Cartridges: Inner Groove Distortion Vs. Surface Noise

Thanks, like that, lots of air, dynamics, no artificial or abundant reverb, sounds like I am at the venue in a pluche little theater.

 

Also because the audio had been recorded to tape, the recordings were hi-fi, they were pressed on modern vinyl, and they (hopefully) weren't being played on an ancient Victrola.

 

Best records i have sre 1950,s Decca,
Mono . Big sounding, smooth.
Lifelike.
as for inner groove distortion, never seem to notice it thst much.
Lateral set up can largely reduce this effect to nothing !
forgive me if this does not help , but i listen mainly 50,s to 60, s recordings
i do find 70,s onwards, varisble!

 

I like it, but it´s of course very unnatural sounding. There is no connection whatsoever between the vocals and the orchestra. But I agree, many were cut this way.

 

Enjoyable, the sound of the era, bass enhanced vocals, and given the detached tin foil sound orchestra. (listened through quality monitors)

 

I bought my AT92ECD off Ebay a couple of months ago for about 25 $. Much better sounding cart than my AT95E. I swap between a Nagaoka MP-110 and the AT92 ECD.

 

What is not true?

 

The main reason for the great dynamics of 50's 78's is that because of the faster speed, more information could be packed into the grooves. I have been collecting records for well over 50 years and in my collection of 1,000's of records, including acetates and session discs, are 100's of 78's. Quite a few of those 78's are from the late-50's. I think the RCA Victor "New Orthophonic High Fidelity" are the best while the Columbia laminated 78's are the worst. Both RCA and Columbia sent vinyl promotional 78's to radio stations and they are even better.
If you take, say, both the vinyl 45 and the 78 versions of Elvis Presley's "Hound Dog"/"Don't Be Cruel", the 78 blows the 45 into outer-space. One of my copies of the 45 is a 1S pressing and the label has the silver line, so it is a first pressing and that is what I am comparing to.
Because most dedicated 78 players used straight shank or dog-leg needles, it is difficult to find pristine copies these days. The main market for 78's in the 50's was jukeboxes, that last capable of playing 78's were manufactured until maybe 1953 or 4. With a projected service lifespan of 15 years, I remember 78rpm jukes into the early 60's still on location.

 

Obviously you didn't listen to 78's made from 1930 to 1959 and follow all efforts to make records as high f-i-d-e-l-i-t-y as possible.
I think you are a teenager customed to heavy compressed music with lots of reverb, that is no HiFi, that is a "sound".

 

This is a typical sound from a certain time. One can like it for what it is, but high fidelity it is far from. These recordings are very unnatural.

 

1930 to 1959 a certain time ?. No offense intended, attack nobody. Without knowing the history the present is empty, mistakes are bound to happen again.

 

78's of the mid-to-late 50's were about as high fidelity as you could get. Starting with the RCA "Red Seal" 12"-ers , which received exacting care from the recording stage, plus making sure lacquers and stampers were flawless up to a special compound to press the records, the sound was full spectrum and only limited by what they were played back on. RCA Victor extended it's "New Orthophonic High Fidelity" to all it's recorded products including 45's, 78's, LP's and it's magnetic recording tapes.
So, listen to some "high fidelity" 78's and compare them to other formats of the period.

 

The quest for "high fidelity" began in the early 1900's, and has been slowly evolving ever since.

 

Right, until mid 90-ties when signal processing spoiled the game.

 

Look, I have said that I like many of these recordings. What You are saying is that these types of recordings also sound natural. This is where I cannot agree. Do You really mean that this record that was linked to was natural sounding, and of a high fidelity, because there is no possible way for me to agree with that. So I think we should just leave it at that.

 

One obvious thing is that the record speed has nothing with bass output to do. Never mind the speed, and never mind if the pickup is amplitude or velocity sensitive; it is so that the cut amplitude dictates the output for a given freq. So there is no advantage in using a higher speed, like 78rpm , but for the upper freq range. But in reality this advantage didn´t mean much.

 

It seems Mr AutomaticElectronics is the only one with an extensive 78 collection and in fact is playing them too.
I've read all the Mumbo Jumbo possibly from hearsay, for me most important is the recording technique, goaled at HiFi. 78's are for me the best regarding dynamics, distortion, lack of pinch effect. 33 and most 45 are compressed, if you listen you can't deny this.

 

Yes, I was going to respond with the same. The amplitude is the only factor on loudness of the record, not the speed. As for the high frequency range, yes 78 RPM would be of advantage, but not in reality. The reason for this, the groove is wider, thus the 2.5 mil conical the limiting factor in tracing high frequencies, say above approx 10KHz. If a 78 is cut in "microgroove" which some were, for example the V discs, and tracked with the typical 0.7 mil conical or an elliptical, we have a tremendous real world trackability improvement, and reduced pinch effect. (reduced IGD) On the 78 RPM record, the groove pitch is reduced given the same amplitude, therefore easier to track.
The explanation for the 78 RPM which generally plays louder and punchier as compared to the same 45 RPM, the 78 is cut louder due to its size, typically 10 inches. I haven't done the math, but even though the groove is wider, and the speed almost twice that of a 45 RPM, the 78's are cut louder.

 

The 78's are a very special area of collecting. They are diverse and specialized, and require somewhat a learning curve to optimize the cleanest play of them. I own a few, but far from an expert. I do own a few dozen which have no visible wear, on nice clean wax that play very quietly. Like any format in its day, when brand new, and played on quality new equipment, they sounded far better than the mostly worn discs we have to settle for.

 

And some of us WORK with things, so we know a little about them. Not everything, but a little, anyway. Shellac is the reason 78's sound like 78's. We've all heard the high frequency "hissing" from the sylus while a record plays. That is the vibration of the styus turning the record into a very tiny loudspeaker. Shellac vibrates differently than vinyl, acetate, etc. It's a whole different sound.

 

What about all the 65+ people with collections from their youth or inherited from the parents ? Don't they count ?
I am spinning now Jussi Bjorling's Vesti la Guibba on RCA 78 rpm. No reissue on 45, 33 or CD can even come close. A 45 EP from the "Your Favorites" series RCA comes close. The CD format is really inferior for classical music.

 

Exactly. Speed alone does NOT increase or decrease bass. Plus, you can get a frequency in the human hearing range from almost any speed. The Seeburg background music records had full frequency range and they played at 16 2/3rpm. If you remember, back in the 70's, there was a quadraphonic format known as CD-4. It used a recorded carrier frequency of 30 kHz and most CD-4 records were 33 1/3rpm, with some 45rpm. You didn't have to have a super high speed to get the high frequencies above the human hearing range. That only counts with magnetic recording tape.
What different speeds allow you to do is to increase or decrease amplitude. The faster the speed, the more you can increase the amplitude and therefore increase the bass. With the 16 2/3rpm speed, you have to keep the amplitude down and the bass down or the stylus wound jump out of the groove. Just like the hot mixed high amplitude Motown 45's of the 60's.
What the higher speeds allow you to do is to increase the amplitude because the sound is spread out over a longer area.

 

Again, not all 78's were shellac. 78's had to be made of a hard material due to the turntables of the era which had stylus pressure measured in the ounces, not grams.
Of modern compounds, styrene was the hardest and closest to shellac. Late-50's 78's were not made of shellac like the older ones. Again, the late-50's 78's sometimes were made of vinyl or styrene. Older 78's were made of clay and even cellulose, besides shellac. Ever heard of the Vogue picture discs of the 40's? They were 78's made of clear vinyl with a picture on each side of an aluminum core.
The harder that material, the higher the resonance is going to be. Ofcourse shellac and styrene are going to have a higher resonance than vinyl. What I have noticed with the current vinyl heavy-weight "audiophile" records is that the thicker the vinyl, the more sound is absorbed by the vinyl. Unless they are 45rpm, I stay away from 200g LP's.

 

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a microgroove V-Disc. Microgroove wasn't introduced until 1948 by Columbia records. Ever V-Disc I've ever seen or owned was wide-groove, even if they were 33 1/3rpm. RCA Victor introduced the 33 1/3rpm speed back in 1931. I have one of the 1931 2-speed radio/phono Victrolas that played either 78 or 33 1/3rpm. Here is a video of one just like mine:



The only "microgroove" 78's I have ever come across are mostly promotional 78's from the 60's or later. Here's a few that I have in my collection:

1). "Sixteen Tons" by Tennessee Ernie Ford(1969)
2). "Mr. Bojangles" by The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band(1970)
3). "Alabama Jubilee"/"Please Don't Talk About Me When I'm Gone" by Leon Redbone(1978)-and it is stereo!
4). "Good Vibrations"/"Heroes And Villans" by The Beach Boys(2011)
5). "Good Vibrations"(alternate take)/"Heroes And Villains"(alternate take) by The Beach Boys(2011)

Talking about hot mixes!

Additionally, in the 80's and 90's, there were some 78's especially made for the jukebox collector's market. They were all vinyl and cut with a 2mil groove. I have several of these sets which came with 25 records in a box. The Rhino sets used digital masters, so like early CD's had mostly high-end and very little bass. It takes a Bing Crosby 40's 78 or 50's rock 'n' roll 78's to rattle the house.