Print

Print


That's true - could it be an electrical dub rather than the original issue?

Best,
Gary

____________________________

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 BURNHAM
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 5:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Oddball record

The hums could have been introduced at a later mastering stage!

db

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 13, 2017, at 12:22 AM, Paul Stamler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
> Peace,
> Paul Stamler
> St. Louis
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus