[78-L] surface noise feedback on acoustic recordings

[Michael Biel]

Vincent Fitzpatrick wrote:
> I have read an account somewhere of an acoustic recording session at
> Victor--probably the one written by Caruso's daughter--which described how
> the wax disc would be played back immediately, to check the balance. It
> stated unequivocally that such a playback made the wax unusable as a master.
> I wouldn't believe the contrary no matter who said it.
>   

Caruso's daughter Gloria was three years old when Caruso died.  Masters 
could not be played back without ruining them, so when they played back 
a wax master it was either a test that they weren't planning on using 
anyway, or a duplicate master on a parallel machine. 

By the way, a played lacquer can also not be used for mastering for 
plating.  The stylus would make a dent in the side walls which would 
tear when the plated negative was separated, or when the pressing was 
separated from the stamper.  The sidewalls of the groove have to be 
absolutely straight.

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com 
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Michael Shoshani
> <mshoshani at sbcglobal.net>wrote:
>
>   
>> On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 11:55 -0800, DAVID BURNHAM wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Secondly, if Patti Page had been recording 30 years earlier, she could
>>>       
>> easily have done her over-dubbing trick.  After the first take, they could
>> have used the same record to record the second track and she would have
>> heard the first track coming out of the horn while she was singing the
>> second part.
>>
>>
>> My uneducated guess is that the cutting stylus would have obliterated
>> the first take while plowing through the soft wax groove doing the
>> second take.  Even playing a wax master with a reproducing head was a
>> damage risk; "playing" it with a recording head (which was designed to
>> channel sound energy into the stylus, rather than receive it from the
>> stylus) would probably have been destructive.
>>
>> MS
>>