HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, just jj, still jj)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.
Keywords: flame bait, CD accuracy
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:22:19 GMT
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, just jj, still jj)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <gilchr.702625341@ee.ualberta.ca> gilchr@ee.ualberta.ca (Andrew Gilchrist) writes:
>>If you insist on telephone quality, then you have 60 dB left for your
>>so-called dynamic range.  And a phonograph record 60 dB below its
>>maximum usable signal sounds a lot better than a telephone.
>This is crap.  Telephone signals are severely band-limited. This is why
>it sounds bad.(~200-3500 Hz only))
Exactly.  We should all realize that this "article" is nothing
but anti-scientific, incorrect flame bait intended to destroy
the SNR of this newsgroup (if SNR means anything...)
When one talks preference, one is welcome to prefer anything
they like (within other rights issues).  When something to
pathetically wrong is presented as fact, as opposed to preference
(mean wrong in fact, not in preference, preference is personal,
and "there's no accounting for personal taste"), this is a simple
disservice.  It happens often enough that we ought to recognize
it entirely as flame-bait, and just ignore it.

>Come down from planet nine. If your SNR is below unity, you won't hear
>music, no matter WHAT the reproductions system.
Bzzzzzt.  WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  For either analog or digital
signals (both have exactly the same behavior in enlightened
implementation despite the uninformed luddite insistance otherwise)
one can clearly hear a sine wave below the noise floor.  Looking
at Hellman's (1) basic work on tone maskign noise, we find that 
an average subject can detect a sine wave about 5.5 dB
lower in power than a narrow-band noise signal in the critical
band around that tone.  If one considers full-band noise, this
level is substantially lower, because the out-of-band noise
doesn't mask the sine wave very much.  I seem to remember calculating
this once before, but I can't remember what it was, either 12 dB or
22dB below white noise at a 1kHz.  (Yes, it changes with frequency,
and predictably.) You can get Scharf's paper (2) and figure it out
for yourself if you insist.

(1) R. P. Hellman, "Asymmetry of Masking Between Tone and Noise",
Percept. and Psychophys., vol.11, pp241-246, 1972

(2) B. Scharf, Ch. 5 in "Foundations of Modern Auditory Theory", NY,
Academic Press, 1970.
-- 
Mars ain't *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
the kind      *by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is
of place to       *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
raise the kids.        *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Brian Boutel)
Subject: Re: Blind Listening
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:32:51 GMT


In article <11840012@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM>, garyr@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Gary Rosen) writes:

|> 
|> As a non-audiophile musician, I can't help gloating a bit. None of the
|> musicians I know are audiophiles; they'd rather spend any spare cash on
|> MUSIC (i.e. recordings) rather than overpriced equipment.

Do you also gloat a bit when people choose to spend money on overpriced cars when
they could be buying more gas instead? Or on overpriced cameras when they could
be buying more film?

Isn't gloating ("gazing exultingly, esp. with a wicked or malicious joy") 
rather unpleasant behaviour, particularly when it's in reaction to legitimate
consumer choice? 

Surely it's reasonable to want to listen to good recordings on good equipment,
and if that involves a tradeoff between quality of equipment and quantity of
recordings, then that's just a decision that the person with the limited budget
has to make. I can't see any justification for criticising anyone for making that
decision any way they like.

I, for one, find the _sounds_ of music particularly important. I'm interested in
early music and prefer "original instrument" performances. On inadequate
equipment, much of the special quality of these recordings can be lost. Of
course, most of the other aspects of the music come through, and that is why, I
imagine, that many musicians are happy with cheaper audio components. For
_them_, the extra quality isn't worth the extra cost. I want that
extra dimension to the music, and so I have to spend more money to get it. What's
gloatworthy about that?

--brian
-- 
Internet: brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz
Postal: Brian Boutel, Computer Science Dept, Victoria University of Wellington,
        PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
Phone: +64 4 471-5328   Fax: +64 4 495-5232
From: henry@ginger.sri.com (Henry A. Pasternack)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Imped. Matching w/ Resistors?!
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:30:08 GMT
Reply-To: henry@ginger.sri.com (Henry A. Pasternack)
Organization: SRI International


   Miker Berger writes:

>[A reader reports that inserting 2 Ohm resistors in series with his
>speakers extended the bass response and allowed the system to play
>louder before the amplifier shut down.]
>
>I would expect that the resistors won't be linear, and that they'll suck
>up 25% of your power.  Maybe that sounds better to you.  But I can't
>believe that they've IMPROVED the sound from a technical standpoint.

   Series resistors will increase the loudspeaker system Q, resulting
in a peak in the frequency response near the woofer resonance.  This 
will be perceived in some situations as an increase in bass response,
while in others, the sound might be described as "boomy."

   I'd say your criticism of the original author is premature.

-Henry




Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: willyk@Cadence.COM (Li-Wei Kuo)
Subject: Opinions in ohm FRS-15 speaker
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:52:16 GMT


Does anyone know about the "ohm" speaker ?

I am considering the purchase of the "ohm FRS15"(only $360/pr !!!). Original
price is ~$1,000/pr, but the store want to close out this dealership, that's
way they sell it so low. 

Would like to know if anyone has opinions (good or bad) on the "ohm FRS15", 
or "ohm" speakers in general. 

Thanks in advance for your opinions/advice.

- Willy

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: blee@digi.lonestar.org (Benjamin Lee)
Subject: BMG membership!
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:07:16 GMT

Recently, I mailed in my BMG order form. I remember BMG allows you to order
double disc as membership gift when signing up. Well, I ordered some but
got it yesterday and it is the same artist, same title but shrinked down
version of single disc. NOT the one I ordered! Has this happened to anyone?
It appears I will have to return it and request an explaination!
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.audio.pro
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: awesome Klipschorns and speaker lifespan
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center And Storm Door Company
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:59:38 GMT

In article <11185@ksr.com> kenyee@ksr.com (Ken Yee) writes:
>What do you audiophiles think about the sound of humungous Klipschorns
>compared to the B&W Matrix 804's?  I heard some classical and alternative
>music out of these 170lb/speaker monstrosities at <1Watt and it sounded
>REAL.

The Klipsch speakers are horn speakers, probably the last horn speakers
sold for home use.  As such, you can't really compare them to anything else.
They suffer from very strong coloration which is inherent in horn designs,
but as horns go they are probably the least colored ones around.

If this were 1950 and efficiency was a big issue, Klipsch would be king.
If, on the other hand, you had an enormous living room (maybe the size of
a small stadium), and you needed to fill it, they'd be a good idea.  The
odd dispersion pattern of the horns possibly minimizes problems in very
bright rooms, too.

Personally, I think they are the highest peak of a dying breed, but the
ultimate test is whether you like the way they sound.  I don't.  The only
way you can find out is to get a pair on loan for a month or so and listen
to them.  All speakers do nasty things to the sound, and the key is to pick
out a speaker whose nastiness you can best live with.

Part of the reason that you don't see many old speakers is that the advances
in speaker designs over the last ten years have been pretty significant.  I
still have a pair of AR-4Xs in my bedroom, but it's surprising the number of
cheap speakers out there that sound a lot better.  The advancement in speakers
has been much greater than the performance improvements in electronics.
--scott

(Oh, the B&W 801s are the best dynamic speakers I have ever heard.  Don't
 know about the 804s.  You can make any speaker sound really bad if you
 find the wrong place to position it, though.)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.audio.pro
From: eacj@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Julian Vrieslander)
Subject: Limitations on speaker lifespan
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:28:03 GMT

In article <11185@ksr.com> kenyee@ksr.com (Ken Yee) writes:
>The other question is, what do you think the lifespan of speakers is?
>That is, before some newfangled-gotta-have-this speaker system comes
>out?  I don't want to upgrade after forking out such a huge sum (at least
>it's huge to me :-) for speakers...

For many people, the useful lifespan of a loudspeaker is determined by how
long they can go without getting the itch to buy a replacement.  But there
are some folks who hang onto their audio gear for a long time (my speakers
are over 15 years old).  And there a number of aging effects that can affect
the performance of a speaker or limit its useful lifetime.  I have seen the
following things happen to aging speakers:

Glued wood enclosures can dry out, warp, and open up at the seams (this can
affect the acoustic performance of sealed box systems).

Driver components can age and deteriorate or come apart (e.g., suspension
spiders, surrounds, lead wires).

Stamped metal speaker baskets can sag under the weight of heavy magnets, with
the result that voice coils come uncentered and start to rub.

Electrolytic capacitors in crossover networks can go out of spec or fail.

There are some other effects that I have heard about or wondered about:

Some cone and membrane speakers are treated with viscous damping layers to
control spurious vibration.  I wonder whether the damping properties of
these materials change as they age.

Many cone speaker drivers are now made with ferro-fluid in the voice coil
gap (this helps to dissipate heat, and may also be used to damp resonances).
Over a period of years these fluids must absorb a lot of heat, and I wonder
if the stuff evaporates or changes its properties.

I have also been told that some ribbon drivers have a finite lifetime
before they have to be replaced.  The person who told me this was specifically
referring to Magnepan's ribbons.  Can anyone confirm this?

Someone who intends to buy and keep a set of speakers for a long time should
think about such things, and about whether the manufacturer has a good
reputation for after-sale support (and is likely to be in business years down
the road).
-- 
Julian Vrieslander 
Neurobiology & Behavior, Mudd Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853    
INTERNET: eacj@theory.tc.cornell.edu     BITNET: eacj@crnlthry
UUCP: ..cornell!batcomputer!eacj
From: sowellrm@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Rec.audio.pro - when?
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:18:13 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Apr7.035203.1748@memstvx1.memst.edu>, sowellrm@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> In article <77840001@hpcvia.CV.HP.COM>, gwatts@hpcvia.CV.HP.COM (gary_watts) writes:
>> I have it here also although there have been virtually no postings
>> on it.  Hopefully others will take note.  I am assuming the category
>> was intended for PA and live sound discussions which I do enjoy.
> 
> There are over 100 postings on our newsgroup here.  I do not know why some 
> people are getting the messages and some are not.
> 
Sorry I made a mistake in this posting.  There are currently 377 items in
rec.audio.pro.  There were 100 new items since Friday.

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: gfl@hera.uucp (27223-lenahan)
Subject: Re: Low-Cost yet "audiophile" Amp Advice
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 18:19:48 GMT
Summary: good amps are not load sensitive

(Norm Strong) writes:
> 
> You've got the whole thing backwards.  First, decide what SPL you want
> and where the system is to be located.  Then decide which speakers you
> wish to buy.  Now--and only now--you will have some chance of choosing a
> suitable amp for driving them to the desired level.  
> 
> If you go the other way, you may end up with an amp that won't drive the
> speakers you eventually buy, either because the speaker impedance is too
> low or too high for that amp, or--worst case--it's unstable with that
> load!  In any event it may not have enough power to drive your chosen
> speakers.  You don't buy a gun until you know what you're going to
> shoot.
> 
> As an aside, I think it's shocking that speaker manufacturers take no
> resposibility for recommending suitable amps for their speakers. 

Norm has suggested before, and rightly so, that active speakers
make sense since they are designed as systems, and thus can be
optimised.  However, I cannot let this pass without my $.02.

Good amps are stable.  Period.
In addition, most moderately priced speakers present a
fair load, nto always an easy one, but a fair load (3 ohms +).

My experience is that a few speakers, mostly high end designs, 
are bears to drive.  These should be avoided, unless money
is not an object. For most applications however, good amps
remain good amps.

I would also argue that there are 1) far fewer good budget amps than 
good budget speakers, and 2) that speakers cannot be as easily 
reccomended, since their vast differences make them more
objects of opinion, compared with amplifiers.

Get an NAD integrated or receiver; I've also been pleased
with HK.  I'm very happy with my $200, 10 year old NAD 3020.
Since my mega-buck amps are temporarily out of service, with
Frankenstein (me), never leaving well enough alone, I'm
using the NAD, _and I don't hate it at 1/25 th the price
of my monoblock monsters_.  The Vandersteens are very
happy. 

As Norm correctly points out, the 2Cis 6.8 ohm minimum
load doesn't hurt any.

Grant
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Sherwood?
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:12:43 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

>markw@hpcss01.cup.hp.com (Mark Williams) writes:
>
>>Like Marantz, Harmon Kardon, Fisher, Crown, and Scott, Sherwood
>>was an old respected American firm which withered under the Japanese
>>onslaught in the early 1970s.  Mostly the names were picked up in bankruptcy
>>court by the Japanese multinationals.  Sherwood gear today is made in Korea,



In article <1992Apr15.034549.28667@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gunter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:
>
>No your very wrong here.
>
>Marantz is owned by Philips and always was.

   Marantz used to be an american firm.  It is no longer.  Phillips
   NEVER had anything to do with the original company...which was
   named after it's founder Saul Marantz...   He was not dutch.


>Harmon/Kardon is German and still is and always was.
   
   This must be a real shocker to the employees at their Long Island
   (near New York City) worldwide headquarters.   HK uses off-shore
   manufacturing, but is still an american design shop.  (Unless
   they have been bought VERRRRRY recently...)  But German?  Shirley
   you jest.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan)
Subject: Re: Minimus 7s for Surround Speakers?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:16:03 GMT


In article <1992Apr03.174012.12304@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh250.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes:
>
>I don't think you'll find any other speakers nearly as good for $25,
>but be aware that they are not particularly efficient, so you may not
>be able to get decent volume if they're attached to low power (~15w)
>surround channels.  I'm getting a pair of CSW Surround 2's and will
>let you know what the differences are (if you're interested).

Sure, I'm interested - let me know if the CSWs are 4 times as good (for
4 times the price, they had better be! ;-)

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: crgauld@sirius.UVic.CA (Chris Gauld)
Subject: STRAV970 hiss in rear channel
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 21:15:50 GMT

I recently bought a Sony STRAV970 reciever and there is an audible hiss in the
rear speakers.  I was wondering if it is my speakers or my receiver or if this
is normal?  Thanks


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
crgauld@sirius.uvic.ca
Chris Gauld
From: andrew@lsa.ncl.omron.co.jp (Andrew Walduck)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Imped. Matching w/ Resistors?!
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:35:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: frf.1380
Reply-To: andrew@lsa.ncl.omron.co.jp (Andrew Walduck)

In article <1992Apr7.212051.25549@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, berger@atropa (Mike
Berger) writes:
|> jstimson@cbrown.claremont.edu writes:
|> >I have a pair of Infinity Reference-3s that I am driving with a
Yamaha AV-66
|> >Integrated amp.  It is rated at 100W, but has an automatic cutout
that shuts it
|> >down at volumes that I consider much quieter than a 100W amp should
deliver,
|> >and before any distortion is apparent.  The speakers are nominally 6
ohms.  I
|> >just bought some high-power resistors and put 2 ohms in series with each
|> >speaker.  The result seems to be extended frequency response,
especially on the
|> >low end, and greater volume output before it shuts down.  Can anyone
explain
|> >why this worked, other than "the magic of impedance-matching"?  Could more
|> >resistance enhance this effect, or should I just experiment?
|> *----
|> I would expect that the resistors won't be linear, and that they'll suck
|> up 25% of your power.  Maybe that sounds better to you.  But I can't
|> believe that they've IMPROVED the sound from a technical standpoint.

Actually the resistors will always be linear...and will always present
a constant impedance to the amplifier of 2 ohms, unlike the reactive speaker,
the impedance of which will vary widely depending on the frequency.
(unless...the resistors are wire-wound...but that's another story...;-)

Perhaps his speakers drop to a particularly low impedance...(say 1 ohm)
and perhaps his amp has trouble driving low resistance loads (perhaps
anything below 2 ohms), so then adding the 2 ohm resistors brings this
bottom resistance up from 1 ohm to 3 ohms, and the amp is happier...
and the sound improves (as the amp isn't over-exerting itself...)

I'd try a set of 1 ohm resistors in series...just to see what happens...

Cheers
Andrew 

Andrew Walduck -- OMRON Japan -- andrew@lsa.ncl.omron.co.jp 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Spencer says "Retch barf." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: moskowit@tronsbox.UUCP (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Mini system question.
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:26:53 GMT
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.

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?

In separates try these:

	NAD 7225PE receiver (around $250)
	Celestion 3 speakers ($200/pair)
	Panasonic SLNP-1a CD player ($125, oddly enough it's a portable)

This system will set you back less than $600.  Each of the components
is among the best sounding in its price range.  I put together a
similar system for a friend and for its price it's very pleasing.  And
you get a CD player that you can take with you.

I tend to think that all cassette players sound pretty awful (yes,
even the Nakamichi units).  If you really want one, I've heard the low
end Aiwa units -- they're no more offensive than any others and I
respect their reliabiity.
-- 


Len Moskowitz
moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Imped. Matching w/ Resistors?!
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:22:34 GMT
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.

In article <1992Apr5.230259.1@cbrown.claremont.edu>, jstimson@cbrown.claremont.edu writes:
> I have a pair of Infinity Reference-3s that I am driving with a Yamaha AV-66
> Integrated amp.  It is rated at 100W, but has an automatic cutout that shuts it
> down at volumes that I consider much quieter than a 100W amp should deliver,
> and before any distortion is apparent.  The speakers are nominally 6 ohms.  I
> just bought some high-power resistors and put 2 ohms in series with each
> speaker.  The result seems to be extended frequency response, especially on the
> low end, and greater volume output before it shuts down.  Can anyone explain
> why this worked, other than "the magic of impedance-matching"?  Could more
> resistance enhance this effect, or should I just experiment?
> 							- John


The output impedance of your amp is almost certainly well under one ohm.

There's a theorem EE's learn that says maximum power transfer occurs when
the impedance of the source matches the impedance of the load -- but this
isn't what you're seeing.  You wouldn't want maximum power transfer to
occur, because the resulting current in the amplifiers' output transistors
would destroy them; that's what the automatic cutout is for.

The load impedance divided by the amplifier's output impedance is called 
the "damping factor".  A high damping factor reduces the speaker's tendency
to produce an excessive output at the speaker's resonant frequency.

By adding the series resistors you've greatly reduced the amplifier's
damping factor; therefore the speakers are producing more output at
their resonant frequency i.e., more bass.

> (So much for monster cable - I'm using RESISTORS to improve my sound!)

"Improvement" is subjective.  If "BOOM BOOM BOOM " is "improvement"
then yes, you've improving it.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Thought for the day
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:10:55 GMT

In article <180885@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.142522.24187@bristol.ac.uk> P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>>
>>In the intro to one of his last numbers he said 'There's one thing
>>you've got to understand about us Americans.  We believe that if it's
>>louder, it's more real.'  I immediately thought of rec.audio.
>   
>   Wasn't Spinal Tap a BRITISH rock group?   

Yes and no.  Spinal Tap is Rob Reiner's great creation for the
cancelled ABC TV show, "The TV Show".   Then they made the
movie based on the group.    The 'documentary' "This is Spinal
Tap" was/is pure fiction.    Fun - but fiction.
-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From: moskowit@tronsbox.UUCP (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: rec.audio.DIY <--- anyone interested?
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:03:56 GMT
Organization: Xanadu Enterprises Inc.

Shankar writes:

>With the benefit of some hindsight I suggest that a separate group is
>really not necessary. I find it quite adequate to scan subject headers so
>I can choose the threads I want to follow. I have sought information on
>several occasions, and it has been readily available within the present
>framework.

I'm with Shankar.

>OK, so I've got a little world-weary too.

Me too.



-- 


Len Moskowitz
moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio