Dear Mr. Wright:
I wasn't trying to start an argument but my thoughts on the subject of
lateral vs. vertical cut recording are briefly.
Over all, lateral-cut recording is superior to vertical-cut because of two
main factors:
1. With lateral-cut, the vibration of the stylus is controlled from both
directions during playback - with vertical-cut the bottom of the
groove can push the stylus up leaving only the displacement elasticity of
the reproducing diaphragm to push it back down. This becomes more of
a problem with louder volume & increased frequency responce. Acoustic
lateral-cut 78s can have a far greater dynamic range than vertical-cut
diamond discs to say nothing of cylinders. Nearly all the electrically
recorded diamond discs I've heard are inferior to their Western Electric
electrical counterpoints, Victor & Columbia, in terms of frequency &
dynamic range and lack of audible distortion, to my ears at least.
2. The amount of wax removed in recording a waveform is constant in
lateral-cut recording whereas with vertical-cut more wax is removed
in engraving a downward motion of the cutting stylus, creating a deeper
groove, and less when the stylus rises, creating a shallower groove,
bringing about an uneven resistance to the cutting stylus in each half of
the waveform.
I admit that the high frequency responce of Edison vertical-cut cylinders
& diamond discs is often superior to many contemporary lateral-cut
discs but this is due to Edison's limiting the mass of the recording
diaphragm and cutting stylus assembly, not to the vertical-cut method
itself.
This limiting of vibratory mass could have, with proper design, been
applied to the lateral-cut method, increasing its high frequency responce.
Would still like to know how to get the best possible sound reproduction
from all my antique machines whether lateral or vertical.
Very truly
yours,
Jim Cartwright
Immortal
Performances
jimcip at earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
> [Original Message]
> From: Robert Wright <esroberto at hotmail.com>
> To: Antique Phonograph List <phono-l at oldcrank.org>
> Date: 01-Nov-2008 5:46:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
>
> With all due respect, how is vertical cut recording inferior to lateral
cut?
> Certainly in the phonograph's first 25 years, Edison's machines sounded
> substantially better than respectively contemporary lateral phonographs.
I
> hear more treble extension on direct-recorded 4M amberols than any
acoustic
> lateral recordings, as well as more general naturalness. I must
> respectfully disagree that vertical recording can be regarded as
inherently
> inferior to lateral recording, generally speaking.
>
> I should perhaps mention that I have no allegiance to one method over the
> other whatsoever. Greg B., may I ask your thoughts on this? Any
> information about specific frequency responses, and especially, the
physics
> involved with both the recording and playback (and duplication if you
care
> to get that deep) processes, would be fascinating and greatly appreciated!
>
>
> Best to all,
> Robert
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jimcip at earthlink.net>
> <snip>
> > Obviously the great weakness of Edison phonographs (aside from vertical
> > cut
> > recording)...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phono-L mailing list
> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
