I wondered - what if any are the conventions regarding this area? Is
there any known case of secret bits ("easter eggs" we'd call them
nowadays) being put in them, in the same way as in the runout groove(s)?
I have _occasionally_ seen grooves on the slope.
I wondered - what if any are the conventions regarding this area? Is
there any known case of secret bits ("easter eggs" we'd call them
nowadays) being put in them, in the same way as in the runout groove(s)?
I know on some 78s, there were no grooves in that area, relying on the centripetal force to move the needle in to where the grooves do start
(it was just dropped in a smooth area and swung inwards).
there any known case of secret bits ("easter eggs" we'd call them
nowadays) being put in them, in the same way as in the runout groove(s)?
There have been records with multiple interleaved grooves so that
which groove you get depends on exactly where you put the stylus down.
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
I have _occasionally_ seen grooves on the slope.
Probably due to the rim of the stamper being distorted by the cutoff
ring of the press. The master would have been flat.
Normal practice was to use a 13" blank for a 12" record or an 11" blank
for a 10" record. This allowed a sacrificial area where the electrodes
could be attached when it was put into the electroplating bath. It also >meant that the recording engineer had a bit of space to 'practice' in,
so that any error in stylus angle, cutting pressure etc. would be shown
up before the recording started. This also meant that there was time to >catch an errant swarf thread and lead it into the suction tube before
the frantic business of starting the tape or cueing the performers took >priority.
Pre-war Columbia recording engineers used to write the matrix number in
the sacrificial space around the rim, the factory transferred it to the >run-out area during processing. HMV recording engineers wrote the
matrix number on the label area and, again, it was transferred to the
run-out area during processing. The original Columbia information was
cut off before it got to the stampers, but sometimes the HMV information >wasn't machined away and it is fascinating to see the recording
engineers own handwriting as an indentation beneath the label.
I wondered - what if any are the conventions regarding this area? Is
there any known case of secret bits ("easter eggs" we'd call them
nowadays) being put in them, in the same way as in the runout groove(s)?
I expect someone somewhere has done it, but I've never come across one -
and some of my transcriptions have had to be played backwards to capture
the very first sounds in the groove. (These are usually recordings
where the operator was working under great pressure and dropped the
cutter with the amplifier 'live', because there wasn't time to be
bothered with such niceties as unmuting or doing a fade-in.)
I have heard a 1960s pop record (forget which one) which had the sound
of a warming-up EF86 in one of the guitar amplifiers on the lead-in
groove. Many of the records made by smaller labels in the 1950s began
with the characteristic 'pong' sound of the valves in a Ferrograph
Series 3 being jolted by the shock from the armature of the start
mechanism hitting the core of the smoothing choke, which doubled as an >electromagnet. Sometimes a similar sound comes from the clutch
mechanism of the recording lathe as the scrolling gear disengages.
I know on some 78s, there were no grooves in that area, relying on the
centripetal force to move the needle in to where the grooves do start
(it was just dropped in a smooth area and swung inwards).
The force was caused by the sideways component of needle friction due to
the mis-tracking that is inherent in all radial arm disc playback
systems. The lead-in groove was gradually introduced in the mid 1930s
when automatic record changers started to become popular. Classical
records were then offered in 'straight' or 'auto-coupling' sets, so that
an auto-changer would play through the pile in the correct side order,
then the pile was turned over and the reverse sides played through.
There were three systems in common use:Presumably this was where two turntables were used to avoid too long a
Straight:
Disc Sides
1 1&2
2 3&4
3 5&6
4 7&8
5 9&10
6 11&12
Auto-coupling
Disc Sides
1 1&12
2 2&11
3 3&10
4 4&9
5 5&8
6 6&7
Broadcast coupling
Disc Side
1 1&3
2 2&4
3 5&7
4 6&8
5 9&11
6 10&12
If the sides aren't numbered (as in one German recording I came across)
look at the matrix numbers to find out what order they were recorded in.
I'm glad to have provoked a bit of interesting (I found it so, anyway!) discussion with this one! I didn't know about the CD one, though I did
know about the records one (though didn't know that there was a Python
one, or that it was how talking dolls worked.) Thanks all!
records were then offered in 'straight' or 'auto-coupling' sets, so that
an auto-changer would play through the pile in the correct side order,
then the pile was turned over and the reverse sides played through.
I'm pretty sure we had one 1&4 2&3 set, though I can't remember what of
- could well have been a Gilbert and Sullivan production. ("33" records.)
Broadcast couplingPresumably this was where two turntables were used to avoid too long a
Disc Side
1 1&3
2 2&4
3 5&7
4 6&8
5 9&11
6 10&12
gap, but a human was present to do the changes.
I remember once hearing - almost certainly on Radio 3 while visiting my brother - some "classic" performance from something like 1912 being broadcast; very noticeable once you'd started to look out for it, the
brief cessation of surface noise every few minutes.
A lot of broadcast transcription machines had reversible leadscrews
which allowed cutting from the inside outwards. This further reduced
the audibility of the changeover from one disc to the next, as the
outgoing and incoming surface speeds were matched. One machine of the
pair would be set up to cut outside-inwards and the other cut inside-outwards. The disadvantage of this was the need for the playback operator to be fully awake and read the information on the label,
otherwise the first changeover of the set consisted of needle scratch
and the sound of the needle falling off the outside edge of the record.
The BBC used both butt and overlap changeovers, usually (but not always) marking this information on the disc label. When the 'D' was introduced overlap changeovers became the norm and the playback operator's life was
made a lot easier by a 'synchronising' marker system: The operating
console was fitted with a button that engaged the scrolling motors of
both recorders simultaneously for one revolution of the turntable. This
left short visible scrolls on both discs at identical places during the overlap sections, which helped the playback operator to get the two into synchronism before cross-fading.
The operators became so skilled that, although this changeover procedure
was repeated, live, dozens of times every day, very few 'fluffs' were
ever broadcast.
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1psv2ac.1a7adyi1hdnj5sN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...[...]
The operators became so skilled that, although this changeover procedure was repeated, live, dozens of times every day, very few 'fluffs' were
ever broadcast.
I presume the second disc of the changeover was cued by eye: get the needle to a reference point, and when the first disc reached the reference point
(or some time before, to allow for run-up time) start the second disc and then cross-fade when everything was stable. Did BBC transcription disc operators rely on starting a motor, or did they use square baize between turntable and disc which was released on cue with the turntable already turning, to allow a much faster pickup of the disc?
When, roughly, did the BBC stop using transcription discs and change to mag tape?
I've got a BBC transcription disc (shellac on aluminium, I think)
I need to find a record player with a proper 78 rpm needle, as opposed to a much finer 45/33 rpm microgroove needle, to get a better copy of it without as much of the groove noise.
Did BBC discs run at 78 rpm or slightly slower? Because his voice sounds a little higher-pitched than it really was.
I presume the second disc of the changeover was cued by eye: get the needle >> to a reference point, and when the first disc reached the reference point
(or some time before, to allow for run-up time) start the second disc and
then cross-fade when everything was stable. Did BBC transcription disc
operators rely on starting a motor, or did they use square baize between
turntable and disc which was released on cue with the turntable already
turning, to allow a much faster pickup of the disc?
The turntables were very heavy and were left running, the needle was
lifted by a device which (in most cases) had some sort of calibrated
scale. For changeovers, the needle was poised over the scroll and then >lowered with a lever as the previous disc played through its scroll.
If the needle was dropped a fraction early, once both discs were playing
the incoming disc could be braked gently by hand to get audible
synchronism before cross-fading. I'm not sure how common that practice
was in the BBC because it required a high level of skill which might
only be achieved by a few of the best operators. Often the turntables
were left to the junior ops.
A recording channel would consist of a pair of turntables, and the
programme would be recorded on 17" discs (Yes, seventeen inches. I've
seen them. They look huge).
Thank goodness somebody eventually invented tape.
The BBC used both butt and overlap changeovers, usually (but not always) >>marking this information on the disc label. When the 'D' was introduced >>overlap changeovers became the norm and the playback operator's life was >>made a lot easier by a 'synchronising' marker system: The operating >>console was fitted with a button that engaged the scrolling motors of
both recorders simultaneously for one revolution of the turntable. This >>left short visible scrolls on both discs at identical places during the >>overlap sections, which helped the playback operator to get the two into >>synchronism before cross-fading.
What is "scroll(ing)" in this context?
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]
Broadcast couplingPresumably this was where two turntables were used to avoid too long a
Disc Side
1 1&3
2 2&4
3 5&7
4 6&8
5 9&11
6 10&12
gap, but a human was present to do the changes.
There were two types of changeover: 'butt' and 'overlap' (you might want
to add 'gapped' if the operator wasn't very skilled). Most early
recording channels had a single amplifier and two recording lathes. If
the amplifier could only be switched to one cutterhead or the other,
that would automatically give butt changeovers. Some amplifiers had a
low output impedance and enough power to drive both cutterheads at the
same time, so they could have an intermediate switch position that
recorded both discs simultaneously for a few seconds and gave overlap >changeovers.
The BBC 'D' system had two separate amplifiers, one for each cutterhead, >which allowed the characteristics of each cutter to be compensated >individually, and a variable degree of H.F. boost which was
automatically controlled by a switch linked to the leadscrew mechanism.
As the cutter approached the smaller cutting radius and slower surface
speed, a degree of H.F. boost was needed to keep the frequency response
flat and to minimise the audibility of the changeover to the next disc.
A lot of broadcast transcription machines had reversible leadscrews
which allowed cutting from the inside outwards. This further reduced
the audibility of the changeover from one disc to the next, as the
outgoing and incoming surface speeds were matched. One machine of the
pair would be set up to cut outside-inwards and the other cut >inside-outwards. The disadvantage of this was the need for the playback >operator to be fully awake and read the information on the label,
otherwise the first changeover of the set consisted of needle scratch
and the sound of the needle falling off the outside edge of the record.
The BBC used both butt and overlap changeovers, usually (but not always) >marking this information on the disc label. When the 'D' was introduced >overlap changeovers became the norm and the playback operator's life was
made a lot easier by a 'synchronising' marker system: The operating
console was fitted with a button that engaged the scrolling motors of
both recorders simultaneously for one revolution of the turntable. This
left short visible scrolls on both discs at identical places during the >overlap sections, which helped the playback operator to get the two into >synchronism before cross-fading.
The operators became so skilled that, although this changeover procedure
was repeated, live, dozens of times every day, very few 'fluffs' were
ever broadcast.
I remember once hearing - almost certainly on Radio 3 while visiting my
brother - some "classic" performance from something like 1912 being
broadcast; very noticeable once you'd started to look out for it, the
brief cessation of surface noise every few minutes.
Unless they were trying to make a point, the surface noise should have
been continued through the changeover - even splicing in noise from
another part of the disc if necessary. That was done in the days of
tape and is even easier to do with digital editing.
Sometimes you hear a change in the character of the surface noise and a
jump in the H.F. response, due to going from the inside of one disc to
the outside of another. The audible effect of this can be minimised
during remastering by judicious alteration of the playback frequency
response for a few seconds each side of the changeover - this is where >analogue knob-operated controls have a huge advantage over software
controls, you can hear what you are doing and adjust it artistically in
real time.
One of the most difficult changeover jobs I have ever had was where one
of the recording turntables had a slightly underpowered motor or a
slipping drive. The first few second of the discs from that machine
were recorded too slowly because of the cutterhead drag, then they crept
up to speed as the cutter progressed to a smaller radius.. The effect
on playback was that every alternate changeover was mismatched by about
a semitone; the turntable speed had to be set low by exactly the right
amount and then adjusted imperceptibly during the playback so it was
correct for the next changeover.
Interesting that AFAIK virtually no commercial records were made with >inside-out movement (I'm sure there probably were a few, if only for the >novelty value, but I've never seen one).
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 15:26:08 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
<snip>
Interesting that AFAIK virtually no commercial records were made with >>inside-out movement (I'm sure there probably were a few, if only for the >>novelty value, but I've never seen one).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path%C3%A9_Records
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:bi+GfZLAc3liFwqv@a.a...
The BBC used both butt and overlap changeovers, usually (but not always) >>marking this information on the disc label. When the 'D' was introduced >>overlap changeovers became the norm and the playback operator's life was >>made a lot easier by a 'synchronising' marker system: The operating >>console was fitted with a button that engaged the scrolling motors of >>both recorders simultaneously for one revolution of the turntable. This >>left short visible scrolls on both discs at identical places during the >>overlap sections, which helped the playback operator to get the two into >>synchronism before cross-fading.
What is "scroll(ing)" in this context?
Thank you for asking that question. I was just about to. ;-)
"Brian" <Brian@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk> wrote in message >news:5f0f9hd9k25acvaiqj8ttheb2o6jmrrmt7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 15:26:08 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
<snip>
Interesting that AFAIK virtually no commercial records were made with >>>inside-out movement (I'm sure there probably were a few, if only for the >>>novelty value, but I've never seen one).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path%C3%A9_Records
I suppose that rim-start has the advantage that when the record has
finished, the needle is "captive" between the last groove and the
centre spindle, and all but a very severe jolt will keep the needle on
the record where it will end up safely at the centre. Centre start will
chuck the needle off the rim of the disc, where the tone arm and hence
the needle could land on something that would damage the needle. I
imagine that's why rim start became the standard.
Thinking of severe jolts, I remember seeing a film in which a boy is
carrying a wind-up horn gramophone around as it is playing. The
gramophone is bouncing and tilting all over the place, but the needle
doesn't even skip a groove, never mind skating off entirely. And that
was a film made in the 1940s or 50s, when record players were still
common, so it was not a case of a modern naive young film-maker who
didn't know about the delicacy of a tone arm on a record player and the
need not to jolt it.
Interesting that AFAIK virtually no commercial records were made with >>>inside-out movement (I'm sure there probably were a few, if only for the >>>novelty value, but I've never seen one).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path%C3%A9_Records
I suppose that rim-start has the advantage that when the record has
finished, the needle is "captive" between the last groove and the centre >spindle, and all but a very severe jolt will keep the needle on the record >where it will end up safely at the centre. Centre start will chuck the
needle off the rim of the disc, where the tone arm and hence the needle
could land on something that would damage the needle. I imagine that's why >rim start became the standard.
I suppose that rim-start has the advantage that when the record has
finished, the needle is "captive" between the last groove and the centre >spindle, and all but a very severe jolt will keep the needle on the record >where it will end up safely at the centre. Centre start will chuck the
needle off the rim of the disc, where the tone arm and hence the needle
could land on something that would damage the needle. I imagine that's why >rim start became the standard.
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 16:58:24 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
I suppose that rim-start has the advantage that when the record has >finished, the needle is "captive" between the last groove and the centre >spindle, and all but a very severe jolt will keep the needle on the record >where it will end up safely at the centre. Centre start will chuck the >needle off the rim of the disc, where the tone arm and hence the needle >could land on something that would damage the needle. I imagine that's why >rim start became the standard.
Or, in the alternative, you just arrange for the outermost groove to
be locked.
I think Rod is probably right, and it was the ergonomic aspect of outside-start that was the decisive factor.
Some amplifiers had a
low output impedance and enough power to drive both cutterheads at the
same time, so they could have an intermediate switch position that
recorded both discs simultaneously for a few seconds and gave overlap >changeovers.
Though presumably having _some_ effect on the characteristic(s?) of the recording when the amp. was driving two.
As the cutter approached the smaller cutting radius and slower surface >speed, a degree of H.F. boost was needed to keep the frequency response >flat and to minimise the audibility of the changeover to the next disc.
You say a switch - was the amount of HF boost only on of two levels
then? I'd have thought variable would be better.
A lot of broadcast transcription machines had reversible leadscrews
which allowed cutting from the inside outwards. This further reduced
Interesting that AFAIK virtually no commercial records were made with inside-out movement (I'm sure there probably were a few, if only for the novelty value, but I've never seen one). Or constant linear velocity,
for that matter; though I have seen _pictures_ of machines with wheels
on the record.
my brother and I noticed was just how much the standard of orchestral
playing had improved over the decades: the old performance just wasn't
very _good_! I don't mean the restrictions imposed by the recording technology of the time (and that it had to be live), I mean timing
errors and "bum notes" (thank you Peter Sellers); given it _was_
supposed to be somebody famous, and that it had been recorded, it was surprising.
you _do_ enjoy what you do, don't you! (And I enjoy hearing about it.)
Liked your advice to the other poster about "treat it as any other
contact explosive you might have around"!
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:bi+GfZLAc3liFwqv@a.a...
The BBC used both butt and overlap changeovers, usually (but not always) >>>> marking this information on the disc label. When the 'D' was introduced >>>> overlap changeovers became the norm and the playback operator's life was >>>> made a lot easier by a 'synchronising' marker system: The operating
console was fitted with a button that engaged the scrolling motors of
both recorders simultaneously for one revolution of the turntable. This >>>> left short visible scrolls on both discs at identical places during the >>>> overlap sections, which helped the playback operator to get the two into >>>> synchronism before cross-fading.
What is "scroll(ing)" in this context?
Thank you for asking that question. I was just about to. ;-)
Increasing the spacing between the grooves so as to make a visible
spiral indicator on the disc. You have probably come across it
separating the 'bands' of an L.P.
There were various ways of doing it: a lot of home-recording lathes just
had a crank handle connected to the leadscrew, which you could wind
gently to give a scroll or rapidly to give a run-out. Some lathes had variable gearing or a clutch to a faster shaft, others used an auxiliary motor. One or two used a cam arrangment that moved the whole traversing mechanism bodily sideways.
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:bi+GfZLAc3liFwqv@a.a...
The BBC used both butt and overlap changeovers, usually (but not
always)
marking this information on the disc label. When the 'D' was
introduced
overlap changeovers became the norm and the playback operator's life
was
made a lot easier by a 'synchronising' marker system: The operating
console was fitted with a button that engaged the scrolling motors of
both recorders simultaneously for one revolution of the turntable.
This
left short visible scrolls on both discs at identical places during the
overlap sections, which helped the playback operator to get the two
into
synchronism before cross-fading.
What is "scroll(ing)" in this context?
Thank you for asking that question. I was just about to. ;-)
Increasing the spacing between the grooves so as to make a visible
spiral indicator on the disc. You have probably come across it
separating the 'bands' of an L.P.
There were various ways of doing it: a lot of home-recording lathes just
had a crank handle connected to the leadscrew, which you could wind
gently to give a scroll or rapidly to give a run-out. Some lathes had variable gearing or a clutch to a faster shaft, others used an auxiliary motor. One or two used a cam arrangment that moved the whole traversing mechanism bodily sideways.
On 2022-06-02 16:56:05 +0000, NY said:
Could the groove pitch be varied by scrolling while there was actual
sound being recorded? Is it just convention that scrolling is only
used during the quiet inter-track parts of a record?
Though in the early days all LPs were cut at a standard pitch (spacing between grooves) it eventually became normal to use 'variable groove
spacing' (VGS) where by when transferring a tape to LP the griive
spacing was increased during loud passages and reduced during quiet
passages, thus allowing a longer playing time I(exept on pop music which
was loud all the time). There was an extra tape reproducing the head
ahjead of the main one so that the grooves could be adjusted one
revolution in advance of the change in sound levels. Thisw means that by
just looking at an LP you can see where the loud passages are - useful
for finding the highest level when setting up for copying or broadcasting,
On 2022-06-02 16:56:05 +0000, NY said:
Could the groove pitch be varied by scrolling while there was actual
sound being recorded? Is it just convention that scrolling is only used during the quiet inter-track parts of a record?
Though in the early days all LPs were cut at a standard pitch (spacing between grooves) it eventually became normal to use 'variable groove
spacing' (VGS) where by when transferring a tape to LP the griive
spacing was increased during loud passages and reduced during quiet
passages, thus allowing a longer playing time I(exept on pop music
which was loud all the time). There was an extra tape reproducing the
head ahjead of the main one so that the grooves could be adjusted one revolution in advance of the change in sound levels.
Thisw means that
by just looking at an LP you can see where the loud passages are -
useful for finding the highest level when setting up for copying or broadcasting,
[*] It was said the DD could "read" the grooves of an LP and locate a given part (where it was not signposted by a larger track spacing caused by scrolling) simply by the look of the grooves - varying inter-groove spacing caused by allowing for varying track amplitude.
Ah. Thanks. Every industry establishes its own jargon words/usages to
cover what would otherwise be a long explanatory phrases. Could the
groove pitch be varied by scrolling while there was actual sound being
recorded? Is it just convention that scrolling is only used during the
quiet inter-track parts of a record? I suppose there is nothing to stop
a multi-track record being mastered with no scrolling, but it would
make it almost impossible, unless you were Delia Derbyshire [*], to
locate a given track.
[*] It was said the DD could "read" the grooves of an LP and locate a
given part (where it was not signposted by a larger track spacing
caused by scrolling) simply by the look of the grooves - varying
inter-groove spacing caused by allowing for varying track amplitude.
[*] It was said the DD could "read" the grooves of an LP and locate a
given part (where it was not signposted by a larger track spacing
caused by scrolling) simply by the look of the grooves - varying >inter-groove spacing caused by allowing for varying track amplitude.
I remember hearing of someone who could identify the type of music by
holding up the record and looking at the grooves - until it was revealed
that he was just reading the label (-:
Don't play it any more than necessary, those discs had a very limited
life (about 10 plays). Also, if it is showing signs of aluminium
glinting through the groove bottoms or peeling 'mud cracks' or red
powder, treat it as you would treat any everyday contact explosive you
happen to have lying around.
On 02/06/2022 18:19, Roger Wilmut wrote:
just looking at an LP you can see where the loud passages are - usefulAlso useful for a party trick, where some people could make a good guess
for finding the highest level when setting up for copying or broadcasting, >>
at the piece of music on the disc without reading the label.
The other, which I bought in a junk shop, is a 16" (I think) disc, and recorded at 33rpm but with a Standard needle;
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 129:17:37 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,296 |