Yes, this was Walter Welch's idea. I heard it in person. I didn't
like it
then, and the passage of time and recent digital developments
haven't
improved my opinion. Just my opinion, of course.
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Modern Cylinder Phonograph
>I think yeah, if you're a big-time archive or rich collector, then
buy the
>stylus-cartridge device. For the rest of us, those who might have
mild
>interest in Edison cylinders and might own one or two players,
then
>experimenting with acoustic recording is fine. My father's tricks
worked
>well and his results sounded great -- enough so that some were
used in
>commercial projects (the whole reason he developed his methods).
Like I
>said, I don't know any of the secret sauces, but I believe the
overall
>approach was actually to EMBRACE the horn -- treat the Edison
player as an
>acoustic instrument. He had great-condition players that he
restored by
>hand and an ample arsenal of big horns, so I think he experimented
to get
>the best horn/player combo to fit the acoustic space in which he
worked.
>And he knew a thing or two or three about microphone technique and
had a
>very well-stocked microphone closet. So this wasn't weekend
amateur
>tinkering. Like I said, the stylus/cartridge approach probably
yields more
>flexible results in a modern context, and is non-dependent on
having a
>great-condition player and big horn. I had some good results
recording from
>a concert cylinder player for a private collector. He was
extremely happy
>with our results. We did a lot of experimenting and ended up also
embracing
>the horn and the acoustic space, favoring an instrumentation-grade
(ie
>high-spl) electret mic placed about 1 foot in front of the center
of the
>horn bel (about like mic'ing a tuba front-on). I was surprised
that the
>best horn for the job was a tuba-sized brass unit; I would have
thought the
>larger wooden units would sound better but they didn't. There's
only so
>much you can do for these things, they just don't approach
fidelity to
>original source, but they can be made quite listenable, and I
think the
>best clues about this go back to how people actually used to enjoy
>listening to them in their day (the best systems had big horns --
little
>horns are shrill and tinny, kinda like trumpets ;) ).
>
> I should mention that I have a video of the Syracuse University
sound
> archives from back in the late 70's or early 80's. One of the
systems they
> show off is a fully acoustic way of transferring "78" disks of
various
> types. They had two mechanically synchronized players with BIG
acoustic
> horns. They would use some sort of method of playing two copies
of the
> same disk, recording from both horns and using some sort of
cancelling
> mechanism to make the music stand out from the noise. I forgot
the name of
> the old guy who ran this setup, but Bob Hodge will know exactly
of which I
> speak. I also don't remember any particulars about how this
worked, Bob
> probably knows that too.
>
> So no offense, but I think it's a blanket statement to say all
recording
> from acoustic horns is "perverse." Er, one could argue that
caring about
> such low-quality sound and out-dated content is a bit perverse
but I'm
> certainly not.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Smolian" <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Modern Cylinder Phonograph
>
>
>> The idea of recording off a horn seems completely perverse to
me.
>>
>> Horn design was empirical and, at various frequencies, created
nodes
>> during recording. Those are inevitable. Adding those inherent
in the
>> playback mechanism increases distortion needlessly when
electrical
>> reproduction is available. Using elecrical reproduction in an
>> uncalbrated or uncontrolled manner and using the results to
claim
>> equality with acoustical reproduction ignores that, properly
done,
>> electrical results are superior, i.e., do not create additional
bad
>> sound.
>>
>> That it is so expensive is unfortunate (good word here) but
using less
>> good sound - electrical or acoustical- because it is less
expensive
>> violates the purpose of the transfer process- to give as
faithful a
>> reproduction of the original as possible.
>>
>> Steven Smolian
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Breneman" <david_breneman@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Modern Cylinder Phonograph
>>
>>
>>> --- Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My dad had a
>>>> few tricks on recording from
>>>> Edison horns, but I don't know any of them.
>>>
>>> I think the main goal, if you're doing it accoustically, is
>>> to have as little air mass between the diaphragm of the
>>> reproducer and the diaphragm of the microphone as possible.
>>> I picked up a couple old Shure lavs a few years ago. (These
>>> are the "old school" lavalier mics that hang around your neck
>>> on a cord, not the modern type that clip to a necktie, collar,
>>> etc.) Each one is about the size of a small felt tip marker,
>>> and I'd imagine they'd be just about the right diameter to plug
>>> into the rubber hose in place of the horn, which would
>>> provide the mic with vibration isolation as well as close
>>> coupling to the reproducer diaphragm. The only thing that's
>>> kept me from trying this is that the TV studio I got them
>>> from cut the cords off to make cords for other mics! I
>>> need to take the time to get a mic cord, cut the female
>>> end off it and solder it to the terminals of the mic (the
>>> cord is permanently attached for compactness). Perpetually
>>> deferred project.