ARSCLIST Archives – January 2005

1. <No subject>
   • <No subject> (17 lines)
     From: Brian Callahan <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:29:40 -0500

2. A fundamental Flaw
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw (32 lines)
     From: Dale Francis <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:56:42 -0500

3. A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (63 lines)
     From: Dan Kj <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:54:24 -0500

4. A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy)
   • A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (122 lines)
     From: James Lindner <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:31:52 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (119 lines)
     From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:58:57 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (162 lines)
     From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:41:08 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (133 lines)
     From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:57:40 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (203 lines)
     From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:13:02 -0800
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (41 lines)
     From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:48:33 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (43 lines)
     From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:26:02 -0600
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (26 lines)
     From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:45:21 -0600
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (103 lines)
     From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:43:58 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (32 lines)
     From: Dan Kj <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:02:59 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (79 lines)
     From: David Lewiston <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:39:21 -1000
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (27 lines)
     From: matt Sohn <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:56:06 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (67 lines)
     From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:03:49 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (34 lines)
     From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:29:56 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (88 lines)
     From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:59:46 -0600
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (59 lines)
     From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:55:24 +0000
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (24 lines)
     From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:34:29 -0600
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (30 lines)
     From: Dale Francis <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:14:46 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (51 lines)
     From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:50:32 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (56 lines)
     From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:51:42 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (48 lines)
     From: Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:45:19 -0800
   • A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (27 lines)
     From: Frank Strauss <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:14:24 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (20 lines)
     From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:43:48 -0500
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (78 lines)
     From: David Lewiston <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:04:36 -1000
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (39 lines)
     From: Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:17:43 -0800
   • Re: A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (41 lines)
     From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:35:08 +0000

5. Allen Brothers - Bluebird B-5001 and Victor 23755 (or is that 23756?)
   • Allen Brothers - Bluebird B-5001 and Victor 23755 (or is that 23756?) (42 lines)
     From: Tyrone Settlemier <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:45:48 -0600
   • Re: Allen Brothers - Bluebird B-5001 and Victor 23755 (or is that 23756?) (61 lines)
     From: Dick Spottswood <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:05:44 -0500

6. Analog: A Race Against Time
   • Re: Analog: A Race Against Time (616 lines)
     From: seva <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 00:31:13 -0500

7. ARSC Conference -- Register Now!
   • ARSC Conference -- Register Now! (102 lines)
     From: Bill Klinger <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:42:57 -0500

8. ARSC Newsletter
   • ARSC Newsletter (28 lines)
     From: David Seubert <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 16:54:49 -0800

9. ARSC Newsletter deadlines
   • ARSC Newsletter deadlines (28 lines)
     From: David Seubert <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:59:56 -0800

10. Article in today's WSJ on Collecting 78s.
    • Article in today's WSJ on Collecting 78s. (206 lines)
      From: Steve Ramm <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:56:43 EST

11. audio mag tape 2"-1"-1/2"-1/4" available
    • audio mag tape 2"-1"-1/2"-1/4" available (55 lines)
      From: Joachim Polzer <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:40:58 +0100

12. Audio Recording "Freebie" Mailing List
    • Audio Recording "Freebie" Mailing List (58 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:56:06 -0500

13. Audio Recording "Freebie" Mailing List now video and film, too
    • Re: Audio Recording "Freebie" Mailing List now video and film, too (100 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:56:35 -0500

14. Available: Betacam, U-Matic tapes, 1" Layback machine
    • Available: Betacam, U-Matic tapes, 1" Layback machine (28 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:52:24 -0500

15. cataloging question
    • cataloging question (48 lines)
      From: Brandon Burke <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:44:41 -0800
    • Re: cataloging question (64 lines)
      From: Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:22:44 -0800
    • Re: cataloging question (97 lines)
      From: Brandon Burke <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:49:05 -0800
    • Re: cataloging question (176 lines)
      From: Claus Trelby <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:07:06 -0500

16. CFP ECDL 2005, Vienna, Austria, September 18-23 2005
    • CFP ECDL 2005, Vienna, Austria, September 18-23 2005 (147 lines)
      From: Carl Rauch <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:57:43 +0100

17. Cisco Houston
    • Cisco Houston (24 lines)
      From: Lewanne Jones <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:03:56 -0500

18. Clarification regarding "Seeking appraiser"
    • Re: Clarification regarding "Seeking appraiser" (131 lines)
      From: Eric Podietz <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:38:59 -0500
    • Re: Clarification regarding "Seeking appraiser" (157 lines)
      From: David Lewiston <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:01:32 -1000

19. Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...)
    • Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (56 lines)
      From: Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:57:35 -0800
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (61 lines)
      From: George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:04:52 +0100
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (26 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:06:21 EST
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (40 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:38:11 +0000
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (24 lines)
      From: Dale Francis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:14:59 -0500
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (57 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:55:48 -0500
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (50 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:57:17 -0500
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (67 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:03:45 -0800
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (23 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:16:40 EST
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (43 lines)
      From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:47:27 -0600
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (53 lines)
      From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:52:58 -0600
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (45 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:07:13 -0500
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (39 lines)
      From: John Ross <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:23:27 -0800
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (79 lines)
      From: Dale Francis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:20:19 -0500
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (23 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:54:51 -0500
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (51 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:07:25 -0500
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (88 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:04:20 -0500
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (100 lines)
      From: George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:10:43 +0100
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (30 lines)
      From: Dale Francis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:48:37 -0500
    • Re: Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...) (59 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:08:41 -0500

20. Conference Recording
    • Conference Recording (38 lines)
      From: Greg Yates <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:30:07 -0600
    • Re: Conference Recording (59 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:53:32 -0500
    • Re: Conference Recording (75 lines)
      From: andy kolovos <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:25:25 -0500
    • Re: Conference Recording (61 lines)
      From: Matt Bailey <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:32:22 -0500

21. Consumer tape machines available
    • Consumer tape machines available (56 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:55:32 -0500

22. Contact for Reserach re: Mills Publishing Company (Ellington, etc.)
    • Contact for Reserach re: Mills Publishing Company (Ellington, etc.) (26 lines)
      From: Steve Ramm <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:39:28 EST

23. Copyright Questions
    • Copyright Questions (26 lines)
      From: Tim Brooks <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:49:35 EST

24. DASH and 1-inch Video and the Quantegy closing
    • DASH and 1-inch Video and the Quantegy closing (27 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:53:20 -0500

25. DC Area ARSC event
    • DC Area ARSC event (52 lines)
      From: Bryan E Cornell <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:08:16 -0500

26. Dealer for Otari MX5050 reel-to-reel?
    • Dealer for Otari MX5050 reel-to-reel? (28 lines)
      From: Matt Bailey <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:58:18 -0500
    • Re: Dealer for Otari MX5050 reel-to-reel? (55 lines)
      From: Tim Murray <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:50:06 -0800

27. Don Richardson, early Columbia Records fiddler
    • Don Richardson, early Columbia Records fiddler (68 lines)
      From: Dick Spottswood <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:11:41 -0500

28. Don't Dumpster That Tape Machine!
    • Don't Dumpster That Tape Machine! (27 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:21:27 -0500
    • Re: Don't Dumpster That Tape Machine! (32 lines)
      From: Cary Ginell <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:05:03 EST
    • Re: Don't Dumpster That Tape Machine! (54 lines)
      From: Jack L. Palmer <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:30:12 -0500
    • Re: Don't Dumpster That Tape Machine! (31 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:56:09 -0500
    • Re: Don't Dumpster That Tape Machine! (27 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:41:28 -0500
    • Re: Don't Dumpster That Tape Machine! (34 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:29:55 -0500
    • Re: Don't Dumpster That Tape Machine! (25 lines)
      From: matt Sohn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:02:13 -0500

29. ELP Turntable (was historical stylus rake angles)
    • ELP Turntable (was historical stylus rake angles) (198 lines)
      From: Jeffrey Kane <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:41:11 -0600
    • Re: ELP Turntable (was historical stylus rake angles) (229 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:57:43 -0800
    • Re: ELP Turntable (was historical stylus rake angles) (54 lines)
      From: George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 09:08:46 +0100
    • Re: ELP Turntable (was historical stylus rake angles) (142 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 06:51:50 -0500
    • Re: ELP Turntable (was historical stylus rake angles) (38 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 12:26:32 +0000
    • Re: ELP Turntable (was historical stylus rake angles) (151 lines)
      From: Eric Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:56:17 -0800

30. EMTEC intentions
    • EMTEC intentions (26 lines)
      From: Anonymous SET ARSCLIST DIGEST <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:23:11 -0500

31. Format conundrum
    • Format conundrum (40 lines)
      From: Anonymous SET ARSCLIST DIGEST <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:14:08 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (42 lines)
      From: Rod Stephens <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:24:57 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (87 lines)
      From: David Lewiston <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:35:05 -1000
    • Re: Format conundrum (59 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:43:12 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (98 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:12:35 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (128 lines)
      From: Watsky, Lance <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:45:48 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (144 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:57:59 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (124 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:02:18 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (35 lines)
      From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:10:01 -0600
    • Re: Format conundrum (163 lines)
      From: Watsky, Lance <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:17:57 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (29 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:29:40 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (73 lines)
      From: andy kolovos <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:50:40 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (53 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:49:06 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (74 lines)
      From: John Spencer <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:51:38 -0600
    • Re: Format conundrum (181 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:55:00 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (45 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:59:13 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (26 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:07:47 +0000
    • Re: Format conundrum (39 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:33:45 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (204 lines)
      From: Jeffrey Kane <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:39:36 -0600
    • Re: Format conundrum (81 lines)
      From: Ron Fial <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:56:39 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (16 lines)
      From: Dan Kj <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:06:05 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (61 lines)
      From: Jerome Hartke <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:45:08 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (127 lines)
      From: Rod Stephens <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:10:54 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (134 lines)
      From: Rod Stephens <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:17:58 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (73 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:48:39 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (44 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:06:51 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (73 lines)
      From: Rick Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:08:58 -0600
    • Re: Format conundrum (38 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:16:09 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (47 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:25:57 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (38 lines)
      From: John Ross <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:36:40 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (23 lines)
      From: Dave Bradley <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:49:20 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (152 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:52:39 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (226 lines)
      From: Rod Stephens <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:51:12 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (32 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:47:29 +0000
    • Re: Format conundrum (34 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:43:16 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (31 lines)
      From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:34:49 -0600
    • Re: Format conundrum (19 lines)
      From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:01:35 -0600
    • Re: Format conundrum (27 lines)
      From: Tom <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:36:08 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (40 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:39:49 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (33 lines)
      From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:12:27 -0600
    • Re: Format conundrum (46 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:38:13 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (67 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:02:14 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (73 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:28:58 -0500
    • Re: Format conundrum (28 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:07:26 EST
    • Re: Format conundrum (48 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:12:15 -0800
    • Re: Format conundrum (26 lines)
      From: matt Sohn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:42:14 -0500

32. Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy
    • Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (28 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:54:32 -0500
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (72 lines)
      From: H. Duane Goldman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:02:22 -0600
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (99 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:27:57 -0800
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (137 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:40:08 -0500
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (74 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:35:03 -0500
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (29 lines)
      From: Jeffrey Kane <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:42:24 -0600
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (44 lines)
      From: seva <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:57:06 -0500
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (77 lines)
      From: Dave Bradley <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:02:58 -0500
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (126 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:45:53 -0500
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (185 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:02:14 -0800
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (221 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:31:42 -0500
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (34 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:33:53 +0000
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (25 lines)
      From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:07:26 -0600
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (56 lines)
      From: Matthew Barton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:25:28 -0500
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (30 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:34:55 EST
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (61 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:09:14 -0500
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (81 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:01:04 -0800
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (85 lines)
      From: Richard Warren <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:24:42 -0500
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (104 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:37:33 -0800
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (40 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:32:39 +0000
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (43 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:55:10 -0500
    • Re: Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy (29 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:43:16 -0500

33. From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer
    • From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (47 lines)
      From: andy kolovos <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:07:45 -0500
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (83 lines)
      From: Jeffrey Kane <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:30:55 -0600
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (71 lines)
      From: Siue Moffat <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:05:00 -0500
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (87 lines)
      From: Matthew Barton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:25:57 -0500
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (98 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:33:05 -0800
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (48 lines)
      From: Brandon Burke <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:22:48 -0800
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (33 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:59:06 +0000
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (46 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:26:03 -0800
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (97 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:35:11 -0500
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (45 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:48:54 -0800
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (71 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:51:14 -0500
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (112 lines)
      From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:01:32 -0600
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (21 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:13:14 -0500
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer (55 lines)
      From: Brandon Burke <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:18:55 -0800

34. From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the...
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the... (35 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:46:33 EST
    • Re: From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the... (26 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:28:54 -0500

35. Fw: Analog: A Race Against Time - Billboard August 28, 2004
    • Fw: Analog: A Race Against Time - Billboard August 28, 2004 (202 lines)
      From: Dick Spottswood <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:25:23 -0500
    • Re: Fw: Analog: A Race Against Time - Billboard August 28, 2004 (318 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:43:28 -0800
    • Re: Fw: Analog: A Race Against Time - Billboard August 28, 2004 (21 lines)
      From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 07:30:05 -0600
    • Fw: Analog: A Race Against Time - Billboard August 28, 2004 (51 lines)
      From: Dick Spottswood <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 11:48:28 -0500
    • Re: Fw: Analog: A Race Against Time - Billboard August 28, 2004 (68 lines)
      From: H. Duane Goldman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 11:43:28 -0600

36. FW: audio mag tape 2"-1"-1/2"-1/4" available
    • FW: audio mag tape 2"-1"-1/2"-1/4" available (73 lines)
      From: Watsky, Lance <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:00:50 -0500

37. Fw: Fonotecnica - Italian label, active 1930s?
    • Fw: Fonotecnica - Italian label, active 1930s? (67 lines)
      From: Dick Spottswood <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:54:14 -0500

38. FWD: [Fwd: sound recording]
    • FWD: [Fwd: sound recording] (53 lines)
      From: bnemerov <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:23:42 -0600

39. Harry the Hipster search
    • Re: Harry the Hipster search (52 lines)
      From: Matthew Barton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:01:30 -0500
    • Re: Harry the Hipster search (27 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 22:43:50 -0500

40. Hearing aids--was: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Q...
    • Hearing aids--was: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Q... (35 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:10:06 -0500

41. historical stylus rake angles (SRA)
    • historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (52 lines)
      From: Eric Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:50:08 -0800
    • Re: historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (28 lines)
      From: George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 23:59:38 +0100
    • Re: historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (215 lines)
      From: Pete Tinker <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:36:42 -0800
    • Re: historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (70 lines)
      From: Jon Noring <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:35:51 -0700
    • Re: historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (49 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 12:18:22 +0000

42. If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape...
    • If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (90 lines)
      From: Dick Spottswood <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 22:59:32 -0500
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (115 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 23:14:39 -0500
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (40 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 00:07:52 -0500
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (31 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 00:15:39 -0500
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (46 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 00:58:53 -0500
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (63 lines)
      From: Marie O'Connell <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:53:27 -0600
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (80 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:35:26 -0500
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (95 lines)
      From: Marie O'Connell <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:45:49 -0600
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (99 lines)
      From: H. Duane Goldman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:39:53 -0600
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (130 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:54:34 -0500
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (114 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:02:50 -0500
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (105 lines)
      From: Marie O'Connell <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:35:40 -0600
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (30 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:08:33 -0500
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (144 lines)
      From: H. Duane Goldman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:51:37 -0600
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (177 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:10:16 -0500
    • Re: If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a tape... (204 lines)
      From: H. Duane Goldman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:12:52 -0600

43. John Lomax Library of Congress recordings
    • John Lomax Library of Congress recordings (42 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 08:24:49 -0800
    • Re: John Lomax Library of Congress recordings (60 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:37:31 -0500
    • Re: John Lomax Library of Congress recordings (78 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 08:49:29 -0800
    • Re: John Lomax Library of Congress recordings (72 lines)
      From: Matthew Barton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:56:50 -0500
    • Re: John Lomax Library of Congress recordings (90 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 10:47:27 -0800
    • Re: John Lomax Library of Congress recordings (113 lines)
      From: Matthew Barton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:40:16 -0500

44. Listening Test - was: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy)
    • Re: Listening Test - was: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (198 lines)
      From: Eric Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:54:47 -0800
    • Re: Listening Test - was: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (109 lines)
      From: Dave Bradley <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:29:07 -0500
    • Re: Listening Test - was: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (139 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:47:43 -0500
    • Re: Listening Test - was: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (177 lines)
      From: Eric Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:35:38 -0800

45. Lots of tape decks
    • Lots of tape decks (19 lines)
      From: matt Sohn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:22:04 -0500
    • Re: Lots of tape decks (43 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:32:39 -0500
    • Re: Lots of tape decks (25 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:36:10 EST
    • Re: Lots of tape decks (37 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:16:21 -0800

46. Magnetic tape shortage...
    • Re: Magnetic tape shortage... (21 lines)
      From: davidgarland <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:01:42 -0600
    • Re: Magnetic tape shortage... (66 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:44:27 -0500
    • Re: Magnetic tape shortage... (101 lines)
      From: Rod Stephens <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:06:01 -0800
    • Re: Magnetic tape shortage... (134 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:59:46 -0500

47. MVI Audio Tape Fixer
    • Re: MVI Audio Tape Fixer (27 lines)
      From: Watsky, Lance <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:25:23 -0500
    • Re: MVI Audio Tape Fixer (52 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:10:45 -0500
    • Re: MVI Audio Tape Fixer (78 lines)
      From: Watsky, Lance <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:24:25 -0500
    • Re: MVI Audio Tape Fixer (41 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:42:19 -0500
    • Re: MVI Audio Tape Fixer (60 lines)
      From: David Hamilton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:40:17 -0500
    • Re: MVI Audio Tape Fixer (71 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:29:19 -0500
    • Re: MVI Audio Tape Fixer (31 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:25:01 -0500
    • Re: MVI Audio Tape Fixer (101 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:44:01 +0000
    • Re: MVI Audio Tape Fixer (91 lines)
      From: Watsky, Lance <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:48:52 -0500
    • Re: MVI Audio Tape Fixer (106 lines)
      From: David Hamilton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:06:11 -0500
    • Re: MVI Audio Tape Fixer (78 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:29:43 -0500
    • Re: MVI Audio Tape Fixer (24 lines)
      From: Watsky, Lance <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:15:34 -0500

48. new magnetic tape coming soon from Europe
    • new magnetic tape coming soon from Europe (34 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:39:37 +0100

49. Newsletter deadline correction
    • Newsletter deadline correction (19 lines)
      From: David Seubert <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:03:44 -0800

50. Nominations for the 2005 ARSC Awards
    • Nominations for the 2005 ARSC Awards (89 lines)
      From: Bill Klinger <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:37:43 -0500

51. Original Piano Roll recording
    • Original Piano Roll recording (33 lines)
      From: Doug Pomeroy <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 21:46:53 +0000
    • Re: Original Piano Roll recording (64 lines)
      From: Stefan Skirtz <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:01:42 -0500
    • Re: Original Piano Roll recording (35 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 00:12:30 +0000
    • Re: Original Piano Roll recording (64 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:19:58 -0500

52. Original Piano Roll Recording
    • Original Piano Roll Recording (24 lines)
      From: Doug Pomeroy <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:06:47 +0000

53. Original Piano Roll recording
    • Re: Original Piano Roll recording (29 lines)
      From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:46:22 -0600

54. Practicalities
    • Practicalities (22 lines)
      From: David Lewiston <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:12:46 -1000

55. Quantegy closed: TV piece
    • Quantegy closed: TV piece (19 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 02:26:17 -0500

56. Quantegy files Chapter 11
    • Quantegy files Chapter 11 (26 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:21:13 -0500
    • Re: Quantegy files Chapter 11 (19 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:45:16 -0500
    • Re: Quantegy files Chapter 11 (177 lines)
      From: Eric Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:18:57 -0800

57. Quantegy has closed ???
    • Quantegy has closed ??? (31 lines)
      From: Dale Francis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:38:03 -0500
    • Re: Quantegy has closed ??? (63 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 10:20:39 -0500
    • Re: Quantegy has closed ??? (33 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:34:36 +0000
    • Re: Quantegy has closed ??? (24 lines)
      From: Dale Francis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 06:53:44 -0500
    • Re: Quantegy has closed ??? (51 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 06:48:44 -0800
    • Re: Quantegy has closed ??? (39 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 06:51:49 -0800
    • Re: Quantegy has closed ??? (74 lines)
      From: Aaron Luis Levinson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:33:47 -0500
    • Re: Quantegy has closed ??? (33 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:30:13 -0500
    • Re: Quantegy has closed ??? (73 lines)
      From: James Lindner <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 07:19:52 -0500

58. Record cleaning machines
    • Record cleaning machines (39 lines)
      From: Jos Van Dyck <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:30:17 +0100
    • Re: Record cleaning machines (54 lines)
      From: Eric Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 02:49:24 -0800

59. Recording Disc Preservation/Off-gassing?
    • Recording Disc Preservation/Off-gassing? (69 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 08:13:51 -0800
    • Re: Recording Disc Preservation/Off-gassing? (68 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:00:39 -0500
    • Re: Recording Disc Preservation/Off-gassing? (57 lines)
      From: James Lindner <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:26:14 -0500
    • Re: Recording Disc Preservation/Off-gassing? (94 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:07:35 -0800
    • Re: Recording Disc Preservation/Off-gassing? (94 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:17:14 -0800
    • Re: Recording Disc Preservation/Off-gassing? (129 lines)
      From: Robert Hodge <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:12:12 -0500

60. Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Q...
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Q... (25 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:56:28 EST

61. Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy)
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (36 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:37:32 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (44 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:03:00 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (60 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:18:36 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (40 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:44:24 +0000
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (67 lines)
      From: Aaron Luis Levinson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:33:34 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (28 lines)
      From: Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:23:25 -0800
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (33 lines)
      From: Goran Finnberg <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:56:42 +0100
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (34 lines)
      From: Goran Finnberg <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:56:49 +0100
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (62 lines)
      From: Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:12:06 -0800
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (50 lines)
      From: Alex Hartov <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:14:05 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (60 lines)
      From: Goran Finnberg <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:09:20 +0100
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (30 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:53:17 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (71 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:12:24 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (42 lines)
      From: Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:36:40 -0800
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (31 lines)
      From: Dave Bradley <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:03:45 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (67 lines)
      From: Eric Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:10:18 -0800
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (39 lines)
      From: Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:15:57 -0800
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (62 lines)
      From: H. Duane Goldman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:20:36 -0600
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (112 lines)
      From: George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:22:36 +0100
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (73 lines)
      From: Dave Bradley <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:35:43 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (65 lines)
      From: Jerome Hartke <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:56:05 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (124 lines)
      From: Rod Stephens <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:33:55 -0800
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (58 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:23:47 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (99 lines)
      From: Rod Stephens <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:58:42 -0800
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (38 lines)
      From: Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:57:42 -0800
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (71 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:39:01 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (64 lines)
      From: Rod Stephens <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:49:26 -0800
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (97 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:16:24 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (34 lines)
      From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:46:37 -0600
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (33 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:16:22 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (61 lines)
      From: Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:51:36 -0800
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (41 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:03:22 -0500
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (47 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:43:54 +0000
    • Re: Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy) (27 lines)
      From: matt Sohn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:56:50 -0500

62. Searching for Golden Age of Radio Collections
    • Searching for Golden Age of Radio Collections (41 lines)
      From: Susan Siegel <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:06:33 -0500

63. Seeking appraiser
    • Seeking appraiser (22 lines)
      From: Eric Podietz <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:47:51 -0500
    • Re: Seeking appraiser (44 lines)
      From: David Lewiston <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:26:46 -1000
    • Re: Seeking appraiser (102 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:37:04 -0800
    • Re: Seeking appraiser (108 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 20:37:14 -0500
    • Re: Seeking appraiser (31 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:47:35 -0800
    • Re: Seeking appraiser (31 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 21:15:33 -0500

64. Slowing down playing speed in software
    • Slowing down playing speed in software (37 lines)
      From: Joel Bresler <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:39:01 -0500
    • Re: Slowing down playing speed in software (29 lines)
      From: matt Sohn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:44:04 -0500
    • Re: Slowing down playing speed in software (64 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:47:07 -0500
    • Re: Slowing down playing speed in software (34 lines)
      From: Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:31:11 -0800
    • Re: Slowing down playing speed in software (56 lines)
      From: Rod Stephens <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:35:01 -0800
    • Re: Slowing down playing speed in software (26 lines)
      From: Daniel Leech-Wilkinson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:44:28 +0000
    • Re: Slowing down playing speed in software (50 lines)
      From: Alex Hartov <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:10:48 -0500
    • Re: Slowing down playing speed in software (60 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:07:39 -0500
    • Re: Slowing down playing speed in software (60 lines)
      From: seva <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:06:09 -0500

65. Small sound booth for transfers and restoration
    • Small sound booth for transfers and restoration (26 lines)
      From: RA Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:31:00 -0800
    • Re: Small sound booth for transfers and restoration (72 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:39:19 -0500
    • Re: Small sound booth for transfers and restoration (76 lines)
      From: Eric Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:54:48 -0800

66. SPARS working with Quantegy for custom tape runs
    • SPARS working with Quantegy for custom tape runs (24 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:46:49 -0500

67. squealing cassette tapes
    • Re: squealing cassette tapes (35 lines)
      From: Jos Van Dyck <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:01:50 +0100
    • Re: squealing cassette tapes (61 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:18:33 -0500
    • Re: squealing cassette tapes (24 lines)
      From: Jeff Carroll <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:18:51 -0500
    • Re: squealing cassette tapes (45 lines)
      From: Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:47:23 -0500

68. Stellavox support by Sonosax
    • Re: Stellavox support by Sonosax (55 lines)
      From: Jos Van Dyck <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:01:40 +0100

69. Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] historical stylus rake angles (SRA)
    • Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (86 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:42:27 -0800
    • Re: Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (92 lines)
      From: Richard Warren <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:06:50 -0500
    • Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (101 lines)
      From: James L Wolf <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:21:19 -0500
    • Re: Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (118 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 14:34:43 -0800
    • Re: Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (141 lines)
      From: Jeffrey Kane <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:52:11 -0600
    • Re: Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (167 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:17:49 -0800
    • Re: Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (147 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:21:52 -0500
    • Re: Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] historical stylus rake angles (SRA) (18 lines)
      From: Vincent J. Novara <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 20:44:20 -0500

70. The state of cassette tape
    • The state of cassette tape (49 lines)
      From: andy kolovos <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:14:46 -0500
    • Re: The state of cassette tape (68 lines)
      From: Matthew Barton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:10:46 -0500
    • Re: The state of cassette tape (74 lines)
      From: John Ross <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:20:21 -0800
    • Re: The state of cassette tape (110 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:28:25 -0800
    • Re: The state of cassette tape (136 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:38:59 -0500
    • Re: The state of cassette tape (158 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:41:17 -0800
    • Re: The state of cassette tape (45 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:33:50 -0500
    • Re: The state of cassette tape (39 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:54:22 -0500
    • Re: The state of cassette tape (27 lines)
      From: Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:37:54 +0000
    • Re: The state of cassette tape (62 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:26:34 -0500
    • Re: The state of cassette tape (88 lines)
      From: Jerome Hartke <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:22:50 -0500

71. The state of cassette tape: non-moving parts, etc.
    • Re: The state of cassette tape: non-moving parts, etc. (45 lines)
      From: seva <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:16:23 -0500
    • Re: The state of cassette tape: non-moving parts, etc. (45 lines)
      From: seva <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:17:00 -0500

72. U.S. copyright
    • U.S. copyright (43 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:50:14 -0500

73. US Copyright office seeks public comment on "orphaned works"
    • US Copyright office seeks public comment on "orphaned works" (32 lines)
      From: JJJJ <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:26:05 -0500

74. Vertical Tracking Angle
    • Vertical Tracking Angle (103 lines)
      From: Doug Pomeroy <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:04:36 +0000
    • Re: Vertical Tracking Angle (124 lines)
      From: H. Duane Goldman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:13:08 -0600

75. Vinyl Killer Record Playing VW Van
    • Vinyl Killer Record Playing VW Van (36 lines)
      From: Tom Caw <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:00:01 -0600
    • Re: Vinyl Killer Record Playing VW Van (60 lines)
      From: steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:27:02 -0800
    • Vinyl Killer Record Playing VW Van (54 lines)
      From: Dick Spottswood <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:25:06 -0500
    • Re: Vinyl Killer Record Playing VW Van (29 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:06:25 EST
    • Re: Vinyl Killer Record Playing VW Van (59 lines)
      From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:29:42 -0500
    • Re: Vinyl Killer Record Playing VW Van (33 lines)
      From: Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:00:37 -0500
    • Re: Vinyl Killer Record Playing VW Van (28 lines)
      From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:09:14 -0600
    • Re: Vinyl Killer Record Playing VW Van (35 lines)
      From: Steve Ramm <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:45:36 EST