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  December 2013

ARSCLIST December 2013

Subject:

Re: Record Equalization

From:

Mickey Clark <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:11:32 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (228 lines)

The following are my formulae for various speeds. I use Dartpro 24 and the 
speed adjustments I use are done through 'adjusting sampling rate'. For 
later recordings, I would record at 44,100 and resample to 22,050 for 
processing - the parameters of the program limit the top 'adjust sample 
rate' in such a way as I can't adjust it high enough - i.e. beyond the range 
of the program to correct the speed. Initial higher sample rate deals better 
with transients and outlines the waveform with greater detail-just like in 
Photoshop with pictures



  As I am in the paractice of saving all stages of processing, I can always 
take a step backward if i'm not satisfied with the results - even years 
later. I have literally thousands of directories in my working sound folder 
of as yet unfinished projects, using original serial number. I can search if 
I don't remember whether I've recorded in the vocalist directory or in the 
band's name. They are always recorded - both sides in one file so i don't 
omit a side. Once I have listened and finished editing, I save under the 
title's name in both the vocalist's directory and the band's name. Thus, it 
is easy to assemble a compilation quickly.

Verticals do not seem to benefit from slow transfer - using the Pickering 
M190 tone arm that I use as there is not enough mass in the cartridge 
assembly to maintain a proper 'zero' and noise ratio is compromized

33 / 22050 = 75 / 49500 (early electrical Columbia-some Grey Gulls) 1925 - 
ca. sometime in 1928 - check out 'Say Yes Today' by Ruth Etting and you'll 
see what I mean

33 / 22050 = 76.6/50633 many acoustical and electrical Victors, brunswick 
acoustics and some electrics

33 / 22050 = 78 / 51598  anything after 1928

33 / 22050 = 80 / 52880 acoustical American Columbias and electrical 
British, Edisons etc.

?

Record at 78 and adjust to 75 rpm

78 / 22050 = 75 / 21201

Record at 78 and adjust to 76.6

78 / 22050 = 76.6 / 21654    78/44,100  = 43308

Edison / columbia Acoustic

78 / 22050 = 80 / 22615

A worn record will have inferior noise/signal ratio recorded slow, but 
clarity and depth of sound will still be enhanced. It can be a compromise - 
you'll have to check either way for a worn record.

One thing about recomended speed adjustments for some records - in the 
crank-up days, sometimes you would let the turntable 'free-wheel' to adjust 
the speed, but the drag of the sound box on the record would slow the speed 
upon play-back.





Follow me on Twitter
https://twitter.com/MickeyRClark
M.C.Productions Vintage Recordings
    710 Westminster Ave. West
             Penticton BC
                V2A 1K8
http://mcproductions.shawbiz.ca
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Record Equalization


> Hi Mickey:
>
> Do you know off-hand what is the pitch shift to get a 33 1/3 transfer to 
> 78 pitch? Soundforge has a pitch-shift tool, so I could definitely try 
> this.
>
> What you're saying makes some sense but if you're doing for-release 
> transfers, why not own a various-curves preamp like the TDL Restoration 
> Preamp or something more fancy? Or a mastering equalizer?
>
> I start with the TDL, then usually feed the output to an equalizer to nip 
> and tuck here and there. I've found that if you nip and tuck the midrange 
> to get the most natural tonal balance, the bass and treble will fall into 
> line. Some discs need treble taming to get rid of noise, and if you use a 
> parametric you can usually tune up above any significant musical 
> information. I've heard claims of high treble content on 78s, but I have 
> never seen it on a spectrum graph. The mics of the day weren't capable of 
> gathering information at the frequencies claimed, and horn systems weren't 
> sensitive enough to pick up any high-treble information.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mickey Clark" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Record Equalization
>
>
>>I get around the RIAA curve by recording slow. High frequencies on a 78 
>>when played at 33 1/3 will be presented to the RIAA circuitry at just 
>>under a third of their original frequency. i.e. 10,000 cycles at 78 will 
>>be just over 3,000 cycles at 33 1/3 which means less suppression of the 
>>high frequencies at playback.
>>
>> The result is a fabulous kick of bass and depth , and clarity and 
>> transparency for the high frequencies. I have digitized thousands or 
>> recordings this way and am satisfied that it works for most recordings - 
>> but not all. e.g. Columbias - notably 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes' is one 
>> of these exceptions.
>>
>> Once you play a 78 through an RIAA preamp at full speed, you kill much of 
>> the high frequency information and you cannot equalize it to get it 
>> back-Anyone interested in a sample to illustrate this, please advise me 
>> and I can send an example. I have covered everything from symphonic, 
>> opera, blues, jazz and spoken word and have samples I can send as mp3's. 
>> The link below is a slow transfer of the Gigli/Caniglia version of 
>> Verdi's  Requiem. I did adjust the bass eq slightly to smooth it out, as 
>> there was a bit of a hump in the curve before eq. the trble is kept 
>> intact - all the best to the group and a Merry Christmas to All-Mickey 
>> Clark
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Verdi-Requiem-CDN255-Royal-Serafin/dp/B004YZCJTW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1387645955&sr=8-2&keywords=verdi+requiem+m.c.productions
>>
>>
>> Mickey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Doug Pomeroy" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 1:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Record Equalization
>>
>>
>>> The Radiotron Handbook entry shows only one curve "used by R.C.A. Victor 
>>> for 78 r.p.m. shellac discs, 45 r.p.m.  and 33 1/3 r.p.m. fine groove" 
>>> discs.  As there was no RCA Victor before 1929, this does not tell the 
>>> whole Victor story and does not answer the specific question Steve 
>>> Smolian asks (about electrical Victors made in the short period before 
>>> November of 1925).
>>>
>>> Maxfield and Harrison's 1926 paper describing the Western Electric 
>>> system clearly indicates a bass turnover of 200 Hz and pre-emphasis 
>>> ("constant acceleration") above "approximately 4000 Hz". This was before 
>>> electrical record players were widely available and this curve was 
>>> developed in consideration of playback by acoustic record players.
>>>
>>> As has been mentioned, Victor raised the bass turnover over the years 
>>> from 200 Hz to 300 Hz and finally to 500 Hz.  Nick Bergh knows the 
>>> cutting equipment used and speaks with authority on the subject of EQ. 
>>> I showed him a Victor ledger sheet from December 1926 which includes a 
>>> column marked "Eqlzr." and it only shows the words "on" or "off" which 
>>> doesn't tell us what we'd really like to know!  It's safe to say that at 
>>> Victor, experiments with various cutting equalizations were being done
>>> on an ongoing basis.
>>>
>>> Doug Pomeroy
>>> Audio Restoration and Mastering Services
>>> 193 Baltic St
>>> Brooklyn, NY  11201-6173
>>> (718) 855-2650
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Date:    Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:36:58 +0000
>>>> From:    "Gray, Mike" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Subject: Re: Record equalization
>>>>
>>>> From Radiotron Designer's Handbook, 4th Ed. 1953, p. 728, item 17.5:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "There is no 'optimum' cross-over frequency because the choice is 
>>>> necessarily a compromise. Where distortion is the principal criterion, 
>>>> a low cros-over frequency from 250 to 350 c/s will be adopted for 
>>>> standard groove 78 r.p.m. Where needle scratch is troublesome with 78 
>>>> r.p.m. a high cross-over frequency of say 500 c/s may be adopted."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On page 730, under Practical recording characteristics:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "There does not appear to be any generally accepted definition of 
>>>> published recording characteristics."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the two figures on this page, European characteristics show several 
>>>> cross-over points, ranging from 300 Hz (Decca ffrr)
>>>> to 600 Hz for EMI 78 rpm. Note that there is no pre-emphasis at all for 
>>>> the EMI discs, which are 'flat' up to 10 Khz.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> American 78s, however, show a boost of ca. 12 db at 10 KHz ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FWIW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Gray
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
>> protection is active.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>>
> 


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

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