HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.audio

> The CD sampling rate is at 44Khz. Why hasn't anybody pointed out that this 
> sampling rate is not really sufficient to reproduce accurate high frequency
> signals? If the sampling rate was, say, 1Mhz or something, I would have
> believed fairly accurate reproduction of signals but just 2x the sampling
> rate of the frequency you are trying to quantify does not seem sufficient.
> Can interpolation and extrapolation, no matter how clever, really reproduce
> the correct shape of a 20 microsecond period signal?

People have "pointed this out," ad nauseum, in this group and elsewhere, ever
since the CD and other digital recording techniques came out.  Trouble is,
they're wrong.

Let's consider your hypothetical "20 microsecond" signal.  Given this period,
the signal has a frequency of 50 kHz, generally presumed to be well above the
range of human hearing for sounds in air.  In other words, even if this were
a sine wave, you couldn't hear it.  If it's NOT a sine wave, then it consists
of sinusoidal signals starting at 50 kHz and at multiples of that frequency;
if you can't hear the 50 kHz fundamental, you certainly can't hear the
other components.

The same argument applies to other signals within the range of human hearing;
some object to the fact that a 44.1 kHz sampling rate is not sufficient
to reproduce, say, 18 kHz square waves.  That's true, but it overlooks
the fact that an 18 kHz square wave is made up of sinusoids at multiples
of 18 kHz (if it's *truly* square, only at *odd* multiples, meaning the next
component doesn't occur until 54 kHz!).  If we accept the notion that you 
cannot hear tones above 20-22 kHz (which is where some very well-established
threshold curves say human hearing cuts out - and it gets lower as you age),
then you CANNOT distinguish between an 18 kHz square wave and an 18 kHz
sine wave by ear, and the sampling rate is more than sufficient to encode the
real "sound."

The basic understanding that's needed here is to realize that ALL periodic
signals, of ANY shape, can be viewed as simply the sum of sinsusoids at
the fundamental frequency and its multiples.  Look up "Fourier analysis" for
a handle on this.  No, it's NOT intuitive...but it's true.


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: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: $1000 System (Was: PLEASE HELP ME...I'M CLUELESS)
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:27:06 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)

In February '90, New York magazine (one of those yuppie mags) had an
article on audio; for their entry-level systems set at ~$1000 for CD
player, receiver and speakers, folks from local audiophile shops
recommended the NAD 5325 ($299) CD player and NAD 7225PE receiver
across the board.  Myself, I got the Sony 209 ES because it sounded
just as good with the NAD 7225PE receiver plus it was on a clearout
for $219 at Harvey Electronics.  As for speakers, these varied a lot
with the Mirage from Canada scoring 2 of four lists.  I have a pair of
Boston Acoustics A60's myself, but would recommend the A70's if you're
patient enough to wait for them to come on sale at $249 (the list is
around $300).

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				U.S. Elections 1992, Vote Now:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		a) Elvis 50's stamp, or
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			b) Elvis 70's stamp?
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: christos@cco.caltech.edu (Christos S. Christoforou)
Subject: Re: requesting CD player advice
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 00:23:50 GMT

In article <3411@tronsbox.UUCP> moskowit@tronsbox.UUCP (Len Moskowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.005319.249@intelhf.hf.intel.com>
>labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
>
>>moskowit@tronsbox.UUCP (Len Moskowitz) writes:
>>>To my ears, this is bunk. 
>>>...... it pays to be selective.
>>
>>	Too bad! I feel sorry for this individual, be it what he hears is
>>	real or imagined.
>>
>>	I (and many other audiophiles) agree with the first poster, that for
>>	the most part all CD players sound the same. What you buy are the
>>	features and ability to play slightly defective disks.
>
>I've listened to dozens of different players, fixed a bunch of broken
>
>low end sounds crummy.  If you can't hear the difference then you
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>certainly deserve the Sharp/Sony.
>
Exactly. If one can NOT distinguish between the sound of two
players, then why must one pay more to get the better CD player?
>-- 
>
>
>Len Moskowitz
>moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com

Christos

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: awelker@watarts.UWaterloo.ca (a welker)
Subject: Re: A question for TUBE-lovers
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:35:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.061726.9378@usl.edu> ws@cacs.usl.edu (Werasak Suengtaworn) writes:
>Hi folks, what are the best (sonically) brand names of 12AX7 and 6DJ8, 
>or substitute ones, you ever heard? 
>
>werasak

Telefunken!

Andrew Welker

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: marklc@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. Mark L. Cohen; ACS (C))
Subject: Onkyo receiver for sale
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:17:43 GMT

For sale...

Onkyo TX-860 receiver/amplifier (replaced by TX-906 in stores)
- 80 watts per channel RMS
- Full bass, treble, loudness, dynamic bass controls
- Wireless remote control included
- Excellent condition (2 years old)
- Originally purchased at a cost of $419, selling for best offer.

Reason for selling: I just upgraded to a Pro-Logic Receiver with more power.
Send mail to marklc@umbc4.umbc.edu or call me at (301)776-1648.

******************************************************************************
NOTE: I would like to sell this receiver to somebody who is willing to
listen to it before purchasing...  This may be a burden for some, but I
don't like shipping things for fear that it may get to the end user in
a damaged condition.  I would much prefer to have the end user be confident
in knowing that the receiver is in perfect working condition when purchasing
this receiver.
******************************************************************************

   Mark Cohen   marklc@umbc4.umbc.edu  (301) 776-1648 -- Columbia, MD


Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.audio.pro
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: awesome Klipschorns and speaker lifespan
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center And Storm Door Company
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:09:16 GMT

In article <11282@ksr.com> kenyee@ksr.com (Ken Yee) writes:
>  here's a dumb question: what's a dynamic speaker?
>  I dug up an old review of 801 series II in Audio magazine..they said
>  the base and equalizer were needed...

Yes, the eq box is definitely needed.  It really doesn't do any equalization,
it's mostly a time-alignment filter.  There are a couple aftermarket ones
which are better than the B&K supplied ones.

By dynamic, I mean monkey boxes.  Sealed cabinets with drivers in them, as
opposed to electrostatic or magnetostrictive planar designs.  (Okay, I am
very gung-ho over planar speakers, and even use them as studio monitors,
but you should listen to them yourself first.)
From: sek@Apple.COM (Steve Kullick)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: VMPS subwoofers/xover FOR SALE
Keywords: subwoofers, for sale, crossover
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:07:56 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


Dated 4/9/92
FOR SALE:
I really need to free up space for my new speakers. If you want to add
subwoofers to your system, this is the time(price).

2 VMPS "original" sub-woofers		$175/each
	-12" active driver
	-15" passive radiator
	-brown grill cloth

de-coursey engineering electronic crossover for a sub-woofer: $150
	-crossover point 90hz
	-separate level controls for each of the four outputs
		(2 high pass, 2 low pass)

Their is significant weight and bulk to the speakers so you will want to be
local enough to Saratoga, CA to pick them up with a pick-up truck.

Steve Kullick
(sek@apple.com)
(408) 974-3824
From: MSC109@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Golden Ear perspective on digital......
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:47:06 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

GFL@hera.uucp writes:

>"all tones are sine waves, complex tones are combinations thereof.."

Just a simpleminded question. Are triangular and square waves, etc.,
just simple combinations of sine waves? Does the A/D or D/A converter
see these waves as sine waves? What is the D/A output of a triangular
wave recorded digitally (at, say 10KHz)?

I guess what I'm getting at is this: does the Nyquist theorem hold for
non-sine waves at high frequency, or are all tones sinusoidal in the
digital domain?

I would appreciate some full references, since I'm not an EE. "Joe Blow
and Brother Simpson" doesn't do me a lot of good! Thanks!

Mathew Cooper
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bosco@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Bosco)
Subject: Opinions on Kenwood receivers?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 20:10:31 GMT


Hi, I currently own a Denon integrated amp which outputs 115w/channel 8ohms
and upto 350w/c at 2ohms. I am thinking of changing it for a receiver, 
because I need the extra functionality of a radio, a remote and surround sound
(I want to make use of my new HIFI vcr :-) ).  I could add all these features
by adding sparate equipment (preamp,decoder,tuner etc) but this would be much
more expensive, and I can't afford it.

I saw some Kenwood Pro-Logic receivers that go for ~$450 dollars and claim
to deliver ~120w/c. I like them because while they have all the features
I want, they are still rather simple and don't have all that high-tech stuff
(lots of DSP modes, graphic equalizers etc. etc.) which I really don't need.
(I hate millions of buttons and huge computer like displays !).  Are these
good units?  Would they be able to compare to my current amp when simply
used to listen to music or am I sacrificing a lot in sound quality by getting
a receiver? Also, if you know of any other good surround receivers in this
price rangecould you please tell me?

Thanks,

	Eric.

bosco@leland.stanford.edu
From: phillips@FOZZIE.NRL.NAVY.MIL (Lee Phillips)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: B&O Penta loudspeakers
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:28:21 GMT


    I am auditioning a pair of these at home.  They are the tall, thin
towers, each with its own 150 watt amplifier built into the base; they
list for about $3200 a pair, but I can have these for $1500.  I don't
usually consider Bang & Olufsen equipment, considering it overpriced,
sleekly packaged (and well made) stuff that is sold to a market for
which sound quality is not the primary consideration.  However, at the
price, these speakers may be a buy.  Another consideration is their
unique shape, which fits into the home less obtrusively than other
"full range" speakers.  So far, I am impressed with their performance.
    If anyone has any relevent experience or knowledge to share, I am
all ears.
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: eccleswn@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu
Subject: Re: Mail Order From Crutchfield
Reply-To: eccleswn@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:10:53 GMT

In article <92098.180105ASOLOMO@auvm.american.edu> ari solomon  
<ASOLOMO@auvm.american.edu> writes:
> I give Crutchfield an "A+" in the mail-order hi-fi category, from my  
several
> experiences with them. The salespeoples' knowledgeability varies, but
> extensive courtesy seems to be consistent throughout the staff.  My only  
com-
> plaint about Crutchfield is that I usually end up feeling guilty if I  
*don't*


A+ from me, too, on all accounts. Nice job, folks.

Bill
(Also no association.)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Distribution: world
Followup-To: 
From: meyerm@hp700.trg.saic.com (Michael Meyer)
Reply-To: meyerm@hp700.trg.saic.com
Organization: Science Applications International Corp.
Subject: Opinions on Vandersteens?
Keywords: 
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 23:52:34 GMT

Does anyone out there own or listen to Vandersteen speakers that would
care to offer an opinion of same?
 
___________________________________________________________________________
Michael S. Meyer                             meyerm@hp700.trg.saic.com
Technology Research Group                               619-546-6097  voice
Science Applications International Corporation          619-546-6777    fax
San Diego, CA
___________________________________________________________________________
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Imped. Matching w/ Resistors?!
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:55:15 GMT
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy

In rec.audio, jgardner@convex.com (John B. Gardner) writes:


>   So, are we flapping our jaws in the electronic breeze, or could someone
>   explain how an amp with a damping factor of 6 can sound good, despite
>   what everyone is claming here.

Excuse me while I tighten up my jaws.  There we go.  The answer is simply
this, well maybe not simply, but it's mainly probably:  You have to have
a suitable load for that Carver Silver Seven to work properly.  Why do you
think Hansen worked so hard on his Ascent to make the input impedance even,
6 ohms +- 1 ohm from 20 Hz to 20 KHz?  These amps are mostly known to have poor 
bass with respect to transistor amps, but bass is not why you buy tubes.
It's mostly the midrange and a top end free from grit.  No good scientific
reason to buy a tube amp other than it goes good together with some speakers.

And if you don't believe they can sound good with poor damping factors,
have a listening comparison, and try to find the strengths and weaknesses
of each.   People who have auditioned audio gear for years have spotted 
certain trends with certain matches, but they usually don't make too much
of a blanket statement about the way tube amps or transistor amps sound,
probably because new designs keep changing what you can expect.

Don't hook a Carver Silver Seven into an Apogee Full Range.  You're wasting
your money on the amp there.  On the other hand, with the Avalon Ascent,
maybe.  I bet it'll sound magnificent.  But I don't think the electronics
is as important as the source and the speakers, after a certain level of
performance from the electronics that is.  

For a really dramatic demonstration between tube amps and transistor amps,
go into dB Audio in Berkeley and listen to the Avalon Eclipse between 
their MFA amps and the Jeff Rowland amps -- and the Jeff Rowlands are
supposed to sound like tubes.  Huge difference, anybody can hear it.
I think I actually prefer the Rowland there.

Disclaimer- It was only my opinion
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Analog vs. Digital / Recording vs. Consumer
From: ias_student6@eis.dofasco.ca
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:38:32 GMT
Organization: Dofasco Inc, Hamilton, Ont. Can.
Nntp-Posting-User: ias_student6


The problem with Analog (e.g. Analog Tape, LPs...) is that the
signal is degraded through:
  -transfer to and from media (e.g. tape head, cutting a record, turntable
                              stylus...)
  -each pass through a component (e.g. equalizer, pre-amplifier...)

The problem with Digital (e.g. CD, DAT...) is that the signal is
quantized in the amplitude and time dimensions.  The signal is only
degraded by:
  -Analog to Digital conversions
  -round-off errors by microprocessors, DSPs (digital signal processors)
  -digital errors on the media (e.g. holes in CDs)
  -Digital to Analog conversions
                               
At this point, I think the arguement should be divided in two:
  -the recording industry
  -the consumer

The analog recording industry:
  There is a loss through each recorder and each component.

  The recording engineer is quite responsible for the quality of
  the recording.

The digital recording industry:
  DDD - Digital recorder used during the recording sessions
      - Digital recorder used during the mastering
      - Digital media product--Compact Disk or Digital Audio Tape
  HOWEVER, as an article pointed out recently, the signal may be 
  converted to analog, passed through an analog mixing board,
  converted back to digital and stored on digital tape.

  ADD and AAD are self-explanatory.

  The responsibility of the recording engineer is still crucial.

The analog consumer:
  -has to take great care in handling records, spends a considerable
   amount of money on a good turntable and stylus
  -has to worry about the wearing of the media: records and cassette
   tapes
  -will often only play the record once--to record it on cassette
  -will then enjoy the music on cassette

The digital consumer:
  -has to worry about the DA converter in their CD player, DAT...
  -is overwhelmed by 16 bit, 18 bit, 20 bit, bit stream, MASH,
   2x, 4x, 8x...

The bottom line:
  In the recording industry the weight is upon the recording engineer's
  shoulders to produce a good recording.  Many good analog recordings
  sound better than messed-up digital recordings.  The same engineer
  though, should be able to make a better digital recording than
  an analog recording.

  With the consumer, the emphasis is to have a DA converter that
  smooths over the quantization errors.

Peter Czarnecki
until April 29th, IAS_STUDENT6@EIS.DOFASCO.CA
after May 4th, PMCZARNECKI@CHEMICAL.WATSTAR.UWATERLOO.CA
         
Newsgroups:  rec.audio
From: ddl7bs2@baarsa.bell-atl.com (Powers)
Subject: CD CHANGER
Organization: Bell Atlantic
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 17:54:27 GMT

	I need some advice on a CD-CHanger ?? SONY or DENON or YAMAHA
	Has anybody done any research on this topic.................

	Jeff :^]

	ddl7bs2@baarsa.bell-atl.com
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Imped. Matching w/ Resistors?!
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:56:10 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

>In article <1992Apr5.230259.1@cbrown.claremont.edu>, jstimson@cbrown.claremont.edu writes:
>> I have a pair of Infinity Reference-3s that I am driving with a Yamaha AV-66
>> Integrated amp.  It is rated at 100W, but has an automatic cutout that shuts it
>> down at volumes that I consider much quieter than a 100W amp should deliver,
>> and before any distortion is apparent.  The speakers are nominally 6 ohms.  I
>> 							- John
>
>
In article <1992Apr10.232234.7624@tellab5.tellabs.com> chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski) writes:
>
>There's a theorem EE's learn that says maximum power transfer occurs when
>the impedance of the source matches the impedance of the load -- but this
>isn't what you're seeing.  You wouldn't want maximum power transfer to
>occur, because the resulting current in the amplifiers' output transistors
>would destroy them; that's what the automatic cutout is for.

   There is another theory EE's learn when they are talking about
   audio....where you have an amplifier driving a speaker cone which
   can generate back EMF.  (Or a motor...or just a regenerative
   braking system for locomotives...)   

   It is called damping...and you don't EVER want matched source and
   load impedances....    

   You want the absolute highest mismatch you can get between the
   amps internal impedance and the speakers impedance...with the
   amplifier being the lowest impedance you can get.....(within
   reason).     

   This way the amplifier shorts the coil of the speaker...so
   anytime the speaker tries to transfer energy to the amplifier it
   is shunted by a virtual short--which brings a moving speaker to a
   dead halt as rapidly as possible when the desired direction of
   motion changes.  Anything else will cause the cone to "flap in
   the breeze"...with very tubby bass.   

   This impedance ratio..the damping factor as you've noted, affects
   the speaker at other than resonance...the resonance peaking is
   only specific to certain types of (overly popular) speakers.  
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: floyd@wam.umd.edu (Jim Matthews)
Subject: Re: EQUIP. SURVEY RESULTS
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:28:33 GMT

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.
> >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
> 
> Vanderstiens at 6.0 with JVC at 6.9 does not make sense.

And Fischer at 6.2?		:-)

I think it's fairly obvious that there is a fundamental problem with surveys  
which ask a great number of people to rate a few components.  Person A thinks  
his crappy little speakers sound terrific when cranked up to 10% THD, and he  
rates them a 9 on the scale (only a 9 because when he turned his amp up to 11,  
the woofer cone inverted).  Person B spent weeks researching and auditioning  
many different speakers and rates his terrific speakers an 8 (he couldn't  
afford the ones he would rate a 9 or a 10).  Kind of throws off the results...
--
 ____                           |
(   /	   floyd@wam.umd.edu    |       University of Maryland
   /._ _         eng.umd.edu    |          Computer Science
\_/// X \         ni.umd.edu    |        Standard Disclaimers
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bill@verdix.com (William Spencer)
Subject: Re: A Golden-Ear perspective on CD players.
Organization: Verdix Corp.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:41:47 GMT

In article <92098.183931U58402@uicvm.uic.edu> <U58402@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>Why hasn't anyone put forth the proposition that the difference between
>analog and digital sound is due to the software, not the hardware?

Sure they have. Hundreds of times. They're not entirely right though.

>So, the first digital recordings may sound "steely" because
>recording techniques for analog may have boosted treble response a bit
>to account for the lowered treble response in an analog system.

In the case of many new pop recordings it's the exact opposite. Upper mid
and high frequencies are boosted to make the sound more digital-ish.

One wierd thing is that audiophiles, or the mags anyway, seem to alternatively
critisize digital as being too bright or too dull.

Bill S.