Print

Print


Hi Steve:

I don't think recording EQ curves were all "cosmetic," even if the acoustic players couldn't reverse 
them.

As I understand it, the electronic systems were capable of more level and much more low-frequency 
energy than the horns. So I think they needed to employ bass reduction into the cutter so as to 
produce trackable records and also to allow for 3-minute sides. I don't know if they were at all 
uniform about treble emphasis until the 1930s. Also, as Dennis pointed out, there were several 
recommended emphasis curves, and different engineers went in different directions. The difference 
from the later 78 era (1940s) was that those early curves appear to be undocumented or poorly 
documented, although Mike Biel indicates otherwise at Victor.

To my ears, the best 78-era transfers involved a lot of taste on the transfer engineer or producer 
parts. Eq'ing so the tone of instruments or voices is as natural as possible in a low-fidelity 
setting and using various tools to tastefully eliminate playback noise, these are definitely an art 
as much as a craft.

Bottom line, there are many older-era electricly-recorded records that need a custom curve, settings 
unlike any published curves to sound best.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Record equalization


> 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
>>
>
>