Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] Dynamic-frequency Range

[Nipper <nipper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't remember hearing this one Steve.  Sounds darned interesting though.

Martin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Smolian" <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] Dynamic-frequency Range


> 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
>