HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Stabilizer Rings (Was: MiniDiscs -- What Are They?)
Followup-To: rec.audio
Date: 23 Jan 1993 16:55:24 GMT
Organization: BBN
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <5491@calmasd.Prime.COM>, jpb@calmasd.Prime.COM (Jan Bielawski)
wrote:
> This subject has been discussed so many times.  Last time I looked the
> consensus seemed to be: CD players are not shielded properly.  Without
> the disc the CD vibrates a bit more and the focusing servo works harder.
> The resulting EM noise is picked up by the improperly shielded analog
> stages.

That's stretching a bit, but I'd be willing to concede that in some
circumstances it might have a small effect. Not, however, enormous dramatic
change. Perhaps a little buzz or other noise, not 'mushy bass' and 'treble
all over the shop', etc.

Anyway, it's often the golden-eared with outboard DACs that claim this
supreme sensitivity. Outboard DACs, by virture of being in a separate box,
should be well removed from the proximity of the servo motor. By virtue of
their price, these DACs had better be well-shielded.

What's left for the rings to do, other than color-code your disc
collection?

-Kerry
From: matthews@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Thomas W. Matthews)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Anti-aliasing on the recording end?
Date: 23 Jan 93 21:17:09 GMT
Organization: Division of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, UC Davis

In article <shetline-210193103508@128.89.19.74>, shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline) writes:
|> It has obviously become popular in digital playback systems to use
|> oversampling as a way to provide digital-domain filtering, allowing for the
|> use of much less severe analog filters. But what's going on these days on
|> the recording side?
|> 
|> I realize that the answer to this question would most likely depend on the
|> application. I imagine that most consumer DAT, DCC, or MD units employ
|> steep input filters and call the job done. However, I suspect that some
|> (most?) of the pro gear, and maybe even some high-end consumer stuff, would
|> use higher sampling rates (>50KHz) with more gentle filters.
|> 
|> The problem is, you'd need *real* higher sampling rates (as opposed to
|> computed oversampling), and the processing power to perform the sampling
|> rate conversion with digital filtering.
|> 
|> Anyone out there got the scoop on this?
|> 
|> -Kerry

I have been wondering about this too.  I haven't had much 
time to think about it.  I think delta-sigma A/D converters
sample at a much higher rate than 44.1 KHz, and with fewer
than 16 bits.  I once thought this through and understood
how this accomplished noise-shaping, and finally gives
16-bit samples at 44.1 KHz.  I wonder if the faster sampling
can also be exploited to ease the constraints on the analog
anti-aliasing filter?

Tom Matthews

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: baum@skcla.monsanto.com
Subject: Re: Audio gear for sale
Organization: Searle, Skokie, IL
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:08:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.195808.22635@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
> I have the following high-end equipment for sale:
> 
> Mirage M-1 speakers, originally purchased 1989, with
> new midrange drivers updated by Mirage, with 1-meter
> MIT 750-extended speaker cable.  Speakers are bi-wirable    $3,500
> (your pickup from New York City)
> 
> Mark Levinson 26S preamplifier with phono section	$4,700 + shipping
> 
> Audio Reseach DAC-1/20
> includes 1-meter MIT Shotgun cables			$3,000 + shipping
> 
> Lexicon CP-1 Surround processor				$850 + shipping

I have seen some of these models (especially the Mirage and ARC) available
new for comparable or better prices.  So, potential buyers - beware!!

> 
> 
> --
> 
> 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
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: graeme@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Graeme Gill)
Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
Organization: Labtam Australia Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:10:03 GMT
Summary: Errr..

In article <1993Jan20.211233.37643@watson.ibm.com>, zellers@22_clancy.manassas.ibm.com (Cevin M Zellers) writes:
> ignorance of the Nyquist Sampling theorem. All of you digital skeptics, 
> please note that CD's capture ALL frequencies up to 44.5 KHz, reproducing
> them faithfully (better than vinyl, I argue). Frequencies above 44.5 KHz
> don't matter, that's far above the threshold of hearing anyway :)

	Err, speaking of Nyquist sampling theory that's 22.05 Khz minus
whatever the low pass filter takes out. The majority of people over
20 years of age can't hear above 16 Khz.
	
	Graeme Gill
	Design Engineer
	Labtam Australia

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Mike S.)
Subject: Re: Home Theatre Speakers/Center Channel
Organization: BITS, St. Louis, MO
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:55:39 GMT

brambo@eco.twg.com (Mark Bramblett) writes:

>In article <1993Jan20.051924.29623%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu>,
>mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Mike S.) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Does the C1 go low enough to use pro-logic Wide mode?
>> 

>I have set of 4 DT BP20's and a pair of C-1's.  I called the Baltimore
>office and talked to the designer.  He said go with the pro-logic normal
>because the bass was better represented that way instead of in wide mode.
>He inferred that was because of the way the pro-logic decoder was 
>designed.  

>Anybody know if this is true or not?

As far as I know, the only difference between Pro-Logic WIDE and
NORMAL modes is that NORMAL mode redirects frequencies below 100Hz
to the mains, whereas WIDE mode does not.

Maybe he just likes his low frequencies to originate from two
different sources.

Mike
-- 
mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Comments on Yamaha's subwoofers, please.
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:46:59 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

In article <nnhut.727719893@bcarh676> nnhut@bnr.ca (Nhut Nguyen) writes:
>Hello netters,
>
>I am tempted to buy a (powered) subwoofer for my system, and a local
>store has the Yamaha's 70watts model on sale for around 450$CAN.
>
  Those were going for $269 US just before Christmas, but this area
  is pretty competitive.     

>I would like to hear your opinion about this price and this model.
>Is this a good buy? My main use is for music and movies.

   Of the pwered subs in that class/range, it is IMHO one of the
   better ones.  The variable level and bandwidth make it fairly
   simple to integrate into a pair of mains.   

   At 450, I would be tempted to look into the HSU Research passive
   and snoop around for a used amp. 
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.video
Subject: Re: Wanted: 8mm/Hi8 stereo VCR info/recommendations
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:26:43 GMT
Organization: SPC Community Access System

In article <1993Jan20.221257.19791@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, kyleh@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Kyle Harper) writes:
> 
>  I have had little luck finding any selection of 8mm stereo or Hi8 VCRs.
>  I do not have much invested in VHS and would like to switch to 8mm for
>  recording and archiving favorite movies, etc., and use the Hi-Fi VHS for
>  rental playback.
> 
>  Does anyone out there know if SONY has a reasonably featured, *reasonably*
>  priced stereo 8mm or Hi8 VCR? Any other manufacturer?

The Sony EV-A50 8mm VCR is what you are looking for.  It has a tuner plus all 
the normal features.  It also has basic editing functions.  Mail order should 
be under $500.

You ought to think about the cost of blank tapes.  VHS blanks are about $2.00 
and 8mm blanks are about $4.25.

SONY Models...

8mm VTR - No Tuner
------------------
EV-C3
EV-C40

8mm VTR - Tuner
---------------
EV-A50
EV-S550
EV-S800

Hi8mm VTR - No Tuner
--------------------
CVD-1000

Hi8mm VTR - Tuner
-----------------
EV-S900
EV-S2000
EV-S3000

There is also a RCA 8mm VCR now on the market.

--
Jeff Killeen - DECUS U.S. Chapter NLC Chair | Email:killeen@eisner.decus.org

DECUS is for folks who are responsible for delivering computing technology.
The NLC is the national council for DECUS's Local User Groups - come join us!
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Preamp and Amp
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:48:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.205458.29108@leland.Stanford.EDU> kong@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kong Kritayakirana) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.164550.1069@bnr.ca> Dave Dal Farra <gpz750@bnr.ca> writes:

>>c.  The concept that Golden-Ears are self professed ego-maniacs and that
>	[unimportant stuff deleted]

>If their ears are so golden, how come these golden eared people refuse to 
>participate in A/B comparison? Do they need their eyes to see the brand name
>in order to make their golden ears work?

When I worked in the studio I did run across people who were truly
golden-eared.    

The interesting thing that I found in the pro-audio arena, is that
those who professed they were golden-eared, weren't.   

And those, who from observation were classified golden eared by others,
didn't think they were. 

Those were the people we went to when we wanted to confirm/deny our
observations after making modifications.   We had one client in the
studio once who heard a 1/2 db mis-track in the monitor pot.  He kept
insisting the image shifted, and he marked the place on the console
where it was centered, and the part where it was shifted.   We got the
equipment out and measaured it.  He was right.   He also had the
uncanny ability to KNOW how long a song was - and was always within
about 1 second of absolute time.   His name was Turley Richards, and
was a blind singer - who didn't go blind until his late teen years.
Finding someone like that really makes you wonder what the average
person is missing when they listen.

A true 'golden-ear' status can not be proclaimed, it must be bestowed
upon a person.

And often 'golden-ears' are nothing more than a person who has
'learned' to listen critically.

-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill@bilver.uucp
                - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:45:39 GMT
Subject: Re: CD vs. LP again (was Re: Preamp and Amp)
Message-ID: <1190792@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, sick and tired of all this nonsense)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:29:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24671
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, sick and tired of all this nonsense)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1993Jan20.211233.37643@watson.ibm.com> zellers@22_clancy.manassas.ibm.com (Cevin M Zellers) writes:
>I recently witnessed another case of the analog sentimentalist trying
>to use the 'sampling' argument to lodge a complaint against Digital.
Yeah, like TAS had in its last issue, a raving loonie article
about "what's wrong with digital" that got the number of
bits wrong (called the 16th bit a parity bit. Well it' can't
be because I have about 3 hours of data from CD on my local
machine for scientific use, I can see numbers up to 32000 +-,
and there's no bit that's set to parity of all 16, of course
16 bits IS the spec, TAS drivel aside), made 6 linked and
obvious errors in the signal to noise ratio of CD, all
in the "bad" direction, had a cute little diagram point
to the "space between samples" while not bothering to consider
anything of time-frequency duality, and so on.

>ignorance of the Nyquist Sampling theorem. All of you digital skeptics, 
>please note that CD's capture ALL frequencies up to 44.5 KHz, reproducing
>them faithfully (butter than vinyl, I argue). Frequencies above 44.5 KHz
>don't matter, that's far above the threshold of hearing anyway :)
Oh, geeeze, come on.  It's all those frequencies up to 20khz,
the nyquist limit is 22.05 kHz and the antialiasing filters start
to kick in at 20kHz...

Well, not as bad as MTV, maybe.

Sigh.  It's people like you what cause unrest!
-- 
Copyright alice!jj 1993, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET and like facilities granted. Said permission is granted only for complete copies that include this notice. Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
---------
Member HASA - Athiest Scum Division
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" - AuH2O for President
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, still grouchy and out of sorts)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: MiniDiscs -- What Are They?
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:14:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24676
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, still grouchy and out of sorts)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1993Jan21.121032.13184@nntp.nta.no> harald.ljoeen@nta.no writes:
>These are all musical signals. The music I like to listen to have 
>*non-stationarity* as one of its most dominant and important features.
>You proposed to record

>	- a pulse train at 630 Hz or so
>	- set of non-harmonic tones spaced about 750 Hz apart, starting in
>	   the 690Hz range
>	- white noise
(you left out the signal cycling between l and r)

>which are non-musical stationary noise signals constructed to reveal the
>weaknesses of the coding scheme in DCC and MD. 

Of course, the musical signals I listed are examplars of the analytic
signals I proposed, at least for some notes at some time.

Go ahead and use the music.  It has the same effects as the
analytic signals, and if it makes you happy to use music instead,
go ahead.  I still have great confidence in my suggestions.

Take the clarinet and harpsichord of the SQUAM disc.  Take
Suzanna VEga's 'Tom's Diner'.  Take track 8 of "Graceland"
by Paul Simon (and Ladysmith in track 8).  Try Shepherd Moon.
Try any recording of the dance stuff in Carmen.  Try some of
the slavonic dances.

They're all music, yes?
-- 
Copyright alice!jj 1993, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET and like facilities granted. Said permission is granted only for complete copies that include this notice. Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
---------
Member HASA - Athiest Scum Division
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" - AuH2O for President
From: rsud@sw.stratus.com (Rajiv Sud)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Comments on analog music
Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:18:04 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ernie.cac.stratus.com

In article <24668@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
	.
	.  <jj knows what he wrote>
	.


	First off, the reference for any audio system is (or should be) live
unamplified music produced by acoustic instruments. The debate between
analogue and digital isn't (or shouldn't be) about specs. It should be about
which sounds closer to the real thing. So, no, I don't like the sound of
distortion, I like that which sounds closer to real music and instruments.

	You say analogue is distorted. I take it you imply that digital is
not. Amazing. You know, back in high school we calculated how far a gallon
of gasoline, when combusted, could move a 3000lb object. We came up with
about 150 miles. If digital is perfect because the nyquist equation is
perfect I guess I should stop believing my gas gauge. 
		
..Rajiv

PS Apologies to Kurt. I don't read this board often enough to know where
   each players allegiance lies.
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: I finally heard MD
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:17:52
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu


Finally heard it.  Unfortunately, the demo machine was only playing
Harry Connick Jr and since I never listen to it, I had a hard time
deciding about relative quality.  And, of course, I only had so-so
headphones.  Whatever.  In this highly unscientific test, I had no
problems.

I've decided: *if* MD or DCC have to win, I give points to MD 'cause
of the file-structure and 10-second buffer stuff.  I'm sure it'll do
in a portable/car environment, so fine.

--
Peace.
             "Great spirits have always encountered violent
              opposition from mediocre minds."
                                  - Albert Einstein.
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: gt0869a@prism.gatech.EDU (WATERS,CLYDE GORDON)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Speaker vent placement question
Date: 24 Jan 93 08:21:57 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1jprojINN4pj@uwm.edu> randyd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Randall Elton Ding) writes:
>
>I have experimented with different port positions on the subwoofers I built
>over the years and have not found any differences.  The only thing that 
>seemed to make a difference after I got the box and port volume correct was
>the room placement.
>

I have built several speaker systems, and have noticed a difference in the 
sound of boxes ported out the rear as opposed to the front of the enclosure.
However, this difference was most plausibly explained that the port was 
interacting with a room surface differently when on different box walls.  
I have actually capitalized on boundary conditions when building car "boom
boxes" by placing the ports on the rear wall, where on most hatch-back
vehicles they were effectively corner loaded, usually resulting in an 
increase in low frequency sound pressure from the ports. However, this
was most often improper for flat frequency response in that it did 
most likely change the acoustic load outside the port, most likely altering
the port tuning (boom, boom, boom...) But, for the listener, the extra
lf SPL was more desirable in many cases than accuracy, hence the above
setup. I did also notice this in one system I constructed which was 
ported out the rear, as opposed to a similar system (same cabinet volume,
driver and port dimensions) ported in the front. I personally preferred the
front-ported system, most likely for the boundary condition dependence 
mentioned above. The rear and front ported systems demand different 
room placement; there just might be no significant difference beyond this.
I know that in the setups I heard the front ported system was superior
IMHO. This is not to say that a rear-ported system could not be optimized;
it may or may not sound better. The real moral is that they do couple
with the listening environment differently in many cases.

Regards,
Gordon.
.
-- 
WATERS,CLYDE GORDON-Class of '93-Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta Ga. 
"Out of the mountain of despair, we can hew the stone of hope"- MLK Jr. 
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0869a
Internet: gt0869a@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: ddrg@alfred.carleton.ca (Duncan Glendinning)
Subject: Re: QUAD 33 Power Change?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:45:48 GMT

In <C1I6BL.7nu@comp.vuw.ac.nz> Robert.Biddle@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Robert Biddle) writes:


>Some years ago in Canada, I bought a QUAD 33 pre-amp and a QUAD 303
>power-amp. They have given faithful service.
>I recently brought them here to New Zealand.

>I had thought they were both dual-voltage.
>Sort of.

>The 303 power amp indeed has an interesting rotary pin plug that
>lets you choose between 110, 120, 220, and 240.

>But the 33 pre amp has no external switch; instead it has a piece
>of paper upon which is typed "120 VAC".

>Inside, however, the power connector seems to go through a unit
>with 3 taps, labelled "0" "127" and "250". The leads are connected
>to "0" and "127".

>So what I want to know is this: 
>can I merely move the wire from "127" to "250" to make this unit
>usable to me here in New Zealand?

>I guess I'm hoping the unit really is fully dual-voltage, but they
>were too stingy to include a proper voltage switch.

>Enlightenment, anyone?

>Robert

This must be your lucky day - I haven't yet sold my 33!  On page 11 of the
QUAD 33 instruction book:

   Mains Input (See Figs. 6 & 12)

   A 3-pin connector is provided for the control unit and this should be
   wired to the mains supply using a suitable grade of flexible cable.  In
   countries where an earth is connected to the E terminal of the control
   unit the third pin should be left blank.

   The Quad 33 is supplied wired either for 100-130 volts or for 200-250
   volts AC, but to convert from one range to the other involves merely
   removing the red coiled lead at the rear of the mains transformer from
   its existing position and resoldering it to the appropriately marked
   adjacent tag.  (See Fig. 12.)

BTW, total current drawn must not exceed 2.5 amps at 220 volts, or 5.0 amps
at 110 volts, so you might want to change the fuse.

Hope this helps...  duncan
-- 
Duncan Glendinning         ddrg@ccs.carleton.ca
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario
K1S 5B6
From: starfish@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Smarter than the Average Blur)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Pro-Logic audio equipment for sale
Date: 28 Jan 1993 04:46:24 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <1993Jan27.181525.22416@xylogics.com> reeve@steam.Xylogics.COM (Scott Reeve) writes:
>Denon AVR 610 (only 1 year old)		600		430

Mail order on the 610 is less than $400.

-Alan Waterman
From: chen@cs.unc.edu (David Chen)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Nakamichi Phone Number
Date: 26 Jan 1993 15:58:09 -0500
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: borodin.cs.unc.edu


Does somebody have a phone number or address for Nakamichi's service
department?  I've got a pair of Nak SP-7 headphones that have lost their
screws, so I need some replacements.  The number listed in my owner's
manual was out of date.  Thanks.

dave chen
-- 
________________________David_T._Chen_(chen@cs.unc.edu)________________________
An anthropologist at Tulane has just come back from a field trip to New Guinea
with reports of a tribe so primitive that they have Tide but not new Tide with
lemon-fresh Borax. 	 -- David Letterman
From: kuria@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (K Alappat)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: speakers
Keywords: audio,speakers
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:58:26 GMT
Distribution: usa

Last month I purchased a speaker system - POLK RS3000. It consists of a
subwoofer and two satellite speakers. It costs about $600/-.

The purchase was done after comparing the performance of POLK with Bose
AM-5 Series II (Passive subwoofer) system costing about $650/-. 

Even though both the systems sounded good Polk sounded slightly fuller than
the Bose system. 

Also as per Polk advertisement in Stereoreview, RS3000 has been judged the best
satellite system in its price range for the second year in a row by 1800
audio experts.

Since I have not seen discussion about the Polk RS3000 system on the net I 
would appreciate any commnets on the above system.
Newsgroups: rec.audio