HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Pre-Amps
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:20:51 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Apr6.155625.10676@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>
>I'm wondering whether this `using microphone as speaker' phenomenon
>can be used to communicate with performers on stage? If you need
>to tell them something important, you can shout down the cable!
>You could try this on an unsuspecting soloist and watch their
>reaction!

   You could also stay awake in "Remedial Electronics 101" class and
   learn about the directional nature of the average amplifier.  >:-)

   Just about any mic can become a speaker if driven rather than
   used as a source of signal.  How long it will SURVIVE the process
   is pretty dependent upon the mike.

   However, a microphone connected to an amplifier input is a bit
   more difficult to drive in this manner.....you have to hook it to
   some type of amplifier OUTPUT.                                  

   You can also use a speaker as a microphone.  Hook your hi-fi
   speaker to a low-level input on your amplifier and (use
   headphones to avoid feedback howl) listen to the sounds in your
   room.   

   You can also use a speaker as a bass drum.  Whilst hooked up,
   thwack the bass cone with a drumstick.  (Some impoverished rock
   groups have done this...prior to the advent of drum machines...)
From: krish@hera.ICS.UCI.EDU (Umesh Krishnwaswamy)
Subject: Re: EQUIP. SURVEY RESULTS
X-References: <1992Apr12.143430.10705@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Reply-To: Umesh Krishnaswamy <krish@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:48:34 GMT
X-Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.

In article <1992Apr12.143430.10705@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> you write:

I've got to say that your survey would need to cover a larger number
of audiophiles before such results can be published. From the little
listening I have done I can point out a few holes in this survey. I
am sure others who have owned other equipment surveyed over here
might find other flaws.


>Receivers           Ave. Score
>---------           ----------
>Carver                 7.0
>Denon                  9.2
>Harmon Kardon          9.0
>JVC                    6.3
>Kenwood                6.7
>NAD                    8.7
>Pioneer                5.4
>Rotel                  9.7
>Sansui                 7.0
>Sony                   3.7
>Technics               4.6
>Yamaha                 8.5

I've heard Denon and NAD and I feel that comparable models of NAD
are much better than models of Denon.

>Speakers            Ave. Score
>--------            ----------
>ADC                    8.7
>Advent                 8.3
>Altec Lansing          9.0
>AR                     7.3
>B & W                  8.8
>Bose                   3.9
>Boston Acoustics       6.2
>Celestion              5.7
>Cerwin Vega            2.3
>DCM                    8.0
>Fischer                6.2
>Infinity               7.7
>JBL                    6.5
>JVC                    6.9
>Kenwood                5.8
>Klipsch                6.2
>Linn                   9.7
>Mirage                 8.0
>Paradigm               7.2
>Polk Audio             8.8
>PSB                    8.2
>Realistic              5.4
>Sansui                 4.5
>Snell                  5.0
>Thiel                  9.5
>Vanderstein            6.0
>Vector Research        4.5
>Wilson Audio           9.8

Celestions deserve far more than a measly 5.7. Vanderstiens at 6.0
with JVC at 6.9 does not make sense.

Just what I feel.
Krish.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: digdug@iastate.edu (Doug V Tran)
Subject: dbx mono amps from DAK
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:51:21 GMT

Does anyone have any comment on the dbx mono block amp from DAK.
They're rated at 150 watts mono. 


Thanks,
Later,
Doug
From: sek@nvuxr.cc.bellcore.com (Spencer Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Vandersteen recommendations....
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:20:43 GMT
Reply-To: sek@nvuxr.cc.bellcore.com (Spencer Kantor)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Red Bank, N.J.

In article <92101.125646MSC109@psuvm.psu.edu>, MSC109@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
|> The two recent postings on the net about Vandersteens are pretty accurate.
|> I own the last revision of the 2ci, and have been very happy with them. I
|> haven't heard the 2ce or 3 (I am anxious!), so I can't comment on them.
|> 
|> I also echo the comment that the treble is not that transparent. Here, the
|> Thiel CS1.2 (is this dicontinued? Replaced by the "SCS"?) can be much better
|> than the 2ci, if *good* equipment is used. Thiels are noted for their very
|> revealing nature as well as excellent transparency. The tough thing is to
|> get good enough front end stuff to let them really shine, i.e., better than
|> Adcom, etc. The same is true for Vandersteens, but to a lesser extent.
|> 

Having just purchased a pair of Thiel 2.2's I agree with statement completly.
The 2.2's are brutally revealing of deficiencies in the original recording
and, like other fine speakers, will shine if the associated equipment is
of sufficient quality.

|> So, if you are contemplating purchasing a pair of 2ces, I would audition (at
|> least) the comparable models from Thiel, Magnepan, and Spica, to name just
|> a few. The first real 'listening adventure' I went on, I listened to the CS1.2s
|> and then the 2cis. For my tastes the 2cis are excellent. I also respect these
|> other speakers very much, and have had great fun listening to each one. So go
|> listen, and the differences will be apparent. Then choose which one fits you
|> (at the $1200 price range, each speaker has its compromises) and enjoy.
|> 
|> I also might mention that at the $2000 price range, the new Thiel CS2.2 is
|> supposed to be awesome. You could compare these directly to Vandersteen 3s.
|> 

I'd hesitate to describe them as "awesome" as to avoid heightened expectations
when they're auditioned.  The Thiel's do not blow you over as do the
Maggies or Martin-Logan.  What you do realize immediately, which is
reinforced the longer you spend with them, is that you're listening to
a very tranparent, balanced, "musical" speaker that allows you to
easily get involved with whatever you're listening to.  It was one of
the few times during my speaker search that I felt like I was listening
to the musical performance rather than to a speaker.


-- 
Spencer Kantor
Bell Communications Research

sek@nvuxr.cc.bellcore.com
{bcr, bellcore}!nvuxr.cc.bellcore.com!seK
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: ccw8u@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Carl Christian Wuellner)
Subject: Re: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.
Keywords: flame bait, CD accuracy
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:43:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.140500.17273@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>You know, fluff like this really irritates the fuck out of me. Golden
>ears indeed. More like: "I've spent thousands of dollars on this
>turntable. I really need to justify my obsession and show that clicks
>and pops and analog mastering really do give more accurate sound. I
>mean, I spent thousands of dollars. Thousands and thousands of
>dollars. It's got a zero mass tonearm and an antigrav base. It sounds
>better."
>
>I ought to develop a DSP that "warms" sound by recreating the
>inaccuracies in analog equipment. For that matter, I could add a click
>and pop generator. Yeah! That's it.
>
>Sean
>
>
>
>-- 
>                  |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
>Sean Casey        | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
>sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
>U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''


The original poster of the article you're responding to asked that you
respond to his posting via e-mail.  Please do so!  I, for one, don't
really get anything out of reading your little temper tantrum.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: rdw56612@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Richard Dale Waller)
Subject: Amplifier for Polk SDA-2B's?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:24:03 GMT

I have a pair of Polk Audio SDA-2B's.  I'm looking for a good amplifier for
them.  I have been told to steer away from amplifiers that warm the sound.
I'm looking for an amplier for less than $1500 and about 250-300 watts into
6 ohms.  My speakers will handle 350 RMS.

Thanks for the help.

Rick Waller
From: btdy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: EQUIP. SURVEY RESULTS
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:12:37 EDT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cornell University

In article <9204121448.aa08485@Paris.ics.uci.edu>,
krish@hera.ICS.UCI.EDU (Umesh Krishnwaswamy) writes: 
> In article <1992Apr12.143430.10705@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> you write:
> 
> I've got to say that your survey would need to cover a larger number
> of audiophiles before such results can be published. From the little
> listening I have done I can point out a few holes in this survey. I
> am sure others who have owned other equipment surveyed over here
> might find other flaws.
> 
> 
>>Receivers           Ave. Score
>>---------           ----------
>>Carver                 7.0
>>Denon                  9.2
>>Harmon Kardon          9.0
>>JVC                    6.3
>>Kenwood                6.7
>>NAD                    8.7
>>Pioneer                5.4
>>Rotel                  9.7
>>Sansui                 7.0
>>Sony                   3.7
>>Technics               4.6
>>Yamaha                 8.5
> 
> I've heard Denon and NAD and I feel that comparable models of NAD
> are much better than models of Denon.
>

I agree.  NAD's 6300 is better than most decks in the same price range.

JMHO

- Jeff

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: carnes@ico.isc.com (Steve Carnes)
Subject: in-wall speakers
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:09:51 GMT

We're currently childproofing our house against the imminent onslaught
from a 7 month old.  Our components are in a low entertainment center
against the living room wall, with the speakers on low stands to
either side.  I'm thinking of relocating the components, but the major
question is what to do with the speakers?  They're older and would
make a good set of secondary speakers for another room, so replacing
them is definitely an option.  Does anyone have any thoughts on the
speakers that are installed flush with the wall?  (If it helps any, we
listen mostly to classical and jazz, and usually at fairly low
volume.)

All opinions welcomed!
-- 
Steve Carnes       carnes@ico.isc.com        uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!carnes
    "I prefer a rude vigor to a polished banality."  -  Utah Philips
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: More Psuedoscience...: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:11:07 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Apr8.225520.3291@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci) writes:
>In article <180948@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>>    For a hint,...at 20 Khz, what is the difference in the spectrum
>>    between a square wave, a sine wave, a triangle wave?
>
>??? how is that relevant?? Those are distictly different waveforms and they
>sound pretty different! Not only that but each shape will produce completely
>different manifestations on the reproduction equipment. If you feed a square
>wave into the speaker, do you think thats what you get out?

Incorrect extension of observable facts, I suspect.  A 256 Hz sine
wave, square wave, and triangle wave WILL sound different, as is easily
verified.  At 20KHz, all three wave shapes will sound the same, IF your
system is capable of accurately reproducing its input.  (This is also
pretty easy to verify -- though you may need lab equipment to generate
the acoustic signals.)  You can't detect the parts of the signal which 
make the waveshapes different.

If, on your system, you CAN hear a difference between 20KHZ sines,
squares, and triangles, then it means there is something wrong with
your system -- it's adding distortion at lower frequencies than its
inputs.  (Must be a name for that.  Sub-harmonics, maybe?)

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci)
Subject: Re: More Psuedoscience...: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.
Summary: ???
Keywords: flame bait, CD accuracy
Reply-To: reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:55:20 GMT

In article <180948@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>    For a hint,...at 20 Khz, what is the difference in the spectrum
>    between a square wave, a sine wave, a triangle wave?
>

??? how is that relevant?? Those are distictly different waveforms and they
sound pretty different! Not only that but each shape will produce completely
different manifestations on the reproduction equipment. If you feed a square
wave into the speaker, do you think thats what you get out?


>     You need to know what each bit represents before you can make
>     any assumption whatever about the number of bits and the
>     dynamic range.  Suppose you decided that each bit represents
>     a linear voltage relationship, a 0.1 dB change in power, a 1 dB
>     change in power [ratio], a 3 dB change in power ratio...etc.

That's only slightly relevant; but if we are interested in accurate waveform
reproduction, no matter how you cut it, 16 bits are not enough. If one bit
switches between 10dB and 100dB, there is something wrong.

>     And of course you may want to look up the dynamic range of the
>     competing media.  
>
>>Given the specs above, it is not too shocking to hear how some people
>>may prefer analog recordings, especially good ones, to CD reproductions.
>>
>
>      Sorry Reha, I have no problem with you preferring analog over
>      digital. This is a matter of personal preference.... 
>

Where exactly did I say I preferred analog media? I guessed when you're in
a fighting mood you'll draw the wrong conclusions no matter what I say.
Pipe down. Mine was a question not fighting words...

>      theories as supporting fact.  Digital may be counterintuitive
>      to some, but it ISN"T rocket science...and it isn't what your
>      misguided theories says it is either.

sure, whatever you say. do you feel better now?

Reha
From: bjbartlett@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (The Bart-Man)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: EQUIPMENT SUEVEYw3
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:53:28 GMT
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

It seems like everybody is getting back from Spring Break now and I'm just 
starting to get a bunch of reply's so I'll post the results either Thursday 
or Friday.

-Brian
From: garyr@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Gary Rosen)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:14:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Spinal Tap (was: thought for the day)
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: rec.audio

>(Lon Stowell) /  9:22 am  Apr  9, 1992 /

(writing about "This is Spinal Tap")
>    And why has that film become so popular all of a sudden?  I
>    don't remember that many people who even heard of it in the year
>    or so after release,,,I've even seen it on TV a couple times.

>    But lately, it seems a lot of the younger element are quite
>    aware of the movie...almost like it is becoming a cult classic
>    like The Rocky Horror movie.

"Spinal Tap" has been a "cult classic" among musicians almost since
it first came out (about '84, I think) thanks to its brilliant send-up
of the music biz.  I played music for a living in a past life and
believe me, it *really* hits home no matter what level of success
you may have reached.

- Gary Rosen
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Newsgroups: rec.audio

My definition of air as per audio:

What one has in ones wallet after buying a high-end system.

Kirk out
From: rms@Miles.COM (Rob Schultz)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: James Bond microphone wanted
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:15:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Miles Inc., Diagnostics Division, Elkhart, IN

In article <1992Apr8.141621.29661@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) writes:
>
>In article <9204042122.aa09981@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu> mmcguire@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU writes:
>>Netters,
>>  I live in an apt. complex with very thin walls.  I can tell whenever anyone
>>is talking in the next apt., but I can not understand it unless I put my ear
>>to the wall.  Is there some sort of microphone that I can attach to the wall
>>that will pick up voices in the next apt.?
>
>No, there isn't any such thing. The best you can do is pound on the wall
>a few times and yell real loud "Hey over there - Speak up! I can't hear
>you!!" Or, better still, go buy yourself a scanner so you can listen in
>on their cordless phone calls.

Well, actually, there is such a thing.  When I was in college, our journalism
department had a table-top microphone.  The basic idea was a microphone
attached to a flat plate which one set on the tabletop.  The tabletop served
to amplify any sound waves which came in contact with it, and the microphone
picked up the sounds through the plate.  There is no reason this could not
work in this situation.

Unfortunately, I do not remember who made such a beast, but you should be able
to find them at a *good* electronics store, or ask a reporter if you know one.

Oh, and as someone else mentioned, think long and hard before you actually
go out and try this - if your neighbor found out (and is a black belt in
karate), you could find yourself in quite an uncomfortable situation!!

-- 
Rob Schultz  At work: rms@miles.com             At Home:  rms@andria.miles.com
      {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!rms       {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!andria!rms
                    +1 219 262 7206                            +1 219 262 2412
From: gordie@mcode.amdahl.com (Gordon Freedman)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Blind Listening
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:47:18 GMT
Reply-To: gjf00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale Ca.

In article <1992Apr15.053251.7193@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Brian Boutel) writes:
> 
> In article <11840012@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM>, garyr@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Gary Rosen) writes:
> 
> |> 
> |> As a non-audiophile musician, I can't help gloating a bit. None of the
> |> musicians I know are audiophiles; they'd rather spend any spare cash on
> |> MUSIC (i.e. recordings) rather than overpriced equipment.
> 
> Do you also gloat a bit when people choose to spend money on overpriced 
> cars when they could be buying more gas instead? Or on overpriced cameras 
> when they could be buying more film?
> 
> --brian
> -- 
> Internet: brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz
> Postal: Brian Boutel, Computer Science Dept, Victoria University of Wellington,
>         PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
> Phone: +64 4 471-5328   Fax: +64 4 495-5232


BZZZZT!!!!! Better stop and think about that for a minute ...

People don't usually buy cars so they can burn gas. Or buy cameras so they
can get film. Both gas and film are a means to and end, as differentiated
from MUSIC (i.e. recordings), which one would hope is somewhat of an end
into themselves. People will typically buy cars and burn gas when using
the car, and use film with a camera, but a car that doesn't need gas may
be more desirable than a stereo that doesn't "need" music.

Of course we can argue that music is also a means to other ends, but most
people buy stereos as a means to the end of MUSIC, whereas gas for a car
is like electricity for a stereo rather than like the MUSIC.

Let the guy gloat! He's happy! I do wonder though, why people need to
draw lines such as "non-audiophile musician" (as opposed to the stodgy
"audiophile musician" and "audiophile non-musician"). Remember, just
like in anything, many musicians don't know squat about music. And many
musicians who have the economic means spend bucks on a good stereo. Others
may spend bucks on software, others may spend bucks on clothes, others
may spend bucks on instrument collections, I'm sure glad that there are
choices out there.

-- 
Gordon Freedman: gjf00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com  -> Dis: DAT
The difference between theory and practise in practise is greater than
the difference between theory and practise in theory - someone else's sig
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Imped. Matching w/ Resistors?!
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:05:52 GMT
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <s5bjcINNkqr@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>What is the source of the nonlinearity?  I can't imagine any deviation
>from standard kinetic theory and Ohm's law J = sigma E
>in normal circumstances.  What I can believe, however, is that
>sigma is a function of temperature and if the power dissipated is high
>enough there might be an interaction there.  But still that would go away
>if the resistor had enough heat dissipation.

There are a multitude of sources, some that I understand and some I
don't know exists.    

Consider your average carbon resistor.  If you use one with
a 400 volt swing across it, you'll get circa .1% distortion just from
the resistor.  Look at the resistance/voltage specs in a good spec
sheet for a composite resistor.  It's NOT zero, or anything close 
to it.
-- 
Vote for    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
President 1992 *by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is
___________________*granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
Just Say !!!NO!!!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: blumer@antioch.rtp.dg.com (Todd Blumer)
Subject: Skipping Denon CD player
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 12:43:12 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC
Keywords: Denon CD Carousel

I own a Denon DCM-350 Carousel CD player that has been having some problems.
A couple of months ago, I experienced some weirdness.  The player was
operating normally, when all of the sudden it started repeating about 50
seconds of music.  When I pushed "stop" the drawer ejected!  After that,
the player could not register any discs as being present.  Even cycling
the power had no effect (the time display was blank).  Pressing the "random
play" button, the unit said it was going to play disc 3 track 73 -- of
course, nothing played.  I let the player sit powered off for a couple of
hours, after which it started working again.  The problem happened again
later that day, but did not happen again for a couple of months.

Since it was under warantee, I took it in for service.  They (United
Radio of NY) said they could find nothing wrong with it.  When I got the
player back from them, it started skipping both within a track and between
tracks.  Again, no discs would register.  As before, I let it sit for a
while, turned it back on and it has not happened again now for about a
week.

Does anyone have any ideas of what the problem might be?  I plan to have
the dealer send it off to United Radio again, but I'm still curious about
the problem and a possible answer.  BTW, the initial skipping does not
happen with the same discs -- all of the discs play correctly all of the
time, except when this problem occurs.

Thanks in advance.

--
Todd Blumer			(blumer@dg-rtp.dg.com)
Unix Core Development		LAN Drivers
Data General Corp.		(919)248-6338
Newsgroups: rec.audio