[78-L] MIA

Tue Nov 22 12:50:12 PST 2016

Royal, what means that "the bass sounds completely MIA"?

I've noticed that some red Columbias from mid forties are impossible to
play on the re-entrant. The sound is too strong, but unbalanced, and steel
needles scratch a lot of material from them. They're neither playable with
bamboo needles: the point goes out in a few turns, and seems to have a
strong friction with the record surface. They leave behind strange greyish
stains where the shine of the record is lost, sometimes the entire grooves,
sometimes only at certain areas, leaving behind kinda oval stains on the
surface. These I only enjoy on the electronic equipment, but as said, among
the 35000-38000 range (1939-1947) you find many EQ variations, and
sometimes you cannot make them sound good with the Re-Equaliser...

Saludos,
Iñigo

El 22/11/2016 9:00 p. m., <78-l-request at klickitat.78online.com> escribió:

Send 78-L mailing list submissions to
        78-l at klickitat.78online.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        78-l-request at klickitat.78online.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
        78-l-owner at klickitat.78online.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of 78-L digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re:  Groove spacing - groove width (Inigo Cubillo)
   2. Re:  Groove spacing - groove width (J. E. Knox)
   3. Re:  Groove spacing - groove width (David Lennick)
   4. Re:  Groove spacing - groove width (Royal Pemberton)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:02:59 +0100
From: Inigo Cubillo <ice261263 at gmail.com.invalid>
Subject: Re: [78-L] Groove spacing - groove width
To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
Message-ID:
        <CAM0Lj-27w1rk9QWYuKBX1AXU+wZviqy-ov-8JAd3pM4d2t3BDw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Thanks all for the interesting & useful links.
I usually play 78s on modern equipment thru standard commercial audio amp +
Esoteric Sound Re-Equaliser. And I've found the Rek-o-kut curves the most
faithful of all, because they go deeper enough to tell the several curves
in use by a given maker at a given time. So for instance I try mid-30s
Victors with either 300 or 500 turnover, and some sound good with 300,
others with 400 or 500. So recording engineers were not fully regular in
their EQ choices for recording. But sometimes I play 78s on the HMV 194,
the second size re-entrant, and there you don't notice as much these
changes, due to the limited Freq range. As much what you can tell is that
some records sound a bit more boomy, or that you hear more treble.
Generally, when treble is stronger, it is in the mid-high range, not too
agreeable, kinda shrill.

Spanish EMI recordings from early forties had a strange EQ. They seem to
have a 500 turnover, but the treble boost is very high, kinda 6kHz or maybe
more... Dunno which kind of microphones or EQ curves they used. This style
seems to be used from 1945 up to 1949, maybe starting earlier. I have to go
thru my database for the 0KA/2KA matrixes. The engineer signatures have
something to do with this. A nice investigation work to be done,
correlating matrix nos and engineer signatures with a careful listening...
They used the square symbol, or the slashed square later, for HMV
recordings, and a circled C for Odeon and Regal brands. Nice work.... Still
pending. Nevertheless, -KA matrixes prior to this era, maybe 1934 to 1940,
sound different. The treble boost was pretty low, and the bass too thin
also. For these, I sometimes use a 700 turnover and a general treble
reduction, for there's a shrillness very disturbing... I still have to do
the investigation for the whole Spanish EMI production in the 1934-1950
period.

Spanish Columbia was a different matter. Starting in 1935, when they cut
all relationship with EMI, EQ was different, for up to '35 they used d
European Columbia standard EQ for the (W)K matrixes. When the independent C
matrix series was started in '35, they seem to use EQ similar to the US
Columbia (400-500 turnover with -10/-12dB @ 10 kHz roll-off). After '43 and
the contract with UK Decca, Spanish recordings seem to follow the Decca
system, and the quality is astonishing. Prior to '43, the quality was also
pretty good, since the old days. When Regal brand was used in Spain, under
the double contract with UK-USA Columbia, '23 to '35, Spanish recordings
were of a very good quality. You notice this specially on the orchestral
and band recordings. Studio sound is dry for orchestral recordings, but the
fidelity is good. Check yourselves the Sinf?nica de Madrid recordings from
1930 with Arb?s conducting, which were good enough to be published by CBS
in the US, still present in the 1947 Columbia catalogue (Spanish Music I
and II, sets M-146 & 331, and De Falla's Three Cornered Hat, set X-38).
Hear also the Marina opera (set OP-11) also recorded in 1930. Other Spanish
Columbia recordings in the 1947 US catalogue (Nights in the Gardens of
Spain) are of much later facture. These maybe arrived to the US Columbia
catalogue after the 2ww, I don't have data from previous US Columbia
catalogues.

Saludos,
I?igo

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:15:04 -0800
From: "J. E. Knox" <rojoknox at metroeast.org.invalid>
Subject: Re: [78-L] Groove spacing - groove width
To: 78-L List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Message-ID: <CC0573E5-B057-4379-AD75-58EFC1DF9C3B at metroeast.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

Greetings from FixitLand!

Inigo Cubillo wrote:

> ...So for instance I try mid-30s Victors with either 300 or 500 turnover,
and some sound good with 300,
> others with 400 or 500. So recording engineers were not fully regular in
their EQ choices for recording.

The ones with 300 or 400 Hz bass turnovers are most likely of UK (HMV)
origin. The spectrum analyses on those make it quite clear. When one judges
solely by ear, one can be fooled. But if it sounds good to you, then it's
cool.

> ...When the independent C matrix series was started in '35, they seem to
use EQ similar to the US
> Columbia (400-500 turnover with -10/-12dB @ 10 kHz roll-off). ...

I find NO evidence of a treble boost (requiring a roll-off on playback) on
ANY prewar Columbia commercial 78, or on a number of *postwar* ones as
well! To make matters worse, from 1939 on, Columbia 78s are dubbed from
33-1/3 rpm safeties so are second-generation recordings.

Take care,

?
Joe
?
?The only escape from the miseries of life are music and cats...??Albert
Schweitzer

--
*Celebrating 30 years of service.*

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 01:49:41 -0500
From: David Lennick <dlennick at sympatico.ca.invalid>
Subject: Re: [78-L] Groove spacing - groove width
To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Message-ID: <173a348a-f898-ffa5-0843-fd2fed4c8b86 at sympatico.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

That book containing "all the curves" that was meant to match the OWL
claimed
that Columbia didn't change its curve from 1939 to 1955. Horsefeathers, of
course..every time they needed new 78 masters they did new dubs from the
16-inchers, with a different EQ each time. The mid 40s were the worst ones
with
that gigantic mid-range hump (which I can only presume was so that its
records
would sound lousy on Victor players..problem is they sounded lousy on
everything else as well).

dl

On 11/21/2016 5:15 PM, J. E. Knox wrote:
> I find NO evidence of a treble boost (requiring a roll-off on playback)
on ANY prewar Columbia commercial 78, or on a number of *postwar* ones as
well! To make matters worse, from 1939 on, Columbia 78s are dubbed from
33-1/3 rpm safeties so are second-generation recordings.
>
> Take care,
>
>
> ?
> Joe
> ?
> ?The only escape from the miseries of life are music and cats...??Albert
Schweitzer
>
>
>
>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:15:37 +0000
From: Royal Pemberton <ampex354 at gmail.com.invalid>
Subject: Re: [78-L] Groove spacing - groove width
To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Message-ID:
        <CABxgiEHyOhbhe4MuG8SP=OnYfYbSDecqJuM=zFt9L+TYQmtY0g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

And also, did they filter something on one issue they didn't on another?
For instance, Columbia 36268 (1941) and 37271 (1947) both have 'Snowfall'
by Claude Thornhill on one side, from the same master take source, but the
bass is almost completely MIA on 37271.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Lennick <
dlennick at sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote:

>
> That book containing "all the curves" that was meant to match the OWL
> claimed
> that Columbia didn't change its curve from 1939 to 1955. Horsefeathers, of
> course..every time they needed new 78 masters they did new dubs from the
> 16-inchers, with a different EQ each time. The mid 40s were the worst ones
> with
> that gigantic mid-range hump (which I can only presume was so that its
> records
> would sound lousy on Victor players..problem is they sounded lousy on
> everything else as well).
>
> dl
>
>
> On 11/21/2016 5:15 PM, J. E. Knox wrote:
> > I find NO evidence of a treble boost (requiring a roll-off on playback)
> on ANY prewar Columbia commercial 78, or on a number of *postwar* ones as
> well! To make matters worse, from 1939 on, Columbia 78s are dubbed from
> 33-1/3 rpm safeties so are second-generation recordings.
> >
> > Take care,
> >
> >
> > ?
> > Joe
> > ?
> > ?The only escape from the miseries of life are music and cats...??Albert
> Schweitzer
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

End of 78-L Digest, Vol 98, Issue 21
************************************