HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: QSound?
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:32:33 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
: >(2) you listen to the tape through a stereo system with loud speakers
: >    then the phase & stereo image will be incorrect almost everywhere
: >    in the room, except perhaps when you're exactly equal distance 
: >    from both speakers.  In fact, no matter what you do, there will be
: >    a phase problem almost everywhere in the room.
: 
: Precisely.  However, you can get a reasonable illusion of imaging and depth
: at the sweet spot between the two speakers.  It's never all that accurate,
: though.  This is mostly because there is a large amount of reflected sound
: from the room, as well as the fact that no speakers have an even response off
: axis.
: 
: Unless you are approximately at an equal distance between speakers, you will
: never get reasonable imaging.  Nobody said it was a perfect world.

Slightly fortuitously, you use the phase information mostly at lower
frequencies, so that the distance you can move before phase information is
lost may be reasonable.

: --scott

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: cms2839@ultb.isc.rit.edu (a.stranger)
Subject: Re: Mackie 1202 mixer - where's the catch?
Originator: cms2839@ultb
Keywords: mixer, Mackie
Organization: Minimalist Music for Hyperactive Children (MMHC)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:02:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.164501.22160@ccu.umanitoba.ca> laucht@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (Matthias Laucht) writes:
>
>One or two line level inputs would be useful. Phantom power for the mics
>would be nice. I rarely, if ever use EQ.  Pan pots on each channel 
>would be useful. Good technical specs are important, especially low noise. 
>Meters are essential and input (mic and line) metering capability would be 
>very nice indeed. The Mackie 1202 seems to have it all (except its a mic input
>or two short.)
>
				ok , overall , it seems to be one of the
best bargains going , but you asked for disadvantages ...

o  rotary knobs instead of long - throw faders .

o  no overload lights on channesls .

o  no inserts .

o  no trim control on channels 5 - 12 .

o  somewhat inconvenient plug layout , IMHO .

				on the other hand , it's small , it's
cheap , and , although i've never had the opportunity to play with one ,
every engineer i know who has raved about the sound coming from a
product of this price ( MSRP $399 US ) .

				side note : on the 1202's larger brother
, the 1604 , the outputs are out of phase with the inputs . ( this is
not a problem unless you're somehow mixing the input and output signals
externally , and can be corrected with a phase reverse cable . ) i don't
know if this is true of the 1202 , but if this is , for some reason ,
relevant to you , you may want to look into it .

Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Panasonic SV3700 DAT recorder - reasons not to buy?
Keywords: DAT recorder
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:51:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.162413.20256@ccu.umanitoba.ca> laucht@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (Matthias Laucht) writes:
>Is there any technical reason (not absence of features) not to buy a
>Panasonic SC3700 DAT recorder? Has anyone experienced any problems
	    ^ (SV-3700...probably just a typo)
>with this machine? My needs are modest and it seems to be a reasonable machine.

I've been using SV-3700's since they came out and have nothing but good
things to say about 'em.  They're probably one of the best buys in audio.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
From: g_house@goes11.enet.dec.com (Greg House)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Cost of digital multitracks
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:24:55 GMT
Reply-To: g_house@goes11.enet.dec.com (Greg House)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


There is a good review of the Sony 3324S in this month's issue of Mix.

Greg
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: bobdavis@mighty.viewlogic.com (Bob Davis)
Subject: drum mic hardware
Originator: bobdavis@mighty
Keywords: drum, mic
Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:55:32 GMT


If any of you have info on the sturdy-type mic "holders" --
small mic "stands" which mount directly to toms/snares -- I would
appreciate info on who makes these and how to get some.

I've seen some cheapo plastic types which look like they'll survive
2-3 gigs, as well as some cool looking sturdy metal devices which
look more promising.
-- 
Bob Davis -- bobdavis@viewlogic.com
"What good is life if you can't be ridiculous?"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: laucht@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (Matthias Laucht)
Subject: Panasonic SV3700 DAT recorder - reasons not to buy?
Keywords: DAT recorder
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:24:13 GMT

Is there any technical reason (not absence of features) not to buy a
Panasonic SC3700 DAT recorder? Has anyone experienced any problems
with this machine? My needs are modest and it seems to be a reasonable machine.
-- 
Dr. C. Matthias Laucht, Assoc. Prof.    Internet: laucht@cs.umanitoba.ca
Dept. of Computer Science               Phone:    (204) 474-6339 (direct)
University of Manitoba                            (204) 474-8313 (messages)
Winnipeg, MB, Canada  R3T 2N2           Fax:      (204) 269-9178
From: sklower@diva.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Sklower)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Digital recording / mastering / releasing
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:24:33 GMT
Organization: /etc/organizaton

In article <44653@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> sklower@diva.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Sklower) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.204006.12558@mprgate.mpr.ca> mcvey@mpr.ca (Iain McVey) writes:
>}With all the talk of digital recording and so on, I have just had a
>}thought.  It seems that most of the pro digital recorders use more bits
>}of resolution than the CD standard.

>The only digital ```audio'' recorders that I am aware of that use more
>than 16 bits/sample are digital VTR's that have 4 channels of digital audio of
>20 bits.

I called up one of the local pro-audio suppliers and asked if they
new of any other digital recorders capable of storing > 16 bit samples.
They said that Yamaha makes an 8 track that sells for $15K, (uses
station heads and reel-reel tape, but the maximum length of tape may only
be 20 minutes).  The digital 8 track mixer that goes with it costs $34K.

I also noted earlier that one of the digital audio editing workstations
was capable of storing up to 24 bit samples.  If you wanted to turn
that into an 4 track recorder capable of storing 2 hours worth of music
on hard disks, you would need two pygmy outboard A/D converters (@$4k = $8K),
about 4 gigabytes of scsi disk (lots of overhead for the displayed summaries
at lower bit rates) = $9K, and the workstation itself ($3K for the mac,
$12.5K for the process board and software) = $32K.  (Still cheaper
than a D2 VTR @$60K).  (and this one includes the mixing capabilities).
You could turn it into an 8 track with an expansion processor ($6K)
2 more A/D converters ($8K), and more disk (another $9K),
comes to $53K for an 8 track and mixer, but much less portable
than the yamaha system, but still less than a D2 and does include
mixing and A/D which the D2 by itself doesnt.

>}The sampling rate also seems different from medium to medium.
}>...DAT has been touted by several friends as being a way
}>to record CDs digital to digital.  Since they have different sampling
}>rates, I am unable to see how this could be done.

It is possible to change the sampling rate by suitable computations.
Almost all of the digital audio editing systems provide this capabitilty
and you can by outboard converters.  Harmonia mundi makes one for a mere $10K.
From: jrusby@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Jim T. Rusby)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: QSound?
Keywords: QSound
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:26:13 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

>
>The spacing between elements is very small, usually much less than an inch.
>This is as opposed to a hybrid pair with a six to eight inch spacing between
>the mikes.  Again, the spacing between the elements in a stereomike is 
>trivial, compared with the space between your ears.
>
The discussion re:stereo mics is always fun.  Many of us have used a pair of 
AKG414 in either an M-S or xy coincident fashion at one time or another.
AKG makes an all-in-one package unit -the AKG426. Although the 426 and its
predecessor the 422 use a similar capsule to the 414, the precision
possible by getting the capsules that much closer makes a noticeable
difference.  Unfortunately, the 426 is a 4k$+ mic.

Some of us have alternative designs. One of our compadres on this group
has the Schoeps Sphere (hey, gabe!) which is a pair of top grade omni
capsules mounted in a spherical housing.  
I (actually, my employer) have a Soundfield mic, which uses 4 capsules
mounted in a tetrehedral array. A special control box decodes the outputs
into stereo, with a provision for a direct matrixed 4 channel output for
later decoding. With the Soundfield, its like having a mic with pan, tilt,
and zoom. Kind of weird, but it works.
Crown makes a pseudo-binaural mic called the SASS-P. It was originally
designed for B&K capsules, but B&K declined to take on the line as one of
their own. Instead, it has a pair of Crown PZM capsules. We have one here,
and while it is an easy mic to set up for non-critical applications I dont
care much for the sound. It is great through headphones from an image
standpoint, but through speakers it can be unpredictable.

With regard to phase- I would like to see a discussion about monitoring.
Mono  compatibility is something we all do live with.  Even classical
music is broadcast, so I frequently check my setup by doing an A/B between
stereo and mono through monitors.  By the way, with the soundfield the
only difference I get is stereo or mono, nothing drops out-ever.



Recordists who use a stereo pair find very quickly where their problems
lie , or if they have them by doing a mono sum. Suddenly a spacious
beautiful ensemble is reduced to a  hollow ringing band of something!

Every now and then I find a tape that has a great deal of phase
cancellation between the two channels. THe only fix I have found so far is
some minor restoration using a BBE 822. The results are nowhere close to
doing it right the first time.
From: laucht@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (Matthias Laucht)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Mackie 1202 mixer - where's the catch?
Keywords: mixer, Mackie
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:45:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

I have recently been made aware of the Mackie Microseries 1202 mixer. I have
been offered one (new) for Cdn $475. Except for having only 4 mic (balanced)
inputs (I'd prefer 5 or 6) it seems to have everything in terms of features
and performance (on paper - I haven't actually seen it yet) that I could
want.

The price seems low for this combination of features and supposed
performance. Where's the catch? Have small mixers improved so much and 
dropped in price so much over the last 5 years?

Are there any other 5 or 6 balanced mic in/stereo out (both balanced and
unbalanced o/p preferably) mixers that I should consider?

I do not need a lot of fancy features. I record primarily (and not all that
often anymore) classical music - choirs, orchestras, soloists in a small 
home studio and on location. 

One or two line level inputs would be useful. Phantom power for the mics
would be nice. I rarely, if ever use EQ.  Pan pots on each channel 
would be useful. Good technical specs are important, especially low noise. 
Meters are essential and input (mic and line) metering capability would be 
very nice indeed. The Mackie 1202 seems to have it all (except its a mic input
or two short.)

-- 
Dr. C. Matthias Laucht, Assoc. Prof.    Internet: laucht@cs.umanitoba.ca
Dept. of Computer Science               Phone:    (204) 474-6339 (direct)
University of Manitoba                            (204) 474-8313 (messages)
Winnipeg, MB, Canada  R3T 2N2           Fax:      (204) 269-9178
From: sklower@diva.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Sklower)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Digital recording / mastering / releasing
Date: 26 Aug 92 09:09:36 GMT
Organization: /etc/organizaton

In article <1992Aug24.204006.12558@mprgate.mpr.ca> mcvey@mpr.ca (Iain McVey) writes:
}With all the talk of digital recording and so on, I have just had a
}thought.  It seems that most of the pro digital recorders use more bits
}of resolution than the CD standard.  The sampling rate also seems
}different from medium to medium.
Well, since nobody with credentials has stepped in to say anything
at all, I'll advance my perspective, which is certain to be corrected
if I goof....

The only digital ```audio'' recorders that I am aware of that use more
than 16 bits/sample are digital VTR's that have 4 channels of digital audio of
20 bits.  (There are some digital audio recorders that sample at faster
rates using 16 bit samples so you could regard that as more bits of
resolution in some sense)   Of course, I may have missed recent improvements
to the big multitrack monsters.  It is my guess that at least 90% of the
installed base of professional digital audio recorders use 16 bit samples.

}How then, are the CD's produced?  Is there _really_ an analog step in
}between the DDDs?

I seem to recall that if you use a digital multitrack recorder,
play back converting to multitrack analogue audio, and mix down in
the analogue domain, but reconvert back to digital, you are still
entitled to proclaim your product as `DDD'.

However there are multitrack digital mixing sytems that will do
equalization and summing purely in the digital domain.  I know
of one editing system that will accept multiple > 16 bit feeds.

As a mere hobbyist (albeit with some friends in the business) I
cannot venture any guess as to what percentage of the studios out
there have converted to purely mixdown systems.

}If there are simply more bits of resolution, I suppose the samples could
}be truncated to fit the 16 bit CD, but surely this is not a good move
}either.

It remains to be seen under what kind of test conditions and on
what kind of source material human test
subjects could tell the difference in whether the reduction had
been done merely by chopping, or round to nearest, or by addition
of some kind of pseudo-random dither of what amount (.5 of the least
bit generated by two sequences was bandied about in a previous article
here), or by some very sophisticated noise shaping algorithm, (as
supposedly employed by Sony its SBM stuff).

>On a similar note, DAT has been touted by several friends as being a way
>to record CDs digital to digital.  Since they have different sampling
>rates, I am unable to see how this could be done.

You can buy ``professional'' DAT recorders for < $1500 that sample at
exactly the CD sampling rate, and it is possible to do a bit-for-bit
transcription of the data recorded by the DAT machines onto the
mastered compact disk.  There was some skepticism raised about the
quality of any such recorder, and it was pointed out this figure doesn't
include the cost of comparable quality microphones and mic preamps.
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: jneher@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Jumpin Jon)
Subject: Recording Equip. Forsale
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 22:09:49 GMT



OTARI MX-5050 MKIII 1/2-inch 8-track			$2500.00

OTARI MX-5050 SD2 1/4-inch 1/2-track (2-track)		 $800.00

Yamaha MR1242	12-channel recording mixer		 $800.00

All for							$3900.00

All in excellent condition.

Terms:  Cash or Cash Equiv. before shipping or at pickup. 
	Will split shipping costs in U.S.

For More Information:

Jonathan Neher
University of Oregon Systems Programmer
(home) 503-747-3162
(work) 503-346-1731

P.O. Box 1001
38513 Jasper-Lowell Rd.
Fall Creek, OR 97438
From: mbreen@sdacs.ucsd.edu (Michael Breen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: riding the faders
Date: 2 Sep 1992 21:03:36 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: sdacs.ucsd.edu

Yet another SR horror story:

We had a promoter tell us to show up at 6:30 for set-up/sound-check for
and show that started at 8.  We were there at 6, set-up by 6:30, ready for
sound check.  Where's the sound man?  He wasn't 'on the clock' until 7:30.
The promoter proceeded to 'run the sound-check'.  What a nightmare.  The
sound man shows (late) at 7:45, freaks cause someone 'messed with his set-
up', yells at the band (not the errant promoter), and proceeds to start over
with the house sound.

Not the sound-man's fault, but a total lack of communication between promoter
and venue, and, of course, the band pays dearly.

Oh yeah, the club's still there, but the promoter is no longer welcome.

Michael Breen
singing and philosophizing
(and wondering if 'good promoter' is an oxymoron)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: jdavis@wizard.etsu.edu (Jason Davis)
Subject: Re: Cost of digital multitracks
Keywords: Alesis Digital Recorder
Reply-To: jdavis@wizard.etsu.edu (Jason Lee Davis)
Organization: East Texas State University, Commerce, TX
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 04:26:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.011130.13337@ultb.isc.rit.edu> cms2839@ultb.isc.rit.edu (a.stranger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.180109.2785@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:
>>
>>But to say there are no good digital multi-track recorders is wrong.
>>To say there are no reasonably priced machines is correct.   You can
>>buy a new 24-track in the $30-$40k range for real pro machines, and
>>less in the semi-pro lines.   A 24 track digital will set you back in
>>excess of $175,000.    So you can buy 4 24-track analog machines or 1
>>digital.  The 32 and 48 track units cost more.
>>
A
>				this is somewhat off the subject at hand
>, but it would be nice if someone could refresh my memory on this .
>didn't sony just come out with a ( well , relatively speaking )
A
>reasonably priced 24 track DASH machine ? i saw literature on it one day
>and neglected to xerox ; seems like it was in the neighbourhood of $50K
>, although i could very easily be wrong on this . anyone heard it ? what
>do you give up to get it that " cheap ? "
>
>-- 
>       @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>       @       "Imagination keeps the shadows away  -  Xymox       @
>       @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@
>       @ a.stranger - CMS2839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu - PGP key on req. @

It is my understanding that Alesis has just released (or about to?) a digital
multi-track recorder consisting of a controller and an 8-track recording unit
which records on Super-VHS tape.  The trick is that several of these units may
be controlled simultaneously by the controller for seemingly endless expansion.
Alesis hasn't been saying a lot about this new product.  However, a recent ad
in MIX mag. simply stated "Everything you've been hearing is true." (or 
something to that effect.)  Another one of my friends in the sound business and
I were discussing this product and the word is that the controller will be going
for about $4K and the recorders for about $4K each.  (Yes, that's $4000.00.) 
This would allow you to put together a 24 track DIGITAL set-up for somewhere in
the neighborhood of $20K.  Nice trick, eh?

If someone has any additional info on this new Alesis product I, for one, would
like to hear about it.  


   /|  Jason Lee Davis                        <jdavis@wizard.etsu.edu>  |\
||/_|  Shiloh Productions sound co. ____      <s2903d@etsuv2.etsu.edu>  |_\||
||\ |  Rt. 1  Box 175              (_ |_)     <s2903d@etsuvax2.bitnet>  | /||
   \|  Klondike, Texas 75448 ________)| _____ (903) 886-2903            |/
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Cheap DAT Portables??
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:42:51 GMT

In article <Btnvwu.147@news.cso.uiuc.edu> bsanders@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Barry Sanders) writes:
>What is the current cheapest deal on a portable DAT recorder?  
>The best I've found so far in my search is an AIWA HDS-1 for $595 from 
>Audio Gallery [(310) 829-3429].  Anyone seen a better deal?
>Also, if you know of a deal on a used DAT recorder, lemme know.
>

Well there is the Sharp RX-P1.

Comes with carrying case, wired remote, batteries, a mounting
stalk that fastens to the rail of your car seat to mount in an
automobile, and a cassette adaptor to play the DAT through you
tape cassette interface.

The battery compartment is also the AD convertor.  If you go
digital only and use the external power supply it gets quite
small.


$499 from Damark.


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill.vermillion@oau.org
                - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill

Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: malouin@engin.umich.edu (Curt Malouin)
Subject: Re: Mackie 1202 mixer - where's the catch?
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 20:44:16 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Keywords: mixer, Mackie

In article <1992Aug26.164501.22160@ccu.umanitoba.ca> laucht@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (Matthias Laucht) writes:
>The price seems low for this combination of features and supposed
>performance. Where's the catch? Have small mixers improved so much and 
>dropped in price so much over the last 5 years?

I certainly hope there *isn't* a catch.  I picked up my 1202 about
2 hours ago, but haven't got a chance to hook it up.  The only
drawback that I can see is a lack of channel faders, but that's
personal preference.  The thing is incredibly well built and sounds
great.  Especially when you compare it to the Tascam 06 and Boss
mixers that are in that price range.  I'll post a review after I
get a chance to use it for a while.

	-curt

+----------------+ Curt Malouin              malouin@engin.umich.edu      #
| , , , , = = ;; |                                                       {|}
| _ _ _ _ __     | CAEN Hotline counselor                                 |
| | | | | || ### | Computer Aided Engineering Network, U of Michigan      |
| | | | | || ### |                                                        |
| -+- + + +- -+. |   "Life is incomplete unless you bang the beat"       /
+----------------+                                                      %
From: SteveSgt@cup.portal.com (Steven Eugene Sergeant)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Who in rec.audio.pro is going to AES?
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 12:26:10 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

Who in rec.audio.pro is going to the AES convention this year.  For those
who haven't recieved any information about it, the Audio Engineering
Society convention has traditionally alternated (in the U.S.) between
New York and L.A. for the last several years.  This October will be
the first time it's been held somewhere else for a long time.

Let's see if we can't orchestrate a gathering of the rec.audio.pro
people while we're there and try perhaps even to promote our forum
a little bit...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Sergeant            Internet:  SteveSgt@torrent.sj.ca.us
3266 Tulipwood Ln.           Radio:  KC6ZKT [@N0ARY.#NOCAL.US.NA]
San Jose, CA  95132          GEnie:  STEVSERGEANT
(408) 945-0395                 FAX:  (408) 945-0543
Audio Engineering, Music, Macintosh, Bicycles, Backcountry, Japan
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro