SH Spotlight Do you want to hear two amazing RCA-Victor 78s from 1932? Ted Weems, Isham Jones..

It's often billed as a vocal refrain on the records. And especially if you were a singer with name band, like Abe Lyman or somebody, that's surely how it went.

 

PM me... I may be willing to sell...

 

You can have a record from say, 1928, a Victor scroll that plays with a lot of noise. Then find a repressing of that same record from several years later, like a circle label, when they were back to using good material, and the noise level is way down. It can be a crap shoot, but one can also learn of how to get closer to better era pressings, much like vinyl collectors do.

A lot of things were never repressed, so your basically stuck with what you've got, though maybe another similar vintage copy could be better. I picked up a shiny clean looking (1929) Victor scroll of singer/actress Bebe Daniels last month, and the thing is just horrendously noisy. Must have been from bottom of the hot vat or something, where all the filler settled.

 

That could well be the case, though with red label (classical/opera) records, especially, it seems that the same takes are often used.
I have more of that kind of stuff in more than one copy than I do of jazz.

 

That is a great record. Nice transfer of the original scroll version , too, whoever did it. The opening phrase of Teagarden's solo makes me think of the song Goody, Goody. Though that song hadn't been written yet.

 

Using a steel-needle Victrola on a later 78 is criminal. Electrical recordings demand electrical playback, with proper tonearms and needles, especially when you get up to WWII and beyond. Lots of people are just destroying their records.

 

I'd say using a phonograph with a steel needle on records after mid-30's is bad, early electrics were made to be played with mechanical reproducers. Though that's not to say that you should it, if you can be satisfied using a modern setup. All records, to some degree, will be needlessly worn playing them on old machines.

I don't like to go to YouTube and see people playing really minty, good records on old machines, but that's their business...

I'll play the occasional record on my Victrola for fun, selectively. My Victrola doesn't actually get a whole lot of use. Not getting rid of it either.

 

Another high quality YouTube channel, here with a Savoy Orpheans side from 1932...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ1PNelzvTo&feature=related

 

I guess that applies even more to the louder cut records. Worst are when there's little strips of circular gray bands on the record surface from a steel needle reaming out a loud passage. Many of those kinds of records may just as well be binned anyway as they're very hard to listen to.

 

Getting into the here and now, if you must go the vintage phonograph route, using unrestored reproducers on 78's is supposed to be trouble. If the diaphragm is seized up, or there's dirt/gunk or anything is hindering the lateral needle movement, you're looking at a record plow.

And in talking about the kind of records that began this thread, the Tungstone needles that Victor promoted so heavily around that time (didn't have to change them) were supposed to have a tip radius of something like 7 mils. That was never going to be good. Just start right at the widest point of the groove and grind, grind, grind, it down.

 

I saw something that would make you cry.
In one of the malls in Hollywood Florida, there was a store that specialised in resored jukeboxes and vintage arcade games. This guy had some amazing things and was always asking me for vintage rock & roll 78s, I can see why. I used to see records get destroyed in his machines when they malfunctioned, lots of good ones too. I saw a copy of Speedo by the Cadillacs get broken into pieces inside a Seeberg when it dropped out of the arm that puts the record on the platter then another mechanisim inside broke it into bits. He had some nice jukeboxes in there but nothing I would put a valuble record in.

 

Those early changers were brutal machines.

Some short .wmv video files of a few different players at this link.

The 10-35 is notably cringe worthy.

http://www.myvintagetv.com/updatepages1/changer videos/changer_videos.htm

 

"35" x 17" horn opening, and a ca. 8 foot long horn folded in itself"

Wow, that is something else. A beautiful monster of an acoustic player with a gorgeous cabinet.

That overhanging magazine spindle must be built like a tank to be able to safely hold and deliver twelve 12" records.

"If properly adjusted, this machine works reliably and with no damage to the records.
All the surfaces the record slides on are felt covered and on my machine, 1000s of records played have not resulted in a single breakage or chip."

I guess "properly adjusted" are key words for record longevity with continued use. Pretty amazing that they sold over 10,000 of these back in the day.

Would love to be in a room listening to one some day. The 10-70 model also sounds very interesting.

 

I recall one veteran collector saying that at one time, maybe 30 years ago, those 10-50's were unwanted machines. Haul aways for 50 bucks. Not anymore. Of course, back then, finding repro parts for the broken pot metal changers was probably a no go.

You could always use a machine like that in single play mode, basking in the sound of that huge horn. Probably what I would do if I had one.

 

Looking at the playback of the Ted Weems side linked to in post # 106 through a frequency analyzer sees sonic content up to about 13,000 cycles, with a steep drop off after. Just a bit shy of real hi-fi, if one considers 15,000 cycles the minimum requirement for the high/treble end.

A few years earlier, when Victor was still using the Western Electric system, I'm not sure what the maximum treble reach ever was, but one of my Paul Whiteman sides from 1928-ish (Western Electric) measured to about 11,000 cycles when I looked at it once. Only looking at it because it seemed exceptional upon listening, I don't usually make a habit of doing that.

 

After some fun listening this afternoon, a few fav's from the Prozoot channel between '26 and '31.

1926 Brunswick > http://www.youtube.com/user/Prozoot#p/search/0/doG-ADIEeN4
1927 Columbia > http://www.youtube.com/user/Prozoot#p/search/3/EgGJI4wz4ss
1928 OKeh > http://www.youtube.com/user/Prozoot#p/search/4/R05g33jYYwY
1929 Brunswick > http://www.youtube.com/user/Prozoot#p/search/2/IbmZlSPJVIo
1929 Brunswick > http://www.youtube.com/user/Prozoot#p/search/20/RIcqFYVg1U8
1930 Brunswick > http://www.youtube.com/user/Prozoot#p/u/42/yWPVLelU0Q0
1930 Harmony > http://www.youtube.com/user/Prozoot#p/search/21/seB5BYvkMXk
1930 RCA Victor > http://www.youtube.com/user/Prozoot#p/search/0/CUl9d1e3NLc
1931 RCA (scroll label) > http://www.youtube.com/user/Prozoot#p/u/12/1lmlAgcfQ44
1931 Columbia > http://www.youtube.com/user/Prozoot#p/search/4/d9LOsCsFdWw

 

Wonderful sound on that 1928 Okeh. I don't know what it is, but Columbia Viva Tonal and Okeh Electric have a little extra touch of liquidity that I don't hear on Victor records, even though they were all on Western Electric. Okeh, in 1925 tried to cobble together their own electric recording system, True-Tone, like Brunswick with Light Ray, and changed with the Columbia buy in 1926.

 

Here's a neat article on early electric and Okeh...

http://www.vjm.biz/new_page_15.htm

It says that some of their early electric sides were inadequate and had to be remade acoustically.

This too...

http://www.vjm.biz/new_page_4.htm

 

I love that '28 Trumbauer side, great band.

'33 HMV > http://www.youtube.com/user/Prozoot#p/search/8/scIC177TBJA

 

Just aside from the great sounds; it's excellent music! Fine orchestras and arrangements!