HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.audio

> 	You say analogue is distorted. I take it you imply that digital is
> not. Amazing. You know, back in high school we calculated how far a gallon
> of gasoline, when combusted, could move a 3000lb object. We came up with
> about 150 miles. If digital is perfect because the nyquist equation is
> perfect I guess I should stop believing my gas gauge. 

This is not, however, what the "pro-digital" camp (as you are wont to call
us) is saying.  I defy you to show ANY past posting (and hopefully, any
future one as well) in which jj, myself, or any others who have taken the
Analog True Believers to task have done so by saying that any given
implementation to date was "perfect" or even nearly so.  All that has been
said is that we know very what what the inherent limitations of the digital
recording process are, that they are a hell of lot better than the inherent
limitations of the current analog processes, and that the vast majority of
the "reasons" given as to why "digital == BAD" are so much horse manure.
Like jj said, I will not and have not argue with you on points of personal
preference; if you like it, you like it, and that's fine.  But by the same
token, don't expect people to sit idly by while someone attempts to rewrite
signal theory, either.

Now, re-read the above, after you've cooled down.  Note that I referred to
the "inherent limitations of the process".  This says NOTHING about ANY
current implementation, or what the shortcomings of a given implementation
might be - and God knows that there have been plenty, the vast majority of
which having NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the fact that the source of the
signal was a digital recording.


Bob Myers  KC0EW   Hewlett-Packard Co.      |Opinions expressed here are not
                   Systems Technology Div.  |those of my employer or any other
myers@fc.hp.com    Fort Collins, Colorado   |sentient life-form on this planet.
From: qemx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Why would CD carousel sound worse than single-play?dow 900
Date: 23 Jan 93 13:36:58 EST
Followup-To: rec.audio
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cornell University

> In article <1993Jan22.104313.15975@microsoft.com>, davidl@microsoft.com
> (David Long) wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> More seriously, because a bias against changers already existed from the
> days of LPs (when it was justified), it carried on without any good reason
> into the CD world. It has become a self-fulfilling prejudice, however,
> because many manufacturers making high-quality CD players don't want to
> have to fight market perceptions, whether they are justified or not.
> 
> -Kerry

Consider the logical argument:  

While carousel changers should not be intrinsically better or worse sounding
than single disc CD players, their additional components and complexity add
substantially to the final cost.  Theoretically then, a single disc player
should cost less than a carousel changer of equivalent sonic quality.

Furthermore, pricey high-end CD players are almost exclusively of the single
disc variety, so people tend to generalize (wrongly) all carousel changers as
being consumer grade stuff inferior to single disc models.

				Philip


 
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Preamp and Amp
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:40:19 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

In article <1993Jan21.164550.1069@bnr.ca> gpz750@bnr.ca (Dave Dal Farra) writes:
>
>I've read the Bell papers, and the Floyde E. Toole papers
>and books on Sound and Perception.   My career is inaudio
>and acoustics and I've also been designing speakers
>for about 10 years now.   I understand all the arguments 
>I've heard so far.
>
   Apparently you missed the ones on the BENEFICIAL effects of some
   types of noise and distortion.  Also the ones on the specific
   TYPES of distortion that are annoying in extremely small
   quantities compared to the ones that are pretty harmless....

>It comes down to this....
>
   No, it doesn't.  

>We seem to be fragmented into two groups: Those who beleive Golden-ears
>exist and those who don't.  I do, others don't. Fine.
>   
    No, we are divided into two OTHER groups.

      o Those who insist that you MUST prefer LP's if you have
	 golden ears.

      o  Those who believe that the LP bigots are not the ONLY golden
         ears out there.

>Additionally, there are two other groups:

    Geez, man, what's this "groups" problem you have?  Aren't you
    a bit old for this?  Particularly your slanderous tendency to
    put people in groups they don't belong in by your own standards?

>
>a.  Those who believe CD's sound superior on the basis of lower noise,
>    better seperation, etc.  i.e.  Lon.
>    
     WAtch putting words in my mouth.   YOu made a bs statement that
     LP's have lower values.  I merely stated that they do NOT.
     I made no statement on superiority, those are YOUR prejudices
     being asserted.

     I merely said that those who claim numbers for LP are usually
     full of baloney...the CD's NUMBERS are almost always better.

     How your twisted mind decided that was a statement on sound is
     beyond me....particularly since the phrase "illusion" of better
     imitation of live performance seems to have been mentioned
     somewhere.


>b.  Those who can live with the vinyl noise only because they think 
>    LP sounds closer to the real thing.  i.e. me.

 
 c.  There are also some people perfectly aware of the real numeric
     differences in LP and CD who STILL prefer LP.  Most of these
     actually know what they are talking about.   


>    
>c.  The concept that Golden-Ears are self professed ego-maniacs and that
>    their skills are hype.    This is like saying it is impossible to run
>    the 100m dash in under 10 seconds because "I can't do it and neither can
>    any-one I know." 

      No, its just that the LP bigot's constant use of the term to
      describe ONLY those folks preferring LP's over CD's...and
      insist on using $$$$ signs as a measure to boot is really
      nauseating.   Particularly when the automatic assumption is
      that those lacking the LP-gospel fervor are only those with
      cheap playback equipment.
From: sh09@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEVEN HIGGINS)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: 50 vs 60 Hz problem overseas ?
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:37:14 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1993Jan21.152726.22231@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, ryo@oakhill.sps.mot.com
 (Ryo Inoue) writes:
>>I would like to bring back a CD player back to Europe
>>and some friends told me the frequency difference
>>(60 Hz here and 50Hz in Europe) can cause some problem.
>
>>Anybody agreeing/disagreeing on this ?
>
>I have used audio equipment made for US specs (115V 60Hz)
>in Japan (100V 50Hz) and viceversa, always using a
>step-up or step-down transformer.
>
>As far as frequency goes, a 50Hz frequency is more demanding
>on a transformer than 60Hz.

    I don't really follow this.

Fortunately many manufacturers
>put 50/60Hz transformers in their units. For a CD player,
>I do not think that this should be a problem.
>
    I'd agree with that.

>However, if you have a power amplifier, I would recommend
>checking that the transformers can operate at 50Hz. A 60Hz
>unit might run hotter than normal at 50Hz.

    Actually, my guess is that operation at a lower frequency would
    actually cause it to run _COOLER_.  There would be less eddy currents
    losses in the transformer core material, so I'd guess there would be
    less heat.  Operating a 60 Hz transformer at 50 Hz would reduce the
    voltage across the secondary, but my guess is it's negligible for this
    slight difference in frequency.

>
>If you have a turntable with with an AC motor (ie AR ),
>then you'll need a new pulley to operate at 50Hz.
>
    I'd agree, unless the pitch control on the turntable
    can compensate.

>I hope this information is useful and welcome any
>corrections from netters.
>
    Me too, but let's not start a flame war, ok??


    
-- 
~Steve
sh09@lehigh.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: otterw@prl.philips.nl (otter den w)
Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven, Netherlands
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:13:29 GMT

zellers@22_clancy.manassas.ibm.com (Cevin M Zellers ) writes:

<... stuff deleted ...>

>But to go back to John Galloways argument, you state that only the 'canine
>inspired' can diffentiate between a 20KHz sawtooth and a sine. But thats
                                       ^^^
For all yanks not familiar with SI-units the prefix kilo is
abbreviated as k, NOT K.

>enough for me to take my signal generator down Audio Buys (D.C.) and give
>this experiment a first-hand-test. Roof Roof :) :)

Did you do it yet?

>If I can tell the difference, I may just have to scrap my CD's and plug in
>the old vinyl player until you guys pull the sampling frequency out another
>50 KHz!

Just a silly question: does the 'good old' vinyl player permit
frequencies as high as 20 kHz? As a rough estimation: suppose the
needle reads a 78 rpm (as I said, good old) disc at 20 cm (8
inch) from the center. A 20 kHz frequency then corresponds to a
spatial resolution of 13 micrometer. My impression is that that
signal is too small to be even detected by a mechanical needle.

Am I missing something or does your thread miss any solid
basis?


-----
Groetjes,  Wouter.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: neidorff@uicc.com (Bob Neidorff)
Subject: Re: Speaker vent placement question
Originator: neidorff@makore.uicc.com
Organization: Unitrode Integrated Circuits Corp., Merrimack, NH
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:19:01 GMT


I wonder if the designer of the speaker with ports in
front and back thought that he might avoid weakening
the front panel by cutting too large of a port into it.

I think it is accepted that small ports are bad because
of air turbulence noises not related to the desired
sound.  If this is true, then it would probably be a
bad idea to split one fat port into two skinny ones.

I wonder if it is possible that there is more to the
speaker than you have described.  Is it possible that
one port goes to one chamber and another port to a second
chamber?  Perhaps one chamber is midrange and one bass?
You said that one port is low and one is higher.  This
might support the one-for-mid & one-for-bass theory.

Or perhaps the ports are both for the bass, but one is on
one side of an enclosed cone, and the other on the other
side of the cone?  This would be similar to the bandpass
structure used by many these days.

-- 
Bob Neidorff; Unitrode I. C. Corp.  |  Internet: neidorff@uicc.com
7 Continental Blvd.                 |  Voice   : (US) 603-424-2410
Merrimack, NH  03054-0399 USA       |  FAX     : (US) 603-424-3460
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: julian@axcn01.cern.ch (Julian James Bunn)
Subject: Re: Denon or SonyES?
Reply-To: julian@axcn01.cern.ch
Organization: CERN - European Centre for Particle Physics
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:28:21 GMT


I upgraded to a Sony CDP-X555ES a year ago, from an old Technics device, and
frankly, I can't fault it. I was sceptical that I'd be able to hear any
difference in sound quality at all but there was a startling improvement in
midrange clarity on the Sony. I like the idea of the "Gibralter" chassis, and
it's certainly pretty impervious to jolts. The features available in terms
of disk memory and programming are many, but you probably need a one-week
course on "operating the remote control" before you can take full advantage
of them!













-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julian James Bunn / CERN Computing and Networks Division. Tel.: Geneva 767 5029
Email: julian@vxcrna.cern.ch
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Anti-aliasing on the recording end?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:58:11 GMT

In article <shetline-210193103508@128.89.19.74> shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline) writes:
>It has obviously become popular in digital playback systems to use
>oversampling as a way to provide digital-domain filtering, allowing for the
>use of much less severe analog filters. But what's going on these days on
>the recording side?

Well, the common way for a long time was to use 2x oversampling.  Let me
explain why.

On playback, the problem is this....how do you turn the quantized wave
into smooth analog information?  And there were (are) two choices.
Either you filter the hell out of the thing (brick-wall style) or you
oversample and interpolate, and filter gently later.  Thus, the more
oversampling you do, the less severe your analog filtering has to be.
This is called anti-imaging filtering.

On the record side, the problem is different.  Once again, you need to filter
out everything above 20 kHz, but not for the same reason.  The problem here
is with ultrasonic harmonics, namely their interaction with the sampling
clock.  A 20 kHz complex wave, even though we only hear it as a sine wave 
(fourier, ya know), still has ultrasonic harmonics, and the interaction 
between 40 kHz and 44.1 kHz is, ah, quite audible :-).  So in a regular
44.1 system, you'd have to have a solid cutoff at 22 kHz or else anything
above that would alias.  In an oversampling system, the clock rate is run
much higher, say 88.2 or 176.4.  Now, you simply sample everything four
times, and discard three of the four samples.  The advantage here is that
now your clock signal is much, much higher, and you can have a much
gentler slope filter.  If you have a 2X system, your clock is 88.2, so
you can attenuate gently until 66.2 (or 60.2 usually... a 2 kHz guard
band is standard).  The same applies for higher rates.

Once the data is sampled, the extra samples are decimated and then the
44.1 kHz signal is recorded.

There are more modern techniques (1bit, etc) which you can read about in
Pohlman if you're really interested :-)



--
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
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: Darrell_Hare@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Macintosh Awareness Group In Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:07:24 EST
Subject: Re: Speaker Building -- a progess report on my project.

If you use a Macintosh, True Image Audio has speaker design software called
MacSpeakerz. ( $249.00 ,1 year ago). The address is True Image Audio, 349
West Felicita Avenue, Suite 122, Escondido, California  92025. You can
phone 1-800-621-4411 for a free demo.

***********************************************************
The views expressed in this posting are those of the individual author
only.
***********************************************************


Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Micing Acoustic Wind instruments?
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:48:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.221735.14416@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <AfLfzlu00WB9QfU0sz@andrew.cmu.edu> Lisa Laverne Vaughan <lv0e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>I had the trouble of "breathing", actually gasping from a cold, being picked
>>up by the mic.  I have a pickup on the flute, but for classical music, the
>>"key clicks" are too noisy so I opted for the microphone (a vocal mic).

>This is probably more appropriate for rec.audio.pro but I'll answer it
>here.  Close miking for classical isn't a fabulous idea, and you're
>learning why.  Try miking it from the top down ("bird's eye") so that
>you're breating in the other direction.  Also try it above angling the
>microphone toward the keys.

>>I tried to move the mic further away from me and play in a smallish room, but
>>then you could hear the distance.

>What pickup pattern is your microphone?  A narrow hypercardioid is best
>for this sort of stuff.
>

Both problems can be solved by that seldom used pattern - figure 8.

You can angle the mike so the dead side is directly pointing to the
'breather' and it just goes away.     Because it's pattern doesn't have
the severe proximity effects as the cardioids you can mike it fairly
closely too.


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill@bilver.uucp
                - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From: bruno@rot.qc.ca (Bruno Majewski)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: HDCD ???
Date: 24 Jan 93 01:43:46 GMT
Organization: Groupe de Recherche Operationnelle en Telecommunication (ROT) Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Adam Costello (amc@wucs1.wustl.edu) wrote:
: What does anyone know about HDCD?  In particular, who is developing
: it?  What will it be?  Will it be recordable?
: Thanks,
: AMC

Check out the latest issue of Stereophile (Jan 1993) for a description
of this encoding technique by Robert Harley, on pages 7-13.

The company developping it is ... (flip flip flip) (mutter mutter) Pacific
MicroSonics, San Francisco, CA.

It is not recordable - we're only talking about a new _encoding_ technique
here; not some totally new disk technology. It simply promises better sound
for the 16bits, 44.1 (?) kHz sampling rate, way beyond Sony's SBM.

I hope Sheffield Labs will reissue some of their albums using this 
technology... Or that someone will bring out HDCD versions of Enya's stuff...

----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
Bruno Majewski        | Groupe de Recherche Operationnelle en               |
                      |   Telecommunication (R.O.T.)                        |
bruno@broue.rot.qc.ca |                                      192.77.49.131  |
                      +-----------------------------------------------------+
There is good beer,   | also @: Synerlogic Inc, div. of Andersen Consulting |
& there is bad beer;  |         Voice: (514) 685-7575                       |
don't confuse them!   |         FAX  : (514) 685-7692                       |
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Comments on analog music
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:53:26 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

In article <1k2supINNi98@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> scott@psy.uwa.oz.au (Scott Fisher) writes:
>
>Yeah, what is the story with "Digital Domain"?  The dynamic range of
>this recording is much much much greater than any other CD I have heard.
>Great recording too...and that's 1985-7? recording???
>
    I dunno.  It was done by Stanford.  I'm not too sure about the
    musical merits of the disk.....but the tracks with the "Big Note"
    and 747 flyovers at Oakland apt. can do wondrous things to
    poorly damped woofer cones.  The usual cause is turning up the
    volume to hear the pretty quiet portion of that track which
    immediately precedes them.   

    As far as dynamic range, I'd say Telarc's Chiller and Time Warp
    are just as bad.  Admittedly it was Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring
    on Bachbusters that melted the Apogee.  I suggested to the
    salesman that the Apogee's were making strained noises, but he
    didn't believe me.  
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee)
Subject: Re: Roll on the argument :-) ( was Re: Enough w/LP v.s. CD! )
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:48:00 GMT

In article <gre253-220193112634@152.83.8.10> gre253@its.csiro.au (Steve Green) writes:
>Both sides get so wound up that they forget to just relax and listen to the
>music.

Darn!  I was just about to ask the two sides which of LP or CD my
"Queen Live Killers" would sound best on.

Actually, it wasn't until I bought a CD player that I ever bothered about
production quality (I didn't have a LP player before that, either).
Some albums sound like they are bootlegs they have so much hiss and
wierd distortion.  IMHO, this makes a lot more difference than anything
between LP and CD players (decent ones, anyway).

Bill Lee
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: dbl10@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Dominic B LoTempio)
Subject: Re: DAT, MD, DCC wars
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:40:41 GMT


        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?


        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?


        3)  Are there any pre-recorded DAT left from the Sony consumer
push a few years ago???  I remeber seeing just a few of them when they
first came out, mostly classical recordings.


        4)  Does anyone have recommendations on deck or portable DAT
players < $600???  (i.e. non-professional system)


Thanks for the help...
From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Enough w/LP v.s. CD!
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:40:46 GMT
Followup-To: rec.audio
Organization: BBN
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <199301211433.AA11230@europa.eng.gtefsd.com>,
whiting@europa.eng.gtefsd.com (claude whiting) wrote:
> either side. Let's stop wasting bandwidth and time on this silly argument. 
> Face it, some people love cd's, others love their lp's. Leave them alone!

If someone merely expresses a preference, it doesn't bother me a bit. But
when the statement of preference is coupled with bogus technical arguments
and unjustified attacks of the other side, it is quite reasonable to want
to respond.

> The 
> endless and quite a few baseless arguments are a complete waste of time to 
> most people on this newsgroup.

There is far more heat than light, no doubt, but I have noticed opinions
becoming more moderated and better qualified (my own included). A real
changing of minds can happen too, but that usuallytakes time and does not
happen when anyone is looking.

>Most of us subscribe to learn more about audio 
> and to help other's with problems, to make suggestions, and to have a 
> "sounding board" before venturing out to purchase equipment. 
> 
> Let's stop with "mine is better than yours" and get on with real questions 
> and issues in the audio world.

Many of us subscribe for many reasons, and debating about what works and
what doesn't, trying to isolate the causes of perceived preferences, and
working through theory vs. engineering [vs. magic ;-) ], are all important
issues in the audio world as well.

-Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.audio,ne.wanted