Why do 78rpm Records sound so Bad?

John Lennon had a head cold at the time.

 

Do we have to turn this into a Beatles thread too? Unless we're talking about the quality of the Beatles 78s pressed in India, they really aren't relevant to the discussion.

 

Metrolite is an odd material. It's like a halfway point between shellac and vinyl. But whomever decided that it was "non-breakable" obviously never dropped one! I would describe it as "slightly less breakable" from shellac.

Some shellac breaks if you just look at it the wrong way.

 

How long have you been here? They're always relevant.

 

A company called Rivermont has actually released a few microgroove stereo 78s in modern vinyl and has them in its current catalogue. Nice productions aurally and great graphic values for the labels and sleeves, too. The music is four sides of original piano compositions by Bix Beiderbecke played by Bryan Wright, seemingly the moving force behind the label, and four more of modern bands playing '20s style jazz.

http://www.rivermontrecords.com/catalogue.html

Better, a selection of large styli in various sizes. Truncated ellipticals are usually the best choice. 78 grooves were of varying sizes to begin with, and on top of that selecting from a variety of sizes can let you track above or below groove damage caused by those heavy-tracking reproducers and pickups of yesteryear.

 

I think the EMI personel were chickens and recorded very conservatively or mastered the same way.

If you listen to good versions of any of the Beatles' stuff recorded in Germany ("My Bonnie" or "Cry for a Shadow", for example), the superior fidelity and dynamics are immediately apparent.

My son has a Pickwick (of all things) LP of The Beatles playing on parts of it and it includes 'My Bonnie". The first time I heard it, I knew exactly what the excitement was all about with them in those early days. The break just flies out of those grooves and grabs you. I never have really heard the same thing from any EMI release.

OK, to tie this in with the subject, many 78s DO have incredible presence the same way and they are a joy to listen to.

Doug

 

This thread gave me some serious good luck today. Just found a real minty copy of the 1917 Lucia Sextet with Caruso and Galli-Curci, one of my long time wants. Best 25¢ I've spent in a long time

 

The same sextette figured in one of the more peculiar issues of the 78 era: Edison issued two recordings of it, different casts, one each on the two sides of a single diamond disc.

 

Edison was one smart guy. 2 sides, same song, that's one less side to commit a jazz song to God forbid.

 

Here's my contribution. 1950 Magnavox / Webster changer, Shure M44-7 with LP Gear 78 stylus tracking at ~4g, ART DJ II phono preamp into the restored mono receiver. Spinning Doris. The funky elliptical leadout confused the changer and I had to trip it myself.

 

Plain clear ammonia and the Nitty Gritty. WAY cheaper than "esoteric" record cleaning fluids. And it works just dandy.

 

Hello hello, back again and learned some interesting facts in the last couple of days.

"Formal standardization — at 78.26 RPM — didn't come until 1925, when the phonograph was married to the electric motor. 78.26 happened to be the speed a common, mass-produced 3600 RPM motor would yield if fitted with an equally common 46:1 gear."

"If the groove speed were held constant instead of the turntable speed (in much the same way that a reel of film plays out at a steady 24 frames a second), it would be possible to record over 90 minutes of material on a single side. You'd have greater fidelity and a lessened potential for damage to the record. A few phonographs designed on this principal were marketed in the early 1900s."

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/228/why-are-record-speeds-33-45-and-78-rpm

Now I have two things to say:

Stereo 78? Was their ever such a thing?

and want to mention forget what study came out but a university or someone figured out the lowest speed to press at before a noticable loss in fidelity is 58rpm.

 

And how NOT to play them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Dd8KlYcSo

 

Vinyl, modern microgroove cut. Awesome sound.

 

OUCH!

 

I have that RSD set, and it is indeed AWESOME. I love the fact that I have Beach Boys 78s to play on my TD-124 and Dual 1219!

 

Im listening to one of my 78s now and it sounds awesome!!!!

Current song: A gal in calico - Bing Crosby

 

Is the original price of $7.00 still printed on the label of your copy?
It was also referred to as the "Seven dollar sextet"

Imagine if you will..my Victrola wind up gramophone made in 1916 sold for
$75. back then...most discs at that time were 25 to 50 cents apiece.
$7.00 was a lot of coin for that particular recording....mainly because Caruso
demanded a lot of money for his services.

When the power goes out in my neighborhood... I light a candle and wind up the old Victrola...bliss!

 

I have a lot of LP's and CD's of recordings from the 30's onwards. For the most part they sound good...however there's something special in playing an original first pressing of a recording on 78 RPM... Same thrill i guess as playing a Capitol swirl
Beatles 45.

 

Back in the 80's Rhino put out some 78 rpm sets called Jukebox classics.. primarily for folks who still owned 78rpm jukeboxes...i would like to have bought a set.. but they were going for $75. in Canada...pricey for 50 tunes.
No regrets... but it would have been great to hear them.

 

Before WWII 78s had sharpening agents mixed in with the shellac. In addition, they were only partially shellac, (25%?), with the rest often being pulverized rock. The material used in Edison Diamond Discs was far quieter, but was not waterproof and the records would delaminate in humid environs.

After the war, when the number of electric phonographs superseded the old steel needle ones, they eliminated the hissy sharpening agent and the noise floor fell.

I'm doing some 78 transfers from the 1920s right now and have noticed that Columbia's are quieter than Okeh's, from the same era (prior to the former buying out the later).

 

I was doing a transfer of Riley Puckett's "I Wish I Was Single Again" last night, and there is an excellent sounding post on Youtube, but I swear the vocals don't even sound like the same take I'm dealing with, even though the poster identified the index number as the same. I actually increased the pitch three cents and it seemed closer, but the vocal is still harsher than the sweet sound on the Youtube clip.

 

I'm sure they didn't have the best copy of the tapes, but I recently read that the composition of HMV 78s in the UK was so susceptible to moisture that the archivist recommended seeking out Indian or Australian pressings. Of course this was for inter-war era music, but if the Indians could do a decent job in the 30s, they were probably using the same presses in the 60s!

 

I know you're joking, but Edison's deafness, poor taste, disrespect for the artists (not even listed on his earlier records) doomed his sonically and mechanically superior machines.