Date:Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:39:08 -0400
Reply-To:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
From:Doug Pomeroy <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Fwd: Peter Copeland on RCA Victor recordings (1941)
Comments:To: ARSCLIST <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
> From: Doug Pomeroy <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: September 30, 2008 8:51:10 PM EDT
> To: 78-list <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Peter Copeland on RCA Victor recordings (1941)
>
> Clarification:
>
> I only mentioned that issue of Wireless World, because it is
> Copeland's
> Ref. 60, which he identifies at the head of the paragraph which
> includes
> the statement about Victor's use of limiters. Thanks for checking.
>
> Doug
>
>> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:14:11 -0400
>> From: Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Peter Copeland on RCA Victor recordings (1941)
>>
>> Prentice, Will wrote:
>>
>>> Doug and all
>>>
>>> I've looked up this edition of Wireless World, but there's no
>>> mention of
>>> Victor's use of limiters I'm afraid. It's a short, 3 paragraph
>>> article
>>> entitled "New Recording Characteristic: Reducing Noise Level"
>>> describing
>>> in general terms the idea behind pre-emphasis.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think the key word here is the use of the word "level" in the
>> headline. Since limiters adjust level, could he have
>> misinterpreted it
>> to mean that this EQ was adjusting levels? As we know now, a
>> pre-emphasis properly works only if there is a calibrated reciprocal
>> de-emphasis on the playback end. Consumer phonographs did not have
>> actual de-emphasis circuits at that time, only professional
>> turntables
>> in broadcasting had them for the newly emerging Orthocoustic and NAB
>> curves. Unlike Dolby and DBX, these units were completely
>> passive. Was
>> Peter possibly claiming that RCA was using limiters as an active EQ,
>> several decades in advance of Dolby? And what was the 1941 Wireless
>> World article detailing? Orthocoustic had been announced back in
>> 1938
>> for ETs. Was this a curve being used on commercial phonograph
>> records
>> or a belated article on Orthocoustic?
>>
>>> I don't recall discussing this with Peter, but others he worked
>>> with on
>>> a wider level may know his sources. George Brock-Nannestad,
>>> possibly?
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I agree. George, have you seen anything in the EMI papers that
>> discuss
>> this?
>>
>> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Doug Pomeroy
>>>
>>> The following from Copeland's manual has always puzzled me, and I
>>> wonder
>>> if anyone can shed light on the reference to "Victor's then-unique
>>> use of multiple
>>> limiters (essentially one on each mike)", since I've never heard of
>>> this from any other
>>> source. This may originate in Ref. 60, Wireless World (1941), which
>>> I have not
>>> seen. RCA Victor may have experimented with limiters in 1941, but
>>> Copeland's
>>> statement can leave the impression that this was common practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 6.71 Various RCA characteristics
>>>> Ref. 60 (July 1941) is the earliest contemporary reference I have
>>>> found which describes RCA Victor using pre-emphasis on its 78s,
>>>> although the time constant was not given. Straight listening
>>>> suggests the idea was tried somewhat earlier, and we saw in section
>>>> 6.23 that Moyer wrote about RCA's Western Electric systems with
>>>> pre-
>>>> emphasis at 2500Hz (corresponding to 63.6 microseconds); but I am
>>>> deeply sceptical. It seems to me far more likely that, if something
>>>> which had been mastered direct-to-disc was reissued on microgroove,
>>>> the remastering engineer would simply have treated everything the
>>>> same. And I consider it likely that judging by "pure sound" clues,
>>>> Victor's then-unique use of multiple limiters (essentially one on
>>>> each mike), would itself have resulted in a "brighter" sound.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Doug Pomeroy
