Re: [ARSCLIST] Dynamic-frequency Range

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If you consider that, for instance, an Edison Gem player has a horn with a bell about the size of a 
flugelhorn, one can see how the medium did not allow anywhere near fidelity to a piano. I've heard 
cylinders played on the more deluxe types with huge horns and they still sound awful to my ears. A 
musician who actually cared about how his instrument sounded, especially someone like a solo piano 
player who cares about dynamics and subtle shading of notes, would want to avoid the medium 
altogether. I guess cylinders were something different in their day, obviously greatly admired for 
the leap of being able to time-shift a performance and have repeated hearings of something, but 
sheesh, I can't see how anyone who has grown up in the high fidelity era can stand to listen to 
them. 10 grades worse than 78's, and I think you all know how I feel about most 78's so I won't 
belabor that one. I'm talking specifically about using the medium for music, not for spoken word or 
sung "skits" (usually racist and none too funny by today's standards) that cylinders were also used 
for. In those cases, no better or worse than most modern AM radio (ie not too good but the words are 
usually intelligable). I know, I know, they're historic artifacts, which is why I'm glad they're 
preserved and people still care about them. Just not ever my choice for quality listening time.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Miller" <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Dynamic-frequency Range


> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Mike Richter wrote:
>
> > I'm a bit confused: do you mean dynamic range, frequency range or both?
>
> Both
>
> > They are related in that wider frequency range means higher noise level
> > and therefore reduced dynamic range over the spectrum.
>
> I understand.
>
> Perhaps the 1-KHz
> > dynamic range is what you mean.
>
> Yes, that would be fine.
>
> > Frequency range is also difficult to define unless either amplitude
> > tolerance or playback equipment is considered. Your numbers for 1925
> > seem about right for both the best acoustic and the new electric
> > recordings, but few reproducers came close to 100 Hz on the low end and
> > (not least because of the horn) most were far from flat above 1 KHz.
>
> I am concerned with what was available to the "average" listener.
>
> Perhaps I should explain the reasons for my questions. I am writing an
> essay about pianists who refused to make disc recordings but were willing
> to make reproducing piano roll recordings. There were problems with
> available duration for each side, in addition to the obvious limitations
> of frequency response. I find that rarely is the question of dynamic range
> mentioned. There is a quote from one pianist who was told the number of
> amplitude steps available from a particular reproducing piano...I can't
> remember how many, perhaps just 24 and he replied, well I have 25 dynamic
> steps in my playing. While shading is probably subject to one's
> ability to measure it, it seems to me that ultimately that "arguement" was
> not informed as their dynamic range on discs was signficantly limited,
> especially in the acoustic era.
>
> Further, some pianists pointed out that they did not like having to make
> adjustments to their dynamics in particular parts of the frequency range,
> adjustments that were needed to provide more balance on playback.
>
> In short, I am trying to put into slightly more quantifiable terms, the
> reasons for their objects.
>
> I am reminded of one pianist who refused to make any disc
> recordings...yet, if she had, she might have had the backing of Victor
> and, at least from my perspective, been as well known as some of the
> artists which had the benefit of the marketing of a record company.
>
> Any thoughts would be welcome.
>
> Karl