Re: [ARSCLIST] 78 rpm fragments in archaeological contexts

[Oliver Mueller-Heubach <ommuel@xxxxxx>]

Thanks everyone for all of the extremely thoughtful replies! According to my 
prof., it is ok for this paper to simply explore the hypothesis that identifying 
music from such fragments is possible. I am under no obligation to prove that it 
is. You have raised some excellent approaches! Wear factor is an excellent 
consideration vis-'a-vis the popularity of particular discs and/or the reuse of 
needles, etc. Just looking though various chipped or broken examples in my 
collection, I know there are signigicant texture differences in the material as well 
as a variety of core/exterior treatments and laminates. My anthropology 
department has access to a wide array of equipment courtesy of Jefferson Labs 
in Newport News in Virginia and for a scanning electron microscope and other 
tools, that will probably be my best bet.  A number of you have mentioned the 
slower speed in the center vs. the outer grooves on a 78. In identifying ceramics 
diameters, we take a rim sherd and place it against a simple table of concentric 
rings to estimate the diameter of the original vessel. Is there any problem with 
holding a 78 fragment up to an intact disc and finding where the arcs of the 
grooves match most neatly to tell if the piece is from the inside or outside of the 
recording? I hope to keep the methodology fairly simple for these sorts of 
morphological considerations. If scanning and comparison can be shown to 
have reasonable potential, I will develop it further. In the current state of 
archaeology (especially in cultural resource management), a record fragment will 
ellicit the notation "first half, 20th century," and that will be the end of it. So, 
any possibility of recovering additional information by readily replicable means 
would be welcome. Certainly, any artifact bearing letters or numbers on its 
surface receives prompt attention and interest. Why not then these fragments of 
actual voices? 
Admittedly, my own equipment is rather limited. I have one normal, production 
4 speed stereo, several acoustic portable machines, an Edison standard and an 
Ediphone. My current computer is an Apple MacBookPro and my digital 
recording equipment is limited to an audio-in converter, the program Sound 
Soap, and a turntable/CD recorder which I think was ordered through 
Hammacher-Schlemmer originally (sorry, not sure of the make/model). I will be 
reading over your responses and considering my options now. The paper is a 
final, so due only in December, and I have midterms to work on this week- so 
apologies if I am slow in responding. Thanks again!
Oliver

---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:02:34 +0200
>From: George Brock-Nannestad <pattac@xxxxxxxx>  
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78 rpm fragments in archaeological contexts  
>To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
>Stephen Barr wrote in response to
>Oliver Mueller-Heubach:
>
>......................................
>
>> Keep in mind that, on the outermost grooves of a 10" 78, a length of .52333
>> inches of groove
>> will provide a second of sonic content. 
>
>----- I can't make these ends meet in my mind. A 78 rpm record makes more 
>than one revolution per second, i.e. more than one whole circumference. 
>Certainly that must be more than .52333 inches at the outer periphery. 
>
>----- a slide rule was a dangerous tool, because unless you did some mental 
>calculation you might be orders of magnitude out. The reason engineers were 
>able to use them, is that they were guided by common sense.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>
>George