HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: p0p4018@zeus.tamu.edu (PREMTHAMKORN, PRAKIT)
Subject: Re: Steals for Aragon equipment
Summary: Good buys sought after for Aragon equipment
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:52:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.131341.13183@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, eric@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Eric Hansen) writes...
>I've had a pair of Apogee Centaur hybrid speakers for about a year now.
>My original amp and preamp, an SAE and Proton, I sold because they didn't
>do the Apogee's justice.  I swore then that, at the recommendations of
>Jason Bloom (pres. of Apogee), many friends and my own dear ears, that
>I'd buy a Aragon 2004 or 4004 and the matching preamp.  Well, I've
>discovered that even a not-so-great amp and preamp (namely my departed
>SAE and Proton sidekick) are better than nothing, and I've now decided
>that (against the advice of my loan officer) I'll have to buy this new
>equipment.

I own a pair Apogee Stage and drive them with the Aragon 4004.  After almost
2 years of listening to this combination with several preamps, CD players and
D/A, I come to the conclusion that the Aragon sound a bit too soft for the 
Stages which are already a bit laid-back sounding.  I have heard the Centaur
Minors and feel they sound more up front than the Stages.  This concludes
that it's likely that the Aragon will mate with them well.

I also encourage you to try out the Muse 100.  While I never listen to this
amp through the Centaur, I heard very good sound through the Stages.  At $1200
I think this amp is a better buy than the Aragon 2004 from the sonic standpoint.
It does not look as good as the Aragon.

Another point of concern is the Aragon' low input impedance(about 20K Ohm).
A passive preamp does not work well at all with this amp.  Be careful in
choosing a preamp.

If you buy an used Aragon 24K preamp, make sure you buy the unit equipped with
Penny & Giles pot.  Some older units use a lesser pot from Noble.  All 24SP
come with a P&G pot.

> 
>In the name of justice, fair play and affordable high-end, does anyone
>know of a source for used/discounted/black market Aragon equipment?
>I'd love to dish out $3k, but I'm more willing (and able) to put in the
>effort to track down a better buy.
> 
>Thanks!
>Eric Hansen

Try calling Audio Outlet and ask for Frank.  You can buy the demo 4004 for
about $1500 from them.  They also carry the Muse amps.  You can find their
ads in Streophile or Audio mag.

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: Ed Faulkner <faulkner@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
Subject: Altec 128B
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:09:53 GMT

Does anyone have any information on an old Altec 128B amplifier (40W
mono tube). I am interested in getting schematics, modification suggestions
and anything else that applies to this amp.



Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: bvs@photon.photon.com (Bruce Shetler)
Subject: comments ADCOM GFP-565
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Photon Research Associates, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:04:32 GMT
	(queueing-rmail) id 211801.1842; Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21: 18:01 EDT

I am close to purchasing an ADCOM GFP-565 pre-amp.  This will replace
a NAD 1300 currently in my system.  I have auditioned it and it is a
substantial improvement.  I would appreciate any comments anyone has
on this equipment, or ADCOM in general.  By the way I'm getting it
used for about half price ($450.00) and it will be used with a Nakamichi
CDP-2 CD (for now), a Nak PA-7 power amp and Magnepan 2.6 speakers.

I guess what I'm really soliciting are comments of the form "...even
though the reviews are good, that thing really stinks", or "...you're
money is better spent on an X, they make much better pre-amps in this
price range..."

In High-End ignorance but learning...

Bruce
--

========================================================================
  Bruce Shetler                           
  Photon Research Associates              San Diego...
From: rgonzal@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Ralph Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Kef speakers
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:10:07 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


92marsh@gw.wmich.edu writes:


>         Hello
>           I have a pair of Kef C-90 speakers.  Great speakers.  I
>         suggest Kef without any hesitation.  Has anyone tried the new
>         Q series from Kef?  I am told the Q series is replacing the C
>         series and the sound is quite improved (brighter w/o loss in
>         the low end).  The guy at the store said everything was the
>         same, except a different midrange/tweeter cone and speaker. 
>         [The speakers are two-way.]  He said the cross-over
>         electronics is the same.  Is this true?  Is it possible to
>         buy just the cone/speaker?  I could then upgrade my speakers! 
>         Yeah!

I find it very hard to believe that they would change the drivers so
drastically and not change the crossover!

I think you can buy KEF drivers (I think Madisound, in Madison, WI
sells them in this country), but I think you are much better off leaving
them as they are.  First, it is not clear that the new concentric
drivers are always better-sounding (unless you are a salesman and
want to sell new speakers); second good speakers like KEFs are
computer-designed so the crossover only works properly with the
particular drivers and cabinet.

If you're happy with the speakers, don't let someone tell you they
need to be upgraded.  Otherwise, you'll have to replace them every
year!  There's nothing "magic" about "this year's model".  Many
speakers made in the last 20 years sound as good or better than
current models.  There have been some genuine innovations, but
a good speaker is still a good speaker.

-Ralph

-- 
Ralph Gonzalez, Computer Science, Rutgers Univ., Camden, NJ
Phone: (609) 757-6122; Internet: rgonzal@elbereth.rutgers.edu
--
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: peterca@ento.csiro.au
Subject: valve/tube amp biasing
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:46:07 GMT

I have found three approaches to the biasing of valves and would welcome
comments on the relative merits of each approach.  I am new to valves
having sofar made one preamp and done some tweaks on a pair of Leak TL12s. 
I have been told that a worthwhile tweak is to improve the regulation of
the bias voltage especially on the output valves of the power amp.  The
methods I have heard of and my impressions/naive ideas follow:
1) cathode resistor to jack up the voltage at the cathode plus capacitor
bypass.  Appears to be used on older equipment.  Seems easy as no
adjustment is required.  Possibly the sound quality is dependant on the
quality of the bypass caps which are necessarily electrolytics to have
large enough capacity even though film type bypasses can be added.
2) Negative DC supply added to the signal going to each valve, cathode
connects to ground via a small resistor, I presume to allow measurement of
the current through each valve. Constant readjustment of the bias on each
valve sounds like a nuisance.  Is it? This appears to be used on all more
recent designs I have seen.  Is this because it sounds better?
3) Common cathode power zener or zener plus power transistor to replace the
cathode resistor of 1 above.  The cathodes of a push-pull amp output stage
are joined together and connected to earth via a zener which jacks up the
cathode voltage to provide the -ve bias for the grid.  The current through
the zener should be fairly constant for a class A amp because as one of the
valves is turning on the other is turning off by the same amount. 
Nevertheless a smaller, quality cap can be left in the normal bypass
position just in case.  This idea was published in a mid-60s article by Reg
Williamson and reprinted recently in Audio Conversions, issue 9.  The
claimed advantage was that type 1 amps would give a continuous power output
closer to their peak rating.  This seems a very good idea and I am tempted
to replace the type 1 arrangement in my TL12s with this one but am
concerned that for an old idea I haven't seen it used-is there some problem
which is not obvious?  Or does everyone do this and I hadn't noticed?
Peter Campbell
C/O Div. Entomology, C.S.I.R.O.
Box 1700 Canberra A.C.T. 2601
Australia  (peterca@ento.csiro.au)
From: kenyee@ksr.com (Ken Yee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Speaker radiation patterns
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:04:02 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


In article <1992Jul21.011956.177986@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>  
jap1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALEXANDER PADULA) writes:
> I had a conversation with someone who suggested that the conventional
> forward firing systems were the speakers that more accurately reproduced  
the
> information on the recording.  I concede that this may in fact be  
correct
> considering the placement of microphones in minimally miked orchestral
> recordings.  However, this is not the perspective of someone sitting
> in the audience.  There, at least from my experience, one does not 
> perceive the pinpoint imaging that some speakers provide but more of the
> diffuse soundstage that bi/dipolar speakers produce.
   I went to my first real Boston Pops concert a couple of months ago.
   It definitely didn't sound like any recording I've heard.  There
   seemed to be more high frequency sounds than I expected and the
   bass drum seemed more diffuse than most recordings.  I had orchestra
   seats, 25-30 feet behind the conductor at a 45 degree angle to the
   right.  I looked up and noticed that the mikes were mostly directly
   over the orchestra and directly over the conductor especially...
   implying that the conductor's seat is the "best".
   Sound was indeed diffuse and it did take a while to for me to find
   all the instruments I was hearing.
   At any rate, I thought electostatics sounded most like this, but
   I felt their sweet spots were too small (in the $2k range).
   On a different note, anyone know why the Watt/Puppies are so
   expensive?  Anyone ever try copying them in a DIY project?

 ken
From: kester@mat.mte.ncsu.edu (Dan Kester)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Cary amps
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:04:50 GMT
Organization: Mat. Sci. & Eng., NCSU
	for info-high-audio@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
	for rec-audio-high-end@speedy.mcnc.org
Posted-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21: 42:21 GMT
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

Does anyone have any experience with the Cary components?  I am specifically
interested in a pair of used CAD-100 monoblock amps, but
information/experiences relating to any of their components would be much
appreciated.  Thanks!

Dan Kester
kester@mte.ncsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: dwf@kepler.unh.edu (Dennis W Fitanides)
Subject: MIT or Monster Cable?
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:04:17 GMT
  (5.65c+/IDA-1.4.4 for rec-audio-high-end@uunet.uu.net); Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12: 45:43 -0400

I'm looking to upgrade the interconnects and speaker wire in my highend
system and the store where I buy from recommended MIT ZAP cable over
Monster Cable M175 speaker wire and Monster Cable interlink reference.
Anyone have any comments?  Please send me mail as I don't have access
to the net. Thanks
Tom Nezwek
Systems Administrator
Liberty Mutua;
nezwek@lmig.com



Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: bellcore!ardour.bellcore.com!hsong@uunet.UU.NET (G. Hugh Song)
Subject: Re: Problem with Quad ESL63
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: bellcore!ardour.bellcore.com!hsong@uunet.UU.NET (G. Hugh Song)
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:07:46 GMT
	(queueing-rmail) id 101333.25166; Tue, 21 Jul 1992 10: 13:33 EDT

In article <9207171531.AA08544@ardour.bellcore.com>, hsong@ardour.bellcore.com (G. Hugh Song) writes:
|> 
|> In article <50478@dime.cs.umass.edu>, carver@cs.umass.edu writes:
|> |> 
|> |> I have had these sorts of sounds from my Acoustats from time to time.
|> |> .....[deleted] .....they have no effect on the reproduction of music.
|> |> 
|> |> Norman Carver
|> 
|> You are right!  Today, I tried to hear that noise again.  It's gone!!!
|> Great!  Yes, it is summer time, hot and very humid here in New Jersey.
|> 
|> Dick Pierce writes:
|> |> 
|> |> The situation can only get worse.  I would recommend highly that  your
|> |> you return speakers for repair.
|> 
|> Oh, well.  How many of you have had this kind of arcing problem with your
|> electrostatic panel speakers?  For this portion of query, please email to me.
|> I would like to know how serious this problem is, whether it is so serious
|> that we have to think electrostatic speakers all over again.

Some quad owners replied to me that they have been having a similar problem
in the summer.  One had a broken quad in the end, some do not seem to have
a serious problem with their quads.   To me, here is the story:
The noise came back!!   This time, it's like "Tz-ts-tz-....." and it's
got louder.    Mine seems very serious.
Yesterday, I contacted Quad of America.  They said that the panel has to be
replaced.   And he said that the problem is mostly caused by humidity.
After hanging up the phone, I looked around the speaker.  Yes, there is 
that four-season ventilation grill outlet on the wall nearby (4 ft. apart).
It blows out hot air in the winter, but it also blows out cool air in 
the summer.  You see!   It makes dew drops condensed  inside the mylar 
wrapping, causing the burning, when the  ventillation grill blows out cool air. 

Warning:  DO NOT PLACE YOUR ELECTROSTATIC SPEAKER NEAR THE VENTILLATION
WALL OUTLET!!!! 

I am going to send my speaker to the repair center in Virginia.  It is
still under warranty.  I am going to write QUAD to include the above 
warning statement explicitly in the users' manual in the future.  But 
only after I receive the warranty service ;) which I do not want to 
jeopardize.

	Hugh
 

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: DPierce@world.std.com
Subject: Bias On Quad ESL
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:07:59 GMT

I am not completely familiar with the Quad ESL63, but on older quads that may 
have had loose diaphragms, the bias helped tighten them up and reduced the 
possibility of mechanical excursion problems that might lead to arching. It's
a rare case granted, but I have seen it happen.

|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX)      |

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: jeff@hawk.svl.cdc.com (Jeff Needham)
Subject: FOR SALE: Counterpoint SA-3.1
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:08:05 GMT


For Sale:


COUNTERPOINT SA-3.1 tube preamp (3 6DJ8s)
CARDAS jacks retrofitted on phono/tape1/output

$400 (includes shipping)



jeff
From: peterca@ento.csiro.au
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Ittok rewire?/line conditoners
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:08:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: spider.9207202320.AA21828
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

A question and a comment:
Has anyone tried to rewire an Ittok tone arm? I am considering this and
would like to know what to expect when I get inside. Does it have damping
material?  Is this easily removed and replaced?  Has anyone experienced any
improvements or losses doing this?  I was considering van den Hul wire.  Is
the head shell glued as well as screwed on?  Can I get replacements for the
plug and socket for the arm lead?
I suppose people rarely brag about their tweaking failures but that can be
useful too!  I made a line conditioner (CLC on active and neutral plus
metal oxide varisters) as published in a local electronics magazine.  It
worked to reduce gross clicks from switching other gear pluged into the
same double power point but I could detect no audible  effect on the music
quality in normal cicumstances.  Maybe I'm just lucky.  Just about every
other tweak I have tried has had atleast some noticeable effect.
Peter Campbell
C/O Div. Entomology, C.S.I.R.O.
Box 1700 Canberra A.C.T. 2601
Australia  (peterca@ento.csiro.au)
From: aardvark@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Craig A. Blome)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Vandersteen Acoustic Coupler
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:54:55 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Posted-Date:  29 Jul 92 02: 37:46 GMT
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


In article <1992Jul23.170127.9779@muddcs.claremont.edu> jstimson@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (John Stimson) writes:
>
(regarding Vandersteen's Acoustic Coupler)
>Does anyone have a clue as to how this works?  And does it work the
>same way in the 2C, 2Ci, and 2Ce?  (I'm still trying to discover the
>differences between the three, since the 2Ci seems to sell for $150 more
>than the 2C used)
>
>						John Stimson
>						Harvey Mudd College
Don Keele described this device in his recent Audio Magazine review of the
2Ce(?newest model?).  This is one of the more elegant ideas I have seen in
speaker design.  What the "Acoustic Coupler" does in a nutshell is to drive
the fourth speaker with a signal which is analogous to the output of a tuned
port, but because it is driven electrically by the amplifier, it can have a
higher acoustic output than a port *in a box of similar size*.  What Vandy
has done is to alter the port output vs. box size curve, obtaining a bass
response equal to that of a standard ported box 80% larger (they claim).
If you are interested in the circuit models used to model low frequency
response of speakers, I refer you to Richard Small's classic series of 
articles in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, starting in June
1972 if memory serves.  This would be a great idea for a construction 
project too, as it would seem to make it easier to reconcile the desires for
bass and small size.

Cheers,
Craig Blome
The University of Texas at Austin
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Audio Concepts Saphire Sub Combo.
From: BARRON@RHQVM14.VNET.IBM.COM
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:07:38 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


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

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: johnson@wrs.com (David Johnson)
Subject: FOR SALE: Carver Silver-7t
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Keywords: amp
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:52:34 GMT

A friend of mine is selling his two Carver mono amps.
They are the Silver Seven t Mark II.  They'll drive
just about anything you can put on them (he had Acoustats).
Each amp is rated @ 575 watts into 8 ohms, 825 into 4, 
and 1000 into 2!!! (if you're into that type of thing)
So, if you've got a set of Watt Puppies, or if you just
like having the ability to arc weld 1/4 inch plate steel
with your amps :-) then these are for you. Price: $1000
(plus shipping of course)

Just give him a call if you're interested @ (510) 521-9619
and ask for Jeff or leave a message. 

FYI; He lives in the San Fransisco Bay Area (Alameda CA)

Chow,

DAVE (johnson@wrs.com)

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: bchall@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Subject: ADCOM GFA-555/GFA-555 MkII
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:04:24 GMT

Hi! I'm new to this group and am looking forward to participating.

My question concerns the differences between the Adcom GFA-555 and GFA-555 MkII.

What makes MkII better than the original (I assume that this is the case)?

My brother had a GFA-555 a few years ago but sold it to buy a B&K ST-140.  He
liked the low end but thought the high end was a little trashy.  Is the MkII
better in this respect?

I would appreciate any comments from anyone who has had experience with either
of these amps.

Thanks,
Brian

 _____________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                             |
| Brian C. Hall                                   bchall@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| SY73E BLDG 2109                                                301-737-6120 |
| Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division                     DSN 326-6120 |
| Patuxent River, MD 20670-5304                                               |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: "Michael Squires" <mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Stacked Quads
Summary: Quads were not full range 
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:07:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.150936.21687@muddcs.claremont.edu> jstimson@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (John Stimson) writes:

>light then.  If the Quads are like most (all) electrostatics I've seen,
>the drivers are shaped like a big grid, which would make a wonderful

My memory of the Quad (old) is that there were two woofer panels surrounding
a vertical tweeter panel.  The KLH 9 had 9 bass panels with a single old-style
Janzen tweeter panel on one edge of the speaker.  The Quad had dustproof covers
which had to be shrunk after installation; the KLH9 used cloth filters and
was not airtight.  The Quad should have had problems with oscillation modes
of the air/cover system, but I never heard nor measured any.  The Dayton-Wright
XG10 (which used a plastic bag charged with a non-conductive gas) had the
weirdest frequency response curve I ever saw, where the modes of the gasbag
system acted as a comb filter.

Diffraction effects could be clearly heard at close range with the first
Acoustat I ever heard.  The Acoustat used multiple panels runing the full
height of the speaker.

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end