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  October 2009

ARSCLIST October 2009

Subject:

Re: late date 78

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:03:44 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (130 lines)

Disco singles -- I've never heard of any "standards" as far as modulation or bass boominess or the 
like. One of my high school summers when I worked at Sigma Sound NYC, I got to go-fer around some of 
the disco-remix sessions that went on there at night. I saw some very creative use of tape loops and 
other interesting pre-computer ways to stretch phrases, shift beats and the like. All in the 
"service" of utterly awful music! These masterworks would get polished off just in time for 
Frankfort Wayne mastering to open up. Those guys would cut a record as loud as was trackable with a 
DJ turntable and the producer-type would rush off with a few laquers and perhaps a bag of chemical 
goodies to hand out, hoping to get the laquers spun on the dance floors that next night.

George is correct that 78RPM would have been ideal for disco singles but I don't think this would 
have been practical given that DJs would switch between LPs and 12" singles and 45's, all 
microgroove, and not have to change cartridges in the process. The few discos I experienced in those 
times, feedback wasn't an issue because the DJ booth was highly isolated. I recall some 12" singles 
being 45RPM and some being 33RPM (especailly the 15-minute "extended trippy mix" versions, which 
made very liberal use of tape loops and clap machines and the like).

I recently noticed that there is now a "DJ/mixmaster" app for the iPhone, allowing cueing and 
scratching and mashing of iTunes files.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] late date 78


> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
> Hello, Milan Milovanovic asked:
>>
>> Speaking of micro versus wider grooves, would wider grooved cut record be
>> more resistant to micro scratches and easier to get clean from dust etc.
>> than "microgrooved" LP record?
>>
>> Also, would 78 rpm speed be more suitable for recording/reproducing
>> especially at the last 1/5 of disc with no groove distortion added in this
>> area (often connected to ordinary 33 rpm records)?
>>
>
> ----- I have in front of me an article printed in Audio magazine in April
> 1963. It is "A 78-rpm Stereo Record" by Allan R. Keskinen. The record itself
> is a test record that permits instantaneous evaluation of a stereo cartridge,
> and he says:
>
> "    In the preparation of this record, the 78.26-rpm standard record speed
> was chosen in order ot reduce stylus-tracing-geometry and wavelength effects.
> The resulting long wavelengths and the large groove size used, reduce tracing
> distortion to a minimum and extend record life. The bottom of the groove has
> a radius of approximately 0.0002 in. permitting use of styli as small as
> 0.0005 in. without danger of bottoming.   .....".
>
> This is obviously not a stereo record in the commercial sense of the word,
> but the article shows the thoughts that decided the selection of the highest
> speed. The article as such is otherwise very good and instructive. Keskinen
> was the chief engineer at Astatic.
>
> The speed, groove spacing and modulation, and duration are all interlinked,
> and the purpose decides the compromise that is used in practice. In my view,
> the best present sound is obtained from a disco single, which has a wider
> groove, a higher speed and also a lower cross-over frequency than an LP
> because it permits higher amplitudes at lower frequencies. This means that
> the DJ does not have to use so much bass amplification for a given bass
> output, and that reduces the risk of acoustic feedback to the pickup via the
> turntable. And I think that this freedom from feedback was what decided the
> issue for digital recordings (=CDs), not anything to do with quality as such.
>
> I do not think that there is an industry standard covering disco singles, but
> I would like to be corrected and to have somebody give a reference.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> George
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 6:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] late date 78
>>
>>
>> > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Mike Biel wrote:
>> >
>> >> Theoretically the best sound at 78 would be with a microgroove size
>> >> groove since it would be capable of higher frequency response than a
>> >> wide groove, or a microgroove at slower speeds.
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- now, I am speculating why this should be so. I do not understand why
>> > a
>> > microgroove should give a higher frequency response than a NORMAL groove.
>> > It
>> > has to do with the maximum acceleration of the tip and the ability of the
>> > tip
>> > to trace precisely the groove shape. If the smaller radius of an
>> > elliptical
>> > stylus (or the radius of the edge in a line contact stylus) is able to
>> > trace
>> > without error a curve in one flank of the groove, it does not matter
>> where
>> > the other flank of the groove is.
>> >
>> > If microgroove is associated with a higher groove pitch (which would
>> mean
>> > well above 200 grooves per inch), then the maximum amplitude would be
>> > reduced
>> > compared to the ca. 100 grooves per inch in a traditional 78 rpm record.
>> > If
>> > we maintain the 100 grooves per inch but reduce the groove width and
>> > depth,
>> > we would have more land to use, and the modulation could be higher,
>> which
>> > would give a low frequency advantage. That is the rationale behind disco
>> > singles (albeit at 45 rpm). And all of this without variable groove pitch.
>> > If
>> > that is used, then we are even better of, bass-wise.
>> >
>> > 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

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