Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.opinion, rec.audio.tech
Doc Doc is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default Wouldn't cylinders have been better for reproduction than platters?

I've been reading about some of the myriad complexities involved in
creating LP's, and it seems a lot of the difficulties stem from the
fact that the speed of the surface changes - i.e. slows - constantly.
Strictly from a standpoint of reproduction, wouldn't a cylinder
configuration have been more advantageous for high quality
reproduction than the platter? Or no?
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.opinion, rec.audio.tech
videochas www.locoworks.com videochas www.locoworks.com is offline
Banned
 
Posts: 134
Default Wouldn't cylinders have been better for reproduction thanplatters?

On Jan 18, 8:54�pm, Doc wrote:
I've been reading about some of the myriad complexities involved in
creating LP's, and it seems a lot of the difficulties stem from the
fact that the speed of the surface changes - i.e. slows - constantly.
Strictly from a standpoint of reproduction, wouldn't a cylinder
configuration have been more advantageous for high quality
reproduction than the platter? Or no?


Only if the vertical modulation was not used. Cylinders were made by
the Edison company, and they consisted of a series of peaks and
valleys. That doesn't work well for high frequencies because the
stylus doesn't have time to fall back into the valley before the next
peak comes along. The lateral modulation of the LP works much better
for that. Edison firmly believed in vertical modulation.
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech
Sean Conolly Sean Conolly is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default Wouldn't cylinders have been better for reproduction than platters?

"Doc" wrote in message
...
I've been reading about some of the myriad complexities involved in
creating LP's, and it seems a lot of the difficulties stem from the
fact that the speed of the surface changes - i.e. slows - constantly.
Strictly from a standpoint of reproduction, wouldn't a cylinder
configuration have been more advantageous for high quality
reproduction than the platter? Or no?


It was certainly much harder to reproduce cylinders than platters, which is
why they fell out of use when mass production of recordings started.

Sean


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech
Karl[_4_] Karl[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Wouldn't cylinders have been better for reproduction than platters?



"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"videochas www.locoworks.com" wrote in message
...
On Jan 18, 8:54?pm, Doc wrote:
I've been reading about some of the myriad complexities involved in
creating LP's, and it seems a lot of the difficulties stem from the
fact that the speed of the surface changes - i.e. slows - constantly.
Strictly from a standpoint of reproduction, wouldn't a cylinder
configuration have been more advantageous for high quality
reproduction than the platter? Or no?


Only if the vertical modulation was not used. Cylinders were made by
the Edison company, and they consisted of a series of peaks and
valleys. That doesn't work well for high frequencies because the
stylus doesn't have time to fall back into the valley before the next
peak comes along. The lateral modulation of the LP works much better
for that. Edison firmly believed in vertical modulation.

---------------------------------------------------------
As far as the cylinders, I seem to recall that the abandonment in favor of
discs was purely for cost. The cylinders were extremely expensive to
make -- is that correct?


That's right. You can't press a cylinder. You have to cut each one
individually. I'm sure in time, someone might have figured out a way to
expand the master or shrink the copy, but I think pressing discs is just
easier. Plus, they're easier to store.


  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech
Karl[_4_] Karl[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Wouldn't cylinders have been better for reproduction than platters?



"videochas www.locoworks.com" wrote in message
...
On Jan 18, 8:54?pm, Doc wrote:
I've been reading about some of the myriad complexities involved in
creating LP's, and it seems a lot of the difficulties stem from the
fact that the speed of the surface changes - i.e. slows - constantly.
Strictly from a standpoint of reproduction, wouldn't a cylinder
configuration have been more advantageous for high quality
reproduction than the platter? Or no?


Only if the vertical modulation was not used. Cylinders were made by
the Edison company, and they consisted of a series of peaks and
valleys. That doesn't work well for high frequencies because the
stylus doesn't have time to fall back into the valley before the next
peak comes along. The lateral modulation of the LP works much better
for that. Edison firmly believed in vertical modulation.


I'm not sure vertical modulation is intrinsically better than lateral
modulation at high frequencies. Stereo recordings have a fair amount of
vertical modulation with out-of-phase conditions, which can occur randomly
in a true stereo recording. The stylus handles it quite well.




  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech
Ian Iveson Ian Iveson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 960
Default Wouldn't cylinders have been better for reproduction than platters?

videochas wrote:

*****
Only if the vertical modulation was not used. Cylinders
were made by
the Edison company, and they consisted of a series of peaks
and
valleys. That doesn't work well for high frequencies
because the
stylus doesn't have time to fall back into the valley before
the next
peak comes along.

*****

Why not? Ratio of sprung to unsprung weight must be high for
both lateral and vertical tracking. There should be no
difference in terms of max acceleration, surely? But maybe
gravity contributes to even harmonics at low frequency?

Ian

HTML is inconvenient.


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech
Ian Iveson Ian Iveson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 960
Default Wouldn't cylinders have been better for reproduction than platters?

...Ratio of sprung to unsprung weight...

Er, mass. Not wishing to add to the confusion.

Ian


  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech
Adrian Tuddenham Adrian Tuddenham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default Wouldn't cylinders have been better for reproduction than platters?

Bret Ludwig wrote:


[...]
But cylinders had the downside of needing to be individually cut.
Reproduction by stamping was impossible.



Stamping was not an appropriate process, but moulding was. Commercial
cylinders were reproduced by various moulding processes from a master.

They were only individually-cut in the very earliest days before the
moulding process was perfected.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wouldn't cylinders have been better for reproduction than platters? Doc Pro Audio 20 January 22nd 08 11:39 AM
Wouldn't cylinders have been better for reproduction than platters? Doc Audio Opinions 9 January 20th 08 06:15 PM
Question about acrylic vs. glass turntable platters JBColeman Audio Opinions 10 April 12th 06 03:05 PM
Recording on wax cylinders? William Sommerwerck Pro Audio 5 July 15th 03 06:56 PM
Edison cylinders: any value? Beanstudio Mastering Pro Audio 6 July 7th 03 06:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"