HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Brian R. O'Hern
Subject: Stereo, Cable, and VCR ?s
Followup-To: same
Reply-To: ohernb@lonex.rl.af.mil
Organization: USAFRL (Rome Laboratory AFMC)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 15:18:58 GMT

I have three questions:

1.  I have a lot of RG-58C (50 ohms) and was thinking of using it to 
connect my Marantz 200W amp to a pair of Klipsh Heresy speakers.
Are my calculations showing that nearly 86% of the signal would be
reflected back from the 8 ohm load?  So, not only "no" but "hell no"
I shouldn't use coax to drive my speakers? 
  However, my instinctive feelings tell me that at because the line
is not infinite (transmission line theory), the connection is
analyzed as a RC circuit showing the characteristic impedence of the
line is close to the load value so reflection isn't a problem.  Also,
at 30pF a foot, an audio signal would hardly notice.  In fact, it
seems connections using coax would be better than a zipcord (~150
ohms) or even a twisted pair and much less noisy than both?

1a. Side Ques: I heard that the "Heresy" name came about because its
design (Conventional paper cone) is not the standard (does not
follow the Klipsh design doctrine).  Any truth to this?

2. Is there a FAQ list on VCR problems?  It seems that everyday there
is at least one question about VCRs... speaking of which...  I have
a RCA that stops a couple seconds after pushing play no matter where
you are on the tape. 

3. I have a couple of coax splitters that I acquired in college from 
my cable connection.  I would like to use them to split an antenna
signal (one to TV one to FM stereo).  Is there any truth to the 
rumor that the splitters filter out high UHF?  I.E. I won't get
channel 68 (~795MHz) through it.

Thank you for any comments.


BRO'HERN
________________________________________________________________________
STD DISCLAIM APPLIES ('disClaim dat I make is no lie...)
Unless otherwise noted, I say what I say about what I think or thought 
with total disregard for what the United States Air Force says or thinks
and vice versa. This medium is subject to monitoring. Use of this medium
constitutes consent to such monitoring.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: wash@mamacass.etdesg.trw.com (Michael Washington)
Subject: Re: Need help on Advent 6003
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 16:42:46 GMT

In article <20JUL199212310860@jane.uh.edu> you write:
>I don't know why I bought this used Advent 6003 speaker.
>It sound good at dealer's place. It looks good (floor stand, 30"x16"x10").
>Its price was OK (consider the sound at dealers' showroom).
>I paid $130 for this pair.
>
>When I moved the speaker home. I found it sounds bad. I have a Celestion 3.
>Although Celestion 3 is a two-way small speaker, its sound is far more better
>than old Advent 6003's sound (even bass).
>
>I am thinking about to rebuild this speaker. I can't find any information
>about Advent 6003 on local library. All I know about Advent is that it is
>a three way speaker with a 1" tweeter, 2 or 3" midrange, and a 10" woofer.
>Does anyone know anything about Advent 6003? I will like to know the
>crossover design of it.
>
>I am thinking about to replace tweeter and midrange unit. However, I know
>little about speaker design. All I have right now is some information from
>speaker mail order dealers and a speaker design book from Radio Shack. I
>think I need to find a book about crossover design. Any suggestion?
>Thanks in advance.
>
>-Luke

I definitely agree with you on the Advent 6003's.  I am an advocate of
Advent speakers (since I have four of them, two older Advents, and two
5012 Advents).  I listened to the 6003's a long time ago.  I hated the
sound even in the dealer's listening room.  At the time I think Advent
was trying to cash in on the three-way craze.  Advent has always been
a two-way design speaker and the two-way Advents far exceeded the sound of the
6003's.  

First, Advent is a division of Jensen International in Illinois.  I don't
off hand have their address, but I can get it if you are interested in
either writing to them or giving them a call.  Let me know in an e-mail
letter.

Next, from what I remember of the speaker cabinet design, you would be 
better off just designing your own speakers or buying new speakers.  
Speaker building is very complex to get the sound just right.  You cannot
just buy some parts, throw them together, then get a good sounding speaker.
It takes the right crossover, cabinet size, woofers, tweeters, and if you
like, a midrange driver in the right combination and enclosure size.
The cabinet on the 6003's were a bit weird.

The amount of drivers that a speaker contains is not an indication of
superior design or sound.  The most ideal speaker would be a speaker with
only one driver, but we do not have the technology to develop a one driver
full range speaker.  Many people were taught to believe that the more drivers
there are in a speaker, the better.  This is not necessarily true.  As you
pointed out, your Celestion speakers sound better than the 6003's.  This
holds true for other comparisons between two-way and three-way designs or
even four-way designs.

Hope this helps.  Happy hunting and speaker searching/building.

"Live Long and Prosper!"
 Michael N. WashingtonNewsgroups: rec.audio


Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Sony TCDD3 Portable Dat 4sale
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:43:37 GMT

In article <64675@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt5606b@prism.gatech.EDU
(PATSIS,PETER ANGELOS) writes:
>hit some unforseen financial difficulties. Looking to unload at mid 500's

They sell new for that.  I paid $500 for one.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: mbk@poincare.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Sony's SBM CD Mastering
Date: 31 Jul 1992 04:03:17 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: poincare.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt) writes:
: In article <1992Jul28.221729.13569@cbnewse.cb.att.com> acgd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (andrew.charles) writes:
: As I understand it (based on an article in the current issue of Audio),
: the SBM technique is basically a noise-shaping technique.  It shifts the
: spectrum of the quantization noise (produced during the 20->16 bit
: truncation) so that it's concentrated at frequencies at which the human
: ear is less sensitive.  The total amount of quantization-noise energy
: isn't reduced, but its impact on our ears is.

If in fact it does sound better, does this imply that a system with
true >16 precision all the way could sound audibly better than the present
one?  And I thought the original 16 bit resolution was decided upon because
listening tests did not show any audible improvement with increasing precision,
or am I being naive?

: Well, it was _recorded_ with 20-bit technology, _mastered_ and
: _reproduced_ with 16-bit technology, and the 20->16 conversion wasn't
: a simple roundoff or truncation.

And probably a better guarantee that all 16 bits are going to be used.

: Dave Platt                                                VOICE: (415) 813-8917
:               Domain: dplatt@ntg.com      UUCP: ...netcomsv!ntg!dplatt
:  USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2468 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
From: larry@csccat.cs.com (Larry Spence)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Sony's SBM CD Mastering
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:33:21 GMT
Organization: Computer Support Corporation,  Dallas,Texas

In article <1992Jul29.235552.18085@ntg.com> dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.221729.13569@cbnewse.cb.att.com> acgd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (andrew.charles) writes:
>
>>I saw the same article. I took it to mean that Sony has found a better way
>>of dithering. "20 bit resolution" is pure marketing nonsense. 16 bits is
>>still 16 bits.
>>
>>This doesn't imply that SBM won't improve the sound of discs. From what I've
>>read, dithering makes a tremendous difference and an improved algorithm
>>may be very effective.
>
>As I understand it (based on an article in the current issue of Audio),
>the SBM technique is basically a noise-shaping technique.  It shifts the
>spectrum of the quantization noise (produced during the 20->16 bit
>truncation) so that it's concentrated at frequencies at which the human
>ear is less sensitive.  The total amount of quantization-noise energy
>isn't reduced, but its impact on our ears is.
>
>So... if I read the description correctly, SBM is a more sophisticated
>way of tackling the quantization-noise issue than a simple one-half-LSB
>random dither is, but the two techniques are first cousins.

Is it correct that this is purely a quantization issue?  How much of a
problem is quantization noise in current oversampling A/D converters?
Is it only audible at very low levels?  The Stereopile article that was
quoted had the Sony folks saying things like "a 100 Hz sine wave at -90
dB looks more like a sine wave."  If that's the main improvement, I find
it hard to believe that the difference would be apparent to most consumers
under typical listening conditions. 

-- 
Larry Spence
larry@cs.com
uunet!csccat!larry or sun!texsun!csccat!larry
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: watsonr@unix1.tcd.ie (richard watson)
Subject: Cyrus/Mission amps
Summary: Advice requested on Mission hardware
Organization: Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:17:45 GMT

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Watson,			watsonr@unix1.tcd.ie
Dept. Computer Science,		watsonr@ashe.cs.tcd.ie
Trinity College, Dublin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they really that good, in their price-range (260 Irish pounds) ?

Would I be better with a Musical-Fidelity budget (300 pounds) ?

Does anyone know about the Cyrus-1/Cyrus speaker combination ?

Any advice, comments, etc. greatly appreciated.


Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
From: kim@Software.Mitel.COM (Kim Letkeman)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Cyrus/Mission amps
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:51:21 GMT
	<KIM.92Jul27150806@kim.Software.Mitel.COM> <1384@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Organization: MITEL Public Switching, Kanata, Ontario, Canada
In-reply-to: wgd@ukc.ac.uk's message of 28 Jul 92 09:10:06 GMT

In article <1384@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> wgd@ukc.ac.uk (W.G.Day) writes:

| >Kim Letkeman	kim@Software.Mitel.COM
| 
| Is this a guys name too?
| 
| Warren

Say Warren, was that a joke? I don't get it?
--
Kim Letkeman	kim@Software.Mitel.COM
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: HELP! Very noisy tape deck. Ideas?
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:52:52 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Jul30.162806.13000@cs.ucf.edu> tech@cs.ucf.edu (Tony Travaglini) writes:
>In article <3340223@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> seghers@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (David Seghers) writes:
>>Before I take my tape deck in for repair, I thought I would find out
>>if anyone has seen this problem:  One well of my dual well cassette deck
>>has suddenly gotten VERY noisy, even without a tape!  The level "meters"
>>for both channels max out, and all you can hear is a loud hum. Any ideas?
> 
> You have a ground problem somewhere. As in loose or disconnected.

Probably.  And, if the deck is the normal sort where one well is
play-only and the other well is play/record, and the noise is on the
play/record side, then it just might be the case that one of its input
cables is loose.  Another thing which might cause that in the P/R side
is if you've reconnected anything lately, or flipped any tiny buttons
anywhere, so as to result in a feedback loop, with the tape deck's
output being fed back into its input.  (I can duplicate this effect
very easily with my VCR, if I switch things the wrong way.)

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: jstimson@jarthur.claremont.edu (John Stimson)
Subject: Re: Best news about LPs...
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:18:52 GMT

In article <5=mm=2#.vlad@netcom.com> vlad@netcom.com (Vladimir Kuznetsov) 
writes:

>And it is not the first time in history. In a past, they replaced
>superb sound of 78 RPM's for definitely inferior sound of LP's. Then
>they invented "stereo" that was no more then a marketing gimmic, 
>just to extort more money from us. Now it is CD.
>
>Thing that drives me nuts, is that every time there were audiophiles
>complaining about it, but greedy companies did not listen and 
>uninformed ignorant crowds were embracing new inferior format. 
>
>-- 
>Vladimir Kuznetsov                         (408)252-5455
>Natural Intelligence Consulting            vlad@netcom.COM
>                                           73437,3344@compuserve.com


Huh.  If you think stereo was an "inferior medium" then it's no wonder
you don't like CDs!  Too much accuracy for you, I guess...
						John Stimson
						Harvey Mudd College
From: bower@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Tyson Bower)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: blu-tak
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:59:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark

So this stuff is basically just blue silly putty, right? 

And you're sticking it _IN_ your CD player? Please, someone catch me
before I hit the floor....
From: frank@advansoft.com (Frank Tsang)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: B&K PRO-5 PREAMP FOR SALE
Keywords: MINT CONDITION AUDIOPHILE EQUIPMENT
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:45:03 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: usa
Organization: Advansoft Research Corp, Santa Clara, CA
Originator: frank@arc

FOR SALE: Audiophile Amp and Preamp

B&K ST-140 Power Amp.   SOLD
B&K PRO-5  Pre Amp.     $300 obo + Shipping

Both mint; original owner;
with original packaging, manuals.
Will deliver within the SF bay area.

-- 
Regards,    + Frank Tsang                   |   ^++^    "__"    +
            + (408)-727-3357 #261# (W)      |  @ oo @  @ .. @   +
Frank       + (510)-791-0658       (H)      |   ([])    (())    +
            + e-mail: frank@advansoft.com   |   Heeelllloooo    +
From: MATGBB@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU (BYRNES,Graham)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: 20 or 24 bit digital recording?
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:48:42 GMT
 <1992Jul23.212018.16396@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz> <1992Jul24.011417.10677@lugb.latrobe.edu.au> <1992Jul24.043605.23869@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>
Organization: La Trobe University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.22

In <1992Jul24.043605.23869@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz> stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz writes:
> >> ( ie:on audio data, you can EASILY get 1:8 compression NON-LOSSY ..
> >> anyone for an 8hour CD format??? )
> 
> >News to me: Why is DCC so contentious at 1:4, and mini-disk admitted
> >(by Sony) to be inferior to CD at 1:5????
> >Graham B
> 
> because:
> 	1) audio people LOVE to think that it is HARD to do these things, 
> 		and that compressed data MUST be inferiour..
> and ( even more important.. )
> 	2) audio companies do not want to shell out to design the hardware
> 		to do this at audio rates ( ie: it can be done, but I did not
> 		say easily.. B-)
> remember MOST audio data ( excepting perhaps some SPEED METAL ... ) uses a
> VERY SMALL FRACTION of the 20kHz bandwidth available at any one time...
> ( yes, many people will disagree, but I write compressors, and listen to/
> analyze much music... )
Well, I can't challenge you r expertise in compression, although you did
say easily(8-).

I'm still surprised that if it is technically feasible to do as you say,
Philips et al are playing about with PASC etc, which IS lossy, 
although perhaps not audibly. In fact, Pasc relies on the fact that only
a small fraction of the bandwidth is audible at a given time to ditch the
rest. If only a small amount was in fact USED, PASC would be loss free,
right? Now I'm told, but have not seen, that conventionally measured
distortion is in the several percent region. Bypassing questions of
audibility, that means it surely IS lossy. So what are you proposing that is
different to PASC, MUSE etc?

Finally, who wants an 8hr CD? Since 95% of the cost is in intangibles,
an 8hr CD would sell for about $200 in Australia!!!! (who knows how much
in Rogernomicked NZ). But it would allow easy digital broadcasting, which
is why the EBU would probably be very happy if you are right.

Yours in scepticism,
Graham B
From: rkalil@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ronald Kalil)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: FOR SALE
Date: 31 Jul 92 03:57:15 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

SONY X-777ES CD player. Sony's best model, brand new, unused in box, with
all accessories, owner's and service manuals, extended warranty (retail $1725)               
sell $1200. Sony MDR CD-999 headphones, also brand new, unused in box, (retail
$249), sell $135.
tel. 608-262-4903, lv msg after 4th ring and I will return call or EMAIL at the
following (not the above please) address: rekalil@vms.macc.wisc.edu
From: vlad@netcom.com (Vladimir Kuznetsov)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Best news about LPs...
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:18:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <4729@othmar.lulea.trab.se> sture@lulea.trab.se (Sture Jonsson) writes:
>t8800568@phillip.edu.au writes:
>3) Some people hate the recordcompanies for throwing out the LP so soon, just
>   to make a nice profit. The introduction of the CD must be one of the most
       .........

>   But then again, the recordcompanies don't care the least about music.
>   They even help introduce DCC and MiniDisc, systems that are worse than CD:s,
>   since they think (like some component manufacturers) that CD:s are of an
>   unnecessary high quality for use in a normal home. Sheesh....
>
>LISTEN and enjoy,
>Sture

And it is not the first time in history. In a past, they replaced
superb sound of 78 RPM's for definitely inferior sound of LP's. Then
they invented "stereo" that was no more then a marketing gimmic, 
just to extort more money from us. Now it is CD.

Thing that drives me nuts, is that every time there were audiophiles
complaining about it, but greedy companies did not listen and 
uninformed ignorant crowds were embracing new inferior format. 

-- 
Vladimir Kuznetsov                         (408)252-5455
Natural Intelligence Consulting            vlad@netcom.COM
                                           73437,3344@compuserve.com
From: opnpaul@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul Francavilla)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: advise on stereo purchase
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:37:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


 I am interested in purchasing a stereo system . Does anybody know of any
reputable mail order companies. 

                        thanks in advance.
                  Paul Francavilla
From: kim@Software.Mitel.COM (Kim Letkeman)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Best news about LPs...
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:32:31 GMT
	<5=mm=2#.vlad@netcom.com>
Organization: MITEL Public Switching, Kanata, Ontario, Canada
In-reply-to: vlad@netcom.com's message of 28 Jul 92 03:18:51 GMT

In article <5=mm=2#.vlad@netcom.com> vlad@netcom.com (Vladimir Kuznetsov) writes:

| Thing that drives me nuts, is that every time there were audiophiles
| complaining about it, but greedy companies did not listen and
| uninformed ignorant crowds were embracing new inferior format.

The fact that legions of the uninformed and ignorant have had a
dramatic improvement in their sound reproduction since CD replaced the
turntable for the "average guy" should not deter the informed
intelligentsia from crapping up one side of the format and down the
other. Carry on.
--
Kim Letkeman	kim@Software.Mitel.COM
From: BARRON@RHQVM14.VNET.IBM.COM
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 08:04:35 EDT
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Audio Concepts Saphire IIti/Sub 1 Combo

Subj:Audio Concepts Saphire Sub Combo.

Audio concepts is now selling their Saphire/Sub 1 combo for about $1,600 for
the pair.  Does anyone have any experience with this combo or the
companies products in general.

If anyone is familiar with the products can anyone make a comparison to
similarly priced speakers from other companies?  The ACI speakers are
sold in kit form and the puffing in the ads says they outperform
assembled speakers costing many times their cost.

FYI, ACI makes speaker kits.  The combo I refer to consists of 2 mini-monitors
and 2 Subwoofers.  The mini-monitors use Focal drivers and ACIs own xovers.

Not sure of the SUB1s.

I have a friend with a pair and he loves them, but I have yet to hear
them.

This will be a substantial upgrade for me as right now I have a pair of
Klipsch KG4s for main speakers and B&W 201s for surround.  I have outgrown
the KG4s, and oddly enough, on stands, the 201s outperform the KG4s in
every respect except for low bass.  This is a $200 speaker v. a $5-600 speaker.

Anyhow, I'm ready to upgrade to the next level.

Dave Barron
Reply-To: BARRON@RHQVM14.VNET.IBM.COM
Disclaimer: This posting reflects the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: Usenet 3.0
X-X-From: BARRON@RHQVM14.VNET.IBM.COM

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bobk@sequent.com (Bob Krull)
Subject: Re: Bose 601's?
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:03:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.144846.27028@Princeton.EDU> jwithana@beam.Princeton.EDU (Janaka Withana) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.205350.2001@merrimack.edu> desmondw@merrimack.edu writes:
>>
>>     I seen these speakers at a local Fretters and they were big bucks.
>>I'm looking for a new pair of speakers for my receiver(Technics SAGX710)
>>and want an awesome pair of speakers that will rock the house and sound
>>good when watching movies. Any comments on the Bose 601's?
>
>
>here we go again, on another round of Bose bashing :-)
>
>how can anyone even think of Bose when there are brands like Boston Acoustics
>in the same price range?
>

Oh god, here we go again, another round of BA bashing ;-).
From: ahaley@eoe.co.uk (Andrew Haley)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: blu-tak
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:01:36 GMT
Organization: EO Europe Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

ytl@philabs.philips.com (Ying Tat Leung) writes:
: 
: Fellow netters,
: 
: I've read so many times that Stereophile guys use this "Blu-Tak" to couple
: speakers to their stands.  What is this "Blu-Tak" and where can I get it?
: I have this Sound Organization stand which comes with small upturned cones 
: for the speakers to sit on.  Many stands like Target also come with cones or
: spikes.  Any reason to use blu-tak instead (except not damaging the 
: speaker cabinet finish)?

[...deleted...]
 
: Regards,
: Ying

Blu-tack is a special adhesive gum invented by Bostik here in England
which has been optimized for audio applications.  Its ratio of
cohesion to adhesion is combined with excellent elastic properties to
firmly attach speakers to stands.  It has many other applications,
too- discerning audiophiles claim that a thin coating of Blu-Tack
around the edge of a CD noticeably improves sound quality.
Because of its anti-vibration properties, it's also excellent for
holding LP records (remember them?) to the platter.

Write or phone:

Bostik (Audio) Ltd.,
Ulverscroft Road
Leicester LE4 6BW
England

(+44) 533 510015

Andrew.
From: desmondw@merrimack.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Good Quality Speakers?
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:10:46 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA


     Does anyone know a good pair of speakers that deliver deep bass. I
posted earlier about Bose 601's and got a negative response from everyone
who replied. I went to one place where a guy showed me Tannoys(?) and I
didn't care for them. The bass was no where to be found. It sounded
good overall, but I wanted more punch.
Newsgroups: rec.audio