[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Cox" <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On 21/10/06, Steven C. Barr(x) wrote:
> > Well, I've always figured they (over)emphasized the bass simply to
> > make sure that electric records sounded "better"  than their acoustic
> > predecessors, which had virtually no audible bass (perhaps if Edison
> > had ever perfected his ultra-long recording horn...?).
> I don't think extra length would help so much as a bigger diameter
> entrance, and as I said before a better shape, more like the ears of a
> bat-eared fox.
> A straight-sided cone is not right.
Good point. Victor's "Orthophonic" horn did have a calculated taper
to improve frequency response. However, as I recall one of the
figures on which that was based was the size of the "mouth"...
which is limited for reproducing horns, and in a practical
sense also limited by recording horns. I suspect that Edison
(as well as his associates) probably deduced wrongly that bass
response could be improved by lengthening the horn (or volume?)
but weren't aware that a corrseponding increase in the mouth
dimension was also needed.

I would suppose that (at least in theory) if one had a few
hundred contiguous square miles of room and a vast amount
of material, it would be possible to construct a horn which
could pick up and record acoustically frequencies down to 15 Hz...
but a similarly-sized playing horn might be required to hear
the results?!

Steven C. Barr
> > Anybody know why the high end was also hard to record acoustically?
> Inertia of the cutter. The faster you try to move it, the more energy is
> needed.
> Regards
> -- 
> Don Cox
> doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]