A Bit OT/ The Day The Music Died 50th Anniversary

[Zeppy]

Yes, all those RnR records seem a bit weird coming from the Re-entrant.
It's a UK pressing unfortunately, so I can't play it very often. The 202 can certainly handle the frequencies well though.

I was going to say, wouldn't playing any post 1940 (or even 1930) 78 on an accoustic be less than friendly to the 78? When exactly did they stop using shellac for records? I know I've seen plenty of vinyl type late 78s come with machines I've picked up over the years...can't say I've ever played any of them, more out of a total lack of interest in the the particular music on them (I think i had a bunch of religious ones come with on machine), but I know even the later shellac (or at least appeared to be shellac) 78s tended to ware (I had a Cab Calloway record that started to suffer after a while).

[MIA]

HMV and many other companies were making shellac 78's into the 1950's.

Like Shane, I too play late 78's on a 202 without an issue. Using fibre needles does help though and ensures there is no record wear.

[Zeppy]

Yes, all those RnR records seem a bit weird coming from the Re-entrant.
It's a UK pressing unfortunately, so I can't play it very often. The 202 can certainly handle the frequencies well though.

I was going to say, wouldn't playing any post 1940 (or even 1930) 78 on an accoustic be less than friendly to the 78? When exactly did they stop using shellac for records? I know I've seen plenty of vinyl type late 78s come with machines I've picked up over the years...can't say I've ever played any of them, more out of a total lack of interest in the the particular music on them (I think i had a bunch of religious ones come with on machine), but I know even the later shellac (or at least appeared to be shellac) 78s tended to ware (I had a Cab Calloway record that started to suffer after a while).

Normally I don't worry abput playing 78's of any age if they're aussie pressings. It's just those "foreign" ones I've got to be careful with. I've got stacks of RnR records pressed here that I've played 50 times (with a steel needle), and they're as good as the day I got them.

I guess the US must have started cheaping out on 78s faster...seems the newer they were the less they stood up (and again, there is the group of record collectors that beat you down with the "never play anything made after 1930 on an accoustic" mantra).

Live and learn a I suppose.

Thanks

[MIA]

"never play anything made after 1930 on an accoustic"

That's complete nonsense, I'm afraid, but if you want to believe what some "record collectors" have to say, try this: Never play any 78 on any wind-up machine, they all ruin records! This line was fed to me by a record purist who bemoans the fact that collectors like us still use acoustic wind-up machines. He also uses the "fodder for machines" remark to vent his frustration.

I did point out that my acoustic machines sound better playing 1920's and '30's jazz than even his modern deck with handbuilt valve amps and 1950's Wharfedale speakers that fill the room!

And I'm not kidding, either.

[Zeppy]

"never play anything made after 1930 on an accoustic"

That's complete nonsense, I'm afraid, but if you want to believe what some "record collectors" have to say, try this: Never play any 78 on any wind-up machine, they all ruin records! This line was fed to me by a record purist who bemoans the fact that collectors like us still use acoustic wind-up machines. He also uses the "fodder for machines" remark to vent his frustration.

I did point out that my acoustic machines sound better playing 1920's and '30's jazz than even his modern deck with handbuilt valve amps and 1950's Wharfedale speakers that fill the room!

And I'm not kidding, either.

I suppose to a certain extent, they are correct. By simple physics, one can figure we're doing some damage to a record every time we play it. And in theory, eventually, every single shellac record will be destroyed through use....but considering I have quite a few holding up rather well, and most of those are at least 70 years old...I think we won't have to worry about running out during our life times.

And I have to say, anyone who whines that no one should ever play anything on an accoustic phonograph is just a plain nut. I can understand never playing a rare pressing of something with historical value, but most of what we all own are mass produced records, that are still rather abundant. But I suppose that's why they're record collectors.

While under the influence of the "wind up phonograps kill records" bunch, I acutally purchased multiple copies of some of my favorite records....out of fear that I would eventually ware them out...still hasn't happened.

[gramophoneshane]

Don't get me wrong Zeppy, not ALL Aussie pressing handle an acoustic machine as well as others.
Labels like Festival, Coronet, Fidelity & others wear pretty quickly, while others like Capital & London started out terrible, but improved after first being introduced.
Labels like HMV, Columbia, Regal Zonophone, Decca etc stayed pretty much the same right through production, and will handle an acoustic machine really well.
New Zealand, Japan & Greece all seem to have made pretty good shellac late in the game, while China, Italy & India pressings (that I have) are much like UK & USA pressings, and wear real quick under the weight of a soundbox & steel needle.

I think we were pretty slow with the change over to light weight pick-ups, and many places here were still without electricity in the 50's & even the 60's, so I guess most companies here had to make sure their product worked on acoustic players if they wanted to keep selling records. I think that's why labels like London, Capitol & MGM actually improved after a short time. No doubt they were sell ing large numbers of disc's, but probably getting just as many complaints about record wear.