HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Dat recording and processing
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:06:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.214927.10828@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> g_house@goes11.enet.dec.com (Greg House) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug8.142623.12554@bilver.uucp>, bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:
>
>
>|>There is a pre-amp from Sony the TAE1000-ESD model that is a digital
>|>preamp.  All analog signals are converted to digital, processeed, and
>|>then reconverted.
>|>
>.
>.
>.
>|>I have one of the units and I have heard nothing that comes close until
>|>you get into the price range of the Lexicon.
>
>The implication here is that this is significatly less expensive then the 
>Lexicon 300 mentioned in a previous posting.  What might one expect to pay for 
>one of these?

List price is $1000.  But I have heard they are being
discounted steeply because of a new model, the 2000, either out
or coming soon.

I posted the original because it might do what you want at a
significant savings.  Lexicon is pro unit.  The Sony is their
high end home unit that does a lot of other things.

Find one and listen.   It might be what you want.   Then again,
since you did not specify what it was being interconnected with
and what you really need to do, you may need the Lexicon.

I've worked with Lexicon reverbs in the studio.   There are
things you can do with it that are impossible on the Sony.  But
if you don't need all the Lexicon goodies, the Sony is quite
nice.   I own a Sony.  So I have used both.   

As with anything in audio, YOU have to listen and make your own
decisions.


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill.vermillion@oau.org
                - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From: gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Garland O Burton)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Dat recording and processing
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:04:00 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <1992Aug12.040216.7257@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.035316.16247@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Garland O Burton) writes:
>>
>>for 10 points...
>>
>>how does one go about finding the critical distance in a room?
>>
>>now, back to my ramblings... as with all audio correctness, experimentation
>>is the key to success.
>
>
>I hope that was a joke, as you answered your own question on the very
>next line.  You find the critical distance by using those two things
>on the side of your head. :-)
>
>If the recording sounds too murky and nebulous, you're either too far
>away, too high, or at the wrong inclination.  If the recording sounds
>too distinct and not cohesive, you're either too close, too low, or at
>the wrong inclination.  There are no rules.  Play with it.  Experience
>will teach you well.
>
>
>--
>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

ok, gabe
now try using the thing inside your head.

there are reasons to use physics and principles of acoustics.  sometimes        professionals need to see where the mics should be before the recording
ever happens.  we don't always have our luxury of annoying musicians with,
"wait a minute, this isnt the right spot. let me try again."

you might have that luxury, but I do not.

sure, there are obvious positions in a room that can be seen by sight, but to   really fine tune the sistuation, you had better leard the most basic law of
acoustics.  some day, soon, you might post the critical distance solution.
I am sure you can find it in a book.

do not make fun of things you do not understand, or eventually those things
will make fun of you.

there are rules. learn them.  experiencing the wrong methods will eat your 
lunch at the most inappropriate times.

I hope you are joking about your methods.  they wont cut it in the 
professional world.

score -10 for gabe.

gb

-- 
gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu.............copyright 1992 gary burton........
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: v035550@stortek.com (Steve Monroe)
Subject: Rudy Van Gelder: Digital vs Analog
Originator: v035550@stcvax.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.  Louisville, CO
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:54:11 GMT

I noticed this on rec.music.makers, and thought this would 
be the ideal group to post this to:



Source: Mosaic Records brochure number 9,
interview with Rudy Van Gelder, quoted from a NPR interview:
(Van Gelder was a prcticing optometrist in the late 40s when he set up his
first, modest recording studio in the living room of his parents' home in
Hackensack, New Jersy. In that room he would go on to record most of the
major East Coast jazz artists of the 1950s, 
including virtually every session for
Blue Note and Prestige Records as well as many classical dates for Vox and
other labels.)

[the interview starts with some history, and a number of quotes about
why Van Gelder believes in two-track recording, using no headphones,
no dubbing. Just straight recording the music.]

``If I'm going to do a session and I can choose what I want to choose,
I will choose a digital recorder. There's just no question about it.
[...]
Digital recording has been totally reliable for me. It finally does what
a tape machine should do -- really, just store what you're putting into it.
No analog machine ever made could do that correctly. None. Not even the best,
the most expensive, could ever do what a properly designed two-track digital
machine will do. We're talking about clarity of sound, clean sound, wide
range, beautiful, no noise problems.
	To me it's made working a pleasure. It's like starting all over
again and being excited about things, like being able to play back a great
sound to the group right after they've played it, and they can 
hear it right then. Everybody knows it's good. Before they go home.''

This from a guy who has been uniformly praised for making
beautifully sounding recordings.


sjm(v035550@stortek.com)
-- 
"Learn tunes: Learn melodies: all bassists need to 
 become more melody conscious."    -Jaco Pastorius
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: XLR-type Connector of choice?
From: Mike_Diack@kcbbs.gen.nz (Mike Diack)
Date: 15 Aug 92 03:18:20 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

Hmm - The Neutriks certainly are innovative - but i do have a little 
gripe with the dismantlable "one shell fits all" chassis mount connectors 
- the tendancy for the little latching tab (located at the end of a 
long narrow tunnel) to work itself into the UNLATCHED position after 
bumping & grinding on the road for a while - whence the damn things 
fall apart.  - I still like Switchcraft and their "extermely difficult 
to loose" reverse threaded screw which holds their cord plugs & sockets 
together.
my NZ.02c worth (about US.011c)
cheers, Mike.

Xref: sparky rec.audio.pro:1529 rec.audio:11667
From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio
Subject: Audiophile mastering of CD
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:22:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: gold.5051
Followup-To: poster, rec.audio.pro, rec.audio
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

I had an experience recently that has me quite concerned.  I listened
to a CD that a friend had loaned me.  It was a CD of orchestral music,
movie themes.  The music was recorded between 1954 and 1968 if I
remember correctly.  This is a side fact,  all of the selections of
music matched very closely,  a credit to the re-recording/mastering
engineer.  That's the good part.

The liner notes specifically noted that a particular brand of high-end
speaker system was used for all monitoring during that production
process.

The problem is that the CD lacked clarity in the high frequency
spectrum,  the low mids were flappy and the sound stage was mostly
left/right only with very little middle sound from the center part of
the orchestra......

I may be outta line but if this is what I get when this type of
monitoring is done then I don't want it!

I played several other CD's and some of my own recordings from DAT to
verify that my studio monitors were performing to their best, and they
were.

Anyone have an idea here?

-- 
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: powell@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: XLR-type Connector of choice?
Date: 16 Aug 92 18:37:59 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

John Henders writes:
> 
> 	I want to add a third vote for Switchcraft, especially in live 
> situations. Even the newest Neutrik's have exposed plastic parts on
> their plugs, and these break.
> 	However, I just saw a new xlr from Cannon, and it is very nice, 

This wouldn't by any chance be the Cannon AXR?
If so, IMHO bad choice as the strain relief is a big screw that just 
tightens down on the cable and crushes it.

> though they're still using that little screw that always gets lost, 
> to hold the shell on.
> 
> 	Have to say though, the Neutrik rca beats the pants off the 
> Switchcraft.
Or any other RCA known to man.

The only Cannon product I am impressed with is the Cannon Mass Connector,
the 122 pin hermaphroditic connector. Very cool.
> 
> -- 
> jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca 	
> 
 --
Do you know anything about accoustics?  "no"
Do you know anything about electronics? "no"
Do you know anything about music?       "no"
Do you know how to coil cable?          "uh...yeah"
YOU'RE HIRED!!!                                       Mur
Subject: Help converting optical SPDIF to electrical form 
Distribution: world
Organization: null
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:27:51 +0000

>>I would like to connect the optical output of my cd player (which I
>>presume to be SPDIF format) to the electrical (rca connector) interface
>>on my AudiomediaII board (which is definitely SPDIF format).  Does anyone
>>know of a converter that does optical to electrical conversion?  A
>>schematic would be o.k., too.
>

Huh!
You want to go from optical to wired and maybe in the other direction. No 
problem whatever apart from finding a +5V supply, the modules and knowing 
where to tap into the existing circuits.

The signal is identical, no change to the data format whatever (remember that 
signal inversion is allowed in the digital interface standard).

Find a source for the transmitter/receiver modules and implement.
The datasheets will recommend foil layout, decoupling and possibly a resistor 
value -- obey the instructions because this is fast optical stuff.
The modules seem to accept/generate TTL/CMOS levels and this does mean that 
the tap-in points need to be chosen with this in mind.

We have used Toshiba (expensive) and now use Mitsubishi. No doubt there are 
others. Cost should he < $10.
I have had no problems whatsoever in design or production.

Tip:  internal  to  the equipment electrical signal routing can be done using 
74HC(T)4066 etc. yet again it seems to work just fine.

If you want to put these on a PCB you will find the  pinout  uses  some  very 
strange mechanical dimensions. Some of the datasheet dimensioning data leaves 
a lot to be desired, particularly when attempting to find the position of the 
mechanical mounting face relative to the PCB mount pins.

Mail me if you want to know some more.

  TC. 
    E-mail: tchannon@black.demon.co.uk or tchannon@cix.compulink.co.uk
                                
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: friedman@col.hp.com (John Friedman)
Subject: Re: XLR-type Connector of choice?
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:14:37 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

Dave J <djensen@claven.idbsu.edu> writes:
> You should check out the Neutrik (pronounced noi-trick) brand of connectors.
> IMO, they offer the most recent innovations in all applicable areas mentioned
> above. One major improvement of theirs is a particular model of panel-mounted
> shell that is designed to accept either male or female XLR, or female 1/4
> inch, inserts.

I LOVE Neutrik's connectors - VERY easy to work with, VERY durable, great
stain relief scheme, etc.

John Friedman
friedman@col.hp.com

Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Rudy Van Gelder: Digital vs Analog
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:58:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.195411.15443@stortek.com> v035550@stortek.com (Steve Monroe) writes:
>I noticed this on rec.music.makers, and thought this would 
>be the ideal group to post this to:
>

>interview with Rudy Van Gelder, quoted from a NPR interview:
>(Van Gelder was a prcticing optometrist in the late 40s when he set up his
>first, modest recording studio in the living room of his parents' home in
>Hackensack, New Jersy. In that room he would go on to record most of the
>major East Coast jazz artists of the 1950s, 
.....

>``If I'm going to do a session and I can choose what I want to choose,
>I will choose a digital recorder. There's just no question about it.
>[...]
>Digital recording has been totally reliable for me. It finally does what
>a tape machine should do -- really, just store what you're putting into it.
>No analog machine ever made could do that correctly. None.  ....

>This from a guy who has been uniformly praised for making
>beautifully sounding recordings.

This bring something to mind.   I was at an AES convention in
NYC.  Probably '81 or '82 era.

There was a panel discussion on digital audio.    There was
discussion that some engineers thought the digital recordings
sounded pretty bad, while other thought they sounded great.

Van Gelder's name came up in the discussion.

About that time one of the 'young studs' stood up and said
something like " perhaps these engineers are developing hearing
problems as they get older, and that's why they don't like
digital".

He was promptly hooted down and boo'ed by most of the audience.

Digital has come a long way since then.   The "golden ears" of
that era seemed to uniformly dislike it.

I remember when I got one of the first over-sampling CD players
in 1984.  Wow - much better than what went before.

I played a selection for a friend of mine who is a really damn
good engineer.

He said "I wasn't supposed to like that!"

m

-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill.vermillion@oau.org
                - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Organization:  One of these days for sure
Subject: Re: XLR-type Connector of choice?
	<H.GKAH9PXB0M2@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> <1992Aug16.183759.7010@ac.dal.ca>
Reply-To: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca
X-Software: HERMES GUS 1.03 Rev. Apr 14 1992
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 00:24:42 -0700

In <1992Aug16.183759.7010@ac.dal.ca>, powell@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>This wouldn't by any chance be the Cannon AXR?
>If so, IMHO bad choice as the strain relief is a big screw that just 
>tightens down on the cable and crushes it.
>
	That's the one. The screw looked large enough to not damage the cable 
any worse than an over tightened Neutrik or Switchcraft.
> --
>Do you know anything about accoustics?  "no"
>Do you know anything about electronics? "no"
>Do you know anything about music?       "no"
>Do you know how to coil cable?          "uh...yeah"
>YOU'RE HIRED!!!                                       Mur

	Amen to that.


-- 
jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca 	

Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: collin@angelo.amd.com (Collin K. Ong)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Need box size/response from T-S parameters
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:14:41 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Santa Clara, CA

I have some woofer specs but don't have access to my reference books on
speaker design right now.  Could somebody do a quick calculation on these
specs and email me the rundown for these woofers in sealed and ported boxes,
such as low end cutoff, box size, etc.

The specs are:
10" DVC woofer
Fs=46.0Hz
Qts=0.43
Vas=2.2 ft^3
Xmax=0.19
Pe=75W cont.

If I measured 7 ohms across each individual coil does this necessarily
mean that the driver is 8 ohm rated?  Are there pros and cons for using
8 ohm drivers in a car?  I'd like one that could be used in both, ideally.

Thanks alot!
Collin Ong
collin@brahms.amd.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Rudy Van Gelder: Digital vs Analog
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:00:09 GMT

>In article <1992Aug18.195411.15443@stortek.com> v035550@stortek.com (Steve Monroe) writes:
>
>>interview with Rudy Van Gelder, quoted from a NPR interview:
>>(Van Gelder was a prcticing optometrist in the late 40s when he set up his
>>first, modest recording studio in the living room of his parents' home in
>>Hackensack, New Jersy. In that room he would go on to record most of the
>>major East Coast jazz artists of the 1950s, 

Digital recording doesn't really do a good job of reproducing the original
signal.  There are real linearity problems in any digital system that I have
yet seen.  On the other hand, analogue recording doesn't do a very good job
either.  Every analogue system I have used has been noisy and had an uneven
frequency response.  Recording in general is imperfect.  Only live music is
any good at all :-).

Van Gelder is definitely right about one point, though: digital recording is
fun.  The amount of dull, boring work is dramatically reduced, and the amount
of fine-tuning is reduced as well (although not eliminated).  The digital
gear is small and compact, making live concert work a breeze.  The bass
response is clean and flat, unlike any analogue machine I have ever used.
The tape is cheap.  And, there is a resurgence in two-track recording now,
due to the availability of DAT equipment.  People are remembering just how
much fun working live to two-track is.

I am delighted to see this taking place.  And I'm having a lot of fun in
the process, and that's what really counts, I suspect.
--scott

Incidentally, the TEAC DA P-20 still hasn't arrived.  Two weeks ago the
folks at Allied told me I would have it in two weeks.  At this point they
have been telling me it will be two weeks, since early May.  This time,
though, they have stopped quoting times and are just admitting that they
don't have any clue when I would get the machine.  Sigh.
From: jd@pogo.wv.tek.com (John "JD" Dalrymple)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: passive crossover design
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:58:06 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.


If anyone has good references or software to handle design of
high-power passive crossover networks for speaker systems, please
email me.  I want to wind some coils and solder in some capacitors.

Thanks,

JD
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: g_house@goes11.enet.dec.com (Greg House)
Subject: Re: Dat recording and processing
Reply-To: g_house@goes11.enet.dec.com (Greg House)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:49:27 GMT


In article <1992Aug8.142623.12554@bilver.uucp>, bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:


|>There is a pre-amp from Sony the TAE1000-ESD model that is a digital
|>preamp.  All analog signals are converted to digital, processeed, and
|>then reconverted.
|>
.
.
.
|>I have one of the units and I have heard nothing that comes close until
|>you get into the price range of the Lexicon.

The implication here is that this is significatly less expensive then the 
Lexicon 300 mentioned in a previous posting.  What might one expect to pay for 
one of these?

Greg
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: jrusby@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Jim T. Rusby)
Subject: audio, 3rd wire power
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 17:00:06 GMT

On eliminating the third wire ground pin for electrical equipment:

Perhaps I was a bit harsh in the use of capital letters when I said DON'T.
Here is a different approach-

This is an excerpt from an article by Allen Burdick, president of
Benchmark Media Systems,Syracuse NY.  It appeared in the March 86 issue of
Broadcast Engineering under the heading "INterconnecting Audio Equipment".

"Do not be tempted into eliminating the third-wire-safety ground. First,
it is unwise from the point of operator safety. Second, for any equipment
not mounted in racks, removal can increase then units susceptibility to
RF. Finally, this practice is illegal. In every installation, all
third-wire-safety grounds should have a separate wire that returns to the
power box from every isolated-type outlet. Do not use metal conduit as a
substitute for the separate third wire. This separate third wire
arrangement forces a star configuration. Third wire grounds should tie
together in the power box via a copper bus bar that is floating from the
box and tied to the power system ground point with 0000 guage cable.
    In any case, all signal references must be tied together with a
separate wire other than the drain of the shielded pair used to
interconnect the equipment."

Of course, Mr. Burdick was assuming we all have balanced audio and I think
the person originally asking for patchbay help had some unbalanced stuff
to deal with.  

OK, so I concede that my "DONT" is to be a reduced "Shouldn't".  I tend to
be overly cautious due to a background in stage lighting as well as audio.
Sometimes stage power fear creeps in.....

J.  Rusby
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:39:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Rudy Van Gelder: Digital vs Analog
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy