[78-L] Frequency Response/Range for 78's

[Royal Pemberton]

One thing RCA stepped up was the use of peak limiting around 1938, which
gave many records a very constricted sound....this was partly intended to
increase the lifespan of the records, so there weren't any sharp transients
that would get chewed up quickly by the low-compliance pickups then in use.

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Milan P Milovanovic <
milanpmilovanovic4 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Lewis" <uncledavelewis at hotmail.com>
> To: "78-l" <78-l at 78online.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 9:11 PM
> Subject: [78-L] Frequency Response/Range for 78's
>
>
>
> >>>>One thing I'd like to know is why if the frequency response was
> >>>>expandedin 1938 why those records sound worse than the ones from 1932.
> >>>>You ofanyone is familiar with the tortured history of Artie Shaw's
> >>>>"Frenesi," bornwith a bad buzz which just got louder and louder with
> >>>>each reissue. >>>>
>
> Is it true that "they" intentionally "spoiled"  frequency response on 78
> rpm
> records recorded after 1932. by constriction to around 7 kHz or so, because
> of the fact that such recorded records were more resistible to groove wear
> when played on acoustic playback machines?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>