Jim Lesurf wrote:

Yes. If you look at my website you can find examples taken from some
audio CDs.


Very informative response: thank you.

--
SteveT

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:47:02 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Norman Wells wrote:

I don't deny it. If they didn't exist, though, you'd not only have a
better incentive to remember the original, but still be able to watch it
later over t'internet. It's a question of whether we could do better
with the bandwidth.

If God meant us to have +1 channels he wouldn't have given us PVRs.


That chimes with a saying I often used to use 30 years ago whenever
someone had the temerity to ask why I ever bothered with an IBM PC
clone. It went like this:

"If I wanted to _pay_ for my software, I wouldn't have a bought a PC
now, would I?".

I suppose I could have just as easily rephrased that sentiment as:

"If God had meant us to pay for our software, he wouldn't have given
us the IBM PC." :-)
--
Regards, J B Good

On 01/05/14 10:27, RJH wrote:
I probably did the definitive work on making transistor guitar amps
sound like valve amps. Everybody copied it, its now standard stuff. NO
design left to do there either.


Impressive. Do you happen to know if any of the ideas found their way
into domestic hifi?

you really wouldn't want them there..

Guitar amp = the greatest distance from the original sound...

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 30/04/2014 11:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
It makes no difference. The maximum playing time was dictated by the
mastering machine of the day.

Actually given the disc size and laser frequency it's pretty well
limited to what they had. That's why no-one has really squeezed more
than 80 minutes in - the squashed tracks give errors.

It's carefully designed so that the first diffraction fringe of the
laser falls in the gap between the adjacent track and the one after.

Andy

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 01/05/14 10:27, RJH wrote:
I probably did the definitive work on making transistor guitar amps
sound like valve amps. Everybody copied it, its now standard stuff. NO
design left to do there either.


Impressive. Do you happen to know if any of the ideas found their way
into domestic hifi?

you really wouldn't want them there..

Guitar amp = the greatest distance from the original sound...

Which is the sound that the "closest approach" tries to keep that
way...


--
Tony Sayer

On 01/05/14 22:48, tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 01/05/14 10:27, RJH wrote:
I probably did the definitive work on making transistor guitar amps
sound like valve amps. Everybody copied it, its now standard stuff. NO
design left to do there either.


Impressive. Do you happen to know if any of the ideas found their way
into domestic hifi?

you really wouldn't want them there..

Guitar amp = the greatest distance from the original sound...

Which is the sound that the "closest approach" tries to keep that
way...

Once you get into amplified instruments, it makes a total mockery of 'hi fi'






--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
My ultimate test of a hi-fi system was never to listen to the music,
only to the applause afterwards. If you could hear each individual
handclap instead of a mush of white noise, you had a very top line
system indeed.

Natural sounding male voice is an excellent test as well....

Far better test. Although it's getting more difficult to find a well
recorded one.


Was setting up the new studio for Cambridge 105 the other week and we
had someone in the studio next door chatting away for testing the studio
input to the main desk, sounded that good as if he was in the same room.

One person answered him, thought he -was- in the room;!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Huge
scribeth thus
On 2014-04-30, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Steve Thackery
scribeth thus
Jim Lesurf wrote:

[snip]

If you mean over-compressed so the dynamic range is limited, I can
accept what you mean. Pop/rock often seems to have virtually the same
volume level for the "quiet" and "loud" bits regardless.

Thats a problem with modern music or recordings .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_wars


Processing or multiband compression is a necessary evil for a lot of
broadcast radio seeing the very few for most all of the working day will
be far from decent listening environments and thats the way that is..

However that notion has now filtered thru to record producers who think
the radio sound is how it ought be. I doubt that many of them would know
thats done with a specialised broadcast processor to make it sound the
way it is....
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/04/2014 11:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
It makes no difference. The maximum playing time was dictated by the
mastering machine of the day.

Actually given the disc size and laser frequency it's pretty well
limited to what they had. That's why no-one has really squeezed more
than 80 minutes in - the squashed tracks give errors.

I'd ask then why they chose that size? No reason not to make it bigger if
a longer time was needed/possible. Remember it was a completely fresh
concept.

It's carefully designed so that the first diffraction fringe of the
laser falls in the gap between the adjacent track and the one after.

Andy

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2014 20:21:05 +0100, chris French wrote:

In message , polygonum
writes
On 01/05/2014 18:57, The Medway Handyman wrote:
WD40 is recommended by Yale.

Who have no financial interest in locks needing to be replaced?

All too many "manufacturer of X recommends product Y" are without any
sensible grounds whatsoever. Except, maybe, money.


WD works fine as a light lubricant, and being an aerosol can easily be
sprayed into a locks innards.

I just puff in some powdered graphite.

If you mean for the bit the key goes into, yes. I thought it was accepted
practice not to use a conventional oil as dirt would stick to it and gum
it up. As regards the lock mechanism (that the key doesn't touch) they're
usually greased.

--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 02 May 2014 00:28:05 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2014 20:21:05 +0100, chris French wrote:

In message , polygonum
writes
On 01/05/2014 18:57, The Medway Handyman wrote:
WD40 is recommended by Yale.

Who have no financial interest in locks needing to be replaced?

All too many "manufacturer of X recommends product Y" are without any
sensible grounds whatsoever. Except, maybe, money.


WD works fine as a light lubricant, and being an aerosol can easily
be sprayed into a locks innards.

I just puff in some powdered graphite.

If you mean for the bit the key goes into, yes. I thought it was
accepted practice not to use a conventional oil as dirt would stick to
it and gum it up. As regards the lock mechanism (that the key doesn't
touch) they're usually greased.

Sorry, quite agree.

Have some lock work this weekend - installing an electric release! As it
happens, there are strict instructions NEVER to lubricate it.

So I guess WD40 is OK (ducks)!



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In message , NY
writes

My dad had a large cabinet of Meccano - lots of drawers with little
compartments for each type of gear, plate, metal strip etc. I used to
love making models (eg a back-axle differential) with it, but when I
grew up and left home, Dad lent the Meccano to a work colleague for his
son to play with. After a year or so he asked for it back. The
colleague had thought that it was a gift and had eventually disposed of
it (he hadn't even sold it) when his son got tired of it. Relations
between dad and his colleague were a bit strained for ever afterwards :-(

Ouch. Sadly, I think most of us would have lost our favourite toys or
hobbies in similar circumstances. It was normal for anything we were
deemed to have grown out of to go to younger children of friends or
relatives. Failing that, there were always jumble sales for some good
cause. Whatever happened to my Dinky Toys?

One result, though. A year or two ago, I opened a parcel from my
brother, only to find lots of plastic soldiers he had found in our Mum's
loft; not the little Airfix ones, but larger by Britains, Timpo etc.
Some were free with Kellog's Cornflakes. Some I had been given by
Father Christmas at Gamages, the same year my Dad had made me a wooden
fort for Christmas. Probably 1956 or 57.
--
Graeme

On 01/05/2014 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'd ask then why they chose that size? No reason not to make it bigger if
a longer time was needed/possible. Remember it was a completely fresh
concept.

It meant the drive was the same size as the then-standard half-height 5
1/4 inch hard discs and floppies.I know of no other reason for the disc
size.

Incidentally one of the reasons why 5 1/4 floppies held as much as 8
inch was that one limit is the way the disc changes size with humidity!

Andy

On Fri, 02 May 2014 21:32:05 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 01/05/2014 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'd ask then why they chose that size? No reason not to make it bigger if
a longer time was needed/possible. Remember it was a completely fresh
concept.

It meant the drive was the same size as the then-standard half-height 5
1/4 inch hard discs and floppies.I know of no other reason for the disc
size.

Incidentally one of the reasons why 5 1/4 floppies held as much as 8
inch was that one limit is the way the disc changes size with humidity!

Andy

True but you still had the same problem since the track pitch was
also scaled down requiring finer absolute indenting accuracy of the
head stepper drive. They got around this by including a suitable
length of the base material used by the floppy disks themselves as
part of the head carriage assembly which meant the changes due to
humidity levels were cancelled out.

Obviously, putting a floppy disk in the drive that had been stored in
a location with a different humdity level to that of the drive could
throw this temporarily out of alignment but this was rare on account
the disks were usually stored in the same room as the computer.
--
Regards, J B Good

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 01/05/2014 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'd ask then why they chose that size? No reason not to make it bigger
if a longer time was needed/possible. Remember it was a completely
fresh concept.

It meant the drive was the same size as the then-standard half-height 5
1/4 inch hard discs and floppies.I know of no other reason for the disc
size.

I'd be most surprised if that was a consideration. After all, Philips
already had the laser disc which was LP sized. They could have made the CD
the same size as a 7" record with much greater playing time. But there was
no digital mastering system at that time which could do longer.

Incidentally one of the reasons why 5 1/4 floppies held as much as 8
inch was that one limit is the way the disc changes size with humidity!

Andy

--
*Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 01/05/2014 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'd ask then why they chose that size? No reason not to make it bigger
if a longer time was needed/possible. Remember it was a completely
fresh concept.

It meant the drive was the same size as the then-standard half-height 5
1/4 inch hard discs and floppies.I know of no other reason for the disc
size.

I'd be most surprised if that was a consideration. After all, Philips
already had the laser disc which was LP sized. They could have made the CD
the same size as a 7" record with much greater playing time.

Nah!, they couldn't have called it Compact Disc then so the CD couldn't
have been invented;!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I'd be most surprised if that was a consideration. After all, Philips
already had the laser disc which was LP sized. They could have made the
CD the same size as a 7" record with much greater playing time.

Nah!, they couldn't have called it Compact Disc then so the CD couldn't
have been invented;!...

It would still be compact compared to the LP it was meant to replace. ;-)

--
*Until I was thirteen, I thought my name was SHUT UP .

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 01/05/2014 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'd ask then why they chose that size? No reason not to make it bigger if
a longer time was needed/possible. Remember it was a completely fresh
concept.

It meant the drive was the same size as the then-standard half-height 5
1/4 inch hard discs and floppies.I know of no other reason for the disc
size.

I doubt that the CD-ROM was envisioned when the CD was invented.

--
Max Demian

On 03/05/2014 15:44, Max Demian wrote:
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 01/05/2014 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'd ask then why they chose that size? No reason not to make it bigger if
a longer time was needed/possible. Remember it was a completely fresh
concept.

It meant the drive was the same size as the then-standard half-height 5
1/4 inch hard discs and floppies.I know of no other reason for the disc
size.

I doubt that the CD-ROM was envisioned when the CD was invented.

The Yellow Book standard for CD-ROM was published in 1988, at the same
time as the Orange Book for CD-R, the Red Book for Audio CD was
published in 1980.

Then, in 1993, came the White Book for Video CDs.

One reason for making it the size it is could have been that they may
have looked forwards (As engineers often do) and foreseen that the CD
drive could replace the 5 1/4" floppy drive in a standard computer case.
People also found it a comfortable size to hold and view the "label",
and that holds true for Blu Ray even now.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
One reason for making it the size it is could have been that they may
have looked forwards (As engineers often do) and foreseen that the CD
drive could replace the 5 1/4" floppy drive in a standard computer case.
People also found it a comfortable size to hold and view the "label",
and that holds true for Blu Ray even now.

That assumes they realised it would be possible to home record a CD. I
don't think this was thought possible when the system was devised. As I
said, it was a replacement for LPs.

--
*Too many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 03/05/2014 16:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
One reason for making it the size it is could have been that they may
have looked forwards (As engineers often do) and foreseen that the CD
drive could replace the 5 1/4" floppy drive in a standard computer case.
People also found it a comfortable size to hold and view the "label",
and that holds true for Blu Ray even now.

That assumes they realised it would be possible to home record a CD. I
don't think this was thought possible when the system was devised. As I
said, it was a replacement for LPs.

Do you not recall the fuss made over "multimedia" when it came to the PC?

(not your true multimedia as practiced on other platforms of the time -
where the computer controlled a multitude of AV devices, but basically a
PC with CD ROM and a sound card).

Apparently "you could now run applications like interactive
encyclopaedia..." and software released on CD would be "impossible to
pirate" since they had so huge a capacity they were much bigger than
your HD, and you would need an impractical number of floppies to copy one.

The arrival of the CD writer kind of put the kibosh on those ideas (even
if the first single speed drive released was $15,000).

I remeber getting my first Toshiba 3401B CD ROM drive[1] (with caddy
load), and some PD software / "stuff" disks. It felt overwhelming having
650MB of stuff to sort through on a machine with a "large" 40MB hard drive!


[1] Just wondering how sad it is that I remember the model number 25
years later? Still it was chosen carefully so that I could share it
between platforms in an external SCSI drive enclosure (which I made from
a standalone IBM 5.25" floppy drive unit)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 03/05/2014 14:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
It would still be compact compared to the LP it was meant to replace.;-)

And I still think of Compact as a television program...

--
Rod

On 03/05/2014 16:25, John Williamson wrote:
One reason for making it the size it is could have been that they may
have looked forwards (As engineers often do) and foreseen that the CD
drive could replace the 5 1/4" floppy drive in a standard computer case.

I have long assumed that all disc sizes were derived from standard rack
mounts. (With the odd exception such as the 3" drive used in some
Amstrad machines.) So I'd go along with that but maybe as a pre-recorded
CD-ROM rather than a rewritable device like a floppy?

'Tis a pity they didn't adopt a standard screw for fixing all drives...

--
Rod

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2014 14:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
It would still be compact compared to the LP it was meant
to replace.;-)

And I still think of Compact as a television program...



Sad beggar - but I know what you mean!


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

In message ,
writes

Seemed every bloody contestant on a TV quiz show back then when asked
what their hobby was answered HI FI. Usually meant they had bought
their first stereo turntable in Woolies and a K Tel compilation to
play on it.

ROFL! Very true.
--
Graeme