Should I play modern 78s?

[oldstuff]

The No. 4 is a great reproducer. I have a pot metal in remarkable condition. I use it for acoustics (especially opera) and very early electrics. Playing acoustic opera on an orthophonic machine does not produce good results.

I hope we didn't hijack the thread.

Not at all, I am just taking it all in.

[De Soto Frank]

In the late 1930's, American record manufacturers began to reformulate their shellac record compounds to be better suited to electric / electronic machines, with their changer mechanisms and semi-permanent stylii ( usually sapphire ).

Record shellacs of the acoustic era had a fair amount of "grit" in them, which tended to "hone" the steel needle to the particular groove profile during the lead-in / first few grooves, and by the finish of the side, the needle tip had been worn-flat on the sides and blunt on the tip, resembling a chisel point. Some record labels had "better" shellacs than others... Victor records were among the highest quality - long-wearing and relatively low noise, other labels like Columbia, and many independent labels had very gritty, soft shellacs that did not last very long. But, then the inexpensive labels sold for 35 cents or so for a 10" disc, so they were "cheap to replace".

With the advent of electrical pick-ups in the 1930's, and especially the lightweight crystal cartridges in the later '30's, as well as automatic changer mechanisms (see also juke boxes), semi-permanent stylii became desirable, offering 50-200 sides ( or more ). The old gritty shellacs of the acoustic era would wear-down the jewelled stylii more quickly, and generally presented a "noisier" recording substrate.

So, by the early 1940s', record materials were being compounded to give best performance / lifespan on "modern" electrical equipment, with jeweled semi-permanent stylii.

After WW II, record makers began to experiment with vinyl discs for 78's, and the brittle shellac disc began to be a memory.

The last commercially-produced 78 records were pressed in the late 1950's - early 1960's, in vinyl, for the juke-box trade, where there were still 78 rpm-only machines in service.

All that said, it is physically possible to play "any" lateral-cut disc on wind-up acoustic phonographs, with steel / fibre / thorn needles; some machines with small motors might not be able to overcome the needle-drag of a heavy acoustic pick-up and steel needle and a later, "soft" record... generally speaking though, your records won't last as long played on acoustic machines as they could when played on well-maintained electric equipment with a jeweled semi-permanent stylus and lighter pick-up.

Food for thought...

[oldstuff]

In the late 1930's, American record manufacturers began to reformulate their shellac record compounds to be better suited to electric / electronic machines, with their changer mechanisms and semi-permanent stylii ( usually sapphire ).

Record shellacs of the acoustic era had a fair amount of "grit" in them, which tended to "hone" the steel needle to the particular groove profile during the lead-in / first few grooves, and by the finish of the side, the needle tip had been worn-flat on the sides and blunt on the tip, resembling a chisel point. Some record labels had "better" shellacs than others... Victor records were among the highest quality - long-wearing and relatively low noise, other labels like Columbia, and many independent labels had very gritty, soft shellacs that did not last very long. But, then the inexpensive labels sold for 35 cents or so for a 10" disc, so they were "cheap to replace".

With the advent of electrical pick-ups in the 1930's, and especially the lightweight crystal cartridges in the later '30's, as well as automatic changer mechanisms (see also juke boxes), semi-permanent stylii became desirable, offering 50-200 sides ( or more ). The old gritty shellacs of the acoustic era would wear-down the jewelled stylii more quickly, and generally presented a "noisier" recording substrate.

So, by the early 1940s', record materials were being compounded to give best performance / lifespan on "modern" electrical equipment, with jeweled semi-permanent stylii.

After WW II, record makers began to experiment with vinyl discs for 78's, and the brittle shellac disc began to be a memory.

The last commercially-produced 78 records were pressed in the late 1950's - early 1960's, in vinyl, for the juke-box trade, where there were still 78 rpm-only machines in service.

All that said, it is physically possible to play "any" lateral-cut disc on wind-up acoustic phonographs, with steel / fibre / thorn needles; some machines with small motors might not be able to overcome the needle-drag of a heavy acoustic pick-up and steel needle and a later, "soft" record... generally speaking though, your records won't last as long played on acoustic machines as they could when played on well-maintained electric equipment with a jeweled semi-permanent stylus and lighter pick-up.

Food for thought...

Interesting stuff. They started changing over earlier than I had thought. I never knew crystal pickups began to emerge as early as the late 30s !!

You mention thorn needles and that caught my interest. There are Bougainvillea bushes around here with "deadly" thorns. If I was to try one, would I dry, or bake it, or something first? I imagine it won't work well green.

We saw very few vinyl 78s (Australia) I think. I have only found about 3 in all the hundreds and hundreds of 78s I have flipped through. I guess we were happy with the nice laminated shellac ones.

[tomb]

They produced the portable steel needle crank record players up to the early 1950s I know that RCA made a portable after 1946 that was model 5H. There was a lot of them made. They must have been playing the vinyl records on them with out too much damage. I image the sound quality was not as good as something that was amplified though. I will break out a few vinyl's and crank them up on my VV- XVI to see what happened. Next I can try them on a DD 200 modified to play vinyl to see the difference. A few plays should show wear. To be done after Christmas. Stay tuned...Tom B

[oldstuff]

Vinyl may be tough enough.

I remember being at a grown-ups party when I was a kid, and they were playing vinyl 45s on an old electric steel needle job. Yes it went slow enough to play them at the right speed, and it's old valve amp was belting out the pop songs at a good level.

Still, tough on the records. I don't remember them changing the needle often - guess the vinyl wasn't blunting the steel too much

[CarlosV]

I
The last commercially-produced 78 records were pressed in the late 1950's - early 1960's, in vinyl, for the juke-box trade, where there were still 78 rpm-only machines in service.

Shellac 78s were issued all over Europe and South America up to the end of the 50's. In Soviet Union, India and China shellac 78 production went to the mid 60's.

Shellac records could have very quiet surfaces, even in the 30's Victor made a series of Red Seal records with high quality shellac, sold for premium prices.

The laminated record technology also yielded high quality silent surfaces since the 20's, although their playing surfaces are not exactly shellac.

Back to the original theme, playing modern 78s with heavy and low compliance soundboxes will
wear the records out very quickly. Modern 78s were recorded with higher volume and extended frequency range compared with those issued up to the early 40's, and steel needles on heavy soundboxes will simply plow through the grooves that are too wide (loud) and too curvy (high frequency) for them to track.

[bigshot]

Shellac is shellac. Records didn't become softer as time passed, unless you're referring to vinyl records like MGM. Any record made with shellac should be playable with a steel needle. The groove size and shape didn't change either. The only difference is the compliance of the soundbox or reproducer. I have three machines, a VV-X, VV-2-65 and a Brunswick Cortez. I don't play more recent records on the VV-X, but the other two do just fine with them. No wear or damage. I do use soft tone needles. If you only play a 78 electronically, you might as well just record it and burn it to a CD. Hearing a 78 on an acoustic machines is a lot of the fun of playing 78s.

[Damfino59]

I respectfully disagree on Bigshot’s comment that the groove size did not change throughout the 78 shellac disc era. Many archivists of 78 records would not be using multiple custom styluses for the best playback.

From my own expierance groove size did vary from label to label. A Victor or HMV pressing would not be similar to a Brunswick, Columbia or how about a Berliner disc?. Or how about those 8” British Broadcast records, these have a much finer groove to allow for a playing time comparable to a 10” 78.

Of course if we just use an acoustic soundbox tracking in ounces as our point of reference groove size really wouldn’t matter.

I hope this does not come through as snarky, but we collectors have a responsibility to educate with accurate information.

Now back to the Holiday festivities,

Glenn

[bigshot]

The differences in size you're referring to existed from the beginning. Loud sound makes a bigger groove. Quieter sound meant more time could fit on a side. There are variations to be sure. But a 78 is always playable with a 3 mil needle. You can use a smaller one if you want to duck under groove wear. And you can use a larger one if you want to make contact with more of the groove wall to transfer a clean record with maximum fidelity. The standard size for 78 grooves was 3 mil up until the end. Perhaps in the earlier days it may have been coarser, but that was because a standard hadn't been established yet.

There are two groove sizes for LPs though. The earliest Columbia LPs are sometimes called "coarse groove records" because their grooves are a bit larger than regular LPs. 45s can be a bit coarser too, but I suspect that is just a volume difference since running time wasn't as much of an issue with singles. Coarse grooves and 45s generally play better with a larger stylus.

[OrthoFan]

...and just to add some confusion to the mix, there were also a few microgroove, multi-track 78s produced during the latter 1950s -- https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl? ... 20188&VT=T -- though these are easy to spot.

Definitely, they should NOT be played on any acoustic gramophone.

OF