Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

[Clark Johnsen <clarkjohnsen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 6:55 PM, George Brock-Nannestad <pattac@xxxxxxxx>wrote:

> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
> just a snippet from Clark Johnsen's comment to elaborate on:
>
> >
> >
> > Respectfully beg to differ about 78rpm reproduction. It's advanced
> > considerably. But you won't hear that on any commercially available LP or
> > CD, so the case is difficult for me to prove.
> >
>
> ----- yes, but not due to anybody sitting down with the requirements of the
> 78 rpm linear velocity and groove dimensions (and vertical tracking angles)
> and specify a system.


While that may well be true, there are many other aspects of 78rpm
reproduction that can be, and have been, addressed in modern times by those
of us who have faith in the qualities of these old records. Just a few items
that have been found to make a difference in playback: Cleaning procedures
and chemicals, mats, wires, vibration isolation, damping, tube types.

>
> As to the optical playback of 78 rpm grooves: it is clear that all the
> present designers are floundering - they simply do not know how to apply
> this
> extremely versatile tool.


Seemingly true.

>
>
> David Williams and myself assisted Chiba Sanju in March, 2001 at the Boston
> Audio Society demonstration of the ELP Laser Turntable. It was supported by
> the best equipment and Magneplanar speakers.


Those, however good, would not have been my own choice.


> The sound of both a vinyl
> pressing of a 1936 cello and piano recording and a shellac pressing of the
> same were both astounding.


Yes.

Wonder how the vinyl was made...

clark


>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> George
>