[Info-vax] IE8 got me too :-( Sorry Jeff.

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <paulranderson-1A2058.08064022012010 at news.charter.net>, Paul Anderson <paulranderson at charter.net> writes:
>In article 
><8862fd48-95fa-420d-b448-6413f275c2e3 at k17g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> Alan Feldman <alanfeldman48 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 16.5? Really? I thought it was 16. I've seen 33s, 45s, and even a 78, 
>> but never a 16(.5?).
>
>Actually, the speeds were 16 2/3, 33 1/3, 45 and 78.26086957.  
>Apparently, there was no exact standard for "78" and I always assumed 
>until looking into it today that 78 was the exact RPM.

My maternal grandmother passed away this year at 95.  My mother found
boxes of 78RPM recordings -- nothing, I can assure you, I'd listen to!
Those things are heavy too.  Anyway, I did some research into them to
see if there was any collectors value in them.  Nothing to speak of. I
did find out that those recordings could be anything but 78RPM.  They
also require a special stylus unless you want to destroy the pickup on
your high-tech linear armed, DC-servo direct driven turntables. ;)  


>33 1/3 was chosen exactly, and 16 5/6 was half of that, used for longer 
>symphonic pieces that could then fit uninterrupted on one side.  The 
>sound quality suffered, but today's listeners to MP3 files probably 
>wouldn't notice.  ;-)

MP3 aside, today's listeners would be happy with frequency responses
of 300 to 3000Hz.  What more do you need for (c)RAP?

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

  http://www.quirkfactory.com/popart/asskey/eqn2.png
  
Yeah. You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by
turning them into poor people. -- Billy Ray Valentine