Dear All,


I also want to offer my thanks, mostly as an observer, for this important and interesting conversation. Just yesterday in the Yale Historical Sound Recordings studio I was having to adjust the speed of two Vladimir de Pachmann 12" 78s -- one higher and the other lower (two different recording companies). And there are times, working with early 7" or 10" recordings of singers, that playing something at 78rpms is almost overwhelmingly the exception, rather than the rule.


In the Yale HSR studio we use several factors to determine pitch, which in some cases -- as has been acknowledged in this thread -- involves degrees of instinct and guesswork. Since I'm also a professional conductor and performer, I rely heavily on my own ears and knowledge of performance practice, but also with the help of an in-studio keyboard that is usually fixed at A=440, but can be adjusted to any pitch level as needed (and also has the option of several temperaments, which comes in handy for baroque-period instrument listening instruction). It is incredibly helpful to remember, of course, as others will point out, that A=440 wasn't standard everywhere at the turn of the century (even though many who do digital transfers default to it) -- Nellie Melba being a case and point -- and also, at least when it comes to singers, a fair number would transpose up or down a step or even a half step depending on the aria and vocal circumstances.


As best we can in the Yale studio, we also try to take these factors into account. As for recordings that change pitch during the course of a side, some of the newer technical information offered here has also been quite interesting.


All best wishes


Mark Bailey, head
Historical Sound Recordings
Irving S. Gilmore Music Library
Yale University
[log in to unmask]




________________________________
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Corey Bailey <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 8:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] How many half-tones from 78 rpm to 80 rpm

The original question was posted from someone in the US. So yes, all of
the (very interesting) answers were based on "US-centered" speeds.

Corey
Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
www.baileyzone.net<http://www.baileyzone.net>
Family Audio Preservation - Audio Engineering<http://www.baileyzone.net/>
www.baileyzone.net
The purpose of this site is to raise awareness about the need to archive audio and video recordings which contain your family history. Of prime importance is ...




On 4/24/2017 3:42 PM, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> all very US-centered, isn't it? The 78.26 comes from a certain number of poles
> in a synchronous motor combined with simple ratios in the gearbox that changes
> the rpm from the motor to the target rpm for the turntable. But it is only this
> figure at 60 Hz mains frequency. If you had a slow-speed synchronous motor run
> off 60 Hz the closest to 78.00 is 78.26 rpm. If you use a stroboscope for 60 Hz
> under a 120 Hz light (goes for fluorescent or low-power incandescent lamps off
> the mains), you can only get a stationary ring at 78.26.
>
> In the not insignificant parts of the world where they use 50 Hz as the mains
> frequency, the corresponding figure would be 77.92 rpm. You need a different
> stroboscope for this and also the slow-speed synchronous motor would have a
> different number of poles. Aida Favia-Artsay knew, and her Caruso stroboscopes
> came in both varieties.
>
> The Victor Talking Machine Company is on record in the acoustic period as
> specifying 76 rpm for recording and 78 rpm for reproduction of the recording
> obtained. Some of their customers obviously did not have absolute pitch. In the
> acoustic period of the Gramophone Company, the speed was checked every morning
> by means of a piece of cigarette paper under the wax while cutting and counting
> the revolutions for a minute. They preferred 78 rpm!
>
> In the United Kingdom, the Old Philharmonic Pitch (which corresponded to an a4
> of 452 Hz (give or take a few) survived in the military bands until ca. 1926,
> when they also changed to the New Philharmonic Pitch at 439 Hz. If you hear
> Nellie Melba sing accompanied by the Band of the Coldstream Guards in 1905 with
> the key indicated, you can pitch it absolutely correctly when you play it: they
> used the Old Philharmonic Pitch. Columbia recorded a lot of military bands, and
> they abandoned the 80 rpm speed for 78 rpm at around the same time the bands
> changed tuning. The interesting thing is that the fraction 78/80 is very nearly
> the same as the fraction 439/452, in other words if you played a Columbia band
> record in 1932 you would not know whether it was an early recording slowed down
> to 78 or whether it was actually a new recording with the new pitch and the new
> speed. This is what I habitually in my workshops call "the dialectic triangle:
> speed, key, and standard pitch".
>
> I rarely comment these days, but this issue is very important.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> George
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>> 78.26 did not become a standard speed until electric motors were used in
>> cutter and playback turntables. In the acoustic era, 78 usually meant 78.00.
>> But, if you´re using a modern turntable like, say, a Technics SP-15, 78
>> actually is 78.26, and the percentage of change must be calculated from
>> that.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> ____________________________
>>
>> Gary Galo
>> Audio Engineer Emeritus
>> The Crane School of Music
>> SUNY at Potsdam, NY 13676
>>
>> "Great art presupposes the alert mind of the educated listener."
>> Arnold Schoenberg
>>
>> "A true artist doesn't want to be admired, he wants to be believed."
>> Igor Markevitch
>>
>> From: DAVID BURNHAM [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 6:05 PM
>> To: Gary A. Galo
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] How many half-tones from 78 rpm to 80 rpm
>>
>> That's fine, but the standard speed for 78s IS 78.26; I don't know if 80RPM
>> records included a fraction.  LPs, of course are always based on 33 1/3 RPM,
>> so there would be no reason to relate anything to 33.00 RPM.  I'm sure the
>> original question was searching for a corrective adjustment to adapt from
>> standard 78 to Columbia's 80 RPM, but that's only a guess.
>>
>> db
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 24, 2017 5:56 PM, Gary A. Galo
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>  wrote:
>>
>> I specifically said 78.00 in my reply. I assumed that if you meant 78.26, you
>> would have said so.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf
>> Of DAVID BURNHAM
>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 4:44 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] How many half-tones from 78 rpm to 80 rpm
>>
>> Are you basing that on 78.00 RPM or 78.26 RPM?
>> Not challenging you just a question.
>> db
>>
>>      On Monday, April 24, 2017 4:18 PM, Gary A. Galo
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> A quarter tone is 3%, a half tone is 6%, and a whole tone is 12%. So, the
>> difference between 78.00 and 80 is just a hair under a quarter tone. A quarter
>> tone would be 80.34; a half tone is 82.68..
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> ____________________________
>>
>> Gary Galo
>> Audio Engineer Emeritus
>> The Crane School of Music
>> SUNY at Potsdam, NY 13676
>>
>> "Great art presupposes the alert mind of the educated listener."
>> Arnold Schoenberg
>>
>> "A true artist doesn't want to be admired, he wants to be believed."
>> Igor Markevitch
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf
>> Of James Roth
>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 3:31 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] How many half-tones from 78 rpm to 80 rpm
>>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> Can anyone tell me how many half-tones up from 78 rpm to 80 rpm?
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Ben Roth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>