[78-L] Approximating 78s age by physical characteristics

[Ryan Wolfe]

I one compares the listed 'correct' speeds in the William R. Moran discography, the electrical dubs don't play at the same speed as the originals.   You have an original playing at 76 rpm with it's dub playing at 81, an original playing at 75 with it's dub playing at 78 and so on...it's all over the place.


________________________________
 From: Royal Pemberton <ampex354 at gmail.com>
To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com> 
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [78-L] Approximating 78s age by physical characteristics
 
I have to wonder, with the series of dubbed Caruso reissues at least, was
there any effort made toward speed correction?  It would seem that in that
period, with at least some of the principal participants still alive, they
would have been able to verify correct playback speeds of the original
discs so that when the new parts were being cut (on a lathe which should
first have been confirmed to be running accurately at either US or UK
nominal 78 depending on locale) playback of the new records at nominal 78
would be true to the pitch of the music as performed when the recordings
were made, and not how they sound played back at 78, right or wrong.

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, David Lennick <dlennick at sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Indeed..no idea why they started dubbing popular material since the dubs
> are
> the shits more often than not. Centering records? Who needs to do that? At
> least the classical dubs were done by EMI, although it's weird when you
> find a
> later pressing of an album set where some sides are dubs and others are
> not.
>
> dl
>
> On 3/4/2013 10:43 AM, Royal Pemberton wrote:
> > And weirdly enough one Royal Blue I have, with Henry Hall on one side and
> > Lew Stone on the other (3114-D) uses US-dubbed matrices numbered in the
> > ARC/Columbia series with eccentrics; the Hall was dubbed from UK Columbia
> > matrix CA.15445-1 of 13 November 1935, the Stone from Regal Zonophone
> > matrix CAR.3680-1 of 21 October 1935.  Both presumably with eccentrics on
> > the originals.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:34 PM, David Lennick<dlennick at sympatico.ca>
>  wrote:
> >
> >> US Columbia also pressed from dubbed masters for a couple of years,
> even on
> >> classical recordings, to avoid that eccentric groove that all the EMI
> >> labels
> >> were using as of the merger.
> >>
> >> dl
> >>
> >> On 3/4/2013 10:31 AM, Royal Pemberton wrote:
> >>> Curious about Victor saying publicly they're OK with other companies
> >> using
> >>> the eccentric stop groove in November 1934....I wonder if Columbia ran
> >> into
> >>> trouble with them earlier in the year?  As the few May 1934 Columbia
> >> sides
> >>> I have end with eccentrics and the August 1934 Columbia I have, 2942-D,
> >>> which has (AFAIK) the lowest numbers in the CO-prefixed ARC numerical
> >>> series (CO.15541 and 15542) has instead the older concentric stop
> groove.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Milan Milovanovic<
> >>> milanpmilovanovic4 at gmail.com>   wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Consider including raised blank outside area on some early pressings.
> >> Think
> >>>> they used it to block needle slippage from the beginning of record.
> The
> >>>> same
> >>>> method used for inside area with no locked and lead-out groove -
> raised
> >>>> portion of the record used as for later transferred into locked
> groove.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "David London"<jusmee123 at gmail.com>
> >>>> To: "78-L Mail List"<78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> >>>> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:28 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [78-L] Approximating 78s age by physical characteristics
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 03/03/13 23:10, Mark Bardenwerper wrote:
> >>>>>> I can't add much to this, but it should be noted that many of the
> >>>>>> groove additions came with the invention of automatic changers. The
> >>>>>> change in labels had to do with the manufacturing process. The
> >>>>>> beginning of the electrical era had something to do with some of
> these
> >>>>>> changes. Before electrical recording, there were electrically driven
> >>>>>> platters. Someone more in the know might tell us if there was a
> >>>>>> workable changer in the acoustic era. It would have been a challenge
> >>>>>> due to the heftiness of the arm, but people could be pretty
> >> imaginative.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was wondering also, if changers existed before lead-in grooves. It
> >>>>> seems a key addition to a record, else you risk the needle just
> sitting
> >>>>> floating on the leading edge of the record (or did they bias the arm
> to
> >>>>> always swing inward when there was no groove?).
> >>>>> ______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> 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