 |
 |
I thought hot stylus was used much earlier than the late 40s (that's when LPs were introduced). I have a late 30s lacquer that must have been a cold cut, and it's obvious why hot cut was preferred. I've heard lacquers from the 30s that sound much better which I assume where cut hot. joe salerno George Brock-Nannestad wrote: > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad > > Hello, > > Bob Ohlsson wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From joe salerno: "...Shortly after that film was made the lacquer >> recording >> process must have become popular, making the film quickly outdated..." >> >> I can remember reading somewhere years ago that the use of lacquer masters >> for replication didn't happen immediately because of quality issues. Does >> anybody know anything about this? > > ----- I think it has to with the fact that the hot stylus technique did not > get used until 1948. The noise level when cutting wax was 4 dB lower than > when cutting lacquer cold. The above figures are from memory only. However, I > do know that the principle was invented early 1920s by Miessner. > > At EMI, lacquer was used for colonial recording from the late 1930s; I > suppose this logistic choice was sensible and outweighed the increased noise > that would be masked by the shellac mixture. And the end users were probably > not esteemed as being quality-conscious. > > Kind regards, > > > George >