One llikeleyhood is that the recording lathe speed is not calibrated. The quick way to do this is to find a stroboscope, a circular piece of paper with a cener hole and concentric circles of dots that,, when put on a running turntable, and viewed under fluorescent light, will tell you at what speed it is turning. There has to be a speed adjustment device- a lever or what looks like a volume control, somewhere on the lathe. There are probablu Youtube guides to its use- I's not very complicated.
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lorna Fulton
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 12:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Recording Process in 1920s
We’ve done that too!
Sent from my iPhone
> On 22 Jan 2018, at 17:08, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi, Lorna,
> That is a fascinating bit of evidence. Don't you think, given that
> human beings are born tinkerers, that a knowledgeable recording
> engineer, using that piece of equipment and knowing that problem,
> would have applied some "Kentucky windage,"deliberately speeding up
> the recording process some more so the result would be closer to the
> original pitch when played back? I sure would have done that. The
> human factor probably interrupts what we would like to establish as some kind of rule.
> John Haley
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Lorna Fulton
> <[log in to unmask]>
>> I record on a 1938 presto lathe and the recording (despite a lot of
>> tinkering) consistently records at 7% more speed than the musicians
>> have just played at.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 22 Jan 2018, at 16:31, Chris Smith <[log in to unmask]>
>>> It¹s generally accepted that the Georgia Cotton Pickers¹ session of
>>> 7/8 December 1930 was recorded too slow, so that playback at 78 is too fast.
>>> Southern Preservation Records issued ŒShe¹s Coming Back Some Cold
>>> Rainy Day¹ at both speeds on an LP - notes reproduced at
>>> ttach=6287;image. That was presumably an engineering error, rather
>>> than deliberate, however.Mississippi John Hurt¹s ŒFrankie¹ was
>>> similarly recorded too slow, and plays back too fast: some
>>> discussion at
>>> https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=4931.0. (My name
>>> is mentioned there; I would not - I think - now support the theory I advanced, which is mentioned.
>>> There is a persistent, and ridculous, theory that Robert Johnson¹s
>>> recordings were deliberately sped up for release, comprehensibely
>>> at http://www.elijahwald.com/johnsonspeed.html.
>>> Chris Smith
>>> On 22/01/2018 16:09, "Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>> on behalf of Terri Brinegar" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> Hello All,
>>>> Can anyone tell me if recordings in the 1920s were transferred to
>>>> exactly the same speed as they were recorded? In other words, if
>>>> someone is singing an ³F² pitch on the recording, is that the
>>>> actual pitch sung or could the engineer possibly speed it up
>>>> somehow, thus raising the pitch? Not sure if that was possible back then.
>>>> Thank you!
>>>> Terri Brinegar
>>>> PhD Candidate in Ethnomusicology
>>>> University of Florida
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> [log in to unmask]