HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: worley@a.cs.okstate.edu (WORLEY LAWRENCE JA)
Subject: Re: books needed about building speakers and amps.
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 23:10:41 GMT

From article <1993Jan21.165719.13053@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, by eric@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Eric Hansen):
> In <%MikeW.19.0@canc.byu.edu> %MikeW@canc.byu.edu (M.D. (Mike) Wieda) writes:
> 
>>In article <14JAN199310565469@venus.tamu.edu> s0l3906@venus.tamu.edu (LIN, SHYH-HORNG) writes:
>>>Subject: books needed about building speakers and amps.
> ....
>>I know of one good source/book on loudspeaker design: David Weems.  I don't 
> ....
>>I don't know where to tell you to find his book.  Try some of the "higher-
>>end" bookstores.  If you don't have any luck, email me and I'll get his 
> 
> 
> I think Radio Shack carries this book, and also you can get it from
> Crutchfield, and Parts Express.  The latter two both have 1-800 numbers,
> so just call 1-800-555-1212 (800 dir. assistance).


There is a very good book (if you like the technical, nitty-gritty, 
mathematical model/formalas) called "Speaker Design Cookbook" or something
like that.  The only place I've seen it advertised is in a magazine called
"Speaker Builder", which is a high-end specialty magazine that we get at
work (high-end car stereo shop).  I don't have a copy with me, or I'd give
you a phone number, but most high-end home/car audio shops subscribe to this
magazine, and you could ask to see a copy.  The book is about $25, and is in
it's second edition.  I used the first edition to write some speaker enclosure
modelling software for various enclosure types, and it had everything I 
needed (except so-called 5th/7th order enclosures, which I think the new
edition covers).

-Jason Worley

PS> Please don't fill my mailbox with requests for my programs.  Not that I
    don't want to share, but I will be releasing a shareware version in the
    next year or so. :)
From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Old CD Player and New CDs
Followup-To: rec.audio
Date: 23 Jan 1993 16:16:20 GMT
Organization: BBN
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <22JAN93210325@pyros.hacks.arizona.edu>,
omf@pyros.hacks.arizona.edu (Oscar Fowler) wrote:
> Here's an interesting problem:  I have an old JVC portable CD player
> (PC-V2 1987) which plays all of the CD's I bought years ago (even
> the ones which are NOT in good shape...)
> 
> I've noticed that I have problems playing CD's bought in the last few
> months, however!  There are about four CD's which my player just
> keeps spinning around and around trying to get the track info from,
> but never making it.

Do the new CDs that don't play have play times of over 74 minutes? Some CDs
push their play time up to 80 minutes (maybe even longer). Anything past 74
isn't really according to Hoyle, however, and some older machines might
have problems with extra-long discs.

I suppose it might even be possible that some discs are being made with the
narrower track pitch of an extra-long CD, even though the extra time is not
being used, but that's just speculation.

-Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: rsilvers@nynexst.com (Robert Silvers)
Subject: Re: Expensive Stereo and a roommate
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:20:53 GMT

In article <kjg3_1r@rpi.edu> weavej@aix.rpi.edu (Jonathan Mark Weaver) writes:
>
>I have a ~$2000 stereo system and a roommate who likes to use it while
>I'm away (without asking of course).  I'm especially concerned about
>my new Nakamichi tape deck. He doesn't really know to switch between
>types I, II, and IV and he usually has those crummy type I tapes, plus
>he tends to leave the cassette holder door open (which lets dust in).     
>
>My question is how do I handle the situation without sounding like a
>jerk? I want to hear from people who have been in similar situations.  
>

	You could just clean your heads often and not worry about what
tape type it is set for (as it is only his loss).  Leaving the cassette
door open bothers me.  It would make me worry about his level of common
sense and feeling of respect for your equipment.  I may not let him use
it because he left the door open.

					--Rob.

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster)
Subject: Re: What happen to dbx?
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 13:55:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.194204.12111@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> sr001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (s. satya vardhan reddy) writes:
>
>What ever happen to the dbx noice cancellation.

Their professional division was bought out by someone else (forgot who) but
the consumer division is gone.


> I believe that it is still better than Dolby S or Dolby HX Pro.

I own a dbx 224 and also a deck with Dolby S. I think Dolby S is more
transparent.

You cannot compare dbx noise reduction to Dolby HX Pro as the latter is not
a noise reduction system. It is a high frequency headroom extender.


> I bought two tape decks with it in the middle 80's but I don't even hear 
> of it anymore.

I have lots of dbx encoded tapes, and dread the day when my 224 breaks.



-- 
_______________________________Mike Schuster________________________________
NY Pub. Access UNIX/Internet: schuster@panix.com | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM
The Portal (R) System: schuster@shell.portal.com | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER
From: ISTS024@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU (Leonard Watkins)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Heathkit Rec. 4 sale (cheap)
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:30:37 GMT
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

I have a Hkit receiver (AR1500) for sale for 50.00 + S & H  it doesn't always
work right. One channel will not work sometimes, there is no repair shop
here that would like to fix it, so i'll sell it. I have no idea of the
age or wattage, i do know it sounds great and powerful especially when
both channels work, if your interested e-mail me at ists024@uabdpo..L.W.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: graeme@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Graeme Gill)
Subject: Re: DAT, DCC and MD
Organization: Labtam Australia Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:13:21 GMT

In article <LANCER.93Jan27021449@wpi.WPI.EDU>, lancer@wpi.WPI.EDU (Stephe Lewis Foskett) writes:
> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:01:52 GMT, graeme@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Graeme Gill) said:
> > I came across an article recently from Sony in which they
> > describe a play only DAT mechanism that uses a non-tracking
> > technique combined with memory buffering.
> 
> This would be the mystical Sony NT-1 "Scoopman".  Somehow they fit 90

	No, they described a full quality (48Khz 16 bit) R-DAT mechanism,
not the voice grade machine.

	Graeme Gill
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: glas@muresh.et.tudelft.nl (Jack Glas)
Subject: Re: DAT, DCC and MD
Reply-To: glas@donau.et.tudelft.nl
Organization: Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:16:03 GMT


DAT recorders use the same coding technique as cd-players and so they will come up with the
same performance (which is quite good). Their advantage over cd-players is that you can also 
record yourself. A disadvantage is that they make use of rotating heads, which is very 
expensive and involves a lot of mechanics (just as in VCR's). Another disadvantage is that 
need yet another part of equipment in your audio system.

To do something about the disadvantages mentioned above Philips (one 'l') invented the 
Digital Compact Cassette system. These players doesn't have rotating heads (so they can
become cheaper than DAT recorders), and you can play (and record) you normal Compact 
Cassettes in them. The system makes use of PASC (precision adaptive subband coding) to 
compress data. 

PASC is based on two phenomena of the human ear:
* One can only hear sound above a certain level, called the absolute hearing threshold.
* Loud sounds hide, or mask, softer sounds in their vicinity. They dynamially adapt the
  hearing threshold. This applies to the frequency domain (spectral masking) as well as to 
  the tiem domain (temporal masking).
So you have to be a GOD to hear the differences between CD and DCC.

I think everyone who doesn't believe me (which ofcourse is also a matter of taste) should
at least read one of the following articles:
* Gerard C.P. Lokhoff: 'dcc-Digital Compact Cassette', IEEE transactions on consumer 
	electronics, Vol. CE-37, no. 3, pp 702-706, august 1991.
* Gerard C.P. Lokhoff: 'Precision adaptive subband coding (PASC) for the digital compact
	cassette (DCC)', IEEE transactions on consumer electronics, Vol. CE-38, no. 4,
	pp 784-789, november 1992.


Jack.
From: steve@wet.COM (Steve Meloan)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.audio.car
Subject: Seeking "Color Bar" sound to light device.
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:57:31 GMT
Followup-To: rec.audio
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco

I'm looking for a device, quite common in the 60's and 70's, known as a
"color bar," or "color organ."  This was an electronic gadget, who's input
was an audio signal, and who's output was an accordingly modulated 120
volt electrical current.  It's purpose was to create audio driven "light
shows," sort of a pre-Laserium.  Usually, the audio was filtered into three
eletrical outputs - one for bass, one for mid-range, and one for treble.  A
version even existed for the car.     

Anyone knowing of where I might locate one, please contact me at:
steve@wet.com.  Thanks.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: mjv8557@eafs000.ca.boeing.com (Mark J. Vandiver)
Subject: Re: surround sound recording on VCR
Organization: be41t
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:25:34 GMT

gb@cup.portal.com (Greg A Buechler) writes:

>I have a high-fi VCR that plays surround sound movies quite well, but I 
>seem to not be able to record a surround sound show off the TV and get
>the effects.

>Any suggestions?

 suggest that you take it back or get it fixed. It should work for TV signals as well.

MJV

>gb
From: sture@lulea.trab.se (Sture Jonsson)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Comments on analog music
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:11:09 GMT
Organization: Telia Research AB, Aurorum 6, 951 75 Lulea, Sweden
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 + PL8]

jj, curmudgeon and all-around nasty skeptic (jj@alice.att.com) wrote:

: What one CAN deny is the nonsense of "lp has more information"
: or "digital throws away the music" and so on. 

What one also CAN deny is that the CD player you buy in a store reproduces 
better music than the turntable you buy (for a 'random' group of people) because
the sampling theorem (or any other theory concerning digital music reproduction)
has been proved.

It is the IMPLEMENTATION of the samling theorem (and other theories) in the CD
player (as well as the disc you play of course) that will define the quality of
the music reproduction you can get from the CD player.

I agree that it is wrong to say 'the digital theories throw away the music', but
I can say that 'this digital music reproducer throws away the music', becuase
it is badly made.

That is a huge difference, and to me it is the only one that matters. I don't
buy theories, I buy products.
I don't listen to theories, I listen to products (or rather music stored on
discs and reproduced by products).

LISTEN and enjoy,
Sture
Xref: sparky rec.audio:19161 rec.video:16254
From: dna@ampex.com (David Altekruse)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.video
Subject: Re: Sony TA-E2000ESD DSP A/V Surround Preamp
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:36:02 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City CA

Lon Stowell writes:
>
>  The TA-1000 doesn't allow you to EQ the rear channels yourself.
>  You are stuck with Sony's literally tin ears if you use much
>  reverb.
>
Guess I didn't understand the question.  Yes, one of the upgrades made to 
Sony TA-E2000ESD includes the ability to equalize the center and rear
channels in addition to the front L-R channels.

- David Altekruse, dna@ampex.com
From: judge@shasta.Eng.Sun.COM (Rupinder Judge)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Opinion about cerwin vega D9 speakers
Date: 27 Jan 1993 18:56:25 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: shasta

I am looking for positive/negative feedback on cerwin vega D9
speakers? I am thinking of upgrading my stereo, and hence need 
the feedback.
	How do they compare with pardigm's, thiels, and vandersteens?
						-thanks,
						rupinder
From: kuusama@kaarne.cs.tut.fi (Kuusama Juha,,,VTT,)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Is there a public domain speaker box design program?
Date: 21 Jan 1993 07:09:46 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Tampere, Dep. of Computer Science ,Finland 
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kuusama@kaarne.cs.tut.fi
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaarne.cs.tut.fi
Originator: kuusama@kaarne.cs.tut.fi

I'd like to design my own speaker box. (Disclaimer: I don't think I can
do it better or cheaper than good commercial offerings. It just would
be fun to try; a subwoofer box could actually be even usable!) I am
aware of some commercial programs which predict frequency response
from loudspeaker and box parameters, can succest a suitable box etc.
Is there one available as public domain/cheap/cheap shareware?
I am using a PC, but can arrange access to a Mac (as a last resort).
--
Juha  ==  kuusama@cs.tut.fi
From: cmh@eng.cam.ac.uk (C.M. Hicks)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Anti-aliasing on the recording end?
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:36:42 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

matthews@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Thomas W. Matthews) writes:

>In article <shetline-210193103508@128.89.19.74>, shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline) writes:

>|> I realize that the answer to this question would most likely depend on the
>|> application. I imagine that most consumer DAT, DCC, or MD units employ
>|> steep input filters and call the job done. However, I suspect that some

No - low-bit converters with oversampling are MUCH cheaper, and so find
their way into a lot of consumer DAT decks etc. Typical arrangements are
64xOS, 4-bit and 256xOS, 1-bit, since chips are readily available.

>|> (most?) of the pro gear, and maybe even some high-end consumer stuff, would
>|> use higher sampling rates (>50KHz) with more gentle filters.

A lot of pro gear does do this as well. A 48-track digital tape machine needs
48 ADC's - if you can save 50 pounds on each one (not unreasonable) then
you can save 2400 pounds on the whole machine. 

>|> The problem is, you'd need *real* higher sampling rates (as opposed to
>|> computed oversampling), and the processing power to perform the sampling
>|> rate conversion with digital filtering.

Don't really understand the argument here - it's dead easy to get a 4-bit
converter running at several MHz, and the digital decimating filter can
easily run this fast too. What distinction are you trying to make between
what you call "real" and "computed" oversampling?

>16-bit samples at 44.1 KHz.  I wonder if the faster sampling
>can also be exploited to ease the constraints on the analog
>anti-aliasing filter?

That's exactly why the sampling is done at a higher rate. It is possible to
get away with a low-bit converter because noise-shaping can be used to push
the quantisation noise outside the audio band.

Christopher Hicks
--
 ==============================================================================
 Christopher Hicks    |    If it doesn't fit...
 cmh@uk.ac.cam.eng    |                        ...you need a bigger hammer.
 ==============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: jrl8@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (James R Lendino)
Subject: Re: Radioshack Subwoofer (don't laugh...)
Reply-To: jrl8@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (James R Lendino)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:00:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.215551.9824@bmerh85.bnr.ca> shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally) writes:
>In article <ryu.727901806@husc.harvard.edu>, ryu@husc8.harvard.edu (William Ryu) writes:
>|> 
>|> 	I was wondering if anyone out there has any experience with the
>|> Radio Shack subwoofer/Minimus 7 combination.  I've been suffering and
>|> saving for a better system and have been using just a pair of Minimus 7's,
>|> but it looks like that I won't enough money until after college (1.5 yrs)
>|> to spend on a new system.  I'm wondering if I should buy the Shack
>|> Subwoofer before I die of bass starvation.  I'd appreciate suggestions for
>|> other subwoofer solutions, but my budget makes my options very limited.
>|> 
>|> Will Ryu
>|> husc.harvard.edu
>
>The Paradigm Phantoms have excellent bass response to below 30Hz.
>They are speakers that don't need subwoofers since they pump out
>enough bass on their own. At $250-$300 a pair, I think you can do much
>better than a Radio Shack 'minimus' (aptly named I think) system.

I wouldn't say they go down THAT far.  :-)  With room acoustics figured in,
they're -3 dB at 40 Hz, which I posted up recently.  But you're right,
the bass is more than sufficient on its own, and far better than anything
that even a "subwoofer" from Radio Scrap could put out.

Regards,
-JRL

---------------------------
James R. Lendino
jrl8@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
---------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: kega@nobeltech.se (Kent Gabrin)
Subject: Re: Anti-aliasing on the recording end?
Organization: NobelTech AB
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:52:02 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?
>
>I realize that the answer to this question would most likely depend on the
>application. I imagine that most consumer DAT, DCC, or MD units employ
>steep input filters and call the job done. However, I suspect that some
>(most?) of the pro gear, and maybe even some high-end consumer stuff, would
>use higher sampling rates (>50KHz) with more gentle filters.
>
>The problem is, you'd need *real* higher sampling rates (as opposed to
>computed oversampling), and the processing power to perform the sampling
>rate conversion with digital filtering.
>
>Anyone out there got the scoop on this?
>
>-Kerry

   Well DAT players of the past might have suffered from low sampling
rate and steep filters. DAT of today also use oversampling and other
'new' techniques (like one bit and noise shaping) in their A/D to
increase sound quality at recording.  /Kent

Kent Gabrin   NobelTech Systems    ! My thinking is not as great as
S-175 88 Jaerfaella      Sweden    ! Oliver Berendinus Bumble /Will Try
KEGA@nobeltech.se ! DAT owner since jan 1992

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: fred@mtl.mit.edu (Fred Trusell)
Subject: Re: AV Receiver Recommendations
Organization: MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories
 
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:50:18 GMT

In article <1j982eINN1vv@meaddata.meaddata.com> dem@meaddata.com (David Myers) writes:
>> Yamaha RX-V1050, 850
>> Denon AVR1010?, 810?
>> Sony ES STR GX99, 69
>> Sony STR AV2090, 1090

My friend brought home a Sony 1090 this weekend and the rear channels died 
after 15 minutes.  It does look to be a very flexible piece of equipment
when it functions properly.

>
>harit> Be carefull of the Denon units however.  The rear channels were
>harit> audibly noisy.
>
>   I believe the more recent Denon models, the AVR-2000 and AVR-3000,
>have corrected this problem.  At least I'm quite pleased with the
>quality of my AVR-2000.
>
>--
>David Myers                                             (513) 865-1343   
>Mead Data Central           No news is             Fabrication Systems
>P.O. Box 933                 bad news.                dem@meaddata.com
>Dayton, Ohio  45401                             ...!uunet!meaddata!dem


Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: sony@camelot.bradley.edu (David Lennie)
Subject: Re: TV sound through stereo
Organization: Stevie Patrick's Home for the Underpriveleged
Distribution: usa
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:07:41 GMT

dmn@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Dan Nichols) writes:

>	I have a question regarding tv sound through a stereo. I have a Denon
>amp/pre-amp combo (about 8 yrs. old) through which I have hooked up my TV so
>that I can hear the tv sound through my stereo (The tv is a 32" Toshiba I just
>recently purchased). The problem is that in order to hear the sound at a
>reasonable level, I must turn the sound up very high on my tv (nearly two
>thirds of the way). The volume knob on the Denon is kept around one fourth.

will the TV let you switch off the internal speakers?  my parents have
a late-model Phillips that has a switch on the back near all the
in/out connections that will let you turn the internals off.  this is
handy as their stereo is in another room (and there are speakers
running into the TV room), so they can listen through the stereo
speakers and still control the volume from the TV remote.

in your case, if you could turn off the internal TV speakers, you could
just crank it up as high as you want and leave your amp volume setting
at a reasonable level.  there would probably be less hiss and noise in
your speakers this way as well.

as for turning up your amp above 1/2 volume, that really depends on how
loud the source is.  for instance, if you are listening to a very
quiet passage in a song, you could turn it up as loud as you can take
it as long as your amp doesn't clip or your speakers don't distort.
this level might indeed be all the way up.  in a loud song, 1/3 volume
might start to break up, depending on your speakers and amp of course.
in other words, you will not blow your stereo up every time you turn 
it past 1/2; it simply depends on what you are listening to.
From: al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Preamp and Amp
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:16:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan22.011624.13858
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

In article <1993Jan20.171541.29871@bnr.ca> Dave Dal Farra <gpz750@bnr.ca> writes:
>
>Every Fifties transistor amp I've heard has been strident an horrifying.
>Everything I'ver read (in audiophile and Elec. eng. journals) has
>tended to support this.  Of course, their may contradictory examples,
>but I don't know of any.

I was doing a fair amount of experimenting with audio in the late
50's (and on through the 80's)...and I'll be darned if I can
think of ANY transistor amps from the 50's.  I'm not saying
there were NONE..but I really don't think there were any that
were marketed or generally available (or sonically even
mediocre) until about 1964.  I have in front of me my 1964 Allied
catalog and I don't see any solid state gear from Scott, Fisher,
HK, McIntosh or Marantz.  I do see some "All-transistor" Knight gear
(aka Allied's own junk gear)...but nothing that is quality.

I respectfully suggest you refer to the poor solid state gear of
the 60's in the future...the solid state gear from the 50's is
as rare as personal computers from the 60's..


-- 
Alan L. Peterman                                 (503)-684-1984 hm & work
                       al@qiclab.scn.rain.com
It's odd how as I get older, the days are longer, but the years are shorter!
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Tuesday, 26 Jan 1993 22:03:50 EST
From: Peter Leone <IO20823@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject:    Type III tapes?

On another newsgroup(rec.music.phish) A question was raised, is (was) there
such a thing such as Type III tapes? Can someone please e-mail me about these
tapes, or post the information to rec.music.phish as I don't read this
newsgroup very often. Thank you for your help!

                                  Peace,
                                        Peter Leone


IO20823@MAINE.MAINE.EDU                      TRUCKIN' UP TO BUFFALO..... 
T. PETER LEONE                                GO SABRES!!                
BUFFALO BILLS AFC CHAMPS 3RD YEAR IN A ROW!!  GO BANDITS 1992 MILL CHAMPS
|            "GOD DAMN WELL I DECLARE HAVE YOU SEEN THE LIKE........."    |