Commodore 78 equalization curve

[jazzrestorer]

Does anyone know the proper equalization curve to apply to Commodore jazz 78's from the late 1930's through the 1940's. This was a small independent label. I don't know if they had their own pressing factory, or if a major label manufactured and pressed the discs.

[gfpeek26]

Commodore (Commodore Music Shop) 78s

In their "American Record Labels and Companies", Sutton and Nauck state that the earliest Commodore records were produced by Brunswick - they were issued with plain white labels.

Earliest masters were by American Record Corporation. Later red label releases were by Decca with a few by Varsity and some General. There were various other suppliers during the 40s. So - take your choice!

best,
George Peek
Safford, Arizona

[Craig Maier]

Brunswick used a 500 Hz Turnover frequency.

Decca (from 1935 til 1949) used a 250 Hz Turnover Frequency.

Sorry, but the others (American Record Corporation, Varsity and General) are not shown in the Diamond Cut users manual.

[Audyossey]

...Earliest masters were by American Record Corporation.

I could be way off base here and you likely know more than I do, but wasn't American Record Corporation basically a holding company that simply owned a lot of other companies at one time or another? If it's the same outfit I'm thinking of, at one time or another they owned Columbia and Brunswick. That would suggest to me that the various labels they owned were separately managed and that, therefore, each probably set its own engineering standards.

However you cut it, the truth probably is that the published curves are, at best, a starting point. The engineers then, as now, are likely to have departed from the "standard" according to their own tastes and what they heard on the monitors of the time. It seems to me that it is this, more than anything else, that justifies goosing up a recording as part of the "restoration" process. Regardless of whether an official curve or equalization policy was followed, a good engineer equipped with a standard amount of ego probably made adjustments to "improve" the sound based on what s/he heard. And who knows what that was? How can we know what they were hearing without knowing how their equipment was compromising or "improving" it or being able to reproduce the acoustics in which they were listening?

That said, I almost never attempt to "enhance" a recording. I take it for granted that what's in the grooves is the best they could do or, at worst, what we need to accept as a "restoration," good or bad. I do make an occasional exception. But if historical accuracy is the goal, then knowing what curve was likely to have been used is critical. Unfortunately, for these small labels that will probably always be a best guess.

Then, or course, there's the question of how the restoration is going to be used. It's one thing to make it for yourself and another to make it for an outsider. It's one thing to be able to listen on a state-of-the-art system and another to listen on a boom box, a Walkman, or in a car. Subjective choices are always inherent.

HB