HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:41:26 CST
From: John Schulien <U21187@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: DAT, MD, DCC war
Distribution: usa

In article <1993Jan22.183354.8397@news.columbia.edu>,
dbl10@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Dominic B LoTempio) says:
>
>        Now that this format war has won me over on DATs, I have a few
>questions about them:
>
>        1)  Can you record a track onto a DAT that spans the break between
>sides? (Do DATs even have two sides?)  For instance, if I recorded a 90
>minutes song on a 90 minute tape, could it play back uninterupted?

DATs record one way, like videotape. You can record and play back 90, 120,
or 180 minutes (on 90 meter DDS computer backup tapes) with no break.

>        2)  What is the concensus on portable DAT players?  I am
>considering buying one (not to go jogging with or anything) and I am
>curious as to how their performance conpares to a deck model.  The only
>DAT player that was ever demoed to me was a Sony deck DAT player (the only
>on I've ever seen) and the track seek time was quite acceptible.  How is
>it on a portable?

Seek time is about the same. On portable decks you don't get a lot of the
bells and whistles of the console decks. Portable decks are basically
designed to be used for recording and playback; you start the deck and
let it run, then presumably edit down the tape onto a featureful console
deck with digital fade, tweakable editing, etc later.

One thing to consider, some portables, like the Panasonic SV250 do a very
nice job with pause/restart, stopping and starting immediately and
seamlessly, while others, like the Aiwa HD-X1, which I use, take a moment
to mechanically engage and disengage, and leave a glitch at the edit point.
This may or may not be important to you. (The only time I stop recording
in a live situation is at a set break, so it doesn't bother me.)
From: bobdavis@scumbag.viewlogic.com (Bob Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Dolby S vs. DCC etc.
Keywords: nr, compression
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:15:38 GMT
Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc.
Originator: bobdavis@scumbag


Comparisons between Dolby S and DCC and MD must take the particular
decks and/or electronics into consideration.  While these NR &
compresssion techniques will tend to have certain effects, the other
sonic attributes of particular cassette decks or MD/DCC decks will
possibly make a much larger difference.

One big problem, which I've had with all but the ultra expensive cassette
decks, is flutter and speed stability in general.  Dobly S isn't going
to make a wit of difference there.  Also, the quality of the A/D and
D/A process is quite audible, and relates to perceived sonic quality,
even in data-reduced formats like MD and DCC.  The digital formats,
compressed or not, do lack problems with speed stability.

By the way, this NOT an endorsement of DCC and MD.  I am loath to even
talk about these formats seriously at this point, since they are techni-
cally in a negative direction -- mass marketing of sonic compromise.  If
I could, I would encourage avoiding these formats.  Hopefully, the
competing formats will kill each other in the market via the resulting
confusion and lack of consumer confidence.  Whatever, I'm not buying.

I do think lossless or nearly lossless compression approaches are worth
looking into, but the approaches used in DCC and MD formats don't qualify.
-- 
Bob Davis -- bobdavis@viewlogic.com
"Michael Bolten/Kenny G duets would be perfect for hostile interrogations."
From: rsud@sw.stratus.com (Rajiv Sud)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Comments on analog music
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:34:37 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ernie.cac.stratus.com


    Okay, I've stopped laughing.... I think I can type now....


> Of course, I could also find a certain 2.8 year old who likes
> McDonalds (tm) better, but what does that show?

> Or why the teenager who sits for my kids prefers harlequins
> to 'War and Peace', either.  Preferece.

	Are you implying that the food preferences of a 2.8 year
old and the literature preferences of your baby sitter are as
"good" as the preferences of a gourmet cook or one who has
studied literature? Am I a "bigot" for suggesting that the 2.8
year old and your baby sitter have a lot to learn? (this is a
joke, right? Hey, have all you analogue advocates out there
had to banter with this guy or am I the only one who has been
suckered?)


>>	In digital much of the distortion is in the signal itself.

> What is that supposed to mean? blah... blah....

	What this means is that distortions are introduced when
the dac plays connect the dots.


> What one CAN deny is the nonsense of "lp has more information"
> or "digital throws away the music" and so on......

	As to whether this current application of nyquist "gets
it all" remains to be seen. Robert Fulton suggested that a
sampling rate of 44.1k does not adequately handle the rise
time of a dynamic audio signal (does wonders for sine waves
below 20k, but I don't listen to sine waves). But digital does
continue to improve. I do hope digital does get as good as or
better than analogue since, likely for our lifetimes, we are
stuck with the current standard. 

..Rajiv
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: daniel@nstn.ns.ca (Daniel MacKay)
Subject: Re: DAT, DCC and MD
Organization: NSTN Network Operations Centre, Nova Scotia, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:15:20 GMT

In <30048@oasys.dt.navy.mil> curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch) writes:
>I've not yet been able to play with a MD, but it shouldn't have any
>of these problems.

Right- while you're recording, splitting, merging, swapping and deleting
tracks on your MD, you're editing an NVRAM copy of the directory.  When
you hit <STOP> or you play past the end of the last track, it writes it
out.  Track numbers of course have absolutely no relation to how the tracks
are stored on the disk and are mostly irrelevant anyway since you title
tracks (only with 16 characters of ALLCAPS, ugh).

Annoyance: when you split a labelled track, both tracks *should* get the
label.  But they don't- the first track gets the label, the second track
gets none.  When you splice two tracks, you lose the second label.  The
names do follow the tracks properly when you're changing their default
playing order i.e. the track numbers, of course.

The magic is when you use the << <rewind> button.  It happily backs up past
the beginning of the current track to the end of the previous track in
default playing order, no matter where on the disk that is- it's got some
fairly good smarts for deciding what data it's going to need in the next
few seconds.
--
Daniel MacKay					daniel@nstn.ns.ca
Homo habilis					Nova Scotia, Canada
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:58:12 EST
From: <ASOLOMO@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: SALE: NAD 2400 Amp

          In mint condition w/ papers but no box. You pick up for $200 or
          I ship to you for $220. I'm in the D.C. area.

                                   Cheers.
From: babineau@spxtech.qc.ca (Andre Babineau)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Inline attenuator (RCA-->reduce volume-->RCA)
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:41:01 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1104

From article <lairdb.727750984@crash.cts.com>, by lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield):
> 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!

What you can use is a source selector (ex: QED) which will attenuate the CD input
by 6dB which is normally enough. 


Andre Babineau,                 Securiplex Technologies Inc.
babineau@spxtech.qc.ca          Montreal, Quebec   CANADA
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Subject: Re: DAT, DCC and MD
Organization: Fulcrum Communications
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:57:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.190811.28768@e2big.mko.dec.com> winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
> In article <C19CFs.Fw1@fulcrum.co.uk>, igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
> |>DAT also requires highly accurate helical scan heads.  These will always
> 
> And DCC requires highly accurate thin-film fixed heads.

Helical scan heads must be accurate, and the means of moving them must
be accurate.  Fixed heads requires a stable tape path, but that's much
easier to arrange.

ian
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: Center speaker recommendations
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:09:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.172128.18438@xylogics.com>  
reeve@steam.Xylogics.COM (Scott Reeve) writes:
> I currently have the Polk CS100 for a center channel
> speaker, Polk M3's for the rear, and Vandersteens for the
> front.  [...] I have a Denon AVR 610 receiver

As an aside, how do you like this setup? I have a Denon 3020
and was considering something quite similar. Which 
Vandersteens do you have? How does the sound integrate?
I'm concerned about having a decent set of speakers for
audio while having them integrate well with the center
and rear speakers for video.  

Gordon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: tpearson@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Trevor Pearson)
Subject: Re: The Bose flame war: Equalizer Bunk
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:22:50 GMT

DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) writes:
> In article <93022.112357MHUGHES@MIAMIU.BITNET> <MHUGHES@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:
> >
> >The mere fact that 901s are sold with an equilizer is testament to their
> >poor design.
> 
> This is so much nonsense. Using active equalization is a perfectly valid
> engineering methodology to achieve a particular response. For example, one
> very nice design is to design a sealed box system with a Qtc of 0.5
> (seriously overdamped) then use a two-pole active high pass filter with a
> cutoff the same as the system resonance with a relatively high Q. The
> result is a 4th order system with high efficiency, relatively small
> cabinet and flat frequency response. 
> 
> Having defended the technique of active equalization, PLEASE don't think I
> am condoning Bose's obvious abuse of the technique. You can't get
> reasonable linear bass out of a system well below resonance. The technique
> I outlined above results in about a 6 dB maximum boost in the EQ at
> resonance, then a rolloff below that. The Bose EQ has a boost (as I can
> recall) of almost 24 dB well below resonance. The inevitable, physically
> unavoidable result is nothing more than LOTS of distortion. Period.
> 
> On the same token, don't take Bose's abuse as evidence to heap wholesale
> condemnation on an otherwise valuable technique.
> -- 

Gee Dick, you are totally correct BUT, a sealed system is described as
high efficiency? As I'm sure you'd agree, equalization does not increase
the efficiency of a system. I usually retain the term high efficiency
for Horn loaded speakers, when describing speaker systems. I will
admit the term is relative and used very loosely these 
days.


Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: ERIKB@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Subject: Advice on multi-CD players wanted.
Organization: Yale University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 22:51:46 EST

I would like to buy to buy a multi-disk CD player and I am looking for advice
and suggestions.
 
Some models that I am considering are:
 NAD 505
 Yamaha CDC-735/835
 Adcom GCD-600
 
Feel free to suggest/can any other models in this general price range.  I am
just starting my search, so any help would be appreciated.
 
Erik Bloom
Organization: Junior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:02:06 -0500 
From: "Jonathan W. Stone" <jsal+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: electro static

Does anyone have any idea where I could find plans for constructing
electrostatic speakers?  Also, sources for supplies would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Jon
Newsgroups: rec.audio

>(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 the an entry in some
oxymoron contest......

Kirk (talk about blowing credibility...) out
Xref: sparky rec.audio:19536 rec.music.phish:7318
From: falcon@camelot.bradley.edu (D. Nathan Hood)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.music.phish
Subject: type III tapes
Summary: they are used for recording video... i think...
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:40:00 GMT
Organization: Bradley University

to the best of my knowledge type III tapes are the kind that are used to
record a video signal, like VHS and Betamax... if i am wrong please let me
know... i have asked this question before and have never really gotten a
straigh answer...
--
Your contribution went unnoticed some                  \             / /   
Association with an image                               \\\' ,      / //      
Just credit time for showing up again                    \\\//,   _/ //,      
Attention wandered i'm left with it                       \_-//' /  //<,      
                                                            \ ///  <//`         
To die unsung would really bring you down                   /  >>  \\\`__/_   
Although wet eyes would never suit you                     /,)-^>>\` , \\\   
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally)
Subject: Re: Paradigm speaker comparisons
Reply-To: shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 17:25:31 GMT

In article <19916@mindlink.bc.ca>, Frank@mindlink.bc.ca (Frank I. Reiter) writes:
|> Has anyone done a critical comparison of the Paradigm 7SEs vs the 9SEs?  I'd
|> also like to hear comments from anyone who could contrast the 11SEs with
|> their "Export Monitors".  Those two models are identically priced at a local
|> stereo shop, and though he tried the salesman was unable to explain the
|> difference between them in terms I could understand.

The 9se is 4 ohm vs the 7se which is 8 ohm so it is a bit louder.
The passive radiator in the 9se adds a bit more bass. Sonically there 
isn't that big a diff between the 7 and 9. I personally prefer the 7
to the 9. Also, Paradigm sells a lot more 7s than 9s so the 7 is
discounted more heavily. I did a fair bit of comparing between the 7, 9
and 11 before buying the 7s. I later upgraded to Export Monitors. 

The Paradigm 'Export' series uses even higher quality components
and they spend some $$ on a nice looking cabinet. Real oak veneer
is used as oppossed to the 'genuine imitation' stuff on the non-Export
series. The Export monitor is a 2 way speaker, the 11s are floor standing
3-ways. Again I personally prefer the Export Monitor to the 11se.
I owned a pair for years and found it be an excellent speaker. It is
a bit smoother and more open sounding than the 11se. Bass is excellent.

Whichever speaker you get, make sure you get stands and heavy gauge wire.
From: narpet@cs.mcgill.ca (Greg WARD)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Why would CD carousel sound worse than single-play?
Date: 24 Jan 93 03:20:27 GMT
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1993Jan22.104313.15975@microsoft.com> davidl@microsoft.com (David Long) writes:
>It seems to me that with CD players, designing the unit as 
>a carousel changer shouldn't result in any degradation of
>sound quality compared to a single-play  unit.  However, 
>some salespeople have told me that the single-plays sound 
>better.  I don't understand why.
>
>My understanding of the situation:
>In both systems, the drawer is responsible for transporting
>the CD to the "reading location", where it is clamped, lifted,
>and spun at the appropriate RPM.  The laser then reads the bits
>off the disc.  So why would it make a difference for the CD
>to have been delivered by rotation vs by linear drawer action?
>The CD is lifted off the tray, right?  So resonance or the 
>structural rigidity of the drawer shouldn't matter.  

It's not how the disc is delivered, but how the dollars are divided.
Example -- let's say you spend X dollars on a carousel player, versus X
dollars on a single drawer player.  Because the disc-loading mechanism
on the carousel player is more complicated than on the single disc
model, chances are it costs a larger fraction of those X dollars to
make the mechanism.  That leaves a smaller fraction left over to spend
on high-quality circuitry, separate D/A converters, separate power
supplies, and all those semi-magical tweaks and tricks that
manufacturers try to convince you make a difference in the sound.
(Well, I'm convinced.  I don't believe advertising or marketing B.S.,
but I believe my ears and my ears can frequently hear a difference.
And yes, it frequently does happen that a $600 player sounds better
than a $300 player with the exact same features.  So where does the
money go?  Making it sound better, I'd guess.)

Please, no flames.  I realise this is a *very* hand-wavy argument, and
to suggest that throwing money into a component will magically make
it sound better is by no means truth.  Just pointing out that 
when designers concentrate on the innards of the machine (which
generally means throwing more money there than on features and fancy
mechanisms), it frequently ends up sounding better.

	Greg Ward (narpet@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca)
From: kong@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kong Kritayakirana)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Anti-aliasing on the recording end?
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:20:27 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <shetline-260193114135@128.89.19.90> shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline) writes:
>Perhaps I don't understand the particular processes that you are referring
>to well enough, but it sounds to me like you're getting playback
>oversampling and recording oversampling confused. Do the same methods work
>at both ends of the audio chain?                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

YES.

Kong Kritayakirana
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: roth@3d.enet.dec.com (Jim Roth)
Subject: Re: CD Sound under attack again. Was: Re: Preamp and Amp
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 24 JAN 93 22:04:02    


In article <C1BxAG.Ko1@world.std.com>, DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) writes...
>In article <5494@calmasd.Prime.COM> jpb@calmasd.Prime.COM (Jan Bielawski) writes:
>>	Which reminds me...  An analog tape recorder cannot reliably record 
>>more of the frequency spread than about 8 1/2 octaves.

>Probably because what you just said simply isn't true. I have a couple of
>Revox A-77's sitting around. These are 20 year old machines, so we're not
>talking state of the art, okay? (though they are very good).

>At 0 VU, my 1/2 track high speed machine measures 18-26 kHz +- 1.5 dB, or
>about 10 1/2 octave. The 1/4 track normal speed machine measures +-2 dB out to
>about 22 kHz, about 10 1/3 octaves. BZZZT, you loose.

I'll back that up, as I've owned both a Revox A77 MK-IV tape deck, and
also I've built my own record play electronics for other transports including
Ampex. You'll get 10 octaves easy.  This was back in the mid 70's.

This said, there are definitely problems with analog tape - for example
recording a high pitched sine wave always has a dammn hiss modulated on it.
But this is a worst case, music is more tolerant.  With good noise
reduction like Dolby SR, tape is not a real weak link.  (But it's cheaper
to use a good DAT these days.)

- Jim
From: wdh@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com (W. David Higgins)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Speaker vent placement question
Date: 23 Jan 93 14:55:41 GMT
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL

In article <C19zHJ.BMI@world.std.com> DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) writes:
=In article <C19v5p.IzJ@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wakeland@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (ray s wakeland) writes:
=>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)
=
=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.

I believe there was a company that came out with a ribbon tweeter to
replace the horrid piezo tweeter in the DQ10, along with the appropiate
modifications to the crossover (Sequerra, I believe).  It _had_ to make
an improvement, even considering the DQ10 crossed over to the Motorola
piezo at 12kHz.

The only "valid" use for a piezo tweeter I've seen is one a friend of
mine came up with -- he fed a ultrasonic warble to it and used it to
run off rats, mice, bugs, and assorted other vermin.  I don't know
how successful it was -- it ran me off as well :-)
From: SCHWANDE@eldi.epfl.ch (Bruno Schwander)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: About Amplifiers
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:09:04 GMT
Distribution: all
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Dpt d'informatique
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.22

Hello news readers !

  I've got a problem, I'd like to buy an amplifier but I still don't know
what to buy... I've been in several stores and at 2 of them they said that
Technics was very bad (I wanted to buy eg VX-700 or VX-620) because it sounds
too metallic, some said that NAD was very good (but expensive for much power)
and some other said that Pioneer was very good (eg 676). Has anyone got
any of those amplifiers who could say what's really good ?

Thanks
From: wdh@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com (W. David Higgins)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: RFC: AR M-1's -- whatcha think?
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:04:32 GMT
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL

I'm looking for comments on the AR M-1's, including how long they
take to break in, and any comparisons with the current low cost
favorites, the PSB Alphas and Paradigm Titans.

Thanks.  Turns out it is near impossible to find the PSBs or Paradigms
locally, but the ARs are available.
Newsgroups: rec.audio