[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Dynamic-frequency Range
Which is why,pianists and violinists didn''t start
making records,until disc records had been around for
ten years or so.
--- Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If you consider that, for instance, an Edison Gem
> player has a horn with a bell about the size of a
> flugelhorn, one can see how the medium did not allow
> anywhere near fidelity to a piano. I've heard
> cylinders played on the more deluxe types with huge
> horns and they still sound awful to my ears. A
> musician who actually cared about how his instrument
> sounded, especially someone like a solo piano
> player who cares about dynamics and subtle shading
> of notes, would want to avoid the medium
> altogether. I guess cylinders were something
> different in their day, obviously greatly admired
> the leap of being able to time-shift a performance
> and have repeated hearings of something, but
> sheesh, I can't see how anyone who has grown up in
> the high fidelity era can stand to listen to
> them. 10 grades worse than 78's, and I think you all
> know how I feel about most 78's so I won't
> belabor that one. I'm talking specifically about
> using the medium for music, not for spoken word or
> sung "skits" (usually racist and none too funny by
> today's standards) that cylinders were also used
> for. In those cases, no better or worse than most
> modern AM radio (ie not too good but the words are
> usually intelligable). I know, I know, they're
> historic artifacts, which is why I'm glad they're
> preserved and people still care about them. Just not
> ever my choice for quality listening time.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Miller" <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Dynamic-frequency Range
> > 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
> > 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
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around