HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Terms
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:25:57 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <180978@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>   I would agree with the Telarc (and country), but the Kraftwerk
>   and Pink Floyd stuff show off stereo separation more than imaging
>   in my opinion.
>
>   But my definition of imaging includes a decent illusion of 
>   front/back location in addition to the traditional left-right
>   location.  

I'd go with that.  Imaging needs to give you a feel of near/far, and
maybe even up/down (which I've decided I think I can detect).  Where
we differ, sounds like, is that I think I DO get near/far cues with 
those particular 2 Kraftwerk recordings, and that particular Floyd. 
(And, I even think I can spot up/down on a couple of the cuts.)

HOWEVER (that's 'a big however' :-) I don't know whether the performers
and engineers think I should be able to spot that, and I'm certainly
not going to try to claim that it really is there.  Always possible I'm
imagining it.  (As I keep saying, I go with Plato.  I don't see any
difference in principle between something I can hear, and something
that I believe I can hear, at least as far as my own enjoyment of the
music is concerned.)

(For those wondering what's so hard about near/far, the answer is that
to give a *believable* sense of something being -- or moving -- closer
or further away it isn't sufficient just to make it louder or softer.
In any 'normal' sound -- by which I mean the sorts of noises made by
people and instruments, which tend to be mixes of frequencies rather
than pure sines -- distance also has an effect on the relative phases
of the different frequencies/harmonics in the sound, and also an effect
on their relative strengths.  Not to mention that if it's moving rather
than stationary, you may need to Doppler it.)

-- 
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
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:18:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Analog vs. Digital / Recording vs. Consumer
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy
Newsgroups: rec.audio

In rec.audio, ias_student6@eis.dofasco.ca writes:



>   The bottom line:
>     In the recording industry the weight is upon the recording engineer's
>     shoulders to produce a good recording.  Many good analog recordings
>     sound better than messed-up digital recordings.  The same engineer
>     though, should be able to make a better digital recording than
>     an analog recording.

Why?  Why isn't it true that the same engineer can make a better analog
recording than digital?  That's what I hear all the time in my comparisons
and that's what I keep reading.  What basis do you have to state otherwise?
There's not one digital recorder that lives up to the potential that digital
promises and likewise there's no analog recorder either.  That hypothesis has
to be evaluated with real equipment.  And it doesn't take an engineer to 
find that out.  Someday, the tides will turn, I hope.  But for me, it's still
analog way out there.  I do get tired of hearing that digital is just better.
If it were true, you'd think I'd stop kidding myself and go digital instead
of investing yet more money on analog.  And I would if it were true.
At the present time, I can't listen to the grain on CD without getting a
headache.  Some CD players I can, but sound dead and lacking detail.  They're
getting there, but they have a long way to get to a Koetsu Rosewood Signature.
I just bought one of those for smoother and more detailed analog.  I had
one CD proponent (our ADC specialist here, no less, and first I knew to ever
buy a CD player) come over with records to compare to CD (yet again) and
we listened to a lot of records and he just remarked "that's amazing" and
never bothered to put on a CD (he's heard my CD before).  We went record
after record where my best CD could not approach the sound quality.  And
most were not even audiophile records - movie soundtracks and the like.
And the cartridge was brand new, not even broken in!  It got a lot better
afterward, hard to believe.  About $2000 worth of D/A converter like the
Theta or Proceed or Bitwise all wouldn't make it. I've heard all these and
it's not just the recording engineer's fault.  Maybe the big expensive 
Mark Levinson can do it, but my cartridge is much cheaper, if you 
think I'm nuts for getting it.  In my opinion, cartridge investment gives 
a system the best bang for the buck (and clicks and pops for you pooh-poohers).
At least, that was my experience.  What was yours?

>     With the consumer, the emphasis is to have a DA converter that
>     smooths over the quantization errors.

I don't think so.  It's more like: has a better D/A conversion algorithm 
that faithfully brings out the highs without grain, along with a good
analog section.   Quantization errors aren't the residual problem at this
point, I believe.  Let Max Hauser tell us where the main problems in digital
are today.
From: lapete@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Peter Su)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: ???HOW DO I HOOK-UP SENSOR CABLES IN THE REEAR OF KENWOODS?????
Date: 7 Apr 92 05:13:19 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center



  I have a Kenwood DP-M6630 6+1 changer and a Kenwood KX 3510 cassette deck.

I wonder if anyone oout there have any idea on how to hook up those puzzling

remote link cables in the rear of the players.  Is it possible to record a

CD from the tapedeck at high-speed in this combination?  The Changer manual

says that it is capable of high-speed recording with Kenwood cassette decks.

  Let me know how to hook up those cables in the back please..   THANKS,

                                                     lapete@sage.cc.purdue.edu      
                                                     E-MAIL ME HERE  ^^^
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: finton@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (david.j.finton)
Subject: Re: Blind Listening
Summary: bad example.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:14:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.220724.4187@intelhf.hf.intel.com> labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
>kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) writes:
>
>>In rec.audio, chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen) writes:
>
>>>   This is total bull!  The musicians ARE very concerned with room sound
>>>   and the quality of Timbre is their LIFE.  Where do you get off with
>>>   these statements!  To state that a musician in an orchestra isn't a
>>>   listener is correct, after all they are only creating the gawd damn
>>>   shit!.
>
>>Oh, so from now on in order to tell how good a new jet is, we'll go to
>>the real experts, the assemblers, not the test pilot.
>
>	I second this! Musicians notoriously have "poor" stereo systems.
>
>	I think the quality of sound is simply not noticed by them, for the
>	most part - just like you can watch a good movie and get all of
>	its meaning in black and white!
>
>		George


Poor example, and a confusion of the ability to discriminate with the
willingness to care about the distinction.

A jet's performance is only indirectly related to the assembler's 
knowledge of whether the parts fit properly.  Besides, the analogy
fails if you consider solo musicians, who aren't creating something
which is "assembled" into a whole.  A more apt analogy would be 
asking the sculptor whether the photo of his creation is accurate,
or asking the assembler if the jet portrayed on film looks real.

Good musicians know what the sounds are supposed to be, from repeated,
direct experience.  Can you tell the difference between different
instruments, such as trombone and horn in the middle-to-high register?
I bet a lot of audiophiles can't.  I think of my brother, a professional
trumpet player, who's experimented with a wide array of leadpipes and
bells and mouthpieces, to get just the right sort of sound and
projection.  He can tell from the sound whether it's a Bb or a C trumpet
or whether it's made by Bach or Monette.

But just because the musician knows which systems sound more like
the real article doesn't mean that he values that timbral accuracy 
as highly as other musical virtues.  I think some musicians are
so conscious of the difference between real and reproduced sound
that *all* stereo systems sound wrong, so what's the point?


--David Finton
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: lawrence@leerdam.Berkeley.EDU (lawrence)
Subject: Re: Mini system question.
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:26:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.231312.25547@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith  
M. Ryan) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, champine@apollo.HP.COM (Mark Champine) says:
> >2.  Which speakers & recievers are "best" in this price range?
> 
> at around the $200 level, i would chose Boston Acoustics HD-7's.
> you may look into used equipement.

I bought a pair of JBL P20's for $200, and liked them slightly more than the  
HD-7's
Also, the NHT zero's are verrrry clear sounding (but almost no base)

Technechs (sp?) seems to put out some O.K. low priced recievers.
I'd look to JVC for the tapedeck.
CD: JVC, Technechs, Phillips(Magnavox), Sony, etc. See what sounds OK with the  
other stuff and has the features you want.  In this $ range they'll be about  
the same.

lawrence
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: New LP-CD flame material
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:40:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr7.014001.25633
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) says:


>
>I bet that if the same test were done, but with standard CD technology A/D 
>and D/A vs. straight wire, one would get the same null result.
>
>And yet, how do CD players sound different if digital sounds like nothing?

very easily. many CD players seem to chimp on the analogue parts. even if
the degital domain is perfect, there is still alot of things to go wrong,
interference, noise, etc.

that is, if you believe amps, preamps, phono-stages etc sound different,
or can, then you should believe CD players sound different for the same
reasons!

this includes the D/A and A/D process. 

ps: digital sound like nothing?
well, i do not think you can hear "digital", what ever that means. 
if you mean that is introduces no noticable differences, then...
-- 
Look down, look down        How long, O lord,          Look down, look down,
You're here until you die   Before you let me die?     You're standing in your
The sun is strong           Look down, look down,      Grave!
It's hot as hell below      You'll always be a slave!  ||  Les Miserables  ||
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Closed Minds
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:02:00 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <WOOD.92Apr8081527@wood.uk.tele.nokia.fi> wood@uk.tele.nokia.fi (Peter Wood) writes:
>
>Doesn't it interest you at all that people find analogue recordings more
>musical?  If it doesn't interest you, why do you listen to your music system
>at all?  Surely reproducing music is what it's there for?
>
   But of course.  Sound is the goal.  But that doesn't mean that
   straw man arguments and pseudo-technical gibberish from are ALSO
   interesting.   

   Particularly when they are out-and-out misstatements of fact.

>Why do you write to rec.audio if you're not interested in music, and if you're
>convinced that you know all the technical answers about its reproduction
>already?
>
   One could ask you the same question. And point out that the name
   is rec.audio, not rec.music if you must be picky.  

   If there exists a SINGLE digital CD recording which sounds better
   than the best possible LP, wouldn't that invalidate all the wacky
   pseudo-science theories about the technology being flawed?

   Note that this says nothing about the implementation...many of
   which are flawed, both in analog and digital media.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: harner@sunwhere.dab.ge.com (Keith Harner)
Subject: Re: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:06:23 GMT
Keywords: flame bait, CD accuracy
Organization: General Electric SCSD, Daytona Beach FL

In article <1992Apr6.151402.16683@cbfsb.cb.att.com> dud@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (William F. Dudley Jr.) writes:

>		  Buying a Compact Disk Player
>			Adam N. Rosenberg
>
Sheez.... Maybe he shoulda tried the green marking pen on a
few of those CD's.
As soon as I got one of those babys I threw away MY Linn.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|Keith Harner                                   |harner@civax.DAB.GE.COM     |
|General Electric Simulation and Control Systems|harner@sunny.DAB.GE.COM     |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: sowellrm@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Mail Order From Crutchfield
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:17:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Apr07.201355.165808@zeus.calpoly.edu>, jhosee@zeus.calpoly.edu (Hip Hop Junkie) writes:
> 
> Has anyone ever ordered something from Crutchfield through the mail?
> How do you rate thier service? How do they handle returns?
> Thanks for the info!
> 
> - Jeff

I ordered a home stereo receiver from them.  I was very impressed with the
company overall.  They will answer any question that you might have when you
call to order.  The delivery time was very good for standard UPS (only
two days).  If you want to return something I think that you call the customer
service number and they will send you a mailing label.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: pschauer@den.mmc.com (Paul Schauer 1-1090)
Subject: Re: More Psuedoscience...: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:03:31 GMT

In article <1190698@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) writes:
>In rec.audio, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>
>    pbern@next.com writes:
>
>>|I really wish the people that go on these open-loop flame throwing rampages  
>>|whenever anyone even mentions anything about audiophile would just go and  
>>|LISTEN. Take a few hours and go to a high end store and check out the  
>>|differences yourself. 
>>
>> That's the problem. Many of us have, which makes us even more
>> sensitive to bullshit being presented as fact.
>
>You'd never know it by the lack of description about these experiences.
>One visit and you're an expert on it all, right?

The quickest description of a visit to one of the high end dealers:
There always seems to be an annoying whine coming from somewhere
close to the sales rep... %-)

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Mini system question.
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:02:12 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Apr8.041449.8519@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> fag2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Farul A Ghazali) writes:
>Has anyone ever compared some of those high end "mini systems" (eg.
>the Sony MHC 3600, Panasonic SC-CH10, Kenwood UD-70, etc) to a sort of
>low end component system of similar setup ($1000 gets speakers,
>receiver, CD player)? What I'm asking about is sound quality, since
>obviously, the expandability of the mini system is quite limited. I've
>listened to the models above quite extensively, but I'm quite clueless
>about anything else. Opinions, anybody?

If I were to contribute a one-liner I would say the size of the speakers
will have most effect on your final sound quality.

>Farul Ghazali
>fag2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
>Columbia University, New York.

Lionel

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: 627watz@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: ACOUSTIC loudspeaker info. needed
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:26:41 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Sorry about that last title,

If anyone missed it, I'm looking for information on ACOUSTIC loudspeakers.  Any
information at all would be greatly appreciated (reputation, sound, price,etc.)
Thanx in advance.

-Mike-
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: New LP-CD flame material
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:40:50 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <ku1ib2INN2kp@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>
>And yet, how do CD players sound different if digital sounds like nothing?
>
    Nobody has ever really seriously claimed this.  At least nobody
    who knows a doggoned thing about digital audio.

    And besides, there is a difference between a theoretical
    implementation of 44K sampled 16 bit PCM and a practical one.

    The theory assumes that there are such thing as perfect D/A
    convertors, etc.   

>I find it very plausible that some of the CD players one buys off the shelf
>are measurably "out of spec" compared to the prototype A-D/digital
>processing/D-A hardware that the engineers rigged up for a scientific test.
    Not only that but there are LOTS of differences in the quality
    of components put into the equipment, circuit layout, etc.

    Note that I don't consider gold cases a quality item, more the
    difference between the actual component behavior and that of a
    theoretical perfect device of that type.

>Perhaps quality control is poor enough that different units of the same model
>can have widely varying performance.
>
   Depends on the brand.  And how much hand labor is involved.

   It is also worth noting that each manufacturer decides whether to
   (and how much) to creatively skimp on the implementation and hope
   nobody will notice.  Such things as using 14 bit D/A convertors,
   analog sections poorly isolated, cheap op amps, analog sections
   with poor frequency response, poor mechanical assemblies, cheap
   lasers, and just about anything which requires much human
   adjustment and tuning.
From: hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: EQUIP. SURVEY RESULTS
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:24:12 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Could you repost that and tell us at least how many responses there
were for each vendor?  Ideally, you'd give a standard error of
estimate, if you can.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 10:29:24 CDT
From: Tom Ascher <U15310@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: EQUIP. SURVEY RESULTS



I appreciate the effort that was put into doing this and the intent behind
it of being helpful.  But, find it of questionable value.  There's nothing
indicating what the numbers mean.  Absolute quality?  Value?  User
satisfaction?  Type of problem you might run into.  Someone might purchase
a $300/pair set of speakers.  Think them quite wonderful for what they
cost and rate them a 9.  Someone else might spend $10,000/pair set of
speakers.  Be very fussy and sensititve to some artifact in the range
20-35 hz.  Rate them a 7.  So what?  Without knowing more what's behind
the numbers, we don't know how to interpret the results.  Also, many
excellent components may be left out simply because the sample is too
small... etc., etc.
Organization: Music, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:31:46 -0400 
From: Riccardo Schulz <rs6k+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: NAD or Nakamichi
	<AdsT8Di00Uzx83=qgp@andrew.cmu.edu>
Distribution: na

Just saw your note, and thought I wokuld reply, even though your
deadline has expired.  

It's just opinion, you understand; I have not had the chance to work
with either of the two CD players you have mentioned.  

In general, NAD has more bang for the buck than Nakamichi, in my
experience.  I've used Nakamichi so-called professional cassette players
(MR 1 and MR 2) and when they work they're fine; of the four MR1s now in
use in our studio at Carnegie Mellon we have not had two months in the
last three years when they have all worked at the same time!!!!  One has
been back at least four times; they have modifications that they never
tell you about for the transport until something goes wrong two or three
times.  Well, I won't belabor the point.

In general the 1-bit D to A converter is better, because it is easier to
implement well at lower cost.

ALL CD players have filtering of some kind; Bessel in one used often;
it's possible that the NAD uses the exact same filter!

ALL CD players (I would guess) have regulated power supplies; so does
just about every other hi-fi component   B F D  !!!  

Most of what you read in the hype for any machine is just hype; go with
the one that looks and feels the best.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: cas@bluemoon.rn.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: Mini system question.
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 02:36:18 EDT

wood@uk.tele.nokia.fi (Peter Wood) writes:

> IMHO, the most effect on your final sound quality results from changes to the
> source.  Then the amps, then the speakers.  
> 
> If you use a second-rate source, then no matter how fine your speakers you ge
> second rate sound.  At this price level you get third rate sound.  Use a firs
> rate source, and at least the music has a chance to get through.  Good cheap
> speakers will subtract bits they can't handle, but what they let through is
> usually done well enough.
> 
> Just an opinion...
> 
... and certainly an opinion I've seen before, but with which I cannot 
wholly agree.  As I understand it, the `chain <-> weak link' analogy is 
more or less appropriate, though the weaknesses in the links (components) 
are additive or something like that.
   A system's quailty is based on its lack of deviation from perfect 
reproduction of the input, essentially, and it doesn't really matter in 
which components various distortions (deviations) are introduced, only the 
sound of the system as a whole.
   While it is true that anything lost at the `source' level cannot be 
regained later on, in the amplifier or speakers, it is just as true that 
anything the amp or speakers lose (of course this is simplified, ignoring 
the notion of reciprocal distortion and such) cannot be corrected for with 
a better source.  It's not like having a small diameter hose, so you just 
turn up the water pressure and everything still comes out OK.

   But that is (poorly stated) theory.  In practice, I am willing to agree 
that cheap turntables often tend to be crappier even than inexpensive 
speakers and amps and interconnects, and furthermore that many consumers 
in this price category don't allocate their funds all that well, 
especially after being told by Stereo Review, Consumer Reports and the 
like that all record players are the same, so spend 80% of what you've got 
on the coolest speakers you can afford.

> Chuck <

 This is from
     cas@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
From: kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 12:24:25 GMT
Subject: Re: DCC/MD comparisons (was Re: New LP-CD flame material)
Organization: Shredding the water of SF Bay, HP-OCD