Difference in sound quality and output of different machines

[gramophoneshane]

[quote="frenchmarky
And Victor was still selling their Tungstone needles into the 1940s, I assume they were mostly going into acoustic machines. Reminds me of that 1956 Honeymooners episode where the latin dancer moves into the building, he plays the mambo on a little windup phonograph!

[/quote]

The HMV 102 was actually still being manufactured & sold in 1960, so there was obviously still a market for completely acoustic machines as late as this.
More than likely, HMV in India was probably making them even later.

[OrthoFan]

I think bb was referring to mainstream acoustic recording coming to an end in 1925

Hi Shane:

I noted the word "mainstream." As you probably know, but newbies may not, the industry's full transition to electrical recording actually took several years.

While Edison held out the longest, among the major brand companies, before adopting an electrical recording process, there were several minor/subsidiary--albeit popular--labels that continued to issue acoustically recorded records as late as 1929.


"Columbia kept using acoustic recording for "budget label" pop product well into 1929 on the Harmony, Velvet Tone (both general purpose labels) and Diva (sold exclusively at W.T. Grant stores). " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Records

Along this line, Gennett, which also supplied masters to budget labels such as Sears, did not make the full transition to electrical recording until about 1927 because of equipment breakdowns and problems with pressings -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennett_Records (also see: http://www.mainspringpress.com/sears-labels.html )

It's interesting to listen to some of these recordings. While the style of the performances is what you'd expect to hear from the late 1920s, the sound quality is definitely pre-1925.

[larryh]

I still tend to feel like the electrical recordings that do the best on the orthophonic machines were recorded not too far into the early 30's. Often victor seemed to over record causing some really harsh sound for my taste. Granted columbia and european records often are easier on the ear a bit later. But eventually all electrical recording becomes over powering for most mechanical machines to me. I know that once in a while some popular record from the 40s will do quite well if the recording levels and instruments are such as to still accommodate the mechanical reproducers ability, but usually they end up blasting one out of the room. It is interesting that in many war movies or early post war movies you see europeans playing a portable sitting on a chest or table. I often wondered if they really were picking up the sound or just used it for effect?

Larry

[bbphonoguy]

I think bb was referring to mainstream acoustic recording coming to an end in 1925

Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you for clarifying my point. Please note that I said it "pretty much" ended in 1925. I was aware that some companies continued to produce acoustic recordings after 1925. I own acoustic records from the late '20's, so how could I not know it? I just think that even those companies must have known the acoustic era was drawing to a close, hence my wording that it "pretty much ended in 1925".

[gramophoneshane]

1925 certainly marked the beginning of the end for acoustic recordings, and as OF noted, by 1930 the process was obsolete- perhaps with the exception of some obscure labels from 3rd world countries lol.
Not wanting to hi-jack the thread, but does anyone know if Pathé ever released any electrically recorded "vertical cut" discs? From memory, I thing the last of them were pressed in 29 or 30.

[Lenoirstreetguy]

Shane..I recall reading that French Pathé went electric in late 1927 and I THINK they used a Westinghouse system of some sort although do not quote me.

Jim

[frenchmarky]

I know that once in a while some popular record from the 40s will do quite well if the recording levels and instruments are such as to still accommodate the mechanical reproducers ability, but usually they end up blasting one out of the room.

So what was the reason that they were recorded so much louder onto the records, given that now they were being made to play on amplified systems that didn't really need it to be that loud? I'm guessing that it was because now the pickups could handle it, and also to make the music that much louder than the record's surface hiss (signal to noise)?

[larryh]

I would say that the ever expanding search for getting more sound from the records led to a point where the mechanical machines could not any longer handle with much clarity or satisfaction the sounds from the records. Even the early orthophonics often suffer from extreme loud passages and shrill sound especially in classical symphonic type pieces. The engineers were recording for use on tube sets into the thirties and no longer were constrained by the playback abilities of the mechanical era.

Larry

[Operafan]

I know that once in a while some popular record from the 40s will do quite well if the recording levels and instruments are such as to still accommodate the mechanical reproducers ability, but usually they end up blasting one out of the room.

So what was the reason that they were recorded so much louder onto the records, given that now they were being made to play on amplified systems that didn't really need it to be that loud? I'm guessing that it was because now the pickups could handle it, and also to make the music that much louder than the record's surface hiss (signal to noise)?

For the same reason that most commercial music is manipulated to be overly loud now, using compression to keep average levels as high as possible (at the cost of dynamic range). People tend to hear louder as better, and this crude first order effect swamps all other quality comparisons. As it was put recently on one of the recording boards:

"If you want to compare two hi-fi amplifiers seriously, first you need to match their gain within some smallish fraction of a dB (certainly less than 0.5 dB)--otherwise, people tend to hear sonic differences that are real enough, but which disappear when the gains are matched more closely. Such small differences in loudness are rarely perceived consciously in terms of loudness; instead, if people hear a difference, they perceive it in terms of sound quality. Experimentally this has occurred with loudness differences as small as 0.1-0.2 dB in some cases. Of course, by then the supposed differences in sound quality are also quite subtle. But if you want to eliminate bias, these variables need to be controlled down to (as I said) smallish fractions of a dB."

Jeff