I thought hot stylus was used much earlier than the late 40s (that's
when LPs were introduced). I have a late 30s lacquer that must have been
a cold cut, and it's obvious why hot cut was preferred. I've heard
lacquers from the 30s that sound much better which I assume where cut hot.
joe salerno
George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
> Hello,
>
> Bob Ohlsson wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From joe salerno: "...Shortly after that film was made the lacquer
>> recording
>> process must have become popular, making the film quickly outdated..."
>>
>> I can remember reading somewhere years ago that the use of lacquer masters
>> for replication didn't happen immediately because of quality issues. Does
>> anybody know anything about this?
>
> ----- I think it has to with the fact that the hot stylus technique did not
> get used until 1948. The noise level when cutting wax was 4 dB lower than
> when cutting lacquer cold. The above figures are from memory only. However, I
> do know that the principle was invented early 1920s by Miessner.
>
> At EMI, lacquer was used for colonial recording from the late 1930s; I
> suppose this logistic choice was sensible and outweighed the increased noise
> that would be masked by the shellac mixture. And the end users were probably
> not esteemed as being quality-conscious.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> George
>
