Playing 78s on a steel needle machine (aka can o' worms)

[banjo_picker]

I know that this has been hashed out to death, but that is part of why I am asking for clarification. Because there is a LOT of conflicting info about playing 78s on a steel needle machine. Here is what I have pieced together, based on a fair amount of internet research. I am a newbie, and I'm trying to get a handle on this. Here is my take... please enlighten me if I am wrong.

1) Steel needle victrolas (e.g. VV-VIII with No. 2 or Exhibition reproducer) were designed to play acoustically recorded shellac discs. These discs went out of production around 1925, when electrical recording came into favor.

2) The same victrola can safely play electrically recorded discs, but the sound quality will be diminished. Each steel needle should be used once and thrown away.

3) Electrically recorded shellac discs were produced from about 1925 to 1935.

4) After 1935, vinyl became the dominant disc material. A steel need victrola will destroy a vinyl record after a few plays.

Is that about right?

[OrthoSean]

4) After 1935, vinyl became the dominant disc material. A steel need victrola will destroy a vinyl record after a few plays.

Is that about right?

You've got everything right except the above, vinyl wasn't really used for commercial 78 RPM pressings until the 1950s for the most part, but disc jockey copies of 78s from the 40s do turn up in vinyl pressings. There are exceptions to this, of course. Many companies pressed 78s in shellac right up to the end of 78 production, but I wouldn't play anything that late on an acoustic machine, the reproducer really just can't handle them.

Earlier electrics can sound just fine on a properly rebuilt Exhibition or #2 reproducer, not as good as a later machine designed to play electrics, but still perfectly fine for what you're looking for.

Sean

[52089]

1) Steel needle victrolas (e.g. VV-VIII with No. 2 or Exhibition reproducer) were designed to play acoustically recorded shellac discs. These discs went out of production around 1925, when electrical recording came into favor

I would say: Early acoustic phonographs (e.g. Victor VV-VIII with No. 2 or Exhibition reproducer) were designed to play acoustically recorded shellac discs recorded up to about 1925.

2) The same victrola can safely play electrically recorded discs, but the sound quality will be diminished. Each steel needle should be used once and thrown away.

I would say: 2) The same phonograph can play electrically recorded discs, but the sound quality will be diminished and there may be a chance of increased record wear. Each steel needle should be used once and thrown away.

3) Electrically recorded shellac discs were produced from about 1925 to 1935.

I would add: These are best played on a Victor Orthophonic, Columbia Viva-Tonal or other similar phonograph specifically designed for early electrically recorded discs.

4) After 1935, vinyl became the dominant disc material. A steel need victrola will destroy a vinyl record after a few plays.

The first sentence is definitely not true. Shellac was still the primary material for 78s until the end of their production. You will find vinyl 78s, but these were generally either for DJ/promotional use or were made very "late" in the life of the 78. The other sentence is correct - steel needles will damage vinyl records quickly.

[banjo_picker]

Thank you for the replies. I almost have it I think.

So I guess there are "early" and "late" shellac 78s, with 1935 as the approximate transition from early to late. The late ones are a little softer and more prone td damage by steel needles than the early ones. Is that right?

Let's say I got a late recording, say Mule Skinner Blues by Bill Monroe (released in 1940). If I got that record and it was in Very Good condition, would I ruin it by playing it on a No 2 soundbox with a soft needle? If so, how quickly would it degrade to Fair condition? A few plays, tens of plays , hundreds, ... ???

Each original record is a small piece of history that can never return once it it gone. I don't want to forever ruin these records. But at the same time, I am not an "audiophile" and can accept some pop, hiss, and sub-optimal playback. I want to hear the early bluegrass and pre bluegrass records the way that depression era mountain people would have heard them. I know that many families probably had old victrolas, as opposed to the state of the art orthophonics or electric machines. But I don't want to tear up a bunch or records either.

[Joe_DS]

... I want to hear the early bluegrass and pre bluegrass records the way that depression era mountain people would have heard them. I know that many families probably had old victrolas, as opposed to the state of the art orthophonics or electric machines. ...

That's hard to say. Those that couldn't afford the latest and greatest phonographs -- either electrically amplified, or acoustic -- probably couldn't afford the records either during the Great Depression, when record sales fell like a rock from an estimated high of 104 million in 1927 to 6 million in 1932 -- https://sites.google.com/site/thegreatdepressionblues/

But even in rural, poor areas, many managed to find the money to pay for cheap radio sets. Since most of the now-famous early country/bluegrass performers of the Depression era were popular on radio--live, or their records--that's probably how a majority of their fans listened to their music at the time.

Those that did buy the records might have listened to them on an older pre-1925 acoustic phonograph, or they might have bought a cheap used late 1920s model, or even a relatively inexpensive new off-brand portable sold through catalogs and dime stores.

(The production and sale of cabinet model all-acoustic phonographs was pretty much a thing of the past by 1930, though Sears and a few others continued to sell them until about 1936 -- http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=97 )

Joe

[Lucius1958]

The main difference between 'early' and 'late' shellac 78s is that once lighter electric pickups became the norm, record companies changed their shellac recipes, cutting down on the abrasive fillers that were needed to help the needle conform to the groove. This meant less surface noise, but also made the records somewhat softer.

It should be noted, though, that acoustic portables continued to be made and used well into the postwar era.

The upshot is that, while later shellac discs may be more susceptible to wear on an acoustic machine, it depends a lot upon the design of the machine. A later acoustic phonograph, if it has good tracking, and a soundbox that is not too heavy, will probably play the later records without too much fear of damage - if you only play them occasionally. If you want to play a particular record frequently, it's best to use a modern turntable.

Bill

[De Soto Frank]

Also, with the advent of electrical phonograph pick-ups, and especially the light-weight crystal cartridges in the mid to late 1930's, along with semi-permanent stylii to go along with the changer mechanisms, all these factored into the reformulation of the disc "shellac"...

So, it's not so much the steel needle that "destroys" post-1935-ish 78's, it's also the extreme tracking-weight of the heavy acoustic and early magnetic reproducers that "tear-up" a record.

And, among acoustic machines, the later ones are generally kinder to records than the early ones... front-mount external horn machines are generally very hard on record surfaces, due to a combination of heavy tracking weight, and less than ideal tracking geometry.

Some of the British HMV machines from the 1930's are considered to have the best tracking geometry among acoustic phonographs.

Generally speaking, a rebuilt Victor Exhibition or #2 sound-box, with a fresh isolator bushing should give good results for pre-1935 records, so long as the gooseneck and taper-tube joints all move freely.

[alang]

If you go by the pure "it's a historic piece and irreplaceable" then you should transfer records once with a light magnetic pickup or even better a laser and then store in a temperature and humidity controlled safe. With the vast majority of records we are far from being in that situation. While they are still being used for target practice and driven to the dump in huge quantities, I think most common records can still ok to be enjoyed on acoustical players. If I was a records collector and audiophile I probably would not have most of the worn and scratched records that make up my stash anyway. I do not feel any guilt playing common worn records on my phonographs as often as I want. And the more records you have, each should statistically play less often and therefore wear less

Andreas

[edisonplayer]

What about playing valuable 78's on a vintage machine.I played a Victor scroll label by Jelly Roll Morton's band on my Credenza.When I play records like that on a wind up I always use a NEW steel needle.edisonplayer

[Orchorsol]

Some of the British HMV machines from the 1930's are considered to have the best tracking geometry among acoustic phonographs.

I'd be interested to hear if some models were accurate - my understanding (and some limited experience) is that HMV machines' tracking is poor compared to that of e.g. EMGs and Experts.