Re: [ARSCLIST] Dynamic-frequency Range

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Mike Richter wrote:

> I'm a bit confused: do you mean dynamic range, frequency range or both?

Both

> They are related in that wider frequency range means higher noise level
> and therefore reduced dynamic range over the spectrum.

I understand.

 Perhaps the 1-KHz
> dynamic range is what you mean.

Yes, that would be fine.

> Frequency range is also difficult to define unless either amplitude
> tolerance or playback equipment is considered. Your numbers for 1925
> seem about right for both the best acoustic and the new electric
> recordings, but few reproducers came close to 100 Hz on the low end and
> (not least because of the horn) most were far from flat above 1 KHz.

I am concerned with what was available to the "average" listener.

Perhaps I should explain the reasons for my questions. I am writing an
essay about pianists who refused to make disc recordings but were willing
to make reproducing piano roll recordings. There were problems with
available duration for each side, in addition to the obvious limitations
of frequency response. I find that rarely is the question of dynamic range
mentioned. There is a quote from one pianist who was told the number of
amplitude steps available from a particular reproducing piano...I can't
remember how many, perhaps just 24 and he replied, well I have 25 dynamic
steps in my playing. While shading is probably subject to one's
ability to measure it, it seems to me that ultimately that "arguement" was
not informed as their dynamic range on discs was signficantly limited,
especially in the acoustic era.

Further, some pianists pointed out that they did not like having to make
adjustments to their dynamics in particular parts of the frequency range,
adjustments that were needed to provide more balance on playback.

In short, I am trying to put into slightly more quantifiable terms, the
reasons for their objects.

I am reminded of one pianist who refused to make any disc
recordings...yet, if she had, she might have had the backing of Victor
and, at least from my perspective, been as well known as some of the
artists which had the benefit of the marketing of a record company.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Karl