[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] Dynamic-frequency Range
So,are we talikng about a record that "blew out" the
equipment of the period,sort of like the infamous 1s
Reiner "Pines" did 35 years later ?
Roger Kulp
--- Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The record cited was, as I recall, made as an
> experiment by Western Electric
> andstill bears its matrix numbers as well as those
> of Columbia.
>
> I gave an ARSC talk a while ago that showed how the
> record companies dumbed
> down their dynamic range and frequencey response on
> its early electricals
> since they had to sound well on the acoustical
> players to keep selling
> records. The first mass-market electrical players
> came out about 6 months
> later.
>
> The paper depended on the listener hearing audio
> examples. Since I couldn't
> publish those 1925 examples dut to the copyright
> laws, I never published the
> paper.
>
> Steven Smolian
>
>
> --- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Tait" <Dontaitchicago@xxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:36 PM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST]
> Dynamic-frequency Range
>
>
> > A very interesting and rewarding reponse. May I
> add something about the
> > dynamic response on the earliest electrical 78s?
> >
> > It seems clear that from the beginning the
> electrical system was able to
> > record a huge dynamic range. The classic example
> that I've seen cited in
> > many
> > places is USA Columbia's first electrical release,
> 50013-D (Black Label):
> >
> > Trad.-Andrews: "John Peel"
> > Portugal: "Adeste Fidelis"
> >
> > Associated Glee Clubs of America (LIve,
> Metropolitan Opera House, March
> > 1925)
> >
> > The dynamic range on "John Peel" is astounding.
> Finding a copy that
> > wasn't
> > chewed to pieces in the climaxes by heavy early
> pickups is difficult. And
> > that's why every company cut back on the dynamic
> range of electrical
> > recordings:
> > the pickups of the time would quickly destory the
> loud passages on the
> > records.
> > Roland Gelatt might have written about this in his
> publications; some did,
> > but I can't remember where for sure.
> >
> > I regret that I do not have the equipment to
> provide scientific data
> > about
> > this.
> >
> > Don Tait
> >
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > I've done a considerable amount of restoration on
> acoustic recordings,
> > and,
> > as one might imagine, the frequency response can
> vary widely from label to
> > label and session to session. However, I can make
> a few generalities:
> >
> > Victor and Columbia seemed to have the best
> low-end response -- fairly
> > strong down to about 120 Hz. The upper end was
> about 4 kHz.
> >
> > Edison Diamond Disc recordings in general had very
> little, if anything at
> > all, below 200 Hz. The upper end in general
> petered out at about 4 kHz.
> > However, I've seen one acoustical Diamond Disk
> made in 1927 (Edison held
> > off
> > until mid-to-late 1927 before going electrical)
> which has an upper end at
> > an
> > astonishing 6 kHz!
> >
> > As for most of the other labels, there doesn't
> seem to be an awful lot
> > below
> > 200 Hz or above 3 kHz. Here again, this is just a
> generality. Recording in
> > those days was more of an art than a science.
> >
> > The most surprising thing that I have found is
> that many acoustical
> > recordings have recoverable bass down to as low as
> 40 Hz! You certainly
> > won't hear that if played on an acoustical
> reproducer, and it's doubtful
> > that it can be heard even on an electrical
> reproducer. Nonetheless, the
> > bass
> > information is clearly (and sometimes not so
> clearly) visible in a
> > frequency
> > spectrum vs. time display.
> >
> > As for dynamic range, this too can vary all over
> the place. These
> > recordings
> > are probably more influenced by the performers
> themselves than by the
> > limitations of the recording equipment. Obviously,
> one doesn't want a
> > signal
> > so loud that it would produce blasting on the
> recording; yet, one doesn't
> > want s signal so low that it gets swamped by
> surface noise. Theoretically,
> > acoustical recordings can have a considerably wide
> dynamic range (the only
> > limiter is that mechanical extremes which the
> cutter can achieve), but
> > that
> > wasn't necessarily a desired effect.
> >
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 -
> Release Date: 10/20/2006
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com