I too would love to see it.
Please pardon the mispellings and occassional insane word substitution I'm on an iPhone
> On Aug 13, 2017, at 10:08, Gary A. Galo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> Any chance you could transfer the record so we can hear it and look at it? You can send the file to yourself via WeTransfer, then email the link the listserve, as I have done a couple of times.
> I'd be really interested to see it and hear it.
> 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]] On Behalf Of Tim Gillett
> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 6:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Oddball record
> Is it possible the lathe had a mechanical problem and a LF vibration from the motor, a bearing, idler wheel etc was cut into the wax?
> Tim Gillett
> Western Australia
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 12:22 PM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Oddball record
>> Hi folks:
>> I'm working on a record that has me puzzled. It's a Gennett record from
>> 1923. The authorities say that Gennett didn't take up electrical
>> recording until 1926 or so, so I had this pegged as acoustic.
>> But it has *hum* on it. Significant hum; at this stage in processing the
>> signal (two channels combined, no EQ, iZotope de-clicking applied) the
>> hum signal is at about -38dBFS (about 24dB below my nominal 0vu level).
>> There's also an intermittent signal at 40Hz. The lowest signal frequency
>> seems to be about 150Hz
>> If this is an acoustical recording, how did those low frequencies get
>> onto the record? If there was a mechanical rumble in the room, I would
>> not expect the recording horn to respond significantly at 57Hz, let
>> alone 40Hz. (Heck, 150Hz is surprising.)
>> And the thing is, it doesn't *sound* like an acoustical recording --
>> there aren't the typical horn resonances coloring the sound. It sounds
>> like a good early electrical recording.
>> But the 1923 date is reinforced by several sources -- well before
>> Gennett is believed to have gone electric.
>> Could this have been an experimental electrical recording (perhaps using
>> the GE Photophone process) that somehow escaped into the catalog? Could
>> it be turntable rumble during cutting? If so, why does the record sound
>> electrical rather than acoustical?
>> By the way, the flip side has virtually identical hum, though a cursory
>> glance doesn't show the 40Hz component.
>> Anyhow, I'm mystified. I know that record companies were experimenting
>> with electrical disk recording before the majors adopted the Western
>> Electric system, hence my speculation that this could have been one of
>> those experiments.
>> Any ideas?
>> Paul Stamler
>> St. Louis
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.