Frequency Resp Comparison Between Hill & Date & Lateral Cut

[startgroove]

Does anyone have information, either historical, or first hand, which compares the frequency characteristics of Diamond Disc recordings with lateral cut recordings, before electrical recordings where introduced?
Such as:
1. What were the lowest range of each?
2. What were the highest range of each?
3. How do the equalization curves compare?
4. How do the sound to background noise relationships compare in absolute numbers?

Any information is useful, even your opinions.

Cheers, Russie

[drh]

Does anyone have information, either historical, or first hand, which compares the frequency characteristics of Diamond Disc recordings with lateral cut recordings, before electrical recordings where introduced?
Such as:
1. What were the lowest range of each?
2. What were the highest range of each?
3. How do the equalization curves compare?
4. How do the sound to background noise relationships compare in absolute numbers?

Any information is useful, even your opinions.

Cheers, Russie

Don't know about the others, but as to no. 3: there would be no equalization curve, at least not a deliberate one, for either type. Any deviations from "flat" would be random results of horn resonances, room resonances, cutting diaphragm performance, and the like. No generalization is really possible. For example, played flat, a Brunswick recording of Bronislaw Huberman that I was copying yesterday needed a big cut around, oh, 350 Hz or so to tame a boomy piano accompaniment. That adjustment has been unnecessary in any other acoustic record I can remember transferring.

What *is* uniform is the rising frequency response characteristic of magnetic cartridges, not a function of the original recordings but definitely an influence on how they sound played back on modern gear. For more on that subject, see an article I wrote here: https://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/gsp_accession2_e.html

[recordmaker]

In my practical experience the lateral disc for acoustic recordings is restricted to a fairly steep roll of from 2.5Khz
The vertical cutter can respond up to 3.5Khz all of this is due to the lower mechanical mass of the stylus holder cutting directly into the wax against the longer lever and pivot needed in a lateral recorder.
in general lower end response is dictated by the ability of the acoustic playback as vertical cuts will jump with too much bass.
the Maxfield and Harrison paper gives a good account of the acoustic performance when developing the electrical recording process in 1924.
the diamond disc certainly has a better potential high frequency response.

The 350 Hz peak on the piano on a violin record suggests a two horn recording and the larger horn for the piano having a typical 300-400Hz resonance

[Henry]

In my practical experience the lateral disc for acoustic recordings is restricted to a fairly steep roll of from 2.5Khz
The vertical cutter can respond up to 3.5Khz all of this is due to the lower mechanical mass of the stylus holder cutting directly into the wax against the longer lever and pivot needed in a lateral recorder.
in general lower end response is dictated by the ability of the acoustic playback as vertical cuts will jump with too much bass.
the Maxfield and Harrison paper gives a good account of the acoustic performance when developing the electrical recording process in 1924.
the diamond disc certainly has a better potential high frequency response.

The 350 Hz peak on the piano on a violin record suggests a two horn recording and the larger horn for the piano having a typical 300-400Hz resonance

You can't mean 350 Hz (or 300-400 Hz). The 2.5 Khz and 3.5 Khz numbers in your first paragraph equate to 2,500 Hz and 3,500 Hz. Middle A on the piano keyboard is 440 Hz. For reference, the lowest note, A, on the piano keyboard = 55 Hz, and the highest C = 4,186 Hz (that's 261.626 x 16 -- Every octave higher doubles the frequency). Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but acoustic recordings were capable of a higher top than 300, 350, or 400 Hz!

[drh]

In my practical experience the lateral disc for acoustic recordings is restricted to a fairly steep roll of from 2.5Khz
The vertical cutter can respond up to 3.5Khz all of this is due to the lower mechanical mass of the stylus holder cutting directly into the wax against the longer lever and pivot needed in a lateral recorder.
in general lower end response is dictated by the ability of the acoustic playback as vertical cuts will jump with too much bass.
the Maxfield and Harrison paper gives a good account of the acoustic performance when developing the electrical recording process in 1924.
the diamond disc certainly has a better potential high frequency response.

The 350 Hz peak on the piano on a violin record suggests a two horn recording and the larger horn for the piano having a typical 300-400Hz resonance

You can't mean 350 Hz (or 300-400 Hz). The 2.5 Khz and 3.5 Khz numbers in your first paragraph equate to 2,500 Hz and 3,500 Hz. Middle A on the piano keyboard is 440 Hz. For reference, the lowest note, A, on the piano keyboard = 55 Hz, and the highest C = 4,186 Hz (that's 261.626 x 16 -- Every octave higher doubles the frequency). Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but acoustic recordings were capable of a higher top than 300, 350, or 400 Hz!

He was referring to my post, in which I mentioned that the piano in a particular recording boomed badly unless I cut sharply at around 350 Hz. He wasn't saying 350 Hz is the top of an acoustic recording's response range.

[Henry]

In my practical experience the lateral disc for acoustic recordings is restricted to a fairly steep roll of from 2.5Khz
The vertical cutter can respond up to 3.5Khz all of this is due to the lower mechanical mass of the stylus holder cutting directly into the wax against the longer lever and pivot needed in a lateral recorder.
in general lower end response is dictated by the ability of the acoustic playback as vertical cuts will jump with too much bass.
the Maxfield and Harrison paper gives a good account of the acoustic performance when developing the electrical recording process in 1924.
the diamond disc certainly has a better potential high frequency response.

The 350 Hz peak on the piano on a violin record suggests a two horn recording and the larger horn for the piano having a typical 300-400Hz resonance

You can't mean 350 Hz (or 300-400 Hz). The 2.5 Khz and 3.5 Khz numbers in your first paragraph equate to 2,500 Hz and 3,500 Hz. Middle A on the piano keyboard is 440 Hz. For reference, the lowest note, A, on the piano keyboard = 55 Hz, and the highest C = 4,186 Hz (that's 261.626 x 16 -- Every octave higher doubles the frequency). Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but acoustic recordings were capable of a higher top than 300, 350, or 400 Hz!

He was referring to my post, in which I mentioned that the piano in a particular recording boomed badly unless I cut sharply at around 350 Hz. He wasn't saying 350 Hz is the top of an acoustic recording's response range.

I erred in giving 55 Hz as the lowest note, A, on the piano keyboard. The correct frequency is 27.5 Hz.

[recordmaker]

Yes of course the 350Hz refers to the peak in the transfer buy drh I already mention the upper roll of frequencies of the two recording systems in the first part of my reply.

I was actually making a two horn violin and piano disc recording a few weeks back so I was familiar with effect alluded to by drh.
it is easy to end up pointing the larger piano recording horn at a group of middle notes at the back of the piano and having them overload the system some what.

Back to the topic
In essence the response curve, if we could call it that, normally shows up with two peaks a lower one consistent with the horn resonance and an upper one associated with the recording diaphragm resonance the more you damp the resonance the flatter the response gets but the volume of the resulting recording is reduced dramatically. it is all such a compromise that we are luck to have so many listenable record from the acoustic period.
350hz is a normal starting point of bass roll off on acoustic recordings.

[Phototone]

So, the wax recording blank also would have a damping effect on the recording stylus in acoustical recording, thus limiting the high end I would think, so the wax formula (being soft or hard) will effect the frequency range captured.

[drh]

Yes of course the 350Hz refers to the peak in the transfer buy drh I already mention the upper roll of frequencies of the two recording systems in the first part of my reply.

I was actually making a two horn violin and piano disc recording a few weeks back so I was familiar with effect alluded to by drh.
it is easy to end up pointing the larger piano recording horn at a group of middle notes at the back of the piano and having them overload the system some what.

Back to the topic
In essence the response curve, if we could call it that, normally shows up with two peaks a lower one consistent with the horn resonance and an upper one associated with the recording diaphragm resonance the more you damp the resonance the flatter the response gets but the volume of the resulting recording is reduced dramatically. it is all such a compromise that we are luck to have so many listenable record from the acoustic period.
350hz is a normal starting point of bass roll off on acoustic recordings.

Thank you for all that. I had no idea, and it's fascinating. I was always a bit in awe of how well the early recording engineers managed to do with such primitive equipment; now I'm even more so.

[startgroove]

Thank you all very much. That is very interesting.!

Pertaining to number 3.
Considering that "The voiced speech of a typical adult male will have a fundamental frequency from 85 to 180 Hz, and that of a typical adult female from 165 to 255 Hz." That means that the 350Hz roll off puts the human voice well below the efficiency of playback (or recording). At least the non singing voice.

Therefore, in order to have the presence of the human voice be proportionately volume matched throughout the vocal range, and matched to that of the instruments, there must have been a method of controlling equalization, even if it is merely positioning the various sound sources at different distances, and/or using pick up horns of various lengths or diameters, and/or muting of louder sounds, and/or accentuating certain sound sources to help the match up. Perhaps there were mechanical means as well.

Those specific techniques are what I am interested in learning about. I hope these acoustic recording techniques have not been lost.