[[email protected]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On 8 Jul 2006 13:46:48 -0700, wrote:


A gallon is 3.8 liters. A cubic foot is 28.3 liters. Therefore
there are 28.3/3.8 or just about 7.5 gallons per cubic foot.
That means a gallon is 1/7.5 gallons/ft^3 or 0.13 cubic
feet per gallon.

No, you are thinking of those mean, short-measure US gallons. A *real*
gallon of water weighs 10 pounds. And there are 4.546 litres (*not*
liters) in a gallon. There are 0.16 cubic feet per gallon.

Yes, that's true in some third-world countries. :-)

[Don Pearce]

On 9 Jul 2006 06:34:51 -0700, wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:
On 8 Jul 2006 13:46:48 -0700, wrote:


A gallon is 3.8 liters. A cubic foot is 28.3 liters. Therefore
there are 28.3/3.8 or just about 7.5 gallons per cubic foot.
That means a gallon is 1/7.5 gallons/ft^3 or 0.13 cubic
feet per gallon.

No, you are thinking of those mean, short-measure US gallons. A *real*
gallon of water weighs 10 pounds. And there are 4.546 litres (*not*
liters) in a gallon. There are 0.16 cubic feet per gallon.

Yes, that's true in some third-world countries. :-)

Yes, I've heard that too...

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Harold]

wrote in message
oups.com...

jakdedert wrote:
Carey Carlan wrote:
Eiron wrote in
:

Scott Dorsey wrote:


snip


And since a liter of water is 1000 cm^3 of water, and
a cc of water is 1 gram, therefor a liter of water is 1000 kg.

I'd believe a little less .. um, a whole lot less actually.
A litre of water weighs 1kg.

[jakdedert]

Harold wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
jakdedert wrote:
Carey Carlan wrote:
Eiron wrote in
:

Scott Dorsey wrote:


snip

And since a liter of water is 1000 cm^3 of water, and
a cc of water is 1 gram, therefor a liter of water is 1000 kg.

I'd believe a little less .. um, a whole lot less actually.
A litre of water weighs 1kg.

What are you on about? A little less than what? You'd have to quote
enough context for anyone to understand the above. I don't.

jak

[Chris Morriss]

In message , jakdedert
writes
Harold wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
jakdedert wrote:
Carey Carlan wrote:
Eiron wrote in
:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

snip

And since a liter of water is 1000 cm^3 of water, and
a cc of water is 1 gram, therefor a liter of water is 1000 kg.
I'd believe a little less .. um, a whole lot less actually.
A litre of water weighs 1kg.
What are you on about? A little less than what? You'd have to quote
enough context for anyone to understand the above. I don't.

jak


A little less that 100 kilogrammes I would expect after reading what was
written!
--
Chris Morriss

[St. John Smythe]

jakdedert wrote to harold:
Harold wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
And since a liter of water is 1000 cm^3 of water, and
a cc of water is 1 gram, therefor a liter of water is 1000 kg.

I'd believe a little less .. um, a whole lot less actually.

What are you on about? A little less than what? You'd have to quote
enough context for anyone to understand the above. I don't.

All the context you need will be found above. Look again.

--
St. John
Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.
-Samuel Goldwyn

[jakdedert]

St. John Smythe wrote:
jakdedert wrote to harold:
Harold wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
And since a liter of water is 1000 cm^3 of water, and
a cc of water is 1 gram, therefor a liter of water is 1000 kg.
I'd believe a little less .. um, a whole lot less actually.
What are you on about? A little less than what? You'd have to quote
enough context for anyone to understand the above. I don't.

All the context you need will be found above. Look again.

OOPs! Sorry. It does indeed.

My bad....

jak

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
If the acoustic stylus was not for 78s, then what kind of records were
they for?

I am not sure what you mean by "acoustic stylus." There are two basic
kinds of 78s: electrically-recorded discs and older acoustically-recorded
discs. Electrics are easy and mostly have grooves between 2 and 3 mil
although sometimes you might want an oversized stylus to play the top of
the groove if the rest of the groove is worn out. Acoustics are more
problematic and need a larger stylus, usually in the 3 to 4 mil range
but occasionally larger or smaller.

This is why it's important, if you do a lot of work with 78s, to have a
wide selection of styli available. There were no groove width and depth
standards so every record is a little different.

There HAVE been a couple microgroove 78s cut to be played on a modern 1 mil
LP stylus, but all post-1960, and all by crazy folk-music luddites.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
So if I have alot of 78's, ranging from the 20's to probably whenever
they stopped making them, and I'm not sure which are which, what should
I be looking for turntable wise? Are they called "over sized"
stylus...so I could ask for that?

Well, earlier on in this thread I suggested the following:

- Thorens TD-126 turntable
- Re-Equalizer (available from Esoteric Sound in Chicago)
- Grado DJ-100 cartridge
- 2.7 mil "78" stylus for Grado DJ-100

This is a good entry level configuration and you should be able to get
everything for around $800 if you find the turntable used.

The Thorens does not have enough speed range to deal with some acoustic
recordings, some of which were MUCH faster than 78. And the 2.7 mil
stylus is sort of a compromise; it will play back any of the 78s without
wrecking them but it won't be optimal for most of them. But for the price
you can't complain, and it's a good starter set that will do most of what
you want.

You can more or less assume that anything from the twenties is probably
an acoustic and anything from the thirties is probably an electric, but
that's not always the case. But you'll sure know the difference when you
listen.

I'm assuming hand-cleaning everything in the sink with Alconox lab cleaner
or something similar, then putting into new sleeves (Audio 78 Archival Supplies
has good prices on 10" sleeves). Cleanliness is a big part of the whole
procedure; a lot of recordings are packed with dust from ground-up steel
styli and decades of dust and cleaning them will dramatically help the noise
floor. Ultrasonic cleaning is more effective but also more expensive.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Thanks. So basically one cartridge with 2 interchanging stylus.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
So if I have alot of 78's, ranging from the 20's to probably whenever
they stopped making them, and I'm not sure which are which, what should
I be looking for turntable wise? Are they called "over sized"
stylus...so I could ask for that?

Well, earlier on in this thread I suggested the following:

- Thorens TD-126 turntable
- Re-Equalizer (available from Esoteric Sound in Chicago)
- Grado DJ-100 cartridge
- 2.7 mil "78" stylus for Grado DJ-100

This is a good entry level configuration and you should be able to get
everything for around $800 if you find the turntable used.

The Thorens does not have enough speed range to deal with some acoustic
recordings, some of which were MUCH faster than 78. And the 2.7 mil
stylus is sort of a compromise; it will play back any of the 78s without
wrecking them but it won't be optimal for most of them. But for the price
you can't complain, and it's a good starter set that will do most of what
you want.

You can more or less assume that anything from the twenties is probably
an acoustic and anything from the thirties is probably an electric, but
that's not always the case. But you'll sure know the difference when you
listen.

I'm assuming hand-cleaning everything in the sink with Alconox lab cleaner
or something similar, then putting into new sleeves (Audio 78 Archival Supplies
has good prices on 10" sleeves). Cleanliness is a big part of the whole
procedure; a lot of recordings are packed with dust from ground-up steel
styli and decades of dust and cleaning them will dramatically help the noise
floor. Ultrasonic cleaning is more effective but also more expensive.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Thanks. So basically one cartridge with 2 interchanging stylus.

Right. And I mention the Grado DJ-100 since it has a 2.7 mil stylus available
for it, it tracks reasonably well, and it is inexpensive.

Alternately, you could go for something like the Stanton 681, which has
hundreds of different semicustom styli available for it. But that's a
considerably larger amount of money (and it's not as good a performer on LPs
either).

The Thorens, though, has interchangeable arms, so if you decide you want to
use one cartridge for 78s and another cartridge, say a van den Hul that tracks
better, on LPs, you can do that in the future.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

You can more or less assume that anything from the twenties is probably
an acoustic and anything from the thirties is probably an electric, but
that's not always the case.

Uh-uh. The electrical recording process was announced in 1924 and adopted by
almost every record company in 1925; by the end of 1925 almost everything
was being recorded electrically except for a couple of small labels. That
means the burst of musical creativity in the second half of the 1920s
(hillbilly recordings, country blues, plus a *lot* of pop music) was
recorded for the most part on electrically-cut recordings. Indeed, in the
case of hillbilly and country blues, it almost had to be electrical, as
acoustical recording equipment was so large it virtually forced the
performers to come to the studio. Electrical equipment could be taken on the
road (with the help of a moving van), making possible sessions like the
famous Bristol, TN marathon which gave the world its first recordings by,
among others, the Carter Family and Jimmie Rodgers.

Back to our topic: variable speed is indeed an issue up to about 1926 (and a
bit later for some labels). Most acoustic Victors, for example, were cut at
around 75 or 76.5 rpm, while most acoustic Columbias were 80 rpm. In
practice, those are about the limits of what you'll need to transcribe 99%
of the "78s" out there.

Peace,
Paul

[Mr.T]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
Back to our topic: variable speed is indeed an issue up to about 1926 (and
a
bit later for some labels). Most acoustic Victors, for example, were cut
at
around 75 or 76.5 rpm, while most acoustic Columbias were 80 rpm. In
practice, those are about the limits of what you'll need to transcribe 99%
of the "78s" out there.

And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed
required anyway.
Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing the
sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there is
even excellent freeware for that purpose available.

I'm amazed at the number of people who think they always need to do things
the hard way.

MrT.

[Paul Stamler]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
Back to our topic: variable speed is indeed an issue up to about 1926
(and
a
bit later for some labels). Most acoustic Victors, for example, were cut
at
around 75 or 76.5 rpm, while most acoustic Columbias were 80 rpm. In
practice, those are about the limits of what you'll need to transcribe
99%
of the "78s" out there.

And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed
required anyway.
Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing
the
sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there is
even excellent freeware for that purpose available.

I'm amazed at the number of people who think they always need to do things
the hard way.

So am I. I've adjusted speed in the computer (open the plug in, select your
speed change, choose between "change pitch", "change tempo" and "change
both", click "OK") and I've adjusted it by turning a knob on the turntable.
Which do *you* think is easier?

That said, I occasionally use the computer for speed adjustments when I
decide I was wrong when I transferred the disc.

Peace,
Paul

[Mr.T]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed
required anyway.
I'm amazed at the number of people who think they always need to do
things
the hard way.

So am I. I've adjusted speed in the computer (open the plug in, select
your
speed change, choose between "change pitch", "change tempo" and "change
both", click "OK") and I've adjusted it by turning a knob on the
turntable.
Which do *you* think is easier?

What has that got to do with what was said though?
The software method is *FAR* easier if your turntable lacks sufficient
speed range, which is what I pointed out.

MrT.

[Eiron]

Mr.T wrote:

What has that got to do with what was said though?
The software method is *FAR* easier if your turntable lacks sufficient
speed range, which is what I pointed out.

I hope you remember to re-equalize it after playing it at the wrong speed.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
Back to our topic: variable speed is indeed an issue up to about 1926 (and
a
bit later for some labels). Most acoustic Victors, for example, were cut
at
around 75 or 76.5 rpm, while most acoustic Columbias were 80 rpm. In
practice, those are about the limits of what you'll need to transcribe 99%
of the "78s" out there.

And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed
required anyway.
Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing the
sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there is
even excellent freeware for that purpose available.

Yes, but the end result is that you have changed all your EQ constants in
the de-emphasis network. Probably not too critical if you're making a minor
speed change on a 78 where the de-emphasis is being selected by ear, but
it makes half-speed playing of RIAA discs very problematic.

I'm amazed at the number of people who think they always need to do things
the hard way.

What's so hard about turning the knob until it sounds right? The easy way
is to have the right turntable with the right control, and you turn the
knob until it's in tune.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Mr.T wrote:

What has that got to do with what was said though?
The software method is *FAR* easier if your turntable lacks sufficient
speed range, which is what I pointed out.

I hope you remember to re-equalize it after playing it at the wrong speed.

Not really an issue; the difference in equalization between 75 rpm and 78
rpm is a hair over 1/3 of a dB, and equalizations on 78s aren't near that
level of precision.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

What's so hard about turning the knob until it sounds right? The easy way
is to have the right turntable with the right control, and you turn the
knob until it's in tune.

Of course, "in tune" is problematical when you're doing a recording where
the musicians may not be tuned to A440 concert pitch, like the string band
stuff I work on. Sometimes you need to use a spectrum analyzer and look for
a 60Hz component, and see whether it's really 60Hz, tweaking the speed if
it's not.

I used to use a parametric for that... just set it as tight as possible
and set it for boost, then sweep it back and forth until the hum is
severely exaggerated. Widen it out a little bit so you have some room,
then turn on an electric motor and beat the two notes together by ear.

Don't use the ceiling fan, though. It's an induction motor designed to
always be operated stalled, so it can sound more than a whole note flat.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mr.T]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Back to our topic: variable speed is indeed an issue up to about 1926
(and
a
bit later for some labels). Most acoustic Victors, for example, were
cut
at
around 75 or 76.5 rpm, while most acoustic Columbias were 80 rpm. In
practice, those are about the limits of what you'll need to transcribe
99%
of the "78s" out there.

And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed
required anyway.
Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing
the
sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there is
even excellent freeware for that purpose available.

Yes, but the end result is that you have changed all your EQ constants in
the de-emphasis network. Probably not too critical if you're making a
minor
speed change on a 78 where the de-emphasis is being selected by ear, but
it makes half-speed playing of RIAA discs very problematic.

Sure, but not what we were talking about, and not much point anyway.
However the EQ *can* be fixed in software even in that case.

What's so hard about turning the knob until it sounds right? The easy way
is to have the right turntable with the right control, and you turn the
knob until it's in tune.

Maybe if you actually *read* what I originally replied to, you would see the
problem with twiddling a knob that does *not* have sufficient speed range
for the purpose. If *you* would rather buy a new turntable just to get
sufficient speed control, rather than simply resampling in software, then
don't let me stop you.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
Of course, "in tune" is problematical when you're doing a recording where
the musicians may not be tuned to A440 concert pitch, like the string band
stuff I work on. Sometimes you need to use a spectrum analyzer and look
for
a 60Hz component, and see whether it's really 60Hz, tweaking the speed if
it's not.

Assuming the few percent variation allowable on the mains frequency is not
an issue for you.
(the long term frequency variation is usually adjusted, but short term
fluctuations are permissible in all the generating plants I'm aware of)

Still it's often a quick way to get pretty close if the error is much higher
than that, as long as you realise much of the world is 50Hz rather than
60Hz.
If you go adjusting British or Australian recordings for 60Hz hum, you're
going to be a LONG way out!

MrT.

[Paul Stamler]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
Of course, "in tune" is problematical when you're doing a recording
where
the musicians may not be tuned to A440 concert pitch, like the string
band
stuff I work on. Sometimes you need to use a spectrum analyzer and look
for
a 60Hz component, and see whether it's really 60Hz, tweaking the speed
if
it's not.

Assuming the few percent variation allowable on the mains frequency is not
an issue for you.
(the long term frequency variation is usually adjusted, but short term
fluctuations are permissible in all the generating plants I'm aware of)

Still it's often a quick way to get pretty close if the error is much
higher
than that, as long as you realise much of the world is 50Hz rather than
60Hz.
If you go adjusting British or Australian recordings for 60Hz hum, you're
going to be a LONG way out!

Of course. Given the kind of music I like, I don't see many of those,
although a couple of days ago I was working on a disc by Gigli that was
recorded in Europe. Mostly, though, I do old-time music from the USA.

Peace,
Paul

[James Perrett]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:44:18 +0100, Paul Stamler
wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

You can more or less assume that anything from the twenties is probably
an acoustic and anything from the thirties is probably an electric, but
that's not always the case.

Uh-uh. The electrical recording process was announced in 1924 and
adopted by
almost every record company in 1925; by the end of 1925 almost everything
was being recorded electrically except for a couple of small labels.

I know this is a little late but it might be worth pointing out that a
large number of electrically recorded records from the 20's and 30's
actually clearly state that the are electrical recordings. I guess
electrical recording in the 20's held the same status as digital recording
did in the 80's.

Cheers

James.

[Paul Stamler]

"James Perrett" wrote in message
news
Uh-uh. The electrical recording process was announced in 1924 and
adopted by
almost every record company in 1925; by the end of 1925 almost
everything
was being recorded electrically except for a couple of small labels.

I know this is a little late but it might be worth pointing out that a
large number of electrically recorded records from the 20's and 30's
actually clearly state that the are electrical recordings. I guess
electrical recording in the 20's held the same status as digital recording
did in the 80's.

And some of the logos they used to announce the electrical recordings were
very cool. Lots of lightning streaks.

Peace,
Paul

[Adrian Tuddenham]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed
required anyway.
Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing the
sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there is
even excellent freeware for that purpose available.


Don't even think about it!

Get the speed right to start with otherwise your equalisation will go up
the spout and the interpolation will play havoc with the surface noise.
Changing speed digitally is a last-ditch resort for when you can't go
back and re-record it properly.

Get all the mechanical/analogue bits right first and use the most basic
software you can get away with.

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

[Mr.T]

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
lid.invalid...
And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed
required anyway.
Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing
the
sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there
is
even excellent freeware for that purpose available.

Don't even think about it!

Get the speed right to start with otherwise your equalisation will go up
the spout

I have already explained why that is a non issue, IF you know how to use all
the EQ controls in your wave editor.
Anyhow if you are talking about small changes from the nominal speed, the EQ
will still be that required for the nominal speed.
And the EQ is not usually part of the turntable in any case.
(new turntables often have the RIAA pre-amp in built though)

and the interpolation will play havoc with the surface noise.

What a load of crap!!!!!!!!!
Just how many decades old is YOUR software? There is NONE that I know of
that would increase the noise from even the best vinyl record, by more than
an infitessimal amount. So close to zero that it can be ignored as a
problem.
Certainly much less than even the very best golden ear could pick.

There is *very* good resampling *freeware* available, so there is no excuse
for using crap.

Changing speed digitally is a last-ditch resort for when you can't go
back and re-record it properly.

It's a perfectly fine resort for when your turntable does not provide the
necessary speed.

Get all the mechanical/analogue bits right first and use the most basic
software you can get away with.

Sure, if you feel more comfortable working that way, and don't mind the
extra expense.

MrT.

[Paul Stamler]

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
lid.invalid...
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed
required anyway.
Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing
the
sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there
is
even excellent freeware for that purpose available.


Don't even think about it!

Get the speed right to start with otherwise your equalisation will go up
the spout and the interpolation will play havoc with the surface noise.
Changing speed digitally is a last-ditch resort for when you can't go
back and re-record it properly.

Get all the mechanical/analogue bits right first and use the most basic
software you can get away with.

I agree with your conclusion, but for a different reason: the more you do to
a signal, the more you damage it.

Equalisation isn't much of an issue, though. Most of the discs that are
seriously off-speed ref. 78 rpm are acoustically recorded, and their
frequency response (thanks to horn cutoffs and resonances) is all over the
map anyway. And even a drastic change (going from, say, 75 rpm to 80 rpm)
affects the turnover points minimally -- less than 0.6dB response error.
Hell, most 78s have more change in frequency response than that between the
outer and inner grooves.

Peace,
Paul

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Paul Stamler wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
lid.invalid...
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing
the sample rate wave file header.
[...]

Don't even think about it!
[...].
Get all the mechanical/analogue bits right first and use the most basic
software you can get away with.

I agree with your conclusion, but for a different reason: the more you do to
a signal, the more you damage it.

You have hit the nail on the head; that is a basic principle of
restoration. There is also the matter of using the right tool for the
job.


Equalisation isn't much of an issue, though.
[...]

As you say, electrical recordings are less critical - and they are less
liable to be recorded more than a few percent away from true 78 rpm.
With acoustic recordings there are much larger variations.

Some of the peaks and troughs for correcting acoustic recording need to
be quite accurately placed, the rapid phase changes are quite audible if
the equalisation characteristic doesn't quite coincide with the original
recording-horn characteristic. I have even been able to spot an
incorrect playback speed because it did not appear to match the
correction characteristics for a particular recording horn.

With the signal already in the digital domain, the re-equalisation will
either have to be done digitally or by returning the signal to analogue.
Someone who has been told (and believes) that everything can be done
better in software than in hardware will take the digital route and
generate a whole load of digital rubbish. The problem with digital
rubbish is that it cannot be undone without creating even more digital
rubbish.

It would be much better on all counts if they can be persuaded to sort
out analogue problems in the analogue domain; digitising the signal
should be the final step in the chain.

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

[Adrian Tuddenham]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


(new turntables often have the RIAA pre-amp in built though)
[...]
Just how many decades old is YOUR software? There is NONE that I know of
that would increase the noise from even the best vinyl record, by more than
an infitessimal amount.

I was talking about shellac '78s' , very few (if any) LPs would have
been recorded at the wrong speed - I presume you realise that 78s do not
use RIAA equalisation? Software interpolation does not show up as badly
on vinyl or nitrate surface noise as it does on soild stock 'shellac'
pressings.

If you have not noticed this, I am left wondering how much of your
professional work involves 78s?

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

[Mr.T]

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
id.invalid...
Just how many decades old is YOUR software? There is NONE that I know of
that would increase the noise from even the best vinyl record, by more
than
an infitessimal amount.

I was talking about shellac '78s'

And you said that resampling would ADD noise, which is total bull****.

, very few (if any) LPs would have
been recorded at the wrong speed -

I have one that is. Or more likely the tape recorder was running slow when
they made the master.

I presume you realise that 78s do not
use RIAA equalisation?

Of course.

Software interpolation does not show up as badly
on vinyl or nitrate surface noise as it does on soild stock 'shellac'
pressings.

Doesn't add anything at all, if the program is half way decent. And I
certainly know of no shellac, or any other pressing with better than 90dB
S/N ratio anyway, do you?

If you have not noticed this, I am left wondering how much of your
professional work involves 78s?

None at all, but I am quite familiar with *proper* resampling, which isn't
in any way specific to 78 recordings.

MrT.

[Paul Stamler]

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
id.invalid...

Some of the peaks and troughs for correcting acoustic recording need to
be quite accurately placed, the rapid phase changes are quite audible if
the equalisation characteristic doesn't quite coincide with the original
recording-horn characteristic. I have even been able to spot an
incorrect playback speed because it did not appear to match the
correction characteristics for a particular recording horn.

With the signal already in the digital domain, the re-equalisation will
either have to be done digitally or by returning the signal to analogue.
Someone who has been told (and believes) that everything can be done
better in software than in hardware will take the digital route and
generate a whole load of digital rubbish. The problem with digital
rubbish is that it cannot be undone without creating even more digital
rubbish.

Well, if I *had* to correct speed on an acoustic recording in the computer,
I'd do the equalization first, then the speed change.

It would be much better on all counts if they can be persuaded to sort
out analogue problems in the analogue domain; digitising the signal
should be the final step in the chain.

Yup.

Peace,
Paul

[Mr.T]

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
id.invalid...
With the signal already in the digital domain, the re-equalisation will
either have to be done digitally or by returning the signal to analogue.
Someone who has been told (and believes) that everything can be done
better in software than in hardware will take the digital route and
generate a whole load of digital rubbish.

And someone who doesn't understand digital, will call it rubbish regardless
of the actual performance.
Anyone who believes any analog disc, and especially old 78 recordings, are
somehow better than current digital recording technology, is in serious
denial.

The problem with digital
rubbish is that it cannot be undone without creating even more digital
rubbish.

Fortunately there is no need to use digital "rubbish".

MrT.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
Anyone who believes any analog disc, and especially old 78 recordings, are
somehow better than current digital recording technology, is in serious
denial.

If it's got Django on it, it's better.

The problem with digital
rubbish is that it cannot be undone without creating even more digital
rubbish.

Fortunately there is no need to use digital "rubbish".

The point is basically that you want to avoid any processing of any sort.
Get it right the first time.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chevdo]

In article , says...

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
Anyone who believes any analog disc, and especially old 78 recordings, are
somehow better than current digital recording technology, is in serious
denial.

Yeah there's only one thing worse than that, and that's having a dink like
Dorsey claim you harbor such an erroneous opinion. Then again, if he has to
make up slander to criticize you, it's a sign he can't come up with anything
reality-based to criticize you about.



If it's got Django on it, it's better.

The problem with digital
rubbish is that it cannot be undone without creating even more digital
rubbish.

Fortunately there is no need to use digital "rubbish".

The point is basically that you want to avoid any processing of any sort.
Get it right the first time.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Adrian Tuddenham]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
id.invalid...
With the signal already in the digital domain, the re-equalisation will
either have to be done digitally or by returning the signal to analogue.
Someone who has been told (and believes) that everything can be done
better in software than in hardware will take the digital route and
generate a whole load of digital rubbish.

And someone who doesn't understand digital, will call it rubbish regardless
of the actual performance.

I'm sorry if I didn't make clear what I meant.

I do not regard digitial recordings as rubbish, I use them a lot and
never fail to be impressed by just how good they can be. My 'rubbish'
reference was to what would be termed 'intermodulation products' if they
occured in the analogue domain.

Anyone who believes any analog disc, and especially old 78 recordings, are
somehow better than current digital recording technology, is in serious
denial.

You are attributing to me an opinion which I did not express and do not
hold.

I do not consider digital recordings are 'bad' just because some are
made incorrectly. In the same way, I would hope you do not assume all
recordings on78s are 'bad' because you might have heard worn pressings
on poor playback equipment.

The recording engineers of old were faced with a different set of
problems from us - and the best of them did a damn good job with what
they had at their disposal...
...then, for commercial reasons, the record companies issued their
superb recordings on crap material (at least in the UK).


A good digital recording can be breathtaking, so can a good 78 recording
if it is properly reproduced. The bandwidths are different; one is in
stereo, the other mono, the S/N ratios are hugely different - and yet
the 78 can be just as spectacular in its own way.


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

[Mr.T]

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
alid.invalid...
With the signal already in the digital domain, the re-equalisation
will
either have to be done digitally or by returning the signal to
analogue.
Someone who has been told (and believes) that everything can be done
better in software than in hardware will take the digital route and
generate a whole load of digital rubbish.

And someone who doesn't understand digital, will call it rubbish
regardless
of the actual performance.

I'm sorry if I didn't make clear what I meant.

I do not regard digitial recordings as rubbish, I use them a lot and
never fail to be impressed by just how good they can be. My 'rubbish'
reference was to what would be termed 'intermodulation products' if they
occured in the analogue domain.

Yes, 'intermodulation products' are more of a problem with analog recording.
Any added by digital recording is almost unmeasureable these days, and
certainly inaudible.


Anyone who believes any analog disc, and especially old 78 recordings,
are
somehow better than current digital recording technology, is in serious
denial.

You are attributing to me an opinion which I did not express and do not
hold.

Actually no. The level of attribution is shown by the number of ,s
I was commenting on the statement, whoever made it.

I do not consider digital recordings are 'bad' just because some are
made incorrectly. In the same way, I would hope you do not assume all
recordings on78s are 'bad' because you might have heard worn pressings
on poor playback equipment.

Never said they were *bad*, just because they are not as good as modern
technology allows.


The recording engineers of old were faced with a different set of
problems from us - and the best of them did a damn good job with what
they had at their disposal...

Agreed.

...then, for commercial reasons, the record companies issued their
superb recordings on crap material (at least in the UK).

Also true, for more than just the UK.

A good digital recording can be breathtaking, so can a good 78 recording
if it is properly reproduced. The bandwidths are different; one is in
stereo, the other mono, the S/N ratios are hugely different - and yet
the 78 can be just as spectacular in its own way.

And can be faithfully transferred to CD, the only real limitation being the
disc itself, and the analog playback equipment.
That was my point.

MrT.