news

Best algorithm for LZW ..C language

>
>One of my friends ordered it from a Recordshop in Gothenburg, but got
>the answer that it was sold out. However, they didn't say that the
>record isn't existing on CD. He was supposed to recieve it later.
>Any wiser of that?
>

Correction:

Received is spelled received, not recieved. :-)

My friend told me that they said "Tales.. is not on CD." That's why he didn't
get it. Sorry for the confusing information.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~                                                                             ~
~  Ulrik 'Rick' Sandberg  [e-mail] (or)                              ~
~  Computer Technology	  [e-mail] (or)                            ~
~  University of Lulea    {uunet,mcvax}!enea!psi.luth.se!d2c-usg              ~
~  Sweden                                                                     ~
~  phone: [phone] (home)       "I feel lost in the city..."             ~
~                                       --  Jon Anderson  --                  ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#! rnews 1128
Path: alberta!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!lll-lcc!pyramid!decwrl!cssaus.dec.com!bell
From: [e-mail] (Peter Bell, SNA-2, Sydney)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Hogwood
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Dec 87 05:23:00 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 15

I have just finished singing (in choir) under Hogwood, it was an experience. We
sang Schuberts Mass in G, (as Schubert wrote it, missing a few phrases of the
Credo). Hogwood knew exactly what he wanted, and worked till we did it right.
Then as we tidied up the last few problems, he would let us sing through whole
sections, then go back and point out all the problems.

We also sang the Messiah (not with Hogwood unfortunately) the delight of
those performances was Elizabeth Cambells singing "He was despised..."

In this performance the two trumpeters waited off stage until just before their
appearances in each half, the first trumpet parts were played by a large
trumpeter (in nice to see that Sydney musicains are not starving) on what
looked like a very small valved trumpet (trumpet in F??).

Peter.
#! rnews 1252
Path: alberta!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!dutrun!winffhp
From: [e-mail] (Frits Post and/or Andrew Glassner)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: abstracts wanted
Keywords: ray tracing, abstracts
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Dec 87 09:14:55 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology,The Netherlands
Lines: 21

I am preparing a list of technical memos, technical notes,
internal reports, and other such low-circulation documents
that deal with ray tracing.  I'm interested in documents
both large and small.  The documents need not be expressly
about ray tracing; the criterion is that the information in
the document be useful to ray tracing researchers in some way.

If you have prepared such a document, please send me enough
information to digest it.  That would at least include your
name and organization, the document's title, perhaps a reference
number, and (very important!) an abstract.  

All contributors will receive a complete copy of the final list.

-Andrew Glassner
  email until 15 December: uunet!mcvax!dutrun!frits
  email after 15 December: [e-mail]  ,  unc!glassner
-- 
             ...mcvax!dutrun!frits    
             Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics
             Delft University of Technology
#! rnews 593
Path: alberta!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!lambert
From: [e-mail] (Lambert Meertens)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Acquiring native accents
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Dec 87 22:56:44 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 8

When I speak English I hear no Dutch accent in my voice.  But if my voice
is recorded and played back to me I find the Dutch accent unmistakable.  If
this phenomenon is a general one, it goes a good deal towards explaining
why adult learners of a new language do not fully master the native accent.

-- 

Lambert Meertens, CWI, Amsterdam; [e-mail]
#! rnews 6735
Path: alberta!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!philmds!leffe!janpo
From: [e-mail] (janpo)
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc
Subject: Re: Ideas for improving the debate (was: Digital vs. Analog music)
Summary: Digital versus Analog
Keywords: CDs expensive audiophile equip. fourier analysis
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Dec 87 13:55:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Philips I&E DTS Eindhoven
Lines: 123



1) Mr. Konar, press the 'n' key immediately! There's another arrogant
   audiophile going to pollute the net with his view on the Digital vs.
   Analog issue.

2) I'm not very much acquainted with the news stuff on the net, but it
   seems we don't receive the rec.audio newsgroup here in Europe. Can
   something be done about that?

3) Now let me come to the point.
   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
   (Julian Vrieslander) he writes:
>Konar than goes on to comment about the "arrogance" of audiophiles who still
>prefer analog recordings to digital.  He says the issue should be laid to rest
>, the implicit assumption being that the case has been proven that analog 
>recording is obsolete.

>I for one think that the issue is still an open (and interesting) one, but I
>am a bit surprised at how polarized and closed the recent comments to this
>thread have been.  

I agree with him, so let me do my bit now. A technology not being perfect
, or getting close to that, is still worth a discussion. Remember that it
took about a 100 years of thorough research from Edison's first grammophone
to the modern high quality turntables. Don't expect digital audio to be
perfect now only a few years after its introduction, no matter what the
commercial guys say. They are only interested in your hard-earned $$$$.

Until now I have only been in the opportunity to make a good comparison
between a high-end turntable and some first genaration. I'll summarize
the pros and cons of which I think are important and which I can think of
now. Many of them are well known, others may not.

PROS OF ANALOG:
- Cheap records.
- As John Vrieslander mentioned: More real, more spatious, more delicate,
  more emotionally involving. I won't try to find other words for this
  description 'cause I can't think of a better one. Unfortunately, this
  can only be heard on good, say > $2k-$3k systems without an infinite
  number of knobs, lights and other gadgets normally found in aeroplane
  cockpits.

CONS OF ANALOG:
- More hissy, rumble,scratches,sound degrading after many times of
  playing the record. This counts less when you have good records
  (Japanese ones are most often excellent but hard to get now.) and take
  good care of them.
- No flat frequency response, especially at the low and high end.
- Phase distortion.
- Harmonic distortion increases with amplitude.

PROS OF DIGITAL:
- Longer durability than records (?). Less hissy, no rumble or ticks of
  scratches.
- Almost no phase distortion, flat frequency response within the audio
  range.
- Easy to use.
- Slightly (!) more dynamic. Why only slightly? Well, the 96 dB dynamic
  range theoretically possible with a CD is not very practical. In reality
  it is compressed, as far as I know, to some 40-60 dB depending on the
  music (Pop, Jazz, Classic) because:
  a) No one wants to run continuously to his volume knob to adjust the
     volume.If not compressed the music will either be banging through your 
     living room and of your neighbours or it will drown in the inevitable 
     background noise.
  b) Studio equipment has a dynamic range of less than, say, 70 to 80 dB
     when you assume the Signal to Noise ratio being equal to the dynamic
     range.
  c) Sound gets to distorted at low levels. (See also cons)
  d) A dynamic headroom of 10 dB is desired.
  With all this limitations the dynamic range of CD's is not much different
  with that of a good record.
- Excellent bass response. Deep and well defined.
- Very stable stereo image.

CONS OF DIGITAL:
- Expensive records.
- When listening to a CD, it seems as if there is no "space" around around
  the instruments and voices. It sounds cold and not very lively.
- First generation players and the cheaper CD players nowadays suffer from
  very distorted high tones. They sound harsh. Cymbals for instance sound
  like someone is sawing them into pieces instead giving it a gentle hit
  with a drum-stick. They do not sound crisp and clear.
- Distortion increases dramatically with lower amplitudes (!). It can be
  more than 1.5 % at low levels. And it's a very nasty kind of distortion.
- CD players produce (digital) noise above the audio range. This noise itself
  can not be heard but other audio equipment may suffer from intermodulation
  distortion which brings this noise back in the audio range. 
- Many CD players, especially the first ones, do not seem to be very reliable
  mechanically.
- I've heard that digital audio recording is quite different from analog.
  I mean in terms of how it has to be done properly. I don't mean the
  equipment needed, that's quite obvious. Not all studio crew seem to know
  how to make a good digital recording. Does anyone know more about that?

Well, this must be enough stuff to think and talk about.

The above mentioned cons of digital audio may be overcome in the latest
players but I have not had the opportunity until now to carefully listen
to them and to compare them. According to some serious audio magazines
available here in Holland they seem to be improved. Many top-of-the-line
models now have separated power supplys for the digital and analog
circuitry, opto-couplers between those circuits, an additional analog filter
to filter out > 20 kHz noise, 16 bit with with n times oversampling, stable
and rigid chassis and improved error correction. All this may have solved
(some) of the cons I mentioned but I'm not sure. Players which have one or
more of these improvements and thus may be of interest (At least for Julian
Vrieslander and me) are: Philips (Magnavox in the USA I believe) CD 650 and
CD 960, Nakamichi, Mission, Meridian and if memory serves me well, Acoustical
Research (Or Audio Research. Don't know anymore). The latter two may be
difficult to get in the USA, they are made in the UK. No doubt that there
are more good CD players but can't think of others now. These are the
players I consider buying when normal LP's are no longer available.

Pooh! That was more than I intended to write but still far less than I can
tell about this stuff.

                                        Kind regards from
                                        Jan Postma


And on the seventh day, God went surfing!
#! rnews 1424
Path: alberta!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!heiser
From: [e-mail] (Gernot Heiser)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Setting terminal-emulator's environment
Keywords: GNU Emacs function `terminal-emulator'
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Dec 87 13:42:37 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gernot Heiser)
Organization: ETH Zuerich, Switzerland
Lines: 18


Using the  GNU emacs terminal-emulator   to run interactive  programs  would be
quite limited if the parent emacs  can't be used  for editing (when the program
run under the emulator starts up an editor).  While some  programs  (like `rn')
allow to explicitely specify the  editor, a general  solution would require  to
specify `emacsclient'  in the `EDITOR'   environment  variable of  the  process
running under the terminal emulator.

Naturally this could be done by running  the  shell under the emulator, setting
the   environment of  the shell, and  then running   the program  we are really
interested  in.  A  better way  would be    to set  the   environment from  the
`terminal-mode-hook'. Is there any means to achieve this???? (I'm running GNU
Emacs version 18.49.)
-- 
Gernot Heiser                   Phone:       [phone]
Integrated Systems Laboratory   CSNET/ARPA:  [e-mail]
ETH Zuerich                     EARN/BITNET: GRIDFILE@CZHETH5A
CH-8092 Zuerich, Switzerland    EUNET/UUCP:  {uunet,...}!mcvax!ethz!heiser
#! rnews 1617
Path: alberta!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!enea!sommar
From: [e-mail] (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc
Subject: Re: another net.question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Dec 87 16:46:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail](Erland Sommarskog)
Followup-To: rec.music.misc
Organization: ENEA DATA Svenska AB, Sweden
Lines: 27

P.CLARK ([e-mail]) writes:
>	Should a band play the entire new album when they do a concert?


No, why should they? There may be songs on the album that are 
very good listening to at home, but just doesn't make it live,
just as there are songs with the opposite character; good live, 
but just a bore on disc.

Deep Purple and Marillion and good example of extremes in both
ends. When I saw D.P. in February this year, they played three 
of the ten songs from "The House of Blue Light", their latest 
album. That is a quite decent product, but I didn't miss those
songs anyway. (I, and everyone else, would have been much more 
disappointed if they had left out "Smoke on the Water".) 
  Marillion on the other hand; on the two tours they made after
"Misplaced Childhood", they insisted on playing entire album
as one long song. There are many parts on that album that just
becomes dead passages where nothing happens when they are played
live. ("Bitter Suite" and "Blind Curve" for instance.) Marillion
is no good live band, and playing obsolete material does not
make things better.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog       
ENEA Data, Stockholm    
[e-mail]        
                   C, it's a 3rd class language, you can tell by the name.
#