On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 18:34:33 +0100, williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com>
wrote:

>> Didn't the early Beatles stuff have vocals on one side and
>> instrumental on the other? I have no idea why they would do this.
>
> Some songs were two mono tracks rather than stereo. It's still quite
> amusing to just play one channel.

Also phase-invert one and sum.

In article <4fbvdh92ou4lahj532l0rd34a49de4qkqm@4ax.com>, John Armstrong
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
>On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 21:25:34 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <9uisdht3gt6ishif1ea7bhcge636u82bra@4ax.com>, John Armstrong
>><jja@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 21:06:13 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the delightful,
>>>>
>>>>https://www.ancientfm.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>stream.ancientfm.com:8058/stream
>>>
>>>Yes, that is very pleasant. Thanks for bringing it to my attention
>>
>>Pleasure Sir!
>>
>>Many years ago my first wife lived in Long Melford in Suffolk music from
>>that time was a mainstay of the choral and music society at the church
>>there.
>>
>>Plus copious amounts of beer after any practice, and sometimes pub first
>>rehearse in that order!.
>>
>>Absolutely shameless plug for the place, the church is stunning, built
>>with all the wool money that area generated. Actually got married
>>there:)...
>>
>>https://www.longmelfordchurch.com/
>>
>>
>>And just round the coroner the amazing Kentwell a stunningly beautify
>>set Tudor manor house very well worth a visit if you have children their
>>1549 re enactment days are super!, they just pretend it is that time and
>>you can't catch them out thy only know the history Up to that time not
>>after!!
>>
>>https://www.kentwell.co.uk/
>>
>>And to keep it all on topic!, the Sudbury TV mast is a few miles south
>>at Workhouse green!..
>>
>>
>>https://goo.gl/maps/pZWyN1zSfJaBZJrB7
>>
>>What's not to like;?...
>
>Thank you! All most interesting - and what a beautiful church.

If you look up the history of Kentwell hall the Clopton family paid for
that, the Hyde Parkers, yes connected to that bit of London, IIRC were
involved as well. At that time that area was awash with money from sheep
farming hence the oft quoted name the "Wool churches".

If your that way Lavenham is well worth a visit too:)
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <tblom7$1506c$2@dont-email.me>, Woody
<harrogate3@ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
>On Sun 24/07/2022 10:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <tbhecp$1fg6$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Been re-reading some 1970s HFN issues recently and they're very
>>>> different to what you'd see on news-stands now. I'd love to see many
>>>> of the more technical/practical items from then (and earlier)
>>>> reprinted in a book. As it is, you need a collection of old mags to
>>>> read them.
>>
>>> Though you clearly have reasons for having your own collection, for
>>> others I will point out that, as might be expected and I recently
>>> proved, you can find single items or job lots of old mags available on
>>> eBay.
>>
>> I'd recommend the issues of HFN pre the 1980s for having quite a lot of
>> technical info and construction projects. The obvious examples being ones
>> like Radford's early amps, and Jim Sugden's class A. (But change the bias
>> arrangements - as he did later - if you build one! 8-]) Later on, of
>> course, some JLH circuitry. Plus lots of DIY speakers, etc.
>>
>> The explanations of how kit and systems like stereo LP, radio, etc, work
>> are also quite good. And kit eviewers usually knew how things worked, so
>> could give useful info. Not just 'wine tasting' opinions.
>>
>
>Ah yes, JLH (the best in my book), Williamson, and don't forget Stan
>Curtis (of Lecson fame) and the great Doug Self!
>

Them's the days took HFN and Wireless world too, learnt a lot from those
sources!..
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <kw86CUAueu5iFwcP@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4fbvdh92ou4lahj532l0rd34a49de4qkqm@4ax.com>, John Armstrong
> <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
> >On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 21:25:34 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <9uisdht3gt6ishif1ea7bhcge636u82bra@4ax.com>, John Armstrong
> >><jja@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
> >>>On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 21:06:13 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>And the delightful,
> >>>>
> >>>>https://www.ancientfm.com/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>stream.ancientfm.com:8058/stream
> >>>
> >>>Yes, that is very pleasant. Thanks for bringing it to my attention
> >>
> >>Pleasure Sir!
> >>
> >>Many years ago my first wife lived in Long Melford in Suffolk music from
> >>that time was a mainstay of the choral and music society at the church
> >>there.
> >>
> >>Plus copious amounts of beer after any practice, and sometimes pub first
> >>rehearse in that order!.
> >>
> >>Absolutely shameless plug for the place, the church is stunning, built
> >>with all the wool money that area generated. Actually got married
> >>there:)...
> >>
> >>https://www.longmelfordchurch.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>And just round the coroner the amazing Kentwell a stunningly beautify
> >>set Tudor manor house very well worth a visit if you have children their
> >>1549 re enactment days are super!, they just pretend it is that time and
> >>you can't catch them out thy only know the history Up to that time not
> >>after!!
> >>
> >>https://www.kentwell.co.uk/
> >>
> >>And to keep it all on topic!, the Sudbury TV mast is a few miles south
> >>at Workhouse green!..
> >>
> >>
> >>https://goo.gl/maps/pZWyN1zSfJaBZJrB7
> >>
> >>What's not to like;?...
> >
> >Thank you! All most interesting - and what a beautiful church.

> If you look up the history of Kentwell hall the Clopton family paid for
> that, the Hyde Parkers, yes connected to that bit of London, IIRC were
> involved as well. At that time that area was awash with money from sheep
> farming hence the oft quoted name the "Wool churches".

> If your that way Lavenham is well worth a visit too:)

There's an excellent second hand bookshop in Lavenham Church

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <XQM2KgAsgu5iFwZC@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <tblom7$1506c$2@dont-email.me>, Woody
> <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
> >On Sun 24/07/2022 10:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >> In article <tbhecp$1fg6$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> >> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>> On 22/07/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Been re-reading some 1970s HFN issues recently and they're very
> >>>> different to what you'd see on news-stands now. I'd love to see many
> >>>> of the more technical/practical items from then (and earlier)
> >>>> reprinted in a book. As it is, you need a collection of old mags to
> >>>> read them.
> >>
> >>> Though you clearly have reasons for having your own collection, for
> >>> others I will point out that, as might be expected and I recently
> >>> proved, you can find single items or job lots of old mags available
> >>> on eBay.
> >>
> >> I'd recommend the issues of HFN pre the 1980s for having quite a lot
> >> of technical info and construction projects. The obvious examples
> >> being ones like Radford's early amps, and Jim Sugden's class A. (But
> >> change the bias arrangements - as he did later - if you build one!
> >> 8-]) Later on, of course, some JLH circuitry. Plus lots of DIY
> >> speakers, etc.
> >>
> >> The explanations of how kit and systems like stereo LP, radio, etc,
> >> work are also quite good. And kit eviewers usually knew how things
> >> worked, so could give useful info. Not just 'wine tasting' opinions.
> >>
> >
> >Ah yes, JLH (the best in my book), Williamson, and don't forget Stan
> >Curtis (of Lecson fame) and the great Doug Self!
> >

> Them's the days took HFN and Wireless world too, learnt a lot from those
> sources!..

let us not forget George Isardov Earing and his April article on "Dynamic
Range v Ambient Noise."

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sun 31/07/2022 21:38, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <tblom7$1506c$2@dont-email.me>, Woody
> <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
>> On Sun 24/07/2022 10:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> In article <tbhecp$1fg6$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 22/07/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Been re-reading some 1970s HFN issues recently and they're very
>>>>> different to what you'd see on news-stands now. I'd love to see many
>>>>> of the more technical/practical items from then (and earlier)
>>>>> reprinted in a book. As it is, you need a collection of old mags to
>>>>> read them.
>>>
>>>> Though you clearly have reasons for having your own collection, for
>>>> others I will point out that, as might be expected and I recently
>>>> proved, you can find single items or job lots of old mags available on
>>>> eBay.
>>>
>>> I'd recommend the issues of HFN pre the 1980s for having quite a lot of
>>> technical info and construction projects. The obvious examples being ones
>>> like Radford's early amps, and Jim Sugden's class A. (But change the bias
>>> arrangements - as he did later - if you build one! 8-]) Later on, of
>>> course, some JLH circuitry. Plus lots of DIY speakers, etc.
>>>
>>> The explanations of how kit and systems like stereo LP, radio, etc, work
>>> are also quite good. And kit eviewers usually knew how things worked, so
>>> could give useful info. Not just 'wine tasting' opinions.
>>>
>>
>> Ah yes, JLH (the best in my book), Williamson, and don't forget Stan
>> Curtis (of Lecson fame) and the great Doug Self!
>>
>
> Them's the days took HFN and Wireless world too, learnt a lot from those
> sources!..

HFN is back on the shelves - pity WW (or was it E&WW) isn't!

On Sun 31/07/2022 22:03, charles wrote:
> In article <XQM2KgAsgu5iFwZC@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> In article <tblom7$1506c$2@dont-email.me>, Woody
>> <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
>>> On Sun 24/07/2022 10:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> In article <tbhecp$1fg6$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
>>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 22/07/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Been re-reading some 1970s HFN issues recently and they're very
>>>>>> different to what you'd see on news-stands now. I'd love to see many
>>>>>> of the more technical/practical items from then (and earlier)
>>>>>> reprinted in a book. As it is, you need a collection of old mags to
>>>>>> read them.
>>>>
>>>>> Though you clearly have reasons for having your own collection, for
>>>>> others I will point out that, as might be expected and I recently
>>>>> proved, you can find single items or job lots of old mags available
>>>>> on eBay.
>>>>
>>>> I'd recommend the issues of HFN pre the 1980s for having quite a lot
>>>> of technical info and construction projects. The obvious examples
>>>> being ones like Radford's early amps, and Jim Sugden's class A. (But
>>>> change the bias arrangements - as he did later - if you build one!
>>>> 8-]) Later on, of course, some JLH circuitry. Plus lots of DIY
>>>> speakers, etc.
>>>>
>>>> The explanations of how kit and systems like stereo LP, radio, etc,
>>>> work are also quite good. And kit eviewers usually knew how things
>>>> worked, so could give useful info. Not just 'wine tasting' opinions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah yes, JLH (the best in my book), Williamson, and don't forget Stan
>>> Curtis (of Lecson fame) and the great Doug Self!
>>>
>
>> Them's the days took HFN and Wireless world too, learnt a lot from those
>> sources!..
>
> let us not forget George Isardov Earing and his April article on "Dynamic
> Range v Ambient Noise."
>

I remember one once in the early/mid 70's, not sure if it was a comment
or letter in one of the electronics mags but it was at a time when
oxygen free 'directional' speaker cable was coming into fashion (albeit
pre Russ Andrews!)

A Frenchman wrote to whatever and said that he had found that wiring his
door bell up using Litz wire improved the 'tintinnabular sonority' of
the bell.

Clearly they weren't all locked up then just as they are not now!

On Sun 31/07/2022 21:35, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <4fbvdh92ou4lahj532l0rd34a49de4qkqm@4ax.com>, John Armstrong
> <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 21:25:34 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <9uisdht3gt6ishif1ea7bhcge636u82bra@4ax.com>, John Armstrong
>>> <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 21:06:13 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And the delightful,
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ancientfm.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> stream.ancientfm.com:8058/stream
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that is very pleasant. Thanks for bringing it to my attention
>>>
>>> Pleasure Sir!
>>>
>>> Many years ago my first wife lived in Long Melford in Suffolk music from
>>> that time was a mainstay of the choral and music society at the church
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Plus copious amounts of beer after any practice, and sometimes pub first
>>> rehearse in that order!.
>>>
>>> Absolutely shameless plug for the place, the church is stunning, built
>>> with all the wool money that area generated. Actually got married
>>> there:)...
>>>
>>> https://www.longmelfordchurch.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> And just round the coroner the amazing Kentwell a stunningly beautify
>>> set Tudor manor house very well worth a visit if you have children their
>>> 1549 re enactment days are super!, they just pretend it is that time and
>>> you can't catch them out thy only know the history Up to that time not
>>> after!!
>>>
>>> https://www.kentwell.co.uk/
>>>
>>> And to keep it all on topic!, the Sudbury TV mast is a few miles south
>>> at Workhouse green!..
>>>
>>>
>>> https://goo.gl/maps/pZWyN1zSfJaBZJrB7
>>>
>>> What's not to like;?...
>>
>> Thank you! All most interesting - and what a beautiful church.
>
> If you look up the history of Kentwell hall the Clopton family paid for
> that, the Hyde Parkers, yes connected to that bit of London, IIRC were
> involved as well. At that time that area was awash with money from sheep
> farming hence the oft quoted name the "Wool churches".
>
> If your that way Lavenham is well worth a visit too:)

As is Long Melford just down the road from Kentwell, and Clare.

There's also a whole load of Adnam's shops all over the place and
amongst many other things, liquid and solid, they sell some superb
branded (my moulding) beer glasses. Did you know they also make wine?

We had three weeks in Cambridge, Suffolk SE of Sudbury, and Sandringham
in May this year.

On 25/07/2022 09:42 pm, tony sayer wrote:

> <snipped>

>> Before this, and in the hands of other well-known EMI producers, the
>> stereo and mono recordings were often made at the same time, capturing
>> the same performance (not always), with the studio outputs feeding two
>> control rooms, with one recording in 2-track stereo and the other
>> recording in what was known as delta mono. Norrie Paramor (more
>> correctly, his favoured engineer, Malcolm Addey) tended to use this
>> method for his artistes (Cliff Richard, The Shadows, Helen Shapiro and
>> others) plus his own and other orchestras. With this technique, once the
>> performance was over, that was it, finito. The take was complete and
>> either acceptable for release or needing to be done again.
>
>> I'll... er... get me coat.

> Nay lad keep thy coat!, all interesting stuff! Remember years ago a hi-
> fi exhibition in London they, and buggered if i can remember who now,
> may have even been EMI themselves! had a couple of BTR 2 machines used
> by the Beatles and others at that time!..

> https://www.abbeyroad.com/news/btr-2-gearthatmadeus-3175

I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.

It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very many
other people.

On 01/08/2022 16:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:

>> I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
>> Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
>>
>> It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
>> impressed. Judging by the way quad later  went, neither were very many
>> other people.
>
> In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square Theatre. It
> was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
> (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>).
> Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
> unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud that it
> was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It
> didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've
> heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much
> more impressive.

I saw that too; I thought it was rather impressive, with extra speaker
units around the auditorium. Surround sound in the cinema gives a
feeling of being in the action.

People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would
want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema" became
quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby Stereo).

Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read
only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.

> Have you ever tried quadraphonic headphones?

I saw some at an exhibition; I don't know how they were supposed to work
as I think front to back directionality depends (at least in part) on
turning your head to locate sounds.

--
Max Demian

On 01/08/2022 18:16, Max Demian wrote:
> On 01/08/2022 16:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
>>> Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
>>>
>>> It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
>>> impressed. Judging by the way quad later  went, neither were very many
>>> other people.
>>
>> In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square Theatre. It
>> was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
>> (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>).
>> Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
>> unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud that it
>> was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It
>> didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've
>> heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much
>> more impressive.
>
> I saw that too; I thought it was rather impressive, with extra speaker
> units around the auditorium. Surround sound in the cinema gives a
> feeling of being in the action.

As far as I remember I was about three rows from the back and between
the centre and RHS. Perhaps if you were sitting halfway between front
and back, and midway between left and right, the sound might have been
good. But most of the audience would have been getting a very unbalanced
sound in one way or another.

The best sound I have ever heard was at Earl's Court in August 1980,
where Pink Floyd did "The Wall". I read that they used 55kW of
amplification, of which 18kW was used for subsonic woofers. When The
Wall came down at the end, it felt like there was an earthquake!

> People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would
> want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema" became
> quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby Stereo).
>
> Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read
> only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
> becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.

The first LaserDisc players were very expensive; according to the wiki,
over $3000 in 1978.

>> Have you ever tried quadraphonic headphones?
>
> I saw some at an exhibition; I don't know how they were supposed to work
> as I think front to back directionality depends (at least in part) on
> turning your head to locate sounds.

--

Jeff

On 01/08/2022 04:53 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/07/2022 09:42 pm, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>>> <snipped>
>>
>>>> Before this, and in the hands of other well-known EMI producers, the
>>>> stereo and mono recordings were often made at the same time, capturing
>>>> the same performance (not always), with the studio outputs feeding two
>>>> control rooms, with one recording in 2-track stereo and the other
>>>> recording in what was known as delta mono. Norrie Paramor (more
>>>> correctly, his favoured engineer, Malcolm Addey) tended to use this
>>>> method for his artistes (Cliff Richard, The Shadows, Helen Shapiro and
>>>> others) plus his own and other orchestras. With this technique, once
>>>> the
>>>> performance was over, that was it, finito. The take was complete and
>>>> either acceptable for release or needing to be done again.
>>>
>>>> I'll... er... get me coat.
>>
>>> Nay lad keep thy coat!, all interesting stuff! Remember years ago a hi-
>>> fi exhibition in  London  they, and buggered if i can remember who now,
>>> may have even been EMI themselves! had a couple of BTR 2 machines used
>>> by the Beatles and others at that time!..
>>
>>> https://www.abbeyroad.com/news/btr-2-gearthatmadeus-3175
>>
>> I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
>> Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
>>
>> It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
>> impressed. Judging by the way quad later  went, neither were very many
>> other people.
>
> In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square Theatre. It
> was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
> (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>).
> Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
> unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud that it
> was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It
> didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've
> heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much
> more impressive.
>
> Have you ever tried quadraphonic headphones?

I haven't.

I remember handling a pair in a shop (two transducers on each side,
arranged at about 120° from each other), but never heard them working.

On 01/08/2022 06:16 pm, Max Demian wrote:
> On 01/08/2022 16:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
>>> Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
>>>
>>> It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
>>> impressed. Judging by the way quad later  went, neither were very many
>>> other people.
>>
>> In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square Theatre.
>> It was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
>> (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>). Although
>> I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was unimpressed by
>> the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud that it was
>> impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It
>> didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've
>> heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much
>> more impressive.
>
> I saw that too; I thought it was rather impressive, with extra speaker
> units around the auditorium. Surround sound in the cinema gives a
> feeling of being in the action.
>
> People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would
> want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema" became
> quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby Stereo).
>
> Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read
> only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
> becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.

When N1500 / N1700, Beta, and V2000 were the only domestic replay
methods, publishing material commercially involved mechanical
complications. When DVD came in, it must have been much cheaper to
produce than VHS videogrammes. The same for Blu-Ray and (of course) for
CD as compared with LP and musicassette.

The retail price of a pre-recorded film on VHS in about 1979 was over
£40 (worth more than £150 in today's prices). Renting a VHS from a video
hire shop used to be £2 or £3 a night (up to £12 in today's prices).

Today, typically, the latest film is usually priced at no more than
about £15 on DVD and a little more for Blu-Ray.

AAMOF, DVD is often less than £10 to buy for a recent release in
supermarkets - and that's less then the real terms price of renting
overnight at the turn of the 1980s.

That's why it caught on!

>> Have you ever tried quadraphonic headphones?
>
> I saw some at an exhibition; I don't know how they were supposed to work
> as I think front to back directionality depends (at least in part) on
> turning your head to locate sounds.

On 01/08/2022 06:59 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 01/08/2022 18:16, Max Demian wrote:
>> On 01/08/2022 16:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>> I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
>>>> Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
>>>>
>>>> It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
>>>> impressed. Judging by the way quad later  went, neither were very many
>>>> other people.
>>>
>>> In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square Theatre. It
>>> was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
>>> (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>).
>>> Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
>>> unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud that it
>>> was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It
>>> didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've
>>> heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much
>>> more impressive.
>>
>> I saw that too; I thought it was rather impressive, with extra speaker
>> units around the auditorium. Surround sound in the cinema gives a
>> feeling of being in the action.
>
> As far as I remember I was about three rows from the back and between
> the centre and RHS. Perhaps if you were sitting halfway between front
> and back, and midway between left and right, the sound might have been
> good. But most of the audience would have been getting a very unbalanced
> sound in one way or another.
>
> The best sound I have ever heard was at Earl's Court in August 1980,
> where Pink Floyd did "The Wall". I read that they used 55kW of
> amplification, of which 18kW was used for subsonic woofers. When The
> Wall came down at the end, it felt like there was an earthquake!
>
>> People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would
>> want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema" became
>> quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby Stereo).
>>
>> Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read
>> only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
>> becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.
>
> The first LaserDisc players were very expensive; according to the wiki,
> over $3000 in 1978.

The first CD players were expensive too. About £700 in 1983.
>
>>> Have you ever tried quadraphonic headphones?
>>
>> I saw some at an exhibition; I don't know how they were supposed to work
>> as I think front to back directionality depends (at least in part) on
>> turning your head to locate sounds.
>

In article <XQM2KgAsgu5iFwZC@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

> Them's the days took HFN and Wireless world too, learnt a lot from those
> sources!..

Me too! My initial education in electronics was from articles in the
then-current HFN. I reget that it is now essentially a consumer mag and
won't really include 'technical' articles any more. FWIW I have suggested
more than once that they issue reprints of some of the classic technical
and construction articles. But not interested.

Alas, I fear they may be correct to assume that most modern readers would
feel annoyed by seeing 'technical' articles they find they can't really
understand. So in commercial terms, the attitude makes sense. But it leaves
it to 'the net' or books. Alas, the net isn't always a good reference if
you don't already have enough knowledge to sort wheat from chaff.

And one of the *big* problems of the UK is the decades of lacking a
decently supprted *techincal* education system. Both FE and apprenticeships
have been discarded in the rush to 'banking' and other forms of
monkey-motions.

Jim

Jim

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tc6ruv$g4mg$2@dont-email.me>, Woody
<harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

> HFN is back on the shelves - pity WW (or was it E&WW) isn't!

One advantage of WW/EW ceasing is that many issues are now on the World
Radio History website. :-)

Alas, being able to find and read old back issues of HFN is rather more
difficult. I've managed to get all but a dozen or so, but only via decades
of trying... and having a lot of big bookshelves!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jkpsgjFpmgU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
> Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.

I first heard it at Kingswood Warren a few years later. That was pretty
impressive.

> It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
> impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very many
> other people.

The problem I suspect was that many 'quad' items were via 'encodings' like
QS and SQ which relied on fiddling with the behaviour of a standard LP
stereo system. Basically, not up to it.

On top of that, good quad reproduction (and surround sound now) relies on a
much better listening room acoustic and matched/carefully placed speakers.
More demanding than stereo. (What I heard at KW was in a carefully prepared
room via monitors from a 4-track tape of R3 event. Was nothing like any
room you'd choose to live in. And not 'encoded'.)

"Surround" in the home makes more sense as effects for a film. But I've
always preferred good stereo for music. The pictures are better. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5a118e0f91bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> All personal taste and opinion but clearly you were happy with the sound
> of those early players. I wasn't convinced by them at all and my wife
> was very anti. I wasn't until the Meridian 207 came out (~1987) when she
> remarked with a grin 'wow, it's playing the same record as the
> turntable'.

I got one of the early Marantz takes on the Philips chipset. It was OK, but
sounded better when I added a LPF that was made for FM Stereo. Gave a
cutoff at about 16kHz and helped kill garbage above that.

> The 207 was quickly bettered by the 208 which IMHO remained
> substantially unbeaten at least in my price range,

I also switched to Meridian 200 items for a while, and the changed to the
500 series DS DAC. In some ways the nicest sounding one I've used. Alas, it
it has no USB input and can't cope with > 48k rate. So a tad limited for
modern purposes.

OTOH I found the 200 player a PITA. Very fussy about what it would play and
the casting was warped so it would foul some CDs. Had eventually to send it
back to be replaced with a better example.

FWIW I've now settled on using Pioneer CD *recorders* to play CDs. They
play commercial CDs that seem 'difficult' in other players as well as CDR/W
discs quite reliably.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Tue 02/08/2022 10:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <5a118e0f91bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> All personal taste and opinion but clearly you were happy with the sound
>> of those early players. I wasn't convinced by them at all and my wife
>> was very anti. I wasn't until the Meridian 207 came out (~1987) when she
>> remarked with a grin 'wow, it's playing the same record as the
>> turntable'.
>
> I got one of the early Marantz takes on the Philips chipset. It was OK, but
> sounded better when I added a LPF that was made for FM Stereo. Gave a
> cutoff at about 16kHz and helped kill garbage above that.
>
>> The 207 was quickly bettered by the 208 which IMHO remained
>> substantially unbeaten at least in my price range,
>
> I also switched to Meridian 200 items for a while, and the changed to the
> 500 series DS DAC. In some ways the nicest sounding one I've used. Alas, it
> it has no USB input and can't cope with > 48k rate. So a tad limited for
> modern purposes.
>
> OTOH I found the 200 player a PITA. Very fussy about what it would play and
> the casting was warped so it would foul some CDs. Had eventually to send it
> back to be replaced with a better example.
>
> FWIW I've now settled on using Pioneer CD *recorders* to play CDs. They
> play commercial CDs that seem 'difficult' in other players as well as CDR/W
> discs quite reliably.
>

ISTR that Meridian (and Boothroyd-Stuart for that matter) used Philips
drives in their kit but wrote their own software for them?

Of interest I have on a shelf behind me a Pioneer DVD player that, as
you say, will play anything. It has the advantage of being able to play
Super Audio CDs as well with four channels.

Per my hi-fi I bought some time ago a Marantz CD5400SE player which of
all the types I have had (mainly Philips) is by far the easiest to
listen two and amazingly quiet.

On Tue 02/08/2022 10:11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <jkpsgjFpmgU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
>> Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
>
> I first heard it at Kingswood Warren a few years later. That was pretty
> impressive.
>
>> It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
>> impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very many
>> other people.
>
> The problem I suspect was that many 'quad' items were via 'encodings' like
> QS and SQ which relied on fiddling with the behaviour of a standard LP
> stereo system. Basically, not up to it.
>
> On top of that, good quad reproduction (and surround sound now) relies on a
> much better listening room acoustic and matched/carefully placed speakers.
> More demanding than stereo. (What I heard at KW was in a carefully prepared
> room via monitors from a 4-track tape of R3 event. Was nothing like any
> room you'd choose to live in. And not 'encoded'.)
>
> "Surround" in the home makes more sense as effects for a film. But I've
> always preferred good stereo for music. The pictures are better. :-)
>

Again totally agree Jim, save that if you want to get some ambience the
Hafler system always seemed to work for me. Two speakers at the back -
not hi-fi so no bass and little treble - wired across the L and R amp
+ve outputs.

Again in a cupboard behind be (a walk-in variety) I have a Yamaha DSP
unit that can generate all sorts of effects from abog standard stereo
input. How it does it I know not, but when I was prepared to play around
with it the results with some music were amazing!

On 02/08/2022 07:26 am, Woody wrote:

> On Tue 02/08/2022 01:35, JNugent wrote:
>> On 01/08/2022 06:59 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2022 18:16, Max Demian wrote:
>>>> On 01/08/2022 16:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>> On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
>>>>>> Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
>>>>>> It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
>>>>>> impressed. Judging by the way quad later  went, neither were very
>>>>>> many other people.
>
>>>>> In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square
>>>>> Theatre. It was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
>>>>> (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>).
>>>>> Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
>>>>> unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud
>>>>> that it was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was
>>>>> coming! It didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid,
>>>>> although I've heard a properly set up quad speaker system since,
>>>>> and that was much more impressive.
>
>>>> I saw that too; I thought it was rather impressive, with extra speaker
>>>> units around the auditorium. Surround sound in the cinema gives a
>>>> feeling of being in the action.
>
>>> As far as I remember I was about three rows from the back and between
>>> the centre and RHS. Perhaps if you were sitting halfway between front
>>> and back, and midway between left and right, the sound might have
>>> been good. But most of the audience would have been getting a very
>>> unbalanced sound in one way or another.
>>> The best sound I have ever heard was at Earl's Court in August 1980,
>>> where Pink Floyd did "The Wall". I read that they used 55kW of
>>> amplification, of which 18kW was used for subsonic woofers. When The
>>> Wall came down at the end, it felt like there was an earthquake!
>
>>>> People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would
>>>> want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema"
>>>> became quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby
>>>> Stereo).
>>>> Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read
>>>> only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
>>>> becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.
>
>>> The first LaserDisc players were very expensive; according to the
>>> wiki, over $3000 in 1978.
>
>> The first CD players were expensive too. About £700 in 1983.

> [snip]
>
> Are you talking of equivalent prices in today's money?

In the case of the CD player, that's the approximate original RRP in 1983.

> The original
> price of the first Philips machines (only 14bit) was the CD104 which was
> about £300 but soon dropped to nearer £200. Then along came the CD160
> (of which I still have one in full working order) and that cost about
> £200 which soon dropped to about £150 when I bought it.

I can remember Comet selling an early player for £500. They usually sold
at a discount. The USA price (well-publicised in American magazines of
the day was a nice round $1,000.

My first CD player was a JVC I bought in 1990 for about £140 (the
prevailing prices had fallen a lot since introduction and as more
manufacturers entered the market)

In article <tcbbie$1ho4l$1@dont-email.me>,
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> ISTR that Meridian (and Boothroyd-Stuart for that matter) used
> Philips drives in their kit but wrote their own software for them?

If I recall correctly Meridian did indeed use the basic mechanism of
a Philips player and the same DAC. The differences were in the power
supply, the analogue stages, board layout and even the case work.
I've no idea what proportion of the differences came from where.

Bob.

In article <5a1195bcecnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> FWIW I've now settled on using Pioneer CD *recorders* to play CDs.
> They play commercial CDs that seem 'difficult' in other players as
> well as CDR/W discs quite reliably.

I don't listen to CDs at all now, I prefer the streamer and my music
stored as flac files, less clutter, less fuss and IMHO, sounds better.

I do still have my Meridian 208 but it's upstairs in the office where
it gets very, very rare use to rip CDs that are copy protected. I've
ripped thousands of CDs and had 3 or 4 that were protected and the
computer couldn't rip them. So I played them on the Meridian and
recorded the digital spdif output with Audacity, jobs a good 'en.

Bob.

On 02/08/2022 07:26, Woody wrote:
> Are you talking of equivalent prices in today's money? The original
> price of the first Philips machines (only 14bit) was the CD104 which was
> about £300 but soon dropped to nearer £200. Then along came the CD160
> (of which I still have one in full working order) and that cost about
> £200 which soon dropped to about £150 when I bought it.

My first one was a "Mission PCM linear phase full digital processing"
and it cost £411.

Bill

On 02/08/2022 07:26 am, Woody wrote:

> On Tue 02/08/2022 01:35, JNugent wrote:
>> On 01/08/2022 06:59 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2022 18:16, Max Demian wrote:
>>>> On 01/08/2022 16:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>> On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
>>>>>> Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
>>>>>> impressed. Judging by the way quad later  went, neither were very
>>>>>> many
>>>>>> other people.
>>>>>
>>>>> In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square
>>>>> Theatre. It
>>>>> was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
>>>>> (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>).
>>>>>
>>>>> Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
>>>>> unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud
>>>>> that it
>>>>> was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It
>>>>> didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've
>>>>> heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much
>>>>> more impressive.
>>>>
>>>> I saw that too; I thought it was rather impressive, with extra speaker
>>>> units around the auditorium. Surround sound in the cinema gives a
>>>> feeling of being in the action.
>>>
>>> As far as I remember I was about three rows from the back and between
>>> the centre and RHS. Perhaps if you were sitting halfway between front
>>> and back, and midway between left and right, the sound might have
>>> been good. But most of the audience would have been getting a very
>>> unbalanced sound in one way or another.
>>>
>>> The best sound I have ever heard was at Earl's Court in August 1980,
>>> where Pink Floyd did "The Wall". I read that they used 55kW of
>>> amplification, of which 18kW was used for subsonic woofers. When The
>>> Wall came down at the end, it felt like there was an earthquake!
>>>
>>>> People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would
>>>> want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema"
>>>> became
>>>> quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby Stereo).
>>>>
>>>> Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read
>>>> only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
>>>> becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.
>>>
>>> The first LaserDisc players were very expensive; according to the
>>> wiki, over $3000 in 1978.
>>
>> The first CD players were expensive too. About £700 in 1983.
> [snip]
>
> Are you talking of equivalent prices in today's money?

I wasn't, but of course, even at the £500 price, that would equate to at
least £1,400 today.

> The original
> price of the first Philips machines (only 14bit) was the CD104 which was
> about £300 but soon dropped to nearer £200. Then along came the CD160
> (of which I still have one in full working order) and that cost about
> £200 which soon dropped to about £150 when I bought it.

An American price for 1982/83 seems to be $1,000. That too would have
been about £500 then, £1,400 now.

The repeated tale with electronic equipment over the period since WW2
has been that early adopters pay a premium, with prices dropping as more
suppliers enter the market (perhaps not to much 1945 - 1955, but
certainly since then).