HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.audio

jim@IMD.Sterling.COM (Jim Nicholsen) writes:

>Third was an announcement in a recent EE Times of a speaker manufacturer
>that was including "anti-sound" in the DSP program of their product to
>cancel out room effects (The price of the unit includes a visit by their
>certified rep to make the appropriate measurements of the customers
>listening room and load the derived parameters into the DSP board)
>(Sorry I don't have the copy of EE Times around anymore to give a better
>reference).

The manufacturer is Snell. The reference is EE Times Issue 728, Jan. 11, '93.

Interesting article. Worth reading.

I wonder what happens if you move the speakers to vacuum after the ROM
is burned?

(To avoid a correction by Dick, (wouldn't want to embarrass myself by
making a tiny goof on a fact) no, the article doesn't state what the
memory technology is. It could very well be RAM. Whatever it is, you
might still have to recalibrate the room. I wonder if that can be done
by the user.)

Introduction date was announced as March 1993. No price was mentioned.
(If you have to ask...)

Allan
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: ted@dgbt.doc.ca (Ted Grusec)
Subject: Re: Dolby S vs. DCC etc.
Keywords: nr, compression
Organization: The Communications Research Centre
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 21:40:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.201538.22693@viewlogic.com> bobdavis@scumbag.viewlogic.com (Bob Davis) writes:
>


>By the way, this NOT an endorsement of DCC and MD.  I am loath to even
>talk about these formats seriously at this point, since they are techni-
>cally in a negative direction -- mass marketing of sonic compromise.  If
>I could, I would encourage avoiding these formats.  Hopefully, the
>competing formats will kill each other in the market via the resulting
>confusion and lack of consumer confidence.  Whatever, I'm not buying.
>
>I do think lossless or nearly lossless compression approaches are worth
>looking into, but the approaches used in DCC and MD formats don't qualify.

I presume everyone knows that one unstoppable event is digital radio
and this will use lossy compression (bit-rate reduction) that is
similar to that in DCC - unstoppable because of bandwidth
restrictions.  I presume this means that digital radio will be
condemned for a long time to being less than an ideal medium.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Grusec - Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Ont., Canada
Internet: ted.grusec@crc.doc.ca - (613) 998 2762 - Fax (613) 993 8657
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce)
Subject: Re: MUSIC of THE DIVINE MASTERS
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:20:42 GMT

>In article <1993Jan25.192632.3325@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>
>>     The "ECKANKAR" Organization, referred to in the following article, has
>>been producing some of the MOST BEAUTIFUL MUSIC that I have ever heard!  This
>>includes the audio cassette tape albums "Songs of the Golden Heart", "Dance of
>>the HU", and "Come Share the Dream".
>>                             THE DIVINE MASTERS       
>
><lots of inane banter deleted, having nothing whatsoever to do with audio>
>
>>                                           Robert E. McElwaine
>>                                           2nd Initiate in Eckankar
                                             ^^^
                                             And, we do hope, the last.

Oh, by the way, he posted this same article to at least one other
newsgroup (sci.astro) under a completely different heading. Be prepared
for a dramatic decrease in the net signal to noise ratio

-- 
|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX)      |
From: cmh@eng.cam.ac.uk (C.M. Hicks)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
Date: 22 Jan 93 10:19:54 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

zellers@22_clancy.manassas.ibm.com (Cevin M Zellers) writes:

>ignorance of the Nyquist Sampling theorem. All of you digital skeptics, 
>please note that CD's capture ALL frequencies up to 44.5 KHz, reproducing
>them faithfully (butter than vinyl, I argue). Frequencies above 44.5 KHz
>don't matter, that's far above the threshold of hearing anyway :)

I hope (and expect) that this is a case of fingers getting ahead of brain...

A CD sampled at 44.1kHz retains all the information at up to (but not
including) 22.05kHz. Note that there will also be some information loss
at the extreme high-end (say above 20kHz) due to the anti-alias filter.

Quantisation to 16 bits also represents an information loss - a rounding
16-bit quantiser is equivalent to addition of white, Gaussian Noise at
around -96dB.

Christopher Hicks]

--
 ==============================================================================
 Christopher Hicks    |    If it doesn't fit...
 cmh@uk.ac.cam.eng    |                        ...you need a bigger hammer.
 ==============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: ted@dgbt.doc.ca (Ted Grusec)
Subject: Re: DAT, DCC and MD
Organization: The Communications Research Centre
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 01:03:06 GMT

In article <GLAS.93Jan21081603@muresh.et.tudelft.nl> glas@donau.et.tudelft.nl writes:
>

>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.

Well Jack, I have run experiments on at least 25 or 30 people who must
be Gods.  Under tightly controlled, double blind conditions, they can
tell the difference on certain audio materials with complete
reliability.   No lossy compression scheme is "perfect" - there will
always be listeners who find non-transparency under critical
materials.  This does not mean that this kind of compression is not of
very high quality, nor that it won't suffice for "average" listeners
under non-critical conditions.  I can send you published reports from
my lab if you wish.>
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Grusec - Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Ont., Canada
Internet: ted.grusec@crc.doc.ca - (613) 998 2762 - Fax (613) 993 8657
From: kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:41:41 GMT
Subject: Re: Can I get Surround Sound with existing equip?
Organization: Shredding the water of SF Bay, HP-OCD
Newsgroups: rec.audio

Went by the shop I know last night and asked about the Yamaha that might
work for your budget.  It is, or will be, $500 and have equal power for all
3 front channels.  Sounds like the x50 to x70 upgrades will add alot of
nice stuff, but the amps themselves are probably the same for those that
are interested.

Kirk out
From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
Followup-To: rec.audio
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:17:03 GMT
Organization: BBN
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1190791@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>, kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt
Strain) wrote:
> And in the very next sentence trounces analog with a bogus reason.
> 
> > Chances are that most analog appeal comes from
> > euphonius distortions that could be simulated in digital if anyone wanted
> > to try.

The reasoning is not bogus. It is both easily measurable and demonstrable
with listening tests. This idea of 'euphonius distortion' really seems to
bug you a lot, Kurt. You know, it's not a personal insult. Euphonius means
'good sounding', and there are no grounds to deny that some distortions
might actually be appealing.

In fact, it should be good news to you. If you could drop the feeling that
processing sound is anathema (perhaps this is not your opinion, but it is
common to high-end subjectivists), you could see that some of your
cherished LP sound could be added in recording studios, if desired by the
engineers and musicians, or added at the playback end with a consumer
device.

Of course, such a device would probably never come to market because so
many of the LP fans would probably find the idea repellent. They try so
hard for the holy grail of a straight-wire, no distortion reproduction
chain that they have learned to ignore the far-from-ideal vinyl link in
that chain. And after trying so hard (and spending sooo much money), find
it hard to admit that maybe they've been enjoying listening to distortion.
Too bad. They could probably get what they wanted to hear out of CDs if it
didn't hurt their pride to ask for it.

-Kerry
From: mowat@slipknot.eng.pyramid.com (Eric Mowat)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Yamaha DSP A1000 & J&R Music World
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:44:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: slipknot.eng.pyramid.com

In article <1993Jan25.181333.14897%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu> mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Mike S.) writes:
>
>Check J&R Music World.  I have had very good luck with them, and they
>are Yamaha factory authorized (one of the few mail order places who are).
>When I was calling for my Yamaha receiver, I asked them for a price on
>the DSP-A1000, and they said $1150, without any bargaining or anything.
>This was also a month or so ago, so they may have lowered the price
>since Yamaha released their new models.
>
>Mike
>-- 
>mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu


They also told me on two different occasions that they couldn't mail
order high-end Yamahas because they weren't allowed to.  I was calling
regarding the RX-V1050 and the RX-V850.  They also said that I wouldn't be
able to get Yamaha ANYWHERE. 

New West and USA Media Junction had no such problems.

-- 
----
Eric Mowat   			mowat@pyramid.com
Pyramid Technology Corp.	{sun,hplabs,decwrl,uunet}!pyramid!mowat
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: ritc0003@student.tc.umn.edu (Kent Ritchie)
Subject: Re: DAT, DCC and MD
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:28:26 GMT

Another question about DCC...

Some say that MD (or DAT for that matter) requires a additonal "spot" in
your setup.  They argue that DCC doesn't since it replaces the tape deck
you (presumably) already have.  My question is...

WHAT THE HELL IS EVERYONE GOING TO DO WITH THEIR OLD TAPE DECKS???!!!

I know if *I* had a decent analog deck (I don't) I wouldn't throw it out
or stop using it.  And if everyone is supposedly buying DCC at the same
time as I am my quality analog deck would be worth nothing on the used
market.  

Let's all pray that MD and DCC fail miserably.  Sony and Phillips need
a wake up call.


--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
^Kent C. Ritchie    "The power of equality      ritc0003@student.tc.umn.edu^ 
^Physics 136         is not yet what it ought     kritchie@mvax.spa.umn.edu^
^626-0235            to be"  -Chili Peppers     Fido: Kent.Ritchie 1:282/31^
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Xref: sparky rec.audio:19277 rec.video:16300
From: gregr@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Gregory S Rogers)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.video
Subject: Re: Sony TA-E2000ESD DSP A/V Surround Preamp
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:58:05 GMT
Followup-To: rec.audio
Distribution: rec
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.



>> What I meant to say is that on the TAE1000ESD, equalization and dynamic
>> range expansion/compression is disabled.  So if you have refined an
>> equalization curve that works for your room set up, you cannot take
>> advantage of it when you are in DOLBY SURROUND mode.  I was curious if
>> this design limitation had been removed in the new model.

>> Mark Bramblett

No, the TAE 2000 does not have this limitation.  The Prologic mode can
be used in combination with all the other features.

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky)
Subject: Re: Bad CD Remastering (was: Comments on analog music)
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:04:30 GMT

In article <shetline-250193200523@128.89.19.90> shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline) writes:
>
>One of the favorite examples of bad mastering from the early days of CD was
>Jethro Tull's _Aqualung_. Does anyone know if this has been re-remastered?
>I know that even the original LP was murky, but I would hope that the
>original multitracks are still around. Someone like Mobile Fidelity should
>have a go at it. (Of course, maybe they feel it's hopeless and would mar
>their reputation.)

They did have a go at it in the form of an "Original Master Recording" LP 
(which, sadly, I can't listen to now because I don't currently own a 
turntable) I wish they'd do a CD too.  I've been putting off buying
Aqualung on CD for just this reason.

Aqualung also has the distinction of being the first CD I ever heard.  It    
was playing on the original Sony CD player in a stereo shop near New
Orleans.

--
Steve Kanefsky
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: CD vs. LP again (was Re: Preamp and Amp)
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:41:44 GMT

In rec.audio, kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom) writes:

> Happy TET!  

> The fireworks have started early!

> Cong Xi Fatt Choy

> Kirk out


Face it, Lon and I are happy to start trouble.  Otherwise rec.audio is too
dull for us.


:-)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: jrl8@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (James R Lendino)
Subject: Re: Advice on bookshelf speakers 
Reply-To: jrl8@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (James R Lendino)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:54:54 GMT

In article <C1A19L.Cus@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> thumper@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Jeff Swarm) writes:
>
>	Haven't heard the NHT, but people say it is good.  I own a pair of 
>Advent Babys, which are just a bit smaller than the Graduate, and are nice,
>but they leave you wanting more.  Just last night I listened to a pair of
>Paradigm Phantoms at a local Hi-Fi shop.  DEFINITELY audition these bad boys.
>I think they run a little under $300, and they are VERY good speakers.  With
>or without the sub, the Phantoms will do the trick on anything from Mahler to 
>Ministry.

   I own a pair of Phantoms, and I must say they sounded better than anything
I heard in the price range (I paid $249, which is $30 under list, at
American Audiophile Inc. in Lynbrook, L.I., NY).  I will point out that
there is one problem with them (and this no doubt contributes to their
great sound) - the cabinet is a few tenths of an inch shy of a foot
deep!  Since they are ported in the back, the manual also recommends
placing them at least a foot from the rear wall.  This means that some
people might have trouble finding enough room for them.

   Another option is to buy the stands that Paradigm advertises.

   The midrange on the Phantoms is nearly perfect - everything comes
through uncolored and natural.  The highs can get a bit harsh as you
turn up the volume, though - you'll have to listen to see if that
bothers you.  The bass is excellent - with room variances, according
to the specs, you can get as low as 40 hz at -3 dB, and although I
have limited experience with subwoofers, I'd say that's at least
partially true and definitely not bad for a $250 pair of speakers.

   I based my purchase on my opinion along with several people who
kindly responded to a post I did a few months earlier.  Other favorites
were the Celestion 3s and PSB Alphas, the latter of which I was unable
to find in any store near me.

-JRL
-------------------------------
James R. Lendino
jrl8@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
-------------------------------
From: garyp@rmtc.paramax.com (Gary Palangian [RMTC/ISP])
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: surround sound recording on VCR
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:36:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Paramax Systems

In article <74363@cup.portal.com>, 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?
|> 
|> gb

Maybe your VCR has a poor quality MTS Decoder in it?  Maybe your
cable company is screwing up the audio signal?  Maybe your
antenna is not adjusted properly?

Party On...

Gary P.
From: zzjim@stein.u.washington.edu (Zeming Gao)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Power amp with CD direct?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 22:00:54 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu


My friend wants to purchase a simple power amplifier which
has a CD direct input. He wants to bypass a pre-amp because
he is going to keep his old Keenwood receiver for all other uses
except for the CD player. He'd like to pay around $300. 

I don't know any gear for his quite unusual demand. I am not
even sure how much a cheap power amp like Audiosource Amp One($250)
will outperform his Keenwood 4030(?) receiver. We would 
appreciate your advices. 

-jim
From: jpb@calmasd.Prime.COM (Jan Bielawski)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: CD Sound under attack again. Was: Re: Preamp and Amp
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:51:22 GMT
Organization: Computervision, San Diego, CA

In article <1993Jan20.014644.14794@midway.uchicago.edu> cal@gsbux1.uchicago.edu (Cal Lott) writes:

<	I don't know what he means by "golden-earing", but I can certainly
<respect someone's opinion if they think that vinyl sounds better. However, 
<stating that vinyl is "the high-end medium of choice" is a different matter
<entirely. I'd be curious as to what criteria you used to arrive at this
<conclusion, Dave.

	Which reminds me...  An analog tape recorder cannot reliably record 
more of the frequency spread than about 8 1/2 octaves.  Beyond that range
the frequency response is probably too low to be called "high fidelity."
If the tape moves fast one can record high frequencies very well but
not the low ones as the corresponding magnetic flux with respect to any 
tape segment changes too slow to magnetize that segment strongly enough.
If the tape is moving slow then the highs disappear.  No matter what, the
recordable frequency range is fixed although it can be adjusted up or
down by choosing the tape speed.

	My question is: why aren't CD critics bothered by this?  To me
it's a serious problem that seems to indicate that the only analog way
to record is direct to disk.

	Jan Bielawski
	Computervision, San Diego
	jpb@calmasd.prime.com
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Stabilizer Rings (Was: MiniDiscs -- What Are They?)
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:30:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24698
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <30748@castle.ed.ac.uk> sss@castle.ed.ac.uk (S S Sturrock) writes:

> All tests I have seen about these things have been to see if they reduce
> bit errors etc, some have actually increased the BER.  I suspect the place
> to look is the same as where differences in various transports occur, the
> rise and fall times of the S/PDIF data stream, accuracy here has been shown
> to directly effect jitter and perceived sound quality.

I suspect the place to look is first to determine whether they
actually affect anything at all, or whether it's just people
talking themselves into hearing things that aren't there.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Comments on analog music
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:08:45 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

>In article <3340422@hpcc01.corp.hp.com>, kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk
>Lindstrom) wrote:
>> and could hear that they knew what they were doing.  Even now I'm leary
>> of buying CDs unless I trust the engineering:  GRP, Chesky, Schefield
>> and Telarc though I think the first 3 are "more musical" as a whole at
>> times.  I've heard some good remastering done on the "Verve label" that
>
In article <shetline-240193114811@128.89.19.90> shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline) writes:
>Be careful, Kirk. I don't think it's politically correct on rec.audio to
>say anything nice about Telarc. And to mention Telarc in the same breath
>with Schefield? You're in trouble now! :-)
>
  
  I dunno.  I've blown more Apogee's and wimpy woofers with Telarc
  than with any other brand--except for Stanford's "Digital Domain"

  The only truly horrid recording I've heard on Telarc is the Liza
  Minelli concert series...she should sue them for libel.

        _   /|
	\'o.O'
	=(___)=
	   U

     THPTH! ACKHH!
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: khann@ecf.toronto.edu (KHAN NAJEEB MOHAMMED)
Subject: Re: Speaker vent placement question
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:36:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.181901.10010@uicc.com> neidorff@uicc.com (Bob Neidorff) writes:
>
>I wonder if the designer of the speaker with ports in
>front and back thought that he might avoid weakening
>the front panel by cutting too large of a port into it.
>
>I think it is accepted that small ports are bad because
>of air turbulence noises not related to the desired
>sound.  If this is true, then it would probably be a
>bad idea to split one fat port into two skinny ones.
>
>I wonder if it is possible that there is more to the
>speaker than you have described.  Is it possible that
>one port goes to one chamber and another port to a second
>chamber?  Perhaps one chamber is midrange and one bass?
>You said that one port is low and one is higher.  This
>might support the one-for-mid & one-for-bass theory.
>
>Or perhaps the ports are both for the bass, but one is on
>one side of an enclosed cone, and the other on the other
>side of the cone?  This would be similar to the bandpass
>structure used by many these days.
>
>-- 
>Bob Neidorff; Unitrode I. C. Corp.  |  Internet: neidorff@uicc.com
>7 Continental Blvd.                 |  Voice   : (US) 603-424-2410
>Merrimack, NH  03054-0399 USA       |  FAX     : (US) 603-424-3460

I have a Paradigm 7SEII and it is ported on the rear with two small bass ports.
Both ports are vents from one enclosure.  I don't have any very source material
with very low bass but I can't hear any audible wind noise at normal listening
levels.

Should I remove the two ports and replace them with one single one? :)

Najeeb

-- 
--

<Najeeb Khan - khann@ecf.utoronto.ca>
From: reeve@steam.Xylogics.COM (Scott Reeve)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Pro-Logic audio equipment for sale
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:15:25 GMT
Reply-To: reeve@steam.Xylogics.COM (Scott Reeve)
Organization: Xylogics, Inc. Burlington, MA, USA 01810


					List		Asking
Denon AVR 610 (only 1 year old)		600		430

Polk CS100 center channel speaker
(about 7 months old)			180		130

Both are in mint condition.  I have all papers, boxes, receipts, etc.
Nothing wrong with either, I'm just upgrading to separates and
will be forgoing my  Pro-Logic setup for now.
From: ssr@cypress.com (Bapcha/FPGA)
Subject: Re: Yamaha DSP A1000
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:29:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.122729.16345@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> brown@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (john.carl.brown) writes:
>
>  After reading some of the reviews here on the net and doing some
>research I have decided I would like to get the Yamaha DSP A1000
>A/V amp.  The best price I have found is $1134 delivered from a place
>called Amerisound (904 262 9800).  Has anyone dealt with these people
>or seen a better price?

They are triple distilled slimeballs who have no stock on anything.... and I am
sure that your "low" price only applies to checks with a 4 week lead time.

bapcha

-- 
Bapcha ssr@cypress.com   |  NeXT mail is NOT welcome.
3901 N.  First Strasse,  |  SUN  mail is welcome.
San Jose,  CA 95134,     |  SMTP mail is welcome.
408-943-2719.            |  IBM  mail is welcome too.