LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  June 2009

ARSCLIST June 2009

Subject:

(Fwd) [ARSCLIST] Fwd: Recording Speed

From:

George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:02:58 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (95 lines)

From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad

Hello,

Thornton Hagert wrote:

> In response to Dave Lewis' recent message "I Heard the Voice of the  
> Chipmunk" - about recording speeds, I have noticed instances of  
> recording companies deliberately recording at other-than-playback  
> speeds, for various reasons.  The following examples come to mind;   
> if I check them more carefully, this message will never be written.
>      Edison 51056,  Broadway Dance Orchestra "Russian Rose", plays  
> back in the key of F but was clearly performed in Eb and recorded  
> "slowly".  See my notes for the Smithsonian album DMM2-0518, "An  
> Experiment In Modern Music" Paul Whiteman at Aeolian Hall.  How  
> often did Edison do this ?
>      Okeh 40675, Cookie's Gingersnaps, "Love Found You for Me"  
> plays back in the key of B natural (which seems unlikely) Why the  
> speed-up ?  I don't know.  (I haven't checked the others recorded  
> at this session.)
>      Vocalion 1108, Jimmie Noone's Apex Club Orchestra,  
> "Forevermore" plays very slow (I forget what key);  the song was  
> published in C, and the orchestration in Db which is the key that  
> Guy Lombardo recorded it.   My guess is that Vocalion wanted the  
> recording to fill the whole record and so recorded it at a faster  
> speed.
>      I'd be interested in other such examples.

----- directly to this request I would quote the practice of the VTMC that 
recorded at 76 rpm but recommended reproduction at 78 rpm. This was confirmed 
by Victor staff to the Gramophone Company who were reluctant to adopt this, 
because they were very satisfied with recording at 78 rpm. The first instance 
I have found was W. N. Dennison who was temporarily working for the 
Gramophone Company ca. 1911. The second instance is Raymond Sooy while 
restructuring the Gramophone Recording department in 1921, who insisted (and 
apparently was followed as in his other recommendations). This was to obtain 
the uniformity that permitted the matrix exchange between the companies. 

I have in a previous publication speculated on the reasoning behind this 
practice, and I can only surmise that it is a question of "stagger-tuning" 
the acoustic recording and reproducing systems. Due to the absolute 
dimensions used in soundboxes, stylus bars, etc., which were definitely of 
the same order of magnitude in both recording and reproduction, some 
resonances that had created large excursions of the groove at recording would 
excite resonances in the reproducing system at the same frequencies, and that 
would increase wear terribly. Victor was always very conscious of the 
longevity of their records, much more than the Gramophone Co. Also, a wear 
test was really the only quantitative way they could measure the quality of 
recording. The upward change in speed would move the disturbing frequencies 
upwards, and possibly out of some fairly narrow resonances at reproduction, 
creating both a broader sound and less wear. I have never checked when Victor 
ended the practice and went for 78 rpm at recording.

The need for longevity was also behind Victor's groove-broadening ("ironing-
out") process and their slow-speed re-recording with a "better" groove shape. 
I seem to have noted that while the Heritage series (red vinyl) obviously has 
much less noise, they are in many cases using modified grooves, i.e. not 
directly derived from the original negative. This creates an "unnecessary" 
distortion--at least to our point of view.

----- the traditional way of making a recording fill more of the surface 
available was to decrease the groove pitch--for instance Tamagno's Esultate.

----- However, the fundamental question, that of Dave Lewis and his 
chipmunking is: is it not proven, then, that we cannot rely on re-issues but 
need constant access to the originals, or at least calibrated re-recordings 
thereof? 

The easiest is obviously to have a reference transfer made at a trusted known 
speed--that is all that is required, and we can work from that. In 1982 I 
made a 7" vinyl calibration record that was supposed to be put on top of a 
record to be transferred, and it contained a calibration track (and some 
other nice features). The intention was that the turntable would be started, 
the tape recorder would be started, the pickup playing the calibration track, 
the pickup moved out of the way, the calibration record being lifted away by 
means of a small piece of wire cemented to the label, and then the real 
transfer could begin. This way a calibration track would precede the 
transferred recording on the tape. The frequency of the calibration track? It 
was calculated to be 10 times the rpm of the turntable, in other words, at 78 
rpm it gave out 780 Hz, suitable for a frequency counter. In use of the tape 
as a secondary master, the content could be de-chipmunked by changing the 
speed of the tape recorder, and the tape rewound to the calibration track, 
which was measured by the counter and would give the rpm of the original 
record at the de-chipmunked speed. This way, the actual transfer rpm is 
completely immaterial and may be chosen for good tracking--we can still get 
at the rpm, just as if we had access to the original record. This way avoids 
a lot of arithemetic. Two US archives have this record, but they may have 
forgotten. They are more likely to remember Emory Cook's well-tempered record 
(which was made for 33 1/3 rpm, however).

Kind regards,


George

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager