LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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  April 2016

ARSCLIST April 2016

Subject:

Re: EQ curves (was When 78.25? Say Yea Today and my dub of Honeycomb by Jimmie Rodgers)

From:

Corey Bailey <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:14:47 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (121 lines)

I don't believe that anyone has mentioned the fact that there are some 
serious differences between the playback curves for RIAA records and 78 
RPM Records. While the RIAA curve was standardized, the Playback EQ for 
78 RPM will vary depending on the era and the manufacturer. I'm sure I'm 
preaching to the choir here but if one is going to transfer any disc at 
a speed other than normal, one should transfer flat, then add the 
correct EQ either during the speed conversion or after.  Personally, I 
prefer to work at speed (having determined the correct one) and apply 
the appropriate EQ in the analog domain before the signal is digitized.

My $0.02

Corey
Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
www.baileyzone.net

On 4/11/2016 5:27 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> Trying to remember to change the subject line with the subject drifts ...
>
> Lou is correct about using the proper EQ curve. It's really amazing 
> how much more natural things sound, and how the noise level can seem 
> lower because the music is jumping forward, when the right EQ is used.
>
> By the way, further on what I said recently about playing back older 
> mono LPs, and mono 45's well into the 60's if not the 70's ...
>
> I found online the documentation on the GE Variable Reluctance 
> cartridges, including a listing of the options for stylus 
> configurations. I had forgotten that they made both the flip-over 
> dual-format (microgroove and wide-groove) types and a single-format 
> snap-in type. All of the "LP" or "microgroove" options were 1-mil, 
> mostly conical diamonds (some of the flip-overs had sapphires for both 
> needles, some had sapphire for wide-groove and diamond for 
> microgroove). So, the early LP records and 45's in the 
> first-generation RCA format were definitely not cut to be played with 
> a 0.7-mil elliptical needle. If you have old records that weren't 
> played much (ie only a few times, at most) with a 1-mil needle, you 
> can probably play them OK with a typical modern 0.7-mil conical needle 
> (like what's standard on a "DJ" cartridge like a Shure M-44-7). But if 
> the old record was enjoyed to any degree back in the day, it's been 
> worn in for a 1-mil needle and an 0.7-mil is likely going to ride in 
> the groove down where that wear pattern has done some grinding, so 
> there's liable to be a higher surface noise level and/or more 
> distortion/fuzz. If the disk was enjoyed on a typical heavy-tracking 
> record-wrecker, all bets are off and it might be gouged out to where 
> even a 1-mil needle is riding down in the damaged area. Because many 
> AM radio stations were still using GE VR and similar cartrdiges well 
> into the 60's, if not into the 70's, 45RPM mono singles were often cut 
> with the intention of being played with a 1-mil conical stylus.
>
> Also, if you have a curve-adjustable preamp, you can listen for 
> yourself and see how much different RCA New Orthophonic (RIAA) sounds 
> from AES sounds from Columbia LP curve. Early LPs most certainly were 
> cut with different curves, until RIAA standardized on New Orthophonic 
> in 1954. From what I've been able to find out, most Columbia releases 
> were cut with their curve right up to the announced RIAA 
> standardization date. Many independent releases were cut at either 
> Radio Recorders, United Recording in Chicago or Fine Sound in NYC, and 
> all of those operations used the AES curve. As far as I know, all of 
> those operations standardized on RIAA at the same time everyone else 
> did in 1954. RCA LPs were always cut with New Orthophonic, as far as I 
> know, and thus play back fine with a standard RIAA preamp. What I 
> don't know is, did RCA also always use that curve for their 45RPM 
> releases? There is mythology on the interwebs about Columbia and Decca 
> using something other than the RIAA EQ after 1954, particularly in the 
> stereo era. Simply not true! The RIAA curve was an INDUSTRY STANDARD, 
> meaning EVERYONE used it for commercial releases. It is possible, 
> however, that there were non-RIAA cuts made right up to the 
> standardization date, and were released after that, so non-RIAA cuts 
> were probably widely sold at retail into the mid-1950's. Also, no one 
> went back and re-mastered their catalog so it was all in RIAA 
> compliance immediately. In the case of Mercury, I know the early mono 
> classical catalog wasn't re-cut with the RIAA curve until about 1958, 
> and there was still probably old inventory out in retail. Same goes 
> for the jazz and pop catalogs, except that only titles still selling 
> well post-RIAA were ever re-cut with the standard curve. I imagine 
> Columbia went the same way -- if something was still selling and new 
> factory parts were needed after RIAA standardization, then it would 
> get re-cut at RIAA, but maybe be packed in the same sleeve so it would 
> be hard to tell what playback EQ to use.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lou Judson" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 7:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] When 78.25? Say Yea Today and my dub of 
> Honeycomb by Jimmie Rodgers
>
>
> NOT being overly picky, but it still sounds like an old 78 (grainy 
> midrange, fuzzy lo-mids) without the scratch.. But why I write is this:
>
> Wouldn’t it be better to transfer it at 78 with 78 curve? I think I 
> can hear the RIAA which is not appropriate for any 78, as far as I 
> know, and boosts the highs a lot. If you are up for it, I’d love to 
> hear it transferred as a 78 without RIAA curve,,, a 78 with RIAA has 
> +14 highs compared to 1k, and even the 45 had better LF on the old 6x9s!
>
> I do know it sounded lots better in my parents’ 1960 Olds on the AM 
> radio, where I heard it a few thousand times…
>
> <L>
> Lou Judson
> Intuitive Audio
> 415-883-2689
>
> On Apr 11, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Mickey Clark <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Another discussion was the limitation of high frequencies present on 
>> a 78 size groove record. I have included Honeycomb by Jimmie Rodgers 
>> as a sample of a 50's 78 - with slow transfer at 33 no eq added aside 
>> form phono preamp RIAA. I think it sounds better than an LP would of 
>> this song - see for yourself!!! - Mickey Clark
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/m0jhsd5uykj0mdh/AAC4TV-q7tIpYhPJ6SVCsADVa?dl=0 
>>
>>
>

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
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