[78-L] Removal of 78 surface noise

[Milan P Milovanovic]

Also, were graphite fillers for electrolytic processes main cause of 
pronounced surface noises?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Royal Pemberton" <ampex354 at gmail.com>
To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [78-L] Removal of 78 surface noise


> And isn't the shape of the grooves in a record pressed by a given stamper 
> a
> function of the shape and condition of the cutting stylus, the condition 
> and
> quality of each of the metal parts used in the production of that stamper,
> and the condition and quality of the stamper itself?  So even if you had a
> playback stylus that truly matched a given cutting stylus when verified by
> checking it with a freshly-cut groove in a wax or lacquer, that's no
> guarantee the stylus will match the grooves from a well-worn stamper made
> from a tired mother made from a negative derived from an original cutting
> the playback stylus may well have perfectly matched.
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 7:34 AM, DAVID BURNHAM <burnhamd at rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Lichtman wrote:
>>
>> Figuring out what part of the groove corresponds to the original
>> cutting stylus is worse than non-trivial. Really, if the groove shape
>> deviates from the shape of the cutting stylus, how is one to figure
>> out where the groove is supposed to be? Knowing the shape isn't
>> enough - you need to be able to figure out the lateral displacement.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> If I understand what you're saying here, the lateral displacement is the
>> property which contains the recorded signal.  The process I described 
>> will
>> locate the groove, or more accurately the cutting stylus' position when 
>> the
>> recording was made.  The sequence of scans will indicate the lateral
>> displacement of the groove.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Here's a reduction ad absurdum argument. Suppose you have a record
>> that is completely wiped out - the original signal has been worn from
>> the grooves, so all that's left is noise. It seems obvious that no
>> playback system could figure out the original signal - that
>> information is gone. It doesn't help to know what the groove shape
>> should be because the groove is worn so badly that the groove path
>> could be literally *anything* (within the range of the recording
>> medium). I maintain that, in the system you're proposing, the
>> difference between a completely worn record and one that's only
>> slightly worn is one of degree, not kind. Knowing what the groove
>> shape should be doesn't necessarily tell you what the signal is,
>> because every bit of wear removes some information that may not be
>> deducible from the remaining groove.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> To start off with, a record that is completely wiped out is not a record 
>> at
>> all.   I'm not going to repeat everything I've written already, but as I
>> emphasized in a previous posting, each scan contains no signal 
>> information
>> whatsoever, the only thing which is accomplished by a single scan is that
>> the position of the cutting stylus is established for that instant by any
>> portions of the groove wall which correspond to the reference cutting 
>> style
>> shape.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 78-L mailing list
>> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
>> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l