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

[neechevoneeznayou at gmail.com]

I have read that this strategy was used as early as 1906 for vocal 
records. In fact I think Ward Marston states this somewhere, and it was 
discussed on this list........

joe salerno


On 7/29/2012 11:58 AM, Milan P Milovanovic 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
>

-- 
Joe Salerno