78 Groove Sizes?

[Lah Ca]

I have pulled some 12" 78s out of the boxes of records I recently received. They are late issue, I assume, because one set of them is, most annoyingly, in automatic sequence. They are also very long play, even for a 12 inch disk.

My normal go-to truncated elliptical "one-size-fits-all" stylus, which normally plays pretty much all 78s adequately well, will not play these disks. The records skip, the tone arm sometimes wanders, and the sound is very poor. I have had to use a conical stylus, one that I would normally use for Microgroove and Mono LPs. With this stylus, the sound is great.

I assume that both the width and spacing of the grooves with these disks is narrower than with older 78s.

How did standards here change over time? I assume that they did.

[CarlosV]

There are some late 12 inch 78 rpms that play up to 8 minutes per side - Deutsche Grammophon issued them in the early 50s, and indeed they have a thinner groove than normal 78s. However I can play them with thorn needles with no issues. Apart from these, and not counting vertical cuts or issues in other speeds like the 33 rpm transcription records that Victor issued in the thirties, or the constant linear speed record issued by an English label, I believe the record grooves kept more of less the same width since the 20s.

[vintagetenor]

Please post a photo of the label(s).

Late 78s (~1955-60) are made of vinyl or a vinyl-like substance. As far as I understand, narrower grooves could be used with vinyl than with shellac. Using vinyl gave better results with narrow grooves.

[drh]

I have pulled some 12" 78s out of the boxes of records I recently received. They are late issue, I assume, because one set of them is, most annoyingly, in automatic sequence. They are also very long play, even for a 12 inch disk.

My normal go-to truncated elliptical "one-size-fits-all" stylus, which normally plays pretty much all 78s adequately well, will not play these disks. The records skip, the tone arm sometimes wanders, and the sound is very poor. I have had to use a conical stylus, one that I would normally use for Microgroove and Mono LPs. With this stylus, the sound is great.

I assume that both the width and spacing of the grooves with these disks is narrower than with older 78s.

How did standards here change over time? I assume that they did.

The short answer is, they never changed, because there were no standards to begin with. In broad outline, they were wider earlier on than later, but that's not consistent. Note that even two copies of the same record may need different stylus sizes because each has its own unique history of playback, and hence damage from steel needles at a different level in the groove.

That's for lateral records, of course. Pathé and its emulators and Edison were a different story.

Are the records in question on the DG Archiv label by any chance? Those late 78s were cut with something called a "variable micrograde" groove (I think that's right) which was narrower than average for conventional lateral disks.

[edit] Oh, by the way, automatic sequence sets were issued starting not too long after the adoption of electric recording, so being in automatic sequence doesn't necessarily indicate a late issue. In Victor's case, there were actually two types of automatic sequence, at least for the classical sets: DM for drop changers (for a 4-record set, 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5) and AM for slide changers (1-5, 2-6, 3-7, 4-8). The latter are particularly irritating to play on a manual turntable. Victor stopped issuing the AM sets and, for the most part, manual sequence sets as well during World War II to conserve materials.

[poodling around]

I have pulled some 12" 78s out of the boxes of records I recently received. They are late issue, I assume, because one set of them is, most annoyingly, in automatic sequence. They are also very long play, even for a 12 inch disk.

My normal go-to truncated elliptical "one-size-fits-all" stylus, which normally plays pretty much all 78s adequately well, will not play these disks. The records skip, the tone arm sometimes wanders, and the sound is very poor. I have had to use a conical stylus, one that I would normally use for Microgroove and Mono LPs. With this stylus, the sound is great.

I assume that both the width and spacing of the grooves with these disks is narrower than with older 78s.

How did standards here change over time? I assume that they did.

I really do like it when you said 'My normal go-to truncated elliptical "one-size-fits-all" stylus '. A fantastic 'set of words' which I will use as my own one day !

I think I have one of those but it is one of those inexpensive reversible 'flip over ones' - marked 'lp' on one side and '78' on the other. It is actually very good I think. Using both sides it can play all 78's very well.

[Governor Flyball]

I have pulled some 12" 78s out of the boxes of records I recently received. They are late issue, I assume, because one set of them is, most annoyingly, in automatic sequence. They are also very long play, even for a 12 inch disk.

My normal go-to truncated elliptical "one-size-fits-all" stylus, which normally plays pretty much all 78s adequately well, will not play these disks. The records skip, the tone arm sometimes wanders, and the sound is very poor. I have had to use a conical stylus, one that I would normally use for Microgroove and Mono LPs. With this stylus, the sound is great.

I assume that both the width and spacing of the grooves with these disks is narrower than with older 78s.

How did standards here change over time? I assume that they did.

The short answer is, they never changed, because there were no standards to begin with. In broad outline, they were wider earlier on than later, but that's not consistent. Note that even two copies of the same record may need different stylus sizes because each has its own unique history of playback, and hence damage from steel needles at a different level in the groove.

That's for lateral records, of course. Pathé and its emulators and Edison were a different story.

Are the records in question on the DG Archiv label by any chance? Those late 78s were cut with something called a "variable micrograde" groove (I think that's right) which was narrower than average for conventional lateral disks.

[edit] Oh, by the way, automatic sequence sets were issued starting not too long after the adoption of electric recording, so being in automatic sequence doesn't necessarily indicate a late issue. In Victor's case, there were actually two types of automatic sequence, at least for the classical sets: DM for drop changers (for a 4-record set, 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5) and AM for slide changers (1-5, 2-6, 3-7, 4-8). The latter are particularly irritating to play on a manual turntable. Victor stopped issuing the AM sets and, for the most part, manual sequence sets as well during World War II to conserve materials.

[Governor Flyball]

[edit] Oh, by the way, automatic sequence sets were issued starting not too long after the adoption of electric recording, so being in automatic sequence doesn't necessarily indicate a late issue. In Victor's case, there were actually two types of automatic sequence, at least for the classical sets: DM for drop changers (for a 4-record set, 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5) and AM for slide changers (1-5, 2-6, 3-7, 4-8). The latter are particularly irritating to play on a manual turntable. Victor stopped issuing the AM sets and, for the most part, manual sequence sets as well during World War II to conserve materials.

I play records on a Capehart 400M with flip changer and actively look at the different record set sequences to play on it. I have Victor and Columbia acoustical manual sequence sets of symphonies going back to 1919. Up until 1928 every set was sequenced manually: that is disc 1-sides 1 and 2, disc 2-sideds 3 and 4 etc.

Shortly after the introduction of electrical rercording in 1925, Victor introduced its Musical Masterpiece albums I believe in 1926-27. The prefix M number was first assigned to the re-recording of Dvorak's New World Symphony as set M1. I am not sure in 1927 if the M meant manual sequence but since the first Victor record changer was introduced in 1928 perhaps it was. M prefixed sets would be played fully manually or on a flip changer like the Capeharts from 1932 on automatically.

The earliest automatic sequence set I have is set AM-50: Beethoven Pastoral Symphony published in 1929. The A prefix I assume was to denote auto sequence. The set I have is a pre 1930 Victor Talking Machine Company pressing. The first proper auto sequence AM from the late twenties thru early thirties for a 5 record set was generally disc 1 -sides 1 and 6, disc 2 -sides 2 and 7 etc. However my set 5 record AM-50 set appears to be an aberration following the sequence disc 1 -sides 1 and 10 disc 2- sides 2 and 9 etc. Odd as all my other AM sequence sets for say a five record setsfrom 1929 thru 1933 follow the proper AM sequence. Proper AM sequence sets would be played on shuffled stack playback machines to which I know of only would be the 1928 to 1933 Victor record player and the Capehart pre flip changer.

With the introduction of the more familiar drop changer in about the mid thirties, the third auto sequence sets prefixed DM were introduced. The sequence for a five record DM set would follow the disc 1 -sides 1 and 10 disc 2- sides 2 and 9 etc sequence.

The manual sets cannot be played on the shuffle or drop changers. The AM and DM sets can be played on drop changers with the following caveat: the drop changer will play in sequence the the AM and DM sequences in two parts. With a 5 record sequenced AM and DM set, half way through you will have to lift the five records and flip to reload. The DM set is simply flipping the stack but the AM set on a drop changer requires you to reorganize the order of the discs before reloading.

The Capehart flip changer on the other hand can play a 5 record M or AM set M all the way through the 10 sides without having to reload midway through. Further the Capehart can automatically repeat the sequence without reloading. The Capehart wiill play DM 5 record set but will require you to stop after the fifth disc with you having to remove the stack, shuffle the disc order and reload.

Columbia issued Manual sets about the same time as Victor with the first drop sequence set about the same a Victor.

Most of the auto sequence sets I have found date from post WWII and are almost all DM. The only manual sequence discs would be for set of two discs or for which the playback order need not be strict. Auto sequence sets in the 1930's tend to be more rare because of the depression: $2 per Red Seal record when a loaf of bread was 15 cents was pretty stiff!

FYI, The earliest more of less complete symphony recording and perhaps the first commercial US recording of a slightly less than a complete symphony is Haydn's Surprise Symphony published on four 12" sides recorded November 1912 by the Victor Symphony Orchestra. It is a pretty credible performance all considered. It is on two double sided disc with sequence disc 1 - sides 1 and 3 and disc 2 sides 2 and 4. I know of no changer that can play this through!

[Lah Ca]

Please post a photo of the label(s).

Late 78s (~1955-60) are made of vinyl or a vinyl-like substance. As far as I understand, narrower grooves could be used with vinyl than with shellac. Using vinyl gave better results with narrow grooves.

Here is a sample of the labels. I don't think they are vinyl-like records, at all, but the grooves do look smaller and closer together than is common for most 78s I own.

However, groove size may not be the problem.

I have noticed that some of the records in this large haul have an unnatural NOS look. This new-looking appearance is undermined by the very normal sound of loving wear. The records also have a slight waxy, greasy feel that transfers to the fingers if I handle the surfaces. There is no smell--the records have been in deep storage for a very long time. But I wonder if someone has not taken WD30 or a Pledge-like spray polish to the disks in the distant past. I started examining the stylus before and after play of these suspicious records, and I noticed that after play there was a lot of waxy crud building up in a ball around the stylus and that this was raising the stylus up out of the grooves on the records with narrower looking grooves. It wasn't as much of an immediate problem with shorter play 10" disks--a problem, yes, but an immediate problem, no.

So I gave the 12" Goodman disk a good scrub on my vacuum record cleaning machine using fluids safe for 78s and a boar bristle nail brush. I used lots of fluid and let it sit for a bit longer than I normally would with a 78 before vacuuming it dry.

The Goodman record plays fine now with the truncated elliptical stylus, and the stylus came up clean after play. I will move on to the others and see what happens.

[Lah Ca]

Thank you to everyone for the replies.

I love how quickly things go off the knowledge deep end here!

Thank you for sharing.

[drh]

Funny thing--just yesterday I was comparing condition of two very late (definitely shellac) 78s, and I encountered something similar. One side, particularly of one copy, had this oily coating that very quickly fouled the stylus, causing mistracking. I wonder if the material of post-WW II disks was changed to incorporate some sort of chemical, maybe a petroleum-based stabilizer or some such, that is now leaching out?