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  March 2015

ARSCLIST March 2015

Subject:

Re: Decca FFRR "backwards" disk-cutting -- likely a MYTH

From:

DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 12 Mar 2015 21:52:23 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (189 lines)

I don't have a definitive answer but I can't imagine they would get into the electronics of the recording chain just to change the RIAA curve and when 16rpm was au courant, I know there was no switch on the phonographs to introduce a different playback curve.
db 

     On Thursday, March 12, 2015 4:49 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
   

 I don't know about Sid Frey, but Emory Cook experimented with all kinds of disk-cutting methods. I'm 
sure he touched on a half-speed at some point, but don't know if he ever used it commercially.

There was literally half-speed production of records for a brief time. I think it was Prestige that 
issued a series of double-length jazz albums, to be played at 16RPM, cut by Rudy Van Gelder. I think 
language-lab records, books-on-record and perhaps some kiddie records were also released at 16RPM. I 
recall that speed being available on older phonographs at my school; the phonographs would probably 
be circa 1960s and this was the late 1970s when I saw them. I don't recall any slow-speed records 
surviving in the school library or classrooms.

Was there a consistent emphasis and de-emphasis curve for 16RPM cutting? Was it RIAA?

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Burnham" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Decca FFRR "backwards" disk-cutting -- likely a MYTH


>I was thinking of the Audio Fidelity records that claimed recorded frequencies up to 24k or 27k, I 
>forget which, (not at full level, of course), and although you couldn't hear these frequencies, you 
>were invited to check with a microscope.
>
> db
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 12, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that would be a smart use of half-speed mastering. That would be for CD4 records only 
>> (mostly RCA and Elektra titles). SQ and QS did not have a high-frequency carrier, rather they 
>> were matrixed systems.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy A. Riddle" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Decca FFRR "backwards" disk-cutting -- likely a MYTH
>>
>>
>>> Wasn't there "super-sonic" frequencies on Quadradiscs?  I was thinking
>>> those had to be cut at half speed because they included a 30 kHz carrier -
>>> if you put one on a turntable and slow it down, the carrier tone is clearly
>>> audible.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think very many LPs contained "super-sonic" frequencies, because
>>>> everyone rolled off at some point to avoid blowing out the cutterhead. You
>>>> are very correct, though, that it's easier to cut 10kHz than 20kHz at a
>>>> high level, but what music has high levels of 20kHz in the first place? I
>>>> just don't see any big advantage to half-speed cutting, but I should call
>>>> up my friend Stan Ricker and discuss this in-depth before saying more.
>>>>
>>>> For what it's worth, among the major classical LP labels cutting records
>>>> in NY in the first decade of stereophony, it was typical to low-pass around
>>>> 15K, meaning there was a decrease in level down to about 10K. No one tended
>>>> to complain that there's not enough treble on Mercury, RCA and Columbia
>>>> albums of the time. If you didn't low-pass, you used something like a
>>>> Fairchild Conax, which was a relatively fast limiter for high-frequency
>>>> (above 10K) signals. The reason was, it was expensive to blow out Westrex
>>>> cutterheads and they were easily blown out with intense high-frequency
>>>> information. One thing that mystifies me about half-speed cutting is that
>>>> it came into vogue later on, when most people were using Neumann lathes and
>>>> cutterheads. I thought one of the big advantages of Neumann cutterheads was
>>>> that they pretty much solved the problem of blowing up with intense
>>>> high-frequency information. I know that George Piros, who could cut a LOT
>>>> of HF into an LP using a Scully/Westrex system in the early 60's, said he
>>>> could cut even more HF and level "if I turn off the computer" using his
>>>> Neumann lathe at Atlantic Records.
>>>>
>>>> A major test of how much HF you could cut with a circa 1958 Westrex
>>>> cutterhead came with "Persuasive Percussion" by Terry Snyder and Enoch
>>>> Light, the all-time best seller among "Stereo Spectacular" pop records. My
>>>> father told Enoch Light's biographer that he and George blew out "about a
>>>> dozen" cutterheads trying to get acceptable fidelity with the Chinese
>>>> bells. They finally arrived on a compromise that kept the cutterhead from
>>>> blowing up and ended up with a close approximation of Chinese Bells when
>>>> played back with a good cartridge on a light-tracking turntable of the era
>>>> (2g was very light tracking in those days). It was during that time that my
>>>> father got Westrex to customize his cutterheads, making them mechanically
>>>> stiffer (less compliant), so he could use much less electrical feedback and
>>>> more net power from his 200W McIntosh amplifiers. George perfected cutting
>>>> right on the edge of coming out with a trackable record and not blowing up
>>>> too many cutters.
>>>>
>>>> Ironically, now that I wrote that, I think half-speed cutting would have
>>>> been really beneficial in the early stereo days. But not when it was en
>>>> vogue.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Burnham" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:46 PM
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Decca FFRR "backwards" disk-cutting -- likely a
>>>> MYTH
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always thought the advantages of half-speed mastering were in the high
>>>>> frequencies, not the lows; super-sonic frequencies were brought down to
>>>>> sonic frequencies and recorded more easily, but very low frequencies were
>>>>> pushed down into a subsonic range and frequencies in the low teens can be
>>>>> troublesome for tape heads. Also consider that direct to disc recordings
>>>>> are better sounding than any half speed mastered disc and, of course, they
>>>>> can only be recorded at normal speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> db
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 12, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do think they pioneered this, going back to SONAR training equipment
>>>>>> in WWII.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking of half-speed cutting, I have never understood how this is
>>>>>> pulled off in a modern context, especially with Dolby-encoded master tapes.
>>>>>> I guess it's possible to make the NAB or CCIR tape EQ de-emphasis work at
>>>>>> half-speed, and the RIAA emphasis at the lathe, but doesn't Dolby get
>>>>>> screwed up when frequency bands are lowered?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today, I think one can listen to recent LP cuts by Bernie Grundman or
>>>>>> Ryan Smith or Sean Magee and hear that there's no need for half-speed if
>>>>>> the cutting engineer and his cutting chain are top-notch. I've heard
>>>>>> arguments about fitting more bass energy on a disk at half-speed, but again
>>>>>> I can't understand how that's true since the disk will be played back at
>>>>>> full-speed and hence won't track on normal-priced systems if the grooves
>>>>>> are too wide and deep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 8:18 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Decca FFRR "backwards" disk-cutting -- likely a
>>>>>> MYTH
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Decca did do some half-speed cutting - am I remembering that right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:57 AM
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Decca FFRR "backwards" disk-cutting -- likely a MYTH
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I asked the folks at Decca Classics, including the guys who just put
>>>>>>> together the excellent new "Mono Years 1944-1956" box set. All of them
>>>>>>> said,
>>>>>>> in essence, no way. The technical guys said it's not possible to cut
>>>>>>> 20-minute LP sides this way and there was no reason to do it, given
>>>>>>> Decca's
>>>>>>> advanced cutting techniques developed during WWII, many of which were
>>>>>>> ported
>>>>>>> over to microgrooves.
>>>>>>> For 78's, they said again there was no reason to cut a disk backwards
>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>> they could easily accomodate FFRR cutting forward like everyone else.
>>>>>>> Unless
>>>>>>> someone can come up with some documentation saying otherwise, I would
>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>> this is a MYTH and should be nipped in the bud here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
> 


   

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