HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matgbb@lure.latrobe.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Listening
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:08:34 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University

The great divide in Rec.Audio probably comes down to the following:
The engineering camp claim the subjectivists are credulous fools who know no
theory, while on their part the subjectivists feel the opposition are
dogmatists who refuse to LISTEN. Let it be admitted that both sides have 
turned out to be right at various times in the past, and consequently it is
useful
to continue the dialogue. Then perhaps some concessions might help.

1. An end to such statements as: Theoretically there is no basis for this, so
if you can hear it you are deluded. 
At least until you have thought about ALL the possible theory for some time
(the obvious often becomes less so with thought).

2. If you think you can hear something unexpected, FORCE the engineers to take
you seriously by being able to say 'I could tell the difference blindfold'.
There are a lot of strange beliefs out there, not all of which can be correct.
Also, suggestion has been proved to have very powerful effects: if you tell
some-one that throwing a switch will improve the sound, they probably will hear
it, even if the switch isn't connected to anything. So Ockham's razor says
that if you think putting camel shit on top of your speakers makes them sound
better, we should accept the simplest and most experimentally verified
explanation, that the effect is psychological.

If you want to be listened to, eliminate this escape clause by doing a blind
test (and checking relative volume levels etc).

Who knows, we might all learn something new...

Graham B

PS If you feel inclined to tell me that it is blooby obvious that the camel
shit widens your sound stage, and you see no need to verify it, don't
bother. I have enough insecurities of my own.
Xref: sparky rec.audio:7170 rec.video:6059
From: jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.video
Subject: Re: CD rot -- who gives a damn?
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:07:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

In article <PHR.92Apr8212234@soda.berkeley.edu>, phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul H. Rubin) writes:
> 
> Unlike records, CD's rot whether you play them or not.
> And when CD's rot enough, they become totally unplayable
> as opposed to merely sounding worse.
> I still sometimes listen to 78's that my dad bought in the 1930's.
> They sound awful by audiophile measurements, but the music is
> still great...
> 
> 

CD's may rot with time (again, however, no verification that the report
reprinted was true), but if you buy a record or CD and don't play it for
10 years then you shouldn't have bought it in the first place!  In 10
years a record is going to be in incredibly bad shape under normal or even
very light use.  Also, the reprinted article said: "compact discs may [yes,
that says "MAY" not "will"] show marked deterioration in low-level error
rates after ten to twelve years."  It also said that it may show up as a
crackling sound (or something to that effect, I forget the exact words) OR
it may no longer play, not that any that rot will definitely not play -- so
far I haven't seen evidence of either, so I'll believe it when I see/hear it.

At any rate, even if it is true, it seems likely that Sony/Phillips could
change what CDs are made of and/or how they are made and rid them of the
alleged problem.  As I said originally, I think people DO have a legitimate
gripe if the alleged rotting problem is true, but I am happy with 12 years
of perfect play -- I'll just buy new copies when and IF the old ones rot
(and hopefully the problem will have been solved by that time.)

Steve
From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:27:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Air?  Wossat? (was Re: Terms)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.audio


> Well, now I've done it, sigh.  As a result of my explanation of
> 'imaging' and 'transparency', I've had mail from someone wanting to
> know if I could explain 'air' in similar terms.  I can't.  In fact,
> it's only recently that I've seen reviewers using the term.  Anyone
> want to have a go?
> 

Sure.

Air exists to fill up volleyballs.


Bob "apologies to B. Cosby" M.
From: STATRAA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: rec.audio.DIY <--- SUMMARY
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:24:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: YaleVM.167C2102E7.STATRAA
Organization: Yale University

Since posting the original article bringing up the possibility of
creating a new group specifically concerned with DIY audio, I have
received quite a few Email responses, as well as a good number of posted
responses.  Here are my impressions - Overwhelming response in favor of
creation, something like 25 for, 3 against.  Those who were against
seemed basically to feel that the need for such a group could be filled
using existing rec.audio groups, and that if a DIY group were indeed
created, it would simply die out from lack of use.
 
While these things may or may not be true, I still think there was
enough response to warrent a new group - there are many useful
low-traffic groups on the net, and many people would argue that they are
useful because of their low traffic, and high s/n ratios.  From those
who responded in the positive, there was a general consensus that
rec.audio.DIY was the preferred title.  In addition there was some
discussion on creating either a moderated group, or setting up strict
anti-flame rules, and using something of a collective-moderation to keep
discussions intelligent, cordial, and interesting.
 
Unfortunately, finals are starting, and I'll be leaving soon, so I won't
be able to take charge of the creation of rec.audio.DIY - if someone
would like to, I would hope they would - there seems to be strong
support among rec.audio, and enough interested, active DIY'ers to make a
new group a mutually beneficial addition to the rec.audio family.
 
--
  ==================================================
  [   Travis Stansbury, Yale University - ES '94   ]
  [   statraa@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu                  ]
  ==================================================
 
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: sek@japan.Berkeley.EDU (Spencer Kantor)
Subject: Re: Vandersteen recommendations....
Reply-To: sek@japan.Berkeley.EDU (Spencer Kantor)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Red Bank, N.J.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 14:13:51 GMT

In article <11387@ksr.com>, kenyee@ksr.com (Ken Yee) writes:
|> sbhattac@sales.GBA.NYU.EDU (Shankar Bhattacharyya) writes:
|> >In what sense do the Martin-Logans blow you over? And which model was that?
|>   I'm curious too...I listened to the Sequel's and I thought they were
|>   too bright at times and they had too small of a sweet spot...
|> 
|>  ken

Several people have asked what I meant by that phrase, and I admit
it was probably a bad choice of words.  The Marin-Logan and/or Magneplanar
did not "blow me away" in the sense that were wonderful sonically.  What I
was trying to convey was that there was an enormous amount of sound 
emanating from the speakers.  So much so that I felt overwhelmed at times.
In contrast, the Thiel's were much more precise. 

-- 
Spencer Kantor
Bell Communications Research

sek@nvuxr.cc.bellcore.com
{bcr, bellcore}!nvuxr.cc.bellcore.com!seK
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: vandevek@cse.unl.edu (James Vandevegt)
Subject: Dolby B & C
Keywords: Dolby noise reduction
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 07:10:24 GMT

This is probably pretty old news, but I just got my first tape
deck with Dolby B & C.  My older decks had a switch for
Dolby NR.  I know Dolby C is different from Dolby NR, but are
Dolby NR and Dolby B anything alike?

Are there instances where one of B or C is the better choice
for recording, or is one clearly better all the time?

Thanks in advance,
--
| James M. VandeVegt             |  University of Nebraska           |
| vandevek@cse.unl.edu           |  Computer Science and Engineering |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  Insert standard disclaimer here.                  |
From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Slew Rate & distortion was (Re: requesting CD player advice)
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:49:57 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
> : 
> : How are you measuring distortion?  I gather that you are talking about a
> : THD rating, but a system that has a poor slew rate may have excellent THD
> : and still sound poor because it doesn't follow transients well.
> 
> I don't understand.  How is having a 'poor slew rate' any difference from
> high-frequency dropoff in response?  Intuitively, they seem to be
> two ways of describing the same thing, though "poor slew rate" provides
> a bit more physical intuition.
> 
> Or perhaps "poor slew rate" is a code word for "distortion at high
> frequencies"?

No, wait just a sec here - Scott is absolutely correct in identifying
THD and slew rate as two completely separate items (and no, "poor slew rate"
is NOT quite the same as a drop-off in the HF response).

THD stands for Total Harmonic Distortion - in other words, that distortion
of a waveform which results from the generation of *harmonics* of the
original components of the signal.  Basically, this is an inidication of
the *linearity* of the amplfier's response (output amplitude vs. input
amplitude), as it is non-linearities which are responsible for the generation
of such harmonics.

"Slew rate" and "frequency response" are somewhat related, but are most
certainly NOT the same thing.  Slew rate is given in units relating signal
amplitude to time, such as volts/microsecond, and tells how fast an amplifier
(or a given stage of an amplifier) can track a signal - note that slew rate
limits will therefore affect high amplitude signals of a given frequency
to a greater degree than low-amplitude signals at the same frequency (or
even in some cases low amplitude signals of *higher* frequencies).  On the
other hand, the overall frequency response is affected by many factors, a
goodly number of which are more-or-less independent of signal amplitude -
the rolloff caused by a simple RC low-pass filter, for example.


Bob Myers  KC0EW   Hewlett-Packard Co.      |Opinions expressed here are not
                   User Interface Tech. Div.|those of my employer or any other
myers@fc.hp.com    Fort Collins, Colorado   |sentient life-form on this planet.
From: gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Spinal Tap (was: Re: Thought for the day).
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:05:08 GMT
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal.

In article <92098.171333JBEST@ESOC.BITNET> JBEST@ESOC.BITNET (Jon) writes:
>
>>> Wasn't Spinal Tap a BRITISH rock group?
>
>> To tell the truth, I've never been sure.  Seem to recall that they were
>> in the movie, but I believe the most recent incarnation of them that
>> I've heard of was American.
>
>Check out your local record shop. Believe it or not (I didn't) they've
>just released a new album (!!???!) 'in conjunction with' several BIG
>names in the rock world. Truth IS stranger than fiction after all...

As far as I know, Spinal Tap was a group invented for the film, which
was a send-up of "rockumentaries".  The fictional group of three British
musicians, played by American actors Harry Shearer, Christopher Guest,
and Michael McKean, recently appeared on Letterman to promote their
"comeback" album.

-- Gary Katch                           |  CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY        |
   <gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca>         |  Computing Services  C-1012  |
   tel:  (514) 848-7632  |  THIS SPACE  |  1455 De Maisonneuve West    |
   fax:  (514) 848-7622  |   FOR RENT   |  Montreal (Quebec) H3G 1M8   |
From: pan@bambam.sbi.COM (Paul Pan)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Coast Manufacturing Co
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:12:44 GMT
Organization: Salomon Brothers Arbitrage Support, NY,NY


I'm looking for any information anyone has on a 'Coast Manufacturing Co.'
I've seen a lot of their products on the West coast; they make CD/Cassette
carriers, pullout radio bags and other things of that sort. Anyway, I'm
trying to find a mail order source or the name and address of the company
so if anyone out there has had any experience with is company, or knows where it's located, if you could drop me some e-mail, it'd be greatly appreciated.


Thanks!

-- 

Paul L. Pan	(pan@daffy.sbi.com)
From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:10:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Low range
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.audio

> What *is* the low range of human hearing, anyway?  Is there one?  I'm speaking
> of Hz, not dB.  I keep thinking of that poster who mentioned the 16Hz pipes

Unfortunately, the twp (Hz and dB) are not easily separable; there is not
a clear-cut point at EITHER end of the frequency spectrum where we can plant
a sign which says, "Beyond Here Ye Heareth Not!"  But the *sensitivity* of
human hearing drops off dramatically above and below certain frequencies.  At
the high end, it's usually somewhere around 20-22 kHz (decreasing with age, 
esp. in males), and the low-end limit is generally considered no lower than
5 Hz (this from a paper by J. F. Corso, published in 1958 in the Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America).  An additional problem at the low end of
the freuquency range is that there is a transition from true "sounds" (heard
by the auditory system) and vibrations felt by other parts of the body - the
ranges covered by these senses overlap, and may be difficult to distinguish.

These limits are for sounds conducted in air; the upper limit can be
extended greatly (perhaps to 100 kHz or more) by bone conduction (placing
a transducer in direct contact with the skull).  Before people start to
worry about such high frequencies, though, we should keep in mind that this
IS direct bone conduction (i.e., the signal DOES NOT arrive through air), and
the threshold levels are relatively high as compared with truly "heard"
sounds.  The data I have on the various theshold studies says that the
threshold of audibility climbs very quickly above about 6 kHz and below
500 Hz (such that you need about 30 dB higher SPL for detection at 100 Hz as
compared to 500 Hz).  Perhaps someone (JJ?) has additional/better data.


Bob Myers  KC0EW   Hewlett-Packard Co.      |Opinions expressed here are not
                   User Interface Tech. Div.|those of my employer or any other
myers@fc.hp.com    Fort Collins, Colorado   |sentient life-form on this planet.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster)
Subject: Re: New Japanese Coax Power Plug
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:25:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY

In article <0bM2023k10Tq01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.125002.27101@panix.com> schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) writes:
>
>Sony uses the same plug on their TCD-D3 portable DAT player.
>A friend of mine lost his AC adapter.  We couldn't get an off-the-shelf
>universal adapter to fit.
>
>I wound up going to Radio Shack, got the plug and cut the end of a
>generic adapter and put the correct one on.
>

This plug is in between the almost-largest full-size plug and the almost-smallest
mini-coax plug in the Radio Shack set. No fit!


-- 
_______________________________Mike Schuster________________________________
NY Public Access UNIX: schuster@panix.com        | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM
The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com   | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams)
Subject: Re: Listening
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
	<ABRAMS.92Apr10114109@division.cs.columbia.edu> <22561@alice.att.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:48:48 GMT

In article <22561@alice.att.com> jj@alice.att.com (jj) writes:
>>Steve Abrams wrote:
>>A) Double Blind testing has shown that many differences thought to be
>>heard between components are actually a result of placebo effects.
>Indeed.  The level of such effects is also astonishing.  This has
>been shown by testing involving an A/A/X test, i.e. no signal
>that's different, with the switchbox disconnected!

>>B) Studies have shown that Double Blind Testing masks audible
>>differences between components.
>Would you like to cite some of these studies? I've seen several
>that purported to show this, but actually didn't.  This is
>a bit tough of a thing to prove, even philosophically.

JJ:

What I was saying is that conclusions A) and B) might be different
interpretations of the same test results.  If a person hears a
difference in one setting and not in another, whose to say that the
difference did or did not exist in reality?  Either one set of
conditions caused the difference to appear falsely, or the other set
of conditions masked the difference.

As a tester, how do you rule out that the act of testing does not
change the listener's perspective sufficiently to mask his or her
ability to hear the subtlties such as "air," "space," "depth," and
such?  

Obviously, these sensations are psychological to begin with -- a sense
of depth from two speakers is a creation of the mind.  You must be in
the right frame of mind to hear it, never mind to compare it to
the sense of depth perceived from a different set of stimuli (depth is
just an example of the various qualities above and beyond tonal
balance we perceive).  Might the psychological effects of knowing
that you are being tested affect the perspective enough to alter this?
Can't the same arguments that applky to why blind tests are better
than non-blind tests and that double-blind beats blind be used to say
that triple-blind is the only way to avoid all psychological effects
whatsoever?  

~~~Steve

--
/*************************************************
 *
 *Steven Abrams             abrams@cs.columbia.edu
 *
 **************************************************/
#include <std/dumquote.h>
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: chrisi@lloyd.Camex.COM (Chris Ischay)
Subject: question: is receiver hum normal?
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 10:46:56 EDT

Is it normal for a receiver to make a little humming noise?
I just bought a Yamaha 750 receiver, and I notice a little
bit of hum.  Actually, I first noticed it last night in
a fairly quiet room when I turned the unit off and it
got quieter.  I would say this noise is somewhere above
barely audible, but it wouldn't be heard in a noisy room.

My old amp was *really* old, and it made such noises.  I thought
it might have been that it needed replacing.  Now I'm wondering
whether there's something inherent in the design of amplifiers
that they are going to make a small amount of noise.  (This noise
is not through the speakers, just from the unit itself.)

What have others found?  I'll watch for posts, but our system deletes
stuff really fast, so I'd appreciate e-mail if possible.
Thanks,

Chris Ischay
chrisi@bos.camex.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.video
From: mhk@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Mark Kaepplein x1517)
Subject: Re: CD rot -- who gives a damn?
Reply-To: mhk@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Mark Kaepplein x1517)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 20:49:47 GMT

This guy's remarks about LPs proves how clueless he is.

In article <1992Apr8.213313.23949@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:
> In article <58076029.1b2f0@digital.sps.mot.com>, chen@digital.sps.mot.com (Jinfu Chen) writes:
> >   Reprinted without permission from today's Dallas Morning News:
> >   
> >   Sony Corporation and Phillips BV of the Netherlands issued a joint
> >   press release Tuesday in which they admitted that the compact disc
> >   format that they jointly invented ten years ago, has a fatal flaw:
> >   the discs are susceptible to a phenomenon dubbed "CD rot" by audio-
> >   philes.  A. Morita of Sony and M. Blaagerfeld of Phillips stated 
> >   that according to recent research, "compact discs may show marked
> >   deterioration in low-level error rates after ten to twelve years.
> 
> Although I think people have a legitimate gripe with Sony and Phillips on
> this issue (presuming the report is true -- I haven't been able to verify
> it), the fact is that 10 to 12 years of near perfect sound is pretty f*****g
> incredible!  I mean with records you get maybe two or three PLAYS before
> you start hearing pops and clicks, etc.  And tapes certainly don't last
> anywhere near 10 years.
> 
> All in all, I'm still extraordinarilly happy with CDs and will continue to
> spend too much money on them!  Meanwhile all of you audiophiles can run
> around and spend several thousand US dollars on a record player that sounds
> about as good as my cheapo portable CD player and complain to the record
> industry that they aren't producing enough records anymore.  Oh, and don't
> forget to put green marks around the edges of the CDs you do own and maybe
> deep freeze them as well -- you must know what you're doing!
> 
> Steve

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: vento@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dan Vento)
Subject: Vortex Speakers
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:22:50 GMT

Does anybody out there have any experience with Vortex speakers? I am considering	
their less expensive models ( the bipolar ones, not the screens).
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: awelker@watarts.UWaterloo.ca (a welker)
Subject: Re: Low range
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:38:39 GMT

In article <andrewb.702779193@suite.sw.oz.au> andrewb@suite.sw.oz.au (Andrew Bettison) writes:
>In <702613596.11504.0@unix1.andrew.cmu.edu> ri09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert W. Igo) writes:
>
>> What *is* the low range of human hearing, anyway?  Is there one?  I'm speaking
>> of Hz, not dB.
>
>There is no clear cut-off point.  You have to consider the minimum
>audible field contour, which plots the threshold of detectability
>of pure tones (in dB sound pressure level) against frequency.
>
>   dB SPL
>
>
>   140	|
>	|
>   120	|
>	|
>   100	|
>	|
>    80	|
>	|*
>    60	| *
>	|   *
>    40	|     *                                       *
>	|       *
>    20	|          *                           * *   *
>	|               *  * *  * * * *     *      *
>     0	|                                **
>	|
>   -20	|.____.____.____.____.____.____.____.____.____.
>	20   50   100  200  500  1k   2k   5k   10k  20k   Hz
>
>
>The bottom limit for `true' hearing of pure tones probably lies at
>about 16 Hz.  Experiments suggest that pure tones below 16 Hz are
>not heard in the normal way, but detected by virtue of the distortion
>products they produce after being transmitted through the middle
>ear.  At about 4 Hz, the threshold of audibility is about 120 dB
>SPL.  Compare this with a 2 kHz tone at the same sound pressure
>level - it is almost painfully loud because the threshold of pain
>for middle frequencies is between 120 and 130 dB SPL!
>
>(Source: An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, 3rd ed., by
>Brian C.J. Moore.  Academic Press, 1989.)
>
>
>> I keep thinking of that poster who mentioned the 16Hz pipes
>> on the pipe organ CD, and wondering exactly how low that is.  Obviously, if
>> the information is accurate, we can at least hear down to 16 Hz, or else no
>> one would have invented that particular pipe.
>
>That would be a 64 foot pipe.  For most people, the 16 Hz fundamental
>is felt, not heard.  The harmonics (32Hz, 48Hz, 64Hz, etc.) are
>definitely heard.  Note that not many home stereo systems are able
>to reproduce the fundamental or even the second harmonic.
>
>--
>Andrew Bettison - Softway Pty Ltd
>
>Phone	+61-2-698-2322	  Internet	andrewb@softway.sw.oz.au 
>Fax	+61-2-699-9174	  UUCP		uunet!softway.sw.oz.au!andrewb

Sorry, a 64 foot pipe produces a fundamental at 8 HZ, NOT 16 HZ!!
Only :-) a 32 foot pipe is needed to produce 16 HZ, and it's use is
VERY common in large scale organ works.

Andrew Welker

From: myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:24:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Thought for the day
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA