Print

Print


In this context, equalization has two meanings.  I'm making up the
definitions here.

1. An alteration in the electrical signal applied before the recording
occurs, to be reversed upon playback. Objective.

2. Cosmetic alteration of the audio signal.  The intent is to make it sound
better.  Subjective.

From Dennis' data it appears that, since the machines of the time were
incapable of inverting the change to the recorded audio signal, its use was
as in No. 2 above.  

My inqiry is specific to No. 1 above.

Steve Smolian 
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Biel
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 12:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Record equalization

Dennis' info is important because I think it is part of the technical info
encoded on the Victor ledger sheets that is being IGNORED by the Victor
discographical project.  Nick Bergh did a presentation at ARSC 2 years ago
which shows that he has gone a long way to understanding that ledger
technical information.  Of course it all means nothing without access to the
info on the ledger sheets for the particular recording -- and librarians and
archivists do not consider technical info to be "discographically
significant".

Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]  

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Record equalization
From: John Haley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, December 19, 2013 10:55 am
To: [log in to unmask]

Steve, won't your ears tell you whether phono-EQ was used or not? It can
sometimes be hard to tell which EQ setting was used, when some EQ setting
was used, but usually not so hard to tell if no EQ was used. That's not a
small difference. As in many cases of determining EQ, the ears are the most
reliable equipment.

Best, John




On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Dennis Rooney
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> When Western Electric brought electrical recording to Victor and 
> Columbia, several turnover/rolloff combinations were suggested, viz. 
> 300/0, 500/-10, 800/-10 and 500/-13.5. The choice was up to the 
> cutting engineer and examples of all the above were used from 1925. At 
> this point, it is useful to reiterate that there was no such thing as 
> a "standard" equalization for playback of 78rpm discs, although there was
some stabilization by c1930.
>
> DDR
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Steve Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Do we know if the early commercial electrics by Victor and HMV used 
> > any equalization? Since there was no commercial record player on the 
> > home market that used an amplifier until November, 1925, there's an 
> > April-October or later period where there is no means of introducing 
> > a circuit that inverts any electronic change from what reached the 
> > cutting head.
> >
> > The record companies would not abandon the record market which used 
> > the acoustic playback process for half a year or create a product 
> > that
> sounded
> > poor on the installed base of home players. Yes the acoustic
> Orthophonics
> > were available by then but few could afford them.
> >
> > If this is so, such 78s should be played back flat.
> >
> > Any hard data on this question?
> >
> > Steve Smolian
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 1006 Langer Way
> Delray Beach, FL 33483
> 212.874.9626
>