Late 78s Question

[Shane]

I picked up a 10 inch LP by Josh White today, which dates from 1949. Even though the disc is in great shape, the pressing is so noisy, it sounds like a roaring campfire in the background as it plays. This got me thinking...

Of what material are 1950s era 78s pressed? Are early 10 inch LPs pressed from the same stuff? It seems lighter than shellac, but much more rigid (and noisier) than vinyl. I've heard the terms "vinylite" and "styrene" thrown around, but I don't know much about them.

[OrthoSean]

What label is it on? Most 10 inch LPs were pressed from vinyl ("vinylite" was just vinyl), but they were heavier pressings and the quality of the vinyl wasn't always very uniform. I can't think of any companies that pressed LPs in shellac, although I swear I used to have a Decca 10 inch LP that was pressed on really brittle stuff, it had a really bubbled appearance. Styrene is a plastic compound which was injected into a record press rather than molded like vinyl. It tends to wear much faster than vinyl. Look at just about any Columbia 45 which has a beveled edge and you'll notice it's less flexible, that's styrene. Some Decca LPs from the mid 50s were pressed in styrene (black and silver label issues come to mind in some cases).

I play most of my early LPs with a 1.1 mil stylus designed for mono records, it makes a pretty big difference most of the time. Mono grooves were generally 1 mil, as were early (again mono) styli. If you're using a .7 mil stereo LP stylus, you may be picking up extra noise that way, or perhaps the disc in question was played with a 78 (3 mil) stylus at some point, I've seen lots of early LPs like this.

Sean

[Henry]

Styrene/polystyrene, PS/6 on your recyclable plastics symbology, strikes me as a poor choice for records. Well known to model builders, and available in many shapes, it is typically worked with a sharp blade (Xacto knife), files, sandpaper, etc. Scored along a straight line, it snaps cleanly, is easily worked, and is readily joined by solvent-type liquids. These are some of the very properties that make PS so popular as a raw material for models; almost all "plastic" model car, airplane, and railroad kits that I know of are made of it. BUT---it is not very durable, scratches easily, and is fairly brittle. (Kinda like---shellac!) Therefore it surprises me to learn that records were ever made from it; I would think that even with the comparatively lighter tracking forces of the early LP-playing equipment, such records would wear out fast. But maybe that was the idea?

[Phototone]

The reason for using Styrene in record manufacture was cost and speed. Not quality. It was cheaper, and it was faster to mould.

I too, have early LP records that are very noisy, and I don't think this has anything to do with styrene.

[gregbogantz]

I have no knowledge regarding the use of styrene in early LPs, but I can affirm that styrene was WIDELY used in the manufacture of 7 inch 45rpm singles in the USA in the 1980s. I was working at RCA Records during this period, and we were probably the last major manufacturer to change from vinyl to styrene. Columbia and Specialty (makers of most of the Warner/Elektra/Atlantic group of labels) were completely switched over to styrene before RCA got into it. Little to no use was made of styrene for 12 inch production during this time, so far as I know. None of the major labels used it for 12 inch. Twelve inch styrene records are very brittle and poorly damped and ring like a bell. If they get even slightly dish warped, the unsupported rim will ring and howl when you place the stylus in the lead-in groove. I know this because we tried making some experimental 12 inch styrenes. Abysmal. Fortunately, this annoying characteristic kept the labels from deciding to use styrene for 12 inch production.

You are correct - styrene is a terrible choice for records. On the plus side, it is extremely smooth and capable of providing vanishing low surface noise - for the first play. But it wears almost immediately, even with the best and lightest tracking force cartridges. The reason it was used is simple - cost. Styrene can be injection molded which is a much faster and cheaper process than the compression molding required with vinyl. Even though the styrene compound sold by Richardson (who was the industry's prime supplier) was slightly costlier per pound than vinyl, the process costs were much less for injection molding versus compression molding. Injection machines do not require steam and have modest cooling requirements compared with compression molding machines. This was a BIG savings in infrastructure as the plant didn't need to operate and maintain steam boilers and cooling water towers. And the injection process was completely automated which meant that one operator could service 5 to 10 presses, most of the attention being to service and change the stampers. Furthermore, injection molding is much less abrasive on the stampers and resulted in up to 10 times the stamper life compared with vinyl. And styrene is much lighter than vinyl which resulted in lower shipping costs per carton of finished product. All of which adds up to cheaper manufacturing and shipping cost. Never mind that the records didn't wear worth a crap. Most buyers of singles were kids who were noncritical of the sound and the record wear, so insufficient complaints were received from the consumers to influence this decision.

HOWEVER, the commercial users, namely record station DJs and jukebox operators noticed that the styrene records wore out immediately and raised an unholy ruckus about it. Literally, the record was junk after only about 10 plays in the typical juke of the day. RCA's solution (and that of all other labels that I knew about) was to put in TWO orders for each new release - one commercial production order in styrene, and one small order for vinyl 45s to be suppled exclusively to radio stations and jukebox operators. RCA no longer had any 7 inch vinyl capacity, so we had to off-load the DJ orders to small record presser shops, mostly in Nashville. Interestingly, these small shops stayed in business after the majors quit making analog records, and they are the same ones who are still making new vinyl LPs and 45s today. So, these days when I am looking for a 7 inch single from the 1980s, I make it a point to try to find a DJ copy or a record that was made in Canada. The Canadian pressers never switched 45rpm production to styrene, so far as I know. So here's a case where the "made in USA" label means the product is to be studiously avoided.

[Kirkwood]

Thanks so much, Greg, for a clarification about the styrene/vinyl production history. See, this is why I love this board, I had always wondered about this very topic but just wrote it off "back in the day" as one of those unknowable industry insider factoids.

With the fear that I may be bringing this thread a bit off-course, I have a question about the vinyl LP that has bugged me for years. Back in the 1970s, when I was a college student and getting exposure to the more wealthy audio snobs of the day (they lived down the hall), the rumor was that USA record plants had begun to recycle old vinyl records for re-pressing into new product. The whys of such a move were murky, but I recall a tie-in to the Arab Oil Embargo shortages as one explanation. This was why the new releases seemed so noisy right out of the shrink-wrap----ground-up vinyl had so many impurities that there was no way to get a sharp, clear new disc. Or so they told me. Many of these guys opted to buy English or European pressings (at greater expense) that were supposedly pressed on "virgin vinyl". To my inexperienced ears, the English pressings DID sound cleaner, fewer pops and ticks. Supposedly the USA plants used "virgin vinyl" for the quadrophonic releases, which started to hit the cut-out bins after that fad passed away, and those were considered a bargain versus the imports. These same audiophiles seemed to hold a special aversion to the RCA Dyna-flex discs (called Dyna-warp by a few). Always prone to being frugal, I never bought many imports, since I knew that my ears wouldn't pick up many pops or ticks in the records after I'd consumed my own body weight in beer. But still today, the question remains: was it ever practice to recycle the vinyl? It's hard for me to believe it was worth the effort, but what say you??

[syncopeter]

In the late 1970s I started buying Lp's on a serious base, because I no longer depended on just pocket money. I avoided American pressings like the plague because 90% were far inferior to European ones. Even French pressings as a rule were better and these could be pretty bad too. American pressings were notoriously thin, always warped, static like heck and full of pops and clicks even when brand new and they wore out within 10 to 20 playings on the best equipment. This applied to nearly all labels and all price categories. Even the cheapest European pressings were far superior to American premium products. In the 78-era it was usually the other way 'round, the Europeans using more abrasives in their pressing material, resulting in far higher surface noise. Just compare a Victor scroll label to an HMV plum label from the same period. The Victor as a rule has far less surface noise and as a result more audible treble.

[Phototone]

Its quite true that there was a period where the major USA record companies used a lot of recycled vinyl in their popular releases, but rarely classical. RCA kinda avoided this by going to a thinner vinyl record they called dyna-flex. These were very quiet.

[Swing Band Heaven]

..... In the 78-era it was usually the other way 'round, the Europeans using more abrasives in their pressing material, resulting in far higher surface noise. Just compare a Victor scroll label to an HMV plum label from the same period. The Victor as a rule has far less surface noise and as a result more audible treble.

Yes,but isn't this reflecting the difference in the primary type of reproduction in Europe and America? America seemed to make the change to lighter (electrical) pickups earlier than we did in Europe. The softer, quieter shellac used in American 78 pressings doesn't stand up so well to playing with heavy acoustic pick ups that were common in Europe until much later. The noisy abrasive fillers ground down the steel needle to fit the groove properly and resulted in better record wear charateristics - as far as I am aware.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong here?

S-B-H

[Shane]

To answer Sean's question, the Josh White 10" LP is on the Mercury label. This record doesn't "ring" when I thump it with my thumbnail, so it's probably not styrene. I guess it's just really primitive, early thick vinyl in that case.