[78-L] Silent surface (a personal history) and a new question

[Michael Biel]

Royal Pemberton wrote:
> I knew that by the late 1950s at least some labels were producing what
> would be thought of as a 'cutting master' tape, incorporating whatever
> signal processing they felt necessary to optimise sound quality on the
> pressings.  (RCA Victor Living Stereo springs to mind as one example.)
>   
I think you have this confused with Dynagroove.  You can ask Graham 
Newton who was with Canadian RCA Victor at the time as a cutting 
engineer.  He has explained how the Dynagroove encoding is put onto the 
cutting master tape, which ended up creating problems when they tried 
using these for CDs.  He explained that in other cases the masters were 
flat and there were setting indications on the tape sheets for any 
changes from normal that were to be followed by the cutters to recreate 
the original release masters. 

> But were labels doing so even in the very early tape era?  I was
> thinking that at that time, what would be sent to countries other than
> the one of origin of a master recording, would be a flat 1:1 dub of
> the master tape.
>
>   

Many cutting rooms use the same EQ and setting control amp, all the 
controls have click-stops for accurate resetting.  There might be 
specified level, tone, and even reverb to add or modify while cutting.  
That's why some of the early Beatles albums sound different on 
Parlophone or Capitol.  Abbey Road added reverb from their live chamber 
which was different from the Capitol Tower chambers.  In fact, when it 
came time to do the Beatles CDs, they had to try to recreate the Abbey 
Road chamber because it had become a closet.  They had to try to find 
replacement large ceramic sewer pipes they had used in the original 
chamber that they had discarded. 

Motown Records had different settings, and sometimes different mixes on 
the master tapes, for mono LPs, stereo LPs, and 45s.  They figured that 
kids played 45s on cheap equipment, mono LPs on slightly better 
equipment, but stereo LP on high quality systems.  Some of this is on 
the cutting masters, but some are cutting room directions.

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com 


> On 12/2/08, Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com> wrote:
>   
>> Royal Pemberton wrote:
>>     
>>> If an original recording was made before the RIAA era, but was:  A)
>>> played back on a machine which reproduced it correctly according to
>>> how it was originally recorded, and B) mastered for LP release in the
>>> RIAA era, it should be played back RIAA for proper reproduction.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> I don't understand your bringing up playback machines because if these
>> were licensed issues they would have either imported metal parts or were
>> given a cutting-master tape.  They weren't mastering by playing an LP.
>> If they DID, EQ would be the least of your troubles!!!
>>
>>
>> I think his question is based on later pressings of pre-RIAA releases.
>> Most companies did not re-cut their lacquer masters unless they had to
>> because of wear, etc., so you might find a 1960 pressing using 1952
>> stampers.  Many companies changed their label format around 1954, so for
>> new releases that is usually a good indication if it is AES, LP, or
>> RIAA.  But for repressings, label format doesn't always help.  But I'll
>> tell you what occasionally will be a good indicator -- lead-out groove.
>> 1954 was also around the time that record companies started to realize
>> that most LP changers did not need an eccentric lead-out groove and many
>> of them switched to a concentric groove.  So if a 1960 pressing of a
>> 1952 record still has an eccentric lead-out, they are using an old
>> mother to make their stampers, and it might not be RIAA.  This would
>> probably be true of cuttings made by Columbia for other labels as well
>> as their own.  But RCA Victor was always RIAA from the start, so any of
>> their pressings on other labels would also be RIAA.  As for Uruguay
>> pressings of American recordings, check if the master is from an
>> American-cut metal part or if it has been re-cut in Uruguay.
>>
>>
>> On 12/1/08, Pablo Varela <pablovarela73 at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>> Hello all: this is maybe an off topic since I will talk about 33 rpm and
>>>> not
>>>> 78, but in the final item I will ask you some question about it.
>>>> After working near two weaks over 18 LP of clasical music for a radio
>>>> station I have a very little reflexion. How RCA can said that Dynagroove
>>>> had
>>>> a "silent surface"?
>>>> I cannot say wich of the four LP I doubbed had the more scratchly
>>>> sourface,
>>>> only compared with HMV early 33 RPM. Ironically, pre Dynagroove had more
>>>> silent sourface and was more easy to transfer and declick. Someone told
>>>> me
>>>> that I need to change stylus for those records, I don't believe so,
>>>> because
>>>> I try four diferent cartridges with a diferent sort of stylus and no
>>>> difference was noted. The most problematic was an 1964 LP containing
>>>> Beethoven's Leonora No 3 Ouverture and Schumann Fourth by Erich Leinsdorf
>>>> conducting the Boston Symphony Orchestra. I have to remove every visual
>>>> click by hand and let the other part of the work to DC7 wich I use very
>>>> sparingly.
>>>> Do you have similar experinces? What was the most difficult LP you have
>>>> to
>>>> transfer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>> Dynagroove did use a groove size that was optimized for ceramic and
>> crystal cartridges, and might be a little larger than earlier records.
>> I am not sure, but it is possible.  What I do know about is that RCA was
>> using several different grades of vinyl at that time, and some of their
>> pressings from the 60s are VERY NOISY with a grain structure that can be
>> seen if you look closely.  You can also hear it if you put the stylus in
>> the ungrooved area of the lead-in and lead-out areas.  Black label pop
>> albums that were pressed on the manually operated presses were the
>> worst.  Usually a better grade of vinyl was used on the automatically
>> operated presses.  Original Cast albums and the Vintage series usually
>> also had the better grade of vinyl.  Red Seal also ususally had the
>> better grade.  But ironically the best and quietest grade of vinyl was
>> used on the Dynaflex pressings.  That is one of the reasons they could
>> make them thinner.  They were always pressed on the automatic presses.
>>
>> How do you tell the difference of which press was used?  The stamper
>> holding bracket indication is about one inch in diameter for the
>> automatic presses, while the manual presses have the deeper indented
>> groove about a half inch from the outer edge of the label.   The  outer
>> raised rim is also different.  The manual press has the higher part only
>> in the lead-in area, while on the auto press the raised rim slopes
>> gently down into a half-inch which extends into the groove area.
>>
>> Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com
>>
>>     
>>>> Here is the question.
>>>> My collection of LP and "78" is a special mix of edition from Uruguay
>>>> (I'm
>>>> from Uruguay) Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the other portion from UK,
>>>> France, Germany and USA.
>>>> My question is the follow. Sometimes or very often I have uruguayan
>>>> edition
>>>> of USA recording. The best is an example. Antar, was a local record label
>>>> that use to release records from Vanguard, Vox and Telefunken, very often
>>>> from pre-stereo era and also from pre-RIAA era. In those situation in
>>>> wich
>>>> the master is from pre-RIAA era, what I have to do?
>>>> Look for the original label non RIAA curve? Asume that Antar use and
>>>> specific non-RIAA curve? What happend if the original is from 1952 and
>>>> here
>>>> was released in 1964 (don't laugh, happends a lot here in Uruguay)?
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>> Pablo.
>>>>