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

[Richard B. Gilbert]

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> 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?
> 

DC to 1 MHz will give you maximum hearing damage! ;-)