HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Subwoofer dumb question
Date: 30 Dec 92 06:45:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24511
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ



	just to further support dick's line on proper integration
of subwoofer's, i quote the stereophile review of teh Muse subwoofer.
as dick indicated, the benefits were not just better and tighter
bass and deep bass; the other speakers (Hales) did not see these frequencies
and performed noticeably better (according to the reviewer).

	this is hard to get right; it means more electronics
(or at least, a crossover) inserted in the signal path.

			andrew
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: kong@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kong Kritayakirana)
Subject: CD Sound QUality - Sampling Theorem
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 15:16:57 GMT

From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
 
>I wonder what happens to higher frequency signals as they approach half the
>sample rate? It seems to me that at *exactly* half the sample rate, the
>amplitude of a signal would be entirely dependent upon its phase
>relationship with the sampler, going from maximum amplitude when samples
>were taken at the peeks and troughs, down to nothing if the samples
>happened at zero-crossing.
 
You are absolutely correct.
 
>It seems then that slightly lower frequencies would slide in and out of
>phase with the sampler. What, if any, audible effect could this produce?
 
You can recover all freq that is less than half the sampling freq. The only 
problem is with the signal with EXACTLY half the sampling freq.
 
>would low-pass filters eliminate such an effect? Wouldn't the end result 
>be like amplitude modulation, producing a spread of frequencies centered on 
>the original signal frequency, +/- the beat frequency?
 
It would still result in the single freq that you sampled. It would look 
like some "beating" is occuring but in the long stream of data you get 
exactly that frequency back.
----------------------------------------------
Kong Kritayakirana  (kong@leland.stanford.edu)
Remotely reading and posting to rec.audio from
a nice beach somewhere in south pacific.  Damn
the technology that helps  us to get in touch.
----------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: owen@emds.enet.dec.com (Steve Owen)
Subject: Re: Please suggest Audio magazines!
Organisation: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:28:51 GMT


In article <1992Dec26.142802.14163@scott.skidmore.edu>, mcobb@scott.skidmore.edu (mary cobb) writes...
>I'd like to subscribe to some good Audio magazines, but don't know what they
>are.  I have found this to be a problem in attaining a subscription for them.
>One person mentioned _Stereophile_ a while back, that sounds cool, if there
>are any others please mail me with a phone number (or internet address? => ) 
>that I can reach the company at to get a subscription.  Thanks!
> 
>Eric

For "mass market" magazines, IGNORE STEREO REVIEW!!  "Audio" at least admits 
there's a difference between different amps with the same specs, and different 
CD players.  For high end stuff, I read "Stereophile", but "The Absolue Sound" 
is also quite good.

As far as phone numbers, I don't know any off hand, sorry.

**************************************************************************///*
Steve Owen                                                               /// 
owen@emds.enet.dec.com                                               \\\/// 
                                                                      \XX/
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bower@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Ty Bower)
Subject: Re: Port Frequencies
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:40:27 GMT

Does the tuning frequency of the port/box depend solely on the three
parameters which Dick mentioned? (port length, port diameter, 
enclosure volume)

Does the shape of the enclosure play any role?  Is there a "best"
location to place the port?

Why do some speaker manufacturers choose to place the port on the
front of the box, and some choose the back?  Does this affect the
sound?  

Is it possible to substitute the conventional "throated" port
(i.e., a tube sticking into the box) with a simple tubeless
vent, or would it have to be of such a small diameter to make
up for it's lack of length that it would "whistle" as air passed
through it?

Am I asking too many questions?  Should I just read a book on
the theory of Helmholz resonators?  Where can I find this book?
What is it called?  Or is the whole thing mostly voo-doo?

If it's not voo-doo, why can't they _accurately_ calculate the
ideal length of a port for a given enclosure?  I've been told
that the only way to do it is to make a port tube that is too
long, then start shaving it down until it "sounds (measures)
right."

Thanks....
From: jeh@cmkrnl.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Ribbon Forever
Date: 24 Dec 92 18:13:19 GMT
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego, CA

In article <1992Dec22.214222.2043@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>,
 dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
> jeh@cmkrnl.com wrote:
> 
> > Maggie owners tend to LOVE their speakers.
> > I used to love mine.
> > However I've since switched back to cones (Vandersteen 2ci, later augmented
> > by the 2w subwoofer).
> > I really like the soundstaging and "transparency" that Magnepans deliver.
> > However... as Corey Greenberg put it recently in _Stereophile_: Panel
> > speakers don't rock, and never will.
> > Translated, this means that they compress dynamic range.
> 
> Is he the one who can't write a coherent sentence in English? 

He writes many complete and coherent sentences.  Some of them rely a lot on
current popular usage and so may be difficult to follow, or even annoying, if
your only experience with English is from reading a junior-high grammar text.
Or if you're William Safire. 

> I have a pair of Apogee Stages: sure they are a little light in the
> deep bass, but I'm sure the Divas or the Stage subwoofer would correct
> that. 

Yup.  Like I said....

> Otherwise they are simply the finest speakers I have heard, for
> any kind of music.

The real trouble with panel speakers is that there are so many things that they
do "appealingly" -- not necessarily "right" -- that they lead you to not pay
attention to what they're doing wrong.  

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
Internet:  jeh@cmkrnl.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Wanted to know bi-amp speakers advantages
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:36:18 GMT

wxc5397@tesla.njit.edu writes:
: Hi,
: 
:      I have a pair of m-1 mirage speakers. It bi-amp.
: Can anyone tell me what's the advantage of a bi-am speakr?

It sounds better. Don't ask me why.
--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: CD/LD jitter: I certainly do get it! (Was: Kerry doesn't get it...)
Followup-To: rec.audio
Date: 1 Jan 1993 03:09:51 GMT
Organization: BBN
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

PART I
------ (Something in this message is poison to my ARA modem link, and keeps
        causing me to lose my connection when I send it. I'm trying it in
        pieces to see if that helps. Aaaaargggh!)

In article <1992Dec31.093238@trc.amoco.com>, znpt01@trc.amoco.com (Norman
P. Tracy) wrote:
  ...
> NOT. Try this. Open any CD/LD player or transport. Now point to the rows of
> SIP-RAM modules containing the mega-bytes of buffer memory.  You can not, they
> are not there.  You object, "the buffer RAM is inside the VLSICs" good we
> agree the amount of buffer is limited.  Now with a limited amount of buffer
> it has to be arranged such that the data written into it and read from it
> never under flows or over flows.  The only way to do this is a servo loop
> that includes the disk drive motor, laser head, and demodulation circuitry
> which contains the much vaunted buffer RAM.  To look simply at one aspect of
> the operation, if the buffer get close to overflow, slow down the disk speed;
> when the buffer gets close to underflow, speed up the disk.  And the data
> being read out of the buffer has to track these variations or the buffer
> will empty or fill up.

(Note: I will for simplicity refer to CD players most of the time, although
this argument applies to LD as well. I am a little less certain about the
exact implementation of LD digital audio as compared to CD, but the digital
subcarrier from a laser disc, once extracted, it is intentionally very
similar (if not identical) to a CD data stream, making the development of
combination units far easier.)

Why on earth does the output have track input variations? One does not need
to control the weather, the oceans, the lakes, and the seas to get a smooth
flow of water from the kitchen faucet. Similarly, you do not need
multi-megabyte buffers to get smooth, jitter-free output from a CD or LD.
You can take a cans of soda out of a vending machine on a completely
regular schedule, regardless of the delivery man's schedule, as long as he
shows up often enough that the machine doesn't empty out. You can take
bytes out of a buffer on a regular schedule too, as long as the buffer
doesn't empty.

CD play does not begin until the disc is up-to-speed and the
synchronization bits on the CD can be properly detected. Once up to speed,
servo motor timing is controlled, in part, by the timing of signal
transitions in the pick-up output. It is this timing which is responsible
for varying the speed of a CD from about 500 RPM at the start of play down
to about 200 towards the end of a disc. If timing goes too far astray, the
disc will simply mistrack with quite audible consequences. However, the
signal-transition-regulated data rate is quite stable by itself. (LD uses a
similar analog-based stablizing system, based, I believe, on the 3.58 MHz
color-burst signal).

(continued...)

-Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: callahan@itr.wa.com (John Callahan)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Experience with Acoustic Research H.I. speakers?
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 13:13:28 PDT
Organization: Information Technology Research, Seattle, U.S.A.
Reply-To: callahan@itr.wa.com (John Callahan)
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1

I am considering buying a new pair of speakers for my office.  

Since this is an office, size is an issue and the listening level is normally
low.

I am considering the AR M1 speakers or the AR M.5 speakers.  I would appreciate
any comments from people who have experience with either of the speaker models
and pointers to any reviews of the AR H.I. speakers.

In addition, if anyone has suggestions for other small speakers that perform
well at low volume levels, I'd appreciate receiving these.

Thanks in advance.

John


---
John Callahan (callahan@itr.wa.com)          SnailMail:
UUCP:  uunet!nwnexus!itr!callahan              Information Technology Reserach
VOICE: (206) 283-5111                          220 West Mercer,    Suite 500
FAX:   (206) 283-5151                          Seattle, WA 98119-3954  U.S.A.                
                   
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Ribbon Forever
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:42:22 GMT


kong@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kong Kritayakirana) writes:
:   jeh@cmkrnl.com wrote:
: 
: > Maggie owners tend to LOVE their speakers.
: > I used to love mine.
: > However I've since switched back to cones (Vandersteen 2ci, later augmented
: > by the 2w subwoofer).
: > I really like the soundstaging and "transparency" that Magnepans deliver.
: > However... as Corey Greenberg put it recently in _Stereophile_: Panel
: > speakers don't rock, and never will.
: > Translated, this means that they compress dynamic range.

Is he the one who can't write a coherent sentence in English? This
statement is complete crap. As is the translation - yours or his BTW?
I have a pair of Apogee Stages: sure they are a little light in the
deep bass, but I'm sure the Divas or the Stage subwoofer would correct
that. Otherwise they are simply the finest speakers I have heard, for
any kind of music.

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
From: znpt01@trc.amoco.com (Norman P. Tracy)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Velodyne ULD-12 hums - why, and can it be fixed?
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:59:23 GMT
Organization: Amoco Production Company, Tulsa Research
Originator: znpt01@gpss43


Ok I can't resist tossing in my $0.02 worth, in spite of the fact I
have no direct experience with Velodyne!  Remember free advice is often
worth what it costs.

Could it be that what you are hearing is the AC power transformer's
asoustic hum through the woofer cone and/or port?  Does the hum go
away or change if you lightly damp the woofer cone with your fingers?
If not it could be that transformer humming to its self.  If you fool
around with audio long enough you WILL get a piece of gear with a
humming AC transformer.

Norman Tracy
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Do I really need 200W?
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:46:26 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

In article <1992Dec29.150249.17509@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> eric@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Eric Hansen) writes:
>
>I recall a series of messages about a year ago where this guy was trying
>to convince everyone that 2-5 watts was enough more most people.  This is
>probably true in some respects, but to save time&bandwidth, I'll summarize
>what I can remember from this posting stream...
>
    "This guy" could have been Paul Klipsch.   That was his motto:
    "What this world needs is a GOOD 5 watt amplifier".

    Of course his statement is perfectly true if you are using a
    pair of nice efficient Klipschhorns which can get uncomfortably
    loud with a Dyna Stereo 70.  

    However, if you are dealing with AR-3's, the Stereo 70 was just
    about the MINIMUM amp for decent sound.

    It is a fallacy to speak about "proper" amplifier power unless
    you know the efficiency of the speakers involved....and their
    impedance characteristics.   

    200+ watts into a set of Dahlquist DQ-10 or DQ-20's provides a
    fairly nice dynamic range with only moderate clipping on
    transient peaks.   [They are power-hogs].  Into a set of Cerwin
    Vega or Klipschhorns, the same 200 watt amp can damage your ear
    drums.  

    And if your speakers are Apogee, that 200 watt amp had better be
    able to drive a 1 ohm load with excellent stability or it will
    self-destruct.   

>
>Now the headroom plug...  true: dynamics require "headroom" which means
>that the cannon blast in the 1812 overature will almost always make your
>amp clip if its at a "kind of loud" level.  This is one of the all-time

    The nice thing about CD is that audio is coded as dB below
    maximum.  For any given player (sadly players vary somewhat in
    voltage for max record level) the maximum POSSIBLE output is
    always the same.  

    If you have a test CD and a distortion meter (or even o'scope
    and good eyes), you can determine the clipping level for max
    output at all frequencies for your specific player/amp
    combination.   Then all you need to do is mark your level
    control and never exceed that mark...bingo NO clipping!

>
>For a two speaker system owned by conservative folk, "I think" <100 wpc
>is perfectly appropriate.
>
    Are these Klipschhorns or Dahlquist DQ-10's?  (or any other
    particularly efficient or power hungry models...)    

>Compare a Krell 100wpc amp with a mid-fi 200wpc amp...  the Krell won't
>clip with the cannon blast.
>
    Depends on the speaker.....unless the speaker has a poor
    impedance curve, neither will the mid-fi 200 amp.  

>Please note that the preceeding has little or nothing to do with sound
>"quality"...  
>
     You can say that again....!!!   Neither speaker efficiency nor
     amp power (within power bandwidth) has any DIRECT relationship
     with sound quality.
From: dencisco@eos.arc.nasa.gov (David Paul Encisco)
Subject: Re: Summary : Amps for Vandersteen 2Ce
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:56:45 GMT

Youngjoon Kwon     (415)926-2761 <YKWON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:


>In article <540@bit.UUCP>, grego@bit.UUCP (Greg Sanguinetti) says:

>>I also recommend the ST-140. Best bang for buck and a great match for
>>the 2Ce. I have Adcoms for my Maggies and that is a good match but I
>>would not recommend the Adcoms for the Vandersteens. The low end works
>>but the high end does not.

>In "Audible Difference", a high-end shop in Palo Alto,
>I used to have a good impression on the sytem they set up which consists
>of ADCOM 535 amp (60w/ch) and 575 CD player driving Vandersteen 1B.
>I though it sounding pretty good...

>As a potential buyer of ADCOM's, B&K's, or Acurus's and possibly Vandy's,
>I would be very interested what other pepole think, although the
>final decision should be on my listening.

Audible Difference is still pushing the Adcom 555s or the NAD 2400 for
the Vandersteen 2CEs. But if you're willing to kick in some more $$
they'll take you into the middle room and show you the Bryston 2B (50w)
and 3B (120w) amps. Thus far, I think the Bryston 3B is the best amp
I've heard powering the Vandersteens. In the Adcom/B&K price range I
think the Acurus A250 is a better sounding investment.

Dave
From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:25:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: MiniDiscs -- What Are They?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.audio


Sigh.  It's also been proposed that "disk" refers to removable media
(i.e., "floppy disk"), while "disc" is fixed (as in "hard disc drive").
Both are examples of someone trying to impose a "standard" after the fact,
most likely someone who just can't stand the notion that there are
two perfectly acceptable alternate spellings for "disc/disk."

In short, IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN'!!!!  Don't try to read more into a single
letter than is really there.


Bob Myers            | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but  
myers@fc.hp.com      |  most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."
                     |                        - Winston Churchill
From: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Why is my FM reception ordinary (was Re: FM reception)
Date: 2 Jan 93 02:46:27 GMT
Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

In article <1992Dec30.072855.8927@mel.dit.csiro.au> gre253@mis.csiro.au (Steven Green (+61 6 276 6813)) writes:
> OK. I have a NAD 4225 Stereo tuner. I also have a external 28? element
> UHF antenna aimed at the local TV (and FM radio) source 7km (~4miles) away.
> The antenna has no "line of sight" problems with the translator, however, 
> I do have a problem with ghosting, althought not bad, should be better
> given my setup. This, I am told, is caused my the proximity of the flat metal
> roof, which the antenna sits about 2m ( 6feet) above.
> 
> My problem with FM reception is as follows. I have tried BOTH connectiing to 
> the external UHF antenna, via a 75ohm coaxial cable, and using an internal
> 300ohn dipole antenna. With both I get annoying high frequency interference.
> The only work-around at present is to press the BLEND botton on my tuner
> , which eliminates the interference, but sadly, a lot of the hi-end as well.
> As I enjoy recording simulcasts of classical presentation on the public
> TV channel I would like to know how I could improve my FM reception.
> 
> Do I but an external FM-audio antenna or, as a freind suggested, raise the
> height of the UHF antenna to about 5-6m (15-18feet) from the flat metal roof.
> My feeling is the latter may improve my TV(video) signal, but is the antenna
> too selective for FM(audio) use?

FM is at the low end of the VHF band.  A UHF-only antenna won't be any more
effective than the lead-in wire by itself.  Your best bet is probably to buy
an all-band VHF+UHF antenna or add a second low-cost VHF-only antenna (or a
"FM-only" antenna if you can find one easily) several feet away on the same
mast.

Given that the FM source is only 7 KM away, you shouldn't need anything
fancier, but for fringe area FM reception an antenna with more low-band
VHF elements and/or an in-line amplifer may help, especially with stereo
reception.  Stereo requires a better signal/noise ratio and a weak signal
gives the effect you describe with hissing in stereo mode, which is reduced
with mono or blend setting.

The close proixity to the metal roof won't help matters, but get the right
antenna first...

-- 
George Robbins - now working for,     work:   to be avoided at all costs...
but no way officially representing:   uucp:   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
Commodore, Engineering Department     domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com
Date: Monday, 28 Dec 1992 13:49:46 MST
From: <AOAFF@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: CD Changers
Distribution: usa

In article <SLIN.92Dec23140812@regal.cisco.com>, slin@cisco.com (Steven Lin)
says:
>
>This may not be important to many people, but 6-CD magazines are
>standarized, so if you have several CD players (say, one in your car
>and one at home), you can quickly move the magazine from one CD player
>to another.

standardized? There are at least two types of 6 disk magazines: the
Pioneer, where the trays swing out in a semi-circle; and the Kenwood/
JVC type where the trays slide straight out and back.

Allen
From: gb@cup.portal.com (Greg A Buechler)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Question about rear speakers for surround sound
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 11:21:14 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na

To add to this question.

I have been told that the rear channel is sent only the mid and high
frequencies.  Given that, I would assume a subwoofer to these speakers
would be useless. Advise?

Also, I would like to use my rear speakers as a second set of regular 
speakers when I am listening to music and not using the pro-logic
function.  Are their good switching boxes to put between the speaker
outs and the speakers that will accomplish this.  (Radio Shack has a
speaker switcher, but it is butt-ugly)  Advise?

Thanks a bunch

gb