SIGNALS & NOISE (Letters to Editor) (Jan. 1991)

For Tweaking, Coke Is It

Dear Editor:

I read your article concerning the problem of open-reel tapes encountering excessive friction with the tape drive mechanisms, ("Archival Revival" by Michael N. Stosich, November 1990). Among my collection of open-reel tapes, I encountered this problem with two tapes that I was dubbing to cassette. I believe I have come up with an extremely effective (albeit low-tech) and low-cost solution to the problem. (I can't afford to buy high-tech lubricants and gizmos, and I will not buy an oven to bake by tapes!) After several hours of trying various schemes to hold back the spring-loaded tape guides, and applying silicone lubricants to the tape with Q-tips, I determined that the main source of friction came from the metal guideposts of my Sony TC-377 three-head tape deck. To reduce the friction, I improvised a narrow (2 x 1/4-inch) plastic strip from a Coca-Cola six-pack holder, wrapped it around the lead-in tape guidepost, and the friction problem disappeared. This plastic is slick and slippery enough to allow squeaky tapes to play without audible distortion--at least for one pass of the tape when dubbing.

The same effect can probably be accomplished by cutting a segment of a Teflon stirring rod (found in any good chemistry lab) and rigging up substitute tape guideposts. The second solution was my original plan, but the tape friction problem occurred on a Sunday, when I was unable to obtain a Teflon stirring rod.

-William K. Tong; Chicago, Ill.

It's Over, Over Hair

Dear Editor:

I read with interest F. Alton Everest's "Muffling the Neighbors: Ten Tips To Reduce Noise" in the November 1990 issue.

Early in 1978, we built a sound room in our third-floor store. Downstairs from us is a hair salon. The landlord was concerned that sound from our loud speakers would disturb the patrons of the salon. Our solution was to put an additional floor in the sound room. We floated it on a layer of sand divided by wood furring strips. About a ton was added to the mass of the 14 1/4 x 19 1/2-foot floor. And, since sand is inert, noise transmission was substantially reduced. In fact, we've never had a single complaint-even though we of ten demonstrate speakers at levels up to 105 dB SPL.

The most happy by-product of our construction is that our clients are not distracted by the noises generated by the hair salon. Another is that one of our clients rented our sound room to make noise measurements on some fans he was evaluating. He found the ambient noise in our room lower than in the anechoic chambers available in the greater Boston area!

Rich Oakley; Electric Gramophone; Sudbury, Mass.

Of Oil and Water

Dear Editor:

Audio is a great magazine! Please keep it that way by keeping video out. True audiophiles don't give a damn about Star Wars or Top Gun.

Let "vidiots" buy video magazines, and keep Audio a magazine about mu sic and sound! Good tunes, good work!

Leland A. Beaman; Vacaville, Cal.

Speaking Out, Loud

Dear Editor:

Audio's 33rd Annual Equipment Directory (October 1990) forcibly emphasizes how the magnitude of consumer choice has multiplied over the decades to overwhelming dimensions.

Look at the Loudspeakers section of the Directory: In 1990 there are nearly 1,800 speaker models by some 280 manufacturers! Surely this is free-enterprise overkill. It's inconceivable that--even in something as subjective as speaker performance--it takes 1,800 variations to accommodate all possible preferences. Further, it's unthinkable that anyone could possibly evaluate 1,800 speakers in choosing.

In this era of highly sophisticated, computer-designed technology, surely every need and taste could be precisely met within a range of, say, 350 models. At lower prices.

The existence of so many competing models must deny consumers the benefits of economy of scale. Our material standard of living largely results from the fact that the manufacture of a product in large numbers reduces its per-unit cost, so that it can be sold at a price within the reach of large numbers of customers. This is not the case with many speakers today; with so many manufacturers focused on the affluent, elitist, high-end market, most of these companies must enjoy only a minute share of it. No wonder a pair of loud speakers may be priced at $5,000 or more-they're practically custom made! They may be priced to make a profit above research and tooling costs on a volume of perhaps 100 pairs a year; think how much less costly the same speakers could be if the manufacturer's share of the market amounted to 1,000 or even 5,000 pairs annually. Most specialty manufacturers hope to capture more than their statistically prorated share, naturally at the expense and ultimate demise of less successful competitors. I'm not sure it works this way, though. While one expects the natural attrition of entrepreneurs to winnow out superfluous products, it appears that for each company that drops out, there are two more hopefuls entering the arena.

I don't offer a solution to this inefficient, economy-defeating proliferation of small-volume ventures--this embarrassment of riches in choice. Such is free enterprise, and I don't propose any reins on it. But I, for one, certainly wouldn't enter the speaker manufacturing business today! And I'll never be able to afford any high-end speakers, either.

-R. H. Coddington; Richmond, Va.

When Feedback Is Positive

Dear Editor:

Our audiologists and physicians are most impressed by Dan Sweeney's article, "Digital Signal Processing for the Hearing Impaired: Parallel Universes," in the September 1990 issue. We feel the article provided a thorough yet highly readable overview of hearing aid development. Although not the primary objective, it also provided the normal-hearing person a view into the technological and functional problems encountered by the hearing-impaired person.

This is one of the first articles ever written for consumers regarding differences in hearing aid technology. Only when consumers are educated about hearing aid technology will they under stand both the benefits provided by hearing aids and the characteristic limitations of the hearing-impaired ear. Ignorance about hearing aid technology is sometimes the hearing-impaired person's greatest disability. Your article goes to the heart of overcoming that ignorance.

-C. Scott Mills, M.A. Director of Audiology; Forsyth Head and Neck Associates, Winston-Salem, N.C.

(Source: Audio magazine, 01/1991)

= = = =