George referred to Peter Copeland's writing on this subject. Chapter 12
of his manual covers acoustic recording and many of the issues discussed
here in some detail:
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/sound/anaudio/analoguesoundrest
oration.pdf

Will

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of George Brock-Nannestad
Sent: 15 November 2009 19:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Edison, etc., reply to Tom Fine

From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad

Hello,

Tom Fine asked, and I thought that I ought to let Mike Biel answer
before I
commented. However, I would also like to add some views.


> So Mike, are you and others saying that a horn recording system is a
one-way
> system? I thought the
> point of a playback horn was, partly, to undo some of the frequency
response
> characteristics imposed
> by the recording horn

----- that was not the case, certainly not in lateral recording. The
recording horn was straight (conical) and the reproducing horn had a
curved
flare. There would be no way that you could correct a lack of response
(an
anti-resonance) at recording at a particular frequency by the
reproducing
horn, because you would just obtain a noise-induced resonance on
reproduction. However, there was a certain advantage of having similar
resonances in recording and reproduction: you would stagger the
resonances
and get both a broader sound (still not correct) and less wear. That, at

least, was the philosopy of Victor when they recorded at 76 rpm and
reproduced at 78.

----- Edison had a much larger influence on both recording and
reproduction;
some of his horns at recording were very unusual, and his transfer
process
between disc and cylinder was acoustical - air-borne.

, like how an electronic disk recording system uses an
> EQ curve to record and
> the reverse curve to play back. So, playing back an Edison cylinder
with no
> playback EQ -- to use
> one example -- is not the listening experience intended, is it? So
then you
> have to get into EQ "by
> ear" by the electronic-playback engineer.

----- I would accept Mike's view that not even the result obtained may
necessarily have been the intended listening experience. But that is
what
they sold and staked their fortune on.

>
> So how is that any different, at base, from selecting an appropriate
horn,
> playing back acoustically
> in a benign acoustic environment and recording the playback with a
> properly-placed accurate mic (ie
> a small-diaphram instrumentation mic or like -- not an obviously
colored mic
> like a U-47)?
>
> I'm not advocating one transfer method or another, I'm just curious
why
> there's this hostility
> toward acoustic transfers -- of material that was recorded
acoustically to
> begin with???

----- I only get hostile when somebody claims a particular procedure to
provide the TRUTH. And that is the basis for all ethical behaviour when
concerned with artefacts: lying is prohibited, everything else is
acceptable
if you state the conditions.

Kind regards,


George


>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Edison, etc., formerly Polk Miller
>
>
> This discussion sounds very similar to what happened at ARSC back in
the
> 80s when Bill Storm (as discussed by George) discussed acoustical
> playback in a presentation. The mob (and it WAS a mob!) was about to
> storm the stage (no pun intended) with torches and pitchforks when I
> explained that he was not advocating ARCHIVING the recordings for
> preservation this way, only using it as reference. But it does seem
> from his posting that John Eberle IS advocating archiving and
> distributing recordings played acoustically, much like the Nimbus
> Nitwits and their Crazy Count did with their Prima Voce series back in
> the early days of CDs.
>
> Let me stress once more, playing a record on an acoustical player is
not
> playing the record it is playing THE MACHINE. As Steve said, each
> acoustical horn introduces resonances on the sound, and thus each
> machine is placing its "stamp" on the sound of every record played on
> it. It is NOT true that "you get to hear the true sound quality of
the
> cylinder as the Edison recording staff intended it to be." You get to
> hear it the way they were able to play it back on the primitive
> equipment they had at that time, not the IDEAL equipment that would
have
> been preferable EVEN THEN. To think they WANTED the recordings to
sound
> that way is absurd. They did the best they could under the
constraints
> of their nearly deaf boss. When electrical recording was available
they
> WANTED to use it. When electrical reproduction was available they
> WANTED to use it. They (meaning Theodore Edison and to a certain
> extent, Charles Edison) had to practically sneak around The Old Man's
> back to improve their sound. It is an insult to the Edison recording
> staff to say that playing a cylinder acoustically "is how they
intended
> it to be".
>
> And let me again state that I am not against playing acoustical
records
> acoustically for the fun of it or to experience what it was like.
Just
> like it is fun once in a while to ride around in a Model T Ford or
some
> other ancient car, but it is not the IDEAL way to travel.
>
>
> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Edison, etc., formerly Polk Miller
> From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, November 14, 2009 5:50 pm
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> In recent years I have been privately advocating that each sound
archive
> and
> other learning venues present a program called "How Our Ancestors
Heard
> Recordings."
>
> It would sequentially play back the same piece of music, "Stars and
> Stripes"
> or an earlier piece for which recordings exist in all commercial
media.
>
> These would be reproduced through the actual machines for which they
> were
> intended rather than microphone recordings from them and would cover
the
>
> time spectrum then to now.
>
> Using microphones to record what is played back on a phonograph,
> graphophone, etc., introduces a further group of variables.
>
> Part of the presentation would include playing electrical recordings
on
> acoustical machines, mono through stereo speakers, etc. to give an
> inverse
> perspective.
>
> This is a different process than that to which I was objecting in my
> earlier
> message. It brings into play the sound of each instrument in a real
> acoustical setting which is far truer to the ear of the listener in
the
> room
> than what a microphone can presently create and mimic.
>
> Steve Smolian
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Polk Miller
>
>
> > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Steven Smolian wrote:
> >
> >
> >> This approach is the shearest nonsense! Horns introduced distortion
at
> >> the
> >> recording end and also at the playback end. This distortion varied
from
> >> one
> >> horn desingn to another.
> >
> > ----- I am sorry, Steven, but I do think that there is room and even
a
> > need
> > for this kind of re-recording. It is a part of sound recording and
> > reproduction history. I do not think we can teach our ears to
forget,
> but
> > we
> > can at least be conscious of our ears and try to go back to the
times
> when
> > this type of sound was amazing. Edison is not a good example for the
> > variability of the playback end, because he was the only recording
> company
> > that sold a complete system, i.e. controlled everything. He may have
> been
> > idiosyncratic, and obviously we also learn about his preconceived
views
> > when
> > listening to his products.
> >
> >>
> >> It may sound 'beetter" to the rerecording engineer but is a purely
> >> subjective opinion.
> >
> > ----- I do not think it sounds "better" to anybody, but certainly
more
> > representative of the sound heard in the parlor than a good
> interpretative
> > transfer that optimises the access to the sound as it was in the
> recording
> > studio. A preservation transfer sounds horrible, but it is extremely
> > useful,
> > because it may be used for any purpose.
> >
> >>
> >> It amazes me that so much is made of presumed audio purity based on
the
> >> dictatorial opinions of a deaf listener.
> >
> > ----- I do not hope that it is the purity in an absolute sense that
> these
> > transfers aim for. But it is rather amazing how good these
"primitive"
> > machines were. And the secret is, they were not primitive at all,
but
> > finely
> > honed to the criteria they set.
> >
> > Bill Storm, formerly of the Belfer Laboratory, which was essentially
> > founded
> > by Walter Welch, was also a proponent of the audio history approach.
I
> > violently opposed it as a preservation format, you may see my
discussion
> > by
> > downloading ARSCJv20n2p156-161 from the ARSC website.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> >
> > George
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "John Eberle" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:20 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Polk Miller
> >>
> >>
> >> > We are collectors of Edison Phonograph antiquities here at
Americana
> CD
> >> > Mastering . In our collection ,
> >> > we have Blue Amberol cylinder records of two Polk Miller songs
> >> > recorded
> >> > in November 1909 for Edison's clientele:
> >> >
> >> > Blue Amberol #2176 "The Laughing Song " and
> >> > #2175 " The Bonnie Blue Flag "
> >> >
> >> > We currently have an mp3 of the Bonnie Blue Flag as played on our
> >> Edison
> >> > Concert Amberola Model A1 and recorded to Ampex GrandMaster 456
then
> >> > transferred to aif file on a Masterlink at 48khz/24 bit
resolution .
> >> > This
> >> > way you
> >> > get to hear the true sound quality of the cylinder as the Edison
> >> > recording
> >> > staff intended it to be ; and as it was heard and enjoyed by the
> >> > thousands
> >> > of Edison customers who purchased it 90 years ago !
> >> >
> > ...........
> >
> >
> > P.S. from time to time my mails to the list are not "taken". I
wonder if
> > there is some online filtering going on. Just to test the system I
> > recently
> > repeated my message with some variations more than 20 times over a
> couple
> > of
> > days, but no luck at all. And the loss is definitely with that
> particular
> > reader who may suddenly read a piece of information he or she did
not
> know
> > about. George
> >

**************************************************************************
 
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
 
The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2008/09 : http://www.bl.uk/knowledge
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
*************************************************************************
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:[log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
 
*************************************************************************