencies. Try to get the monitor to
sound good vocally. This assumes you can identify frequencies by ear,
but if you can't it's good ear training. 


-- 

 "If Rush fans were braindead, why are there so   Bruce Bufalini
 many people posting to alt.music.rush?"              PSU
From: sperber@ee.rochester.edu (Michael Sperber)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Industry Magazines (Best)
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:14:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science


Hi, just a quick question.  I use to get REP(Recording, Engineering,
 Production) magazine, but I let my subscription run out.  Now I am looking
at either renewing my subscription with REP or starting a new one with a
different magazine.  I guess my question is, What is the BEST audio 
industry magazine?  I am not too worried about the technical content being
too high, I am just looking for a magazine that is well rounded.

Please feel free to either post or email.

Thanks

mike sperber 

-- 
		Michael Sperber		KA1VCN 
	Trust me.  I know what I am doing.  I think. 
sperber@ee.rochester.edu	sprb_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu 
SPRB_LTD@UORDBV.BITNET		sprb_ltd@db1.cc.rochester.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: randy@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Randy Crawford)
Subject: audio engineering schools
Organization: Communications Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 18:57:54 GMT

Does anyone have any information on recording arts schools in Canada or 
the US.

Subjects should include  1) record production (CD's Tapes )
			 2) audio engineering in the studio
			 3) Music as a business

Any input on this would be greatly appreciated.


Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Subject: Re: DOD 1642 MIXER?
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:10:21 GMT

In article <130680005@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> ruska@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dave  
Ruska) writes:

> 
> Well I got mine two weeks ago. I chose it over the Mackie 1602 due to
> the additional sub1/sub2 outputs which can be routed back into the  
mains.
> I will use this capability for doing vocal group processing when I use
> the board in a live sound system.

Not to start a war over mixers, but I can think of several
ways I could do the same thing with my Mackie 1604 using the
alternate stereo bus routed back to the main stereo bus. 

--
Nathan Janette
PPP link from hilbert.csb.yale.edu

Please reply to: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (NeXT)
From: bchase@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Bret Jared Chase)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: need schematics
Date: 17 Dec 1992 09:53:42 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu

Does anyone happen to have the schematic to a fender MA-6 mixer/amp?  I called home to talk with the guys in my band, and well, it looks like time to fix the fender.  If anyone does have the schematics to this please email at:
bchase@wpi.wpi.edu and I'll try to get back to you on how to get the schematics to me.

		Thanks,
		Bret Chase
		bchase@wpi.wpi.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: shawn@thor.atd.ucar.edu (Shawn Copeland)
Subject: Re: QSC1500, was Re: 800W Power Amps (Peavey CS800)
Organization: National Center for Atmospheric Research
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:05:35 GMT

In article <517@bit.UUCP>, grego@bit.UUCP (Greg Sanguinetti) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec6.021812.9313@ac.dal.ca> cullen@ac.dal.ca writes:
|> ><lots of stuff deleted>  The other thing to 
|> >keep in mind is that the quarter inch jack is wired tip negative, sleeve 
|> >positive, ring return. 
|> >						Mur
|> Really? sleeve positive and ring return? That is backwards-backwards, and
|> it doesn't make it right again B^). That means that if someone plugs an

I own about a dozen QSC amps.  To clarify, the 1/4" jacks are wired:

Tip-negative
Ring-positive
Sleeve-chassis ground.

It is a balanced input, it's just wired with inverted phase wrt most of
the rest of the world.  They mention some completely bogus reasons for this
in the original MX-series manuals, but have removed those reasons from the
MX-a series manuals. 

(the bogus reasons they gave are that this constitutes operation in the 
"more stable" inverting mode, and that "mysterious problems" they have 
encountered before in live PA applications have gone away with a phase
inversion).

Personally, I always wire to the barrier strips (which thankfully are marked
+ for positive, - for negative like you would expect) and thus end up
operating in non-inverting mode.
-- 
	Shawn B. Copeland
	National Center for Atmospheric Research
	NCAR  Mail Stop MAR, P.O Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000
	Internet: shawn@thor.atd.ucar.edu
                  shawn_copeland@ncar.ucar.edu
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Distribution: world
Organization:  One of these days for sure
X-News: HERMES MMAIL 1.10 Rev. Nov 25 1992
Subject: Re: Kick Stuff (was merits of power amps)
	<1992Dec14.210722.9568@ac.dal.ca>
	<H.eg.qCVyqRyCdoM@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca>
	<1992Dec16.144805.9622@ac.dal.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:27:26 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In <1992Dec16.144805.9622@ac.dal.ca> cullen@ac.dal.ca writes:

>John Henders writes:
>> (Mur) wrote:
>> >>>..........As for gating and such 
>>>with drums, that's just stupidity.

>> 	Well thanks Murray. Personally, I like a gate on the kick drum, even
>> in small rooms.
>
	<discussion on how kick is actually different than other drums
deleted>

	Well, see, here's where we get in trouble with sweeping
generalizations. ;-) Instead of saying thuings like " all Peavey gear is
sh*t", we should say something like " Every piece of gear I've ever used
by Peavey has definately not sounded as good as equivalent gear from
other manufacturers. in similar situations". At least that's my personal
opinion. The only exception I've found are those 16x6 monitor boards
which seem to do the job well enough, as bands don't complain abnout
them, though it's difficult to say because I haven't had to sit and
listen to one all night. One PA company I did monitors for had a 40
channel Mark II monitor board that wasn't to bad. I like the feature on
it that let you set the pfl volume separately for channels and mixes.
	One thing that people in other parts of the world should realise is
that Canada, for some reason, has a fairly high standard of gear used at
gifgs for the level of the bands using it as compared to anywhere in the
world that I've heard of except Australia. Bar bands in Eastern and
Western Canada were touring with 3 way Martin setups and 40k of lights
10 years ago. When someone mentions a budget of UK250 for shows, as
Murray said, it would be difficult to get that kind of pricing here
without pulling in some serious favours, and you'd have to set it up
yourself. 

-- 

 "If Rush fans were braindead, why are there so   Bruce Bufalini
 many people posting to alt.music.rush?"              PSU