[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] Dynamic-frequency Range
It's nice to have someone else,who shares my opinion
about early electrical 78s ! I still don't know why so
many people think they sound so lousy,other than
hearing them,on some Crapophone,or another.
--- Don Tait <Dontaitchicago@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around