Hi,
No, they are not. I grew up in eastern europe where the LP EQ was CCIR, so maybe I am more open to the concept that others may also exist.
Most I CANNOT list, if you read my earlier post.
All the Stereo curves equal the more or less last mono ones...
Ciao T
No, they are not. I grew up in eastern europe where the LP EQ was CCIR, so maybe I am more open to the concept that others may also exist.
Most I CANNOT list, if you read my earlier post.
All the Stereo curves equal the more or less last mono ones...
Ciao T
Thorsen, what you are saying is that you can't list sources for the usage of equalization other than RIAA on stereo records because "some [of the sources] explicitly asked to not be named". Did i understood it correctly? So equalization curves' usage can be top secret?
Anyways, it seems that we can reach an agreement. If i understood correctly what you are saying is that for example, some stereo records in eastern europe were cut with the (mono) CCIR equalization [450 us and 50 us] standard? That would make much more sense.
But then your AM77 manual states that it comes with these curves:
My primary point of contention is on the "DECCA (FFSS)" item, if what you are claiming is that Decca did not conform to RIAA on their FFSS stereo records. The edit that SOMEONE did to the related Wikipedia page on record equalization, suggested that. This infuriated me a lot. I tried to search for any reference that could support that and the only reference was you AMR guys. This infuriated me more. And no, i didn't limit myself to a "quick" google search.
Now if you could find the frequency response curves for the Telefunken-Decca ZS 90/45 head (made by Neumann), we could find an objectively better equalization "tweak" for those early stereo records cut with that head, and everybody will win on this forum. I'm afraid i would need an AES membership to get them.
May the schwartz be with you. I see your Schwartz is as big as mine. Or bigger.
Greetings,
F.
Last edited:
Thorsten has made an important point. For SOME record collectors, multiple curves are necessary, however, for most everyone else, RIAA is good enough. It is a bit like MC cartridge loading. 100 ohms will serve most MC cartridges well, however it would be useful to have a whole range, to take in EXOTIC phono cartridges and give them their ideal loading. But most people won't bother, and just leave the loading at 100 ohms or perhaps 47K.
I believe a careful reading of the very extensive run-through found at hifimuseum.de (in English) of the various curves in use, and when changes were made to RIAA, will help calm down most frayed nerves.
AMR themselves declare that the DMM RIAA they are offering is one they have developed, to help DMM-records sound better. It's not a standard that was in use when DMM was launched, as far as I can understand.
Now on to hifimuseum.de
To spare people having to read for hours (it's that thorough), one can jump to section 6.60 and onwards. The writer shows when Decca switched to cutters calibrated for RIAA, and has done extensive testing to try and find non-RIAA records from the period after.
I have not been able to find any confirmation that DGG stuck to its guns far into the 60s, but would appreciate receiving same, as that is an interesting claim.
Jump to 6.60 and onwards:
hifimuseum.de - Sie sind im Bereich : Sound-Restoration-Teil 6
Eastern European use of CCIR is interesting, as it explains why many find the records from the 60s/70s/80s to sound "megaphonic" - well, I have tried playback with the correct curve, and it's a revelation. Guess I shouldn't write as much, as these are often fantastic recordings, just not through RIAA, and they are very cheap to buy still.
Stereophile gave it a detailed look, with measurements, using the AMR PH-77 adjustment curves:
Abbingdon Music Research PH-77 Phono Equaliser Measurements | Stereophile.com
Abbingdon Music Research PH-77 Phono Equaliser Measurements | Stereophile.com
The only reason RIAA gave relatively if not entirely consistent result vis a vis tonal balance compared to CDs is that in the era that phonograph records were manufactured, it was SOP for studios to carefully equalize their monitors to have a flat FR. This resulted in similar although not identical results from different record companies because balance engineers heard approximately the same thing even though their speakers were different. Where there are differences or errors, a graphic equalizer is an excellent way to make corrections. Today with equalizers widely in disrepute among audiophiles who now include probably most recording engineers, spectral balance from company to company and even recording to recording in the same company is all over the lot. Unless you equalize for each recording individually they all sound awful, always very wrong for one FR distortion reason or another.
I also remember reading that Melodiya bought equiptment from DGG in 1956. Eterna had a co-operation agreement with DGG so one would have expected them to use the same standard as the western company except when they pressed directly from Russian masters. As far as Prague and Budapest are concerned, in both cases the factories were former HMV outfits and it does not seem unlikely that,at least until 1968, there was continued co-operation between Supraphon and HMV; certainly HMV issued Supraphon recordings on their "Music for pleasure" label although the matrices are always HMV.
As the writer at hifimuseum.de states, he suspects that other stated curves were changed to the RIAA-standard, without any official announcements, during the 60s. Seems there was a bit of pride involved - the Germans even launched their own standard in the late 50s, for all we know, they may have hung on to it, as local playback equipment would be able to handle it.
But there are some significant differences between RIAA and CCIR 56, and as the former Eastern block hung on to CCIR 56 for a long time, having a switchable phono-stage is a nice way of getting records from that region to play very well.
For those wanting more info on the nuances, here's how NAB and CCIR influenced tape recording and playback.
Deutsche Welle: Radio Training Centre
But there are some significant differences between RIAA and CCIR 56, and as the former Eastern block hung on to CCIR 56 for a long time, having a switchable phono-stage is a nice way of getting records from that region to play very well.
For those wanting more info on the nuances, here's how NAB and CCIR influenced tape recording and playback.
Deutsche Welle: Radio Training Centre
Methinks you've already contradicted yourself, Bonsai? Either there is only one RIAA curve (the original) or there is the 1976 version?
AIUI, there is only 1 RIAA curve - the original - but some phono stage mfrs choose to implement the 20Hz breakpoint, to help with vinyl reproduction (as distinct from cutting).
Then there is also the 50KHz breakpoint which the late, great Allen Wright discovered in the mid 80s(?), when he found that cutting engineers were already doing this (to stop their lathe amplifiers burning out). Again, some phono stage mfrs implement this - others don't.
Regards,
Andy
Hi,
First, I do not care to debate the reality or not of different EQ's, it is easily observed using the method cited by Peter Copeland in his writings and whixh I personally hit upon independently using a digital EQ.
To be clear, the EQ of any given LP depends on who cut it. And sometimes even if the people who cut it observed instructions as to which EQ to use.
So, if Eurodisk (aka Ariola) cut their own lacquers from soviet master tapes (a likely scenario) they would likely be RIAA, but if they used soviet stampers to press their own they copies (unlikely, given the state of industry in the eastern block at the time) they would be CCIR.
Similar stuff for Supraphone originals vs. EMI/MFP, though EMI appears to have at the times used different EQ's (maybe subcontracted cutting to a Decca facility?).
So the key is not "who recorded it" or "who's stamp is on the sleeve" (both of which are easily figured out), but "who cut it", which is commonly extremely hard to figure out, if at all.
Ciao T
First, I do not care to debate the reality or not of different EQ's, it is easily observed using the method cited by Peter Copeland in his writings and whixh I personally hit upon independently using a digital EQ.
To be clear, the EQ of any given LP depends on who cut it. And sometimes even if the people who cut it observed instructions as to which EQ to use.
So, if Eurodisk (aka Ariola) cut their own lacquers from soviet master tapes (a likely scenario) they would likely be RIAA, but if they used soviet stampers to press their own they copies (unlikely, given the state of industry in the eastern block at the time) they would be CCIR.
Similar stuff for Supraphone originals vs. EMI/MFP, though EMI appears to have at the times used different EQ's (maybe subcontracted cutting to a Decca facility?).
So the key is not "who recorded it" or "who's stamp is on the sleeve" (both of which are easily figured out), but "who cut it", which is commonly extremely hard to figure out, if at all.
Ciao T
Hi,
If my reading of the standard is correct, it is the officially 1979 promulgation of the standard, what where the earlier ones and when was the 1979 standard actually fully implemented, as opposed to put on paper? By the end of the following 5-Year plan?
Ciao T
If my reading of the standard is correct, it is the officially 1979 promulgation of the standard, what where the earlier ones and when was the 1979 standard actually fully implemented, as opposed to put on paper? By the end of the following 5-Year plan?
Ciao T
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.