Making shellac 78's in the 21st Century ?

[CarlosV]

In the late 40's Deutsche Grammophon created a new way of recording that they named "variable groove", which allowed a 12 inch 78 rpm play up to 10 minutes or so. These records, besides the long playing ability, were pressed in high quality shellack, which is the quietest surface I ever heard on a 78 rpm.

I have a bunch of US Columbia 78 rpm pressed in vinyl in the 50s, for disk-jockeys (as written on the labels). Their surface noise is not as low as a 33 rpm (they sound more like the V-discs, which were also pressed largely in vinyl), and the music does not sound particularly better (or even equivalent) than on contemporary 33 rpm's, although I did not make a direct comparison for lack of the same songs in 33 rpm's.

There are modern vinyl 78's, or at least one, that I am aware of. It was recorded by Robert Crumb, and here is his feedback of it (from this web site http://matsgus.com/discaholic_corner/?p=2048):

- In 1973 you released your own 78, “River Blues/Wisconsin Wiggles.” Was it hard to find a place to do a 78 at that time? Your remaining releases were 12” LPs, would you have preferred them to be 78s?

It was a dumb idea to put out a 78 rpm record, even in 1973, ‘cause — DUH — guess what? Nobody could play them! There was no longer a 78 speed on modern record players! I was so blinded by my love for 78s. It was fun to create the graphics, and for our little band of 78 collector-musicians to have our own 78 record! We liked it so much we made two more of them! By that time the publisher got wise and told us to knock it off, that this was an exercise in economic futility. In the 1970s it was still possible for a few American pressing plants to manufacture a 10-inch 78 rpm record. It became will-nigh impossible through the 1980s. Sure, I would have preferred to make all our records on 3-minute single 78s. I don’t like the long-playing album idea, or the micro-groove vinyl technology of the 33 ⅓ record. The only nice thing about the LP album to me is the big 12-inch cover, with lots of room for nice graphics and notes. Otherwise I think it’s a jive idea, a sales pitch, as is stereophonic sound. Gimmicks to sell more product. I think the 78 record of 1930 with the level of sound quality achieved at that time was as good as a sound recording for commercial retail needs to be. The only possible genuine improvement would have been a truly unbreakable record, and the light-weight tone arm to prevent surface wear. The ideal would be to do away with the stylus altogether and have, instead, a beam, a laser perhaps, that reads the groove, as with the compact disc.

[edisonphonoworks]

Actually a lot of 78 on vinyl are being pressed at United. My friend works in the pressing and testing department. Even though this page makes it sounds like a rare occasion, 78 rpm records are increasing. http://www.urpressing.com/10inch.php There is a local company that produces a shellac compound that is very similar to a 78, that very little modification will be needed to adapt it to make 78's in shellac.

[edisonphonoworks]

I remember when I announced I was going to try to make cylinder record blanks, I got a lot of "oh nobody knows the formula, I don't think you should do it, too many technical secrets are lost." It has been a long road but I have re-created a pretty good blank I think. Do I make money? Not really, in fact If I had an hourly wage paid to me, it would be a few dollars an hour. The wax takes 1 hour to measure out the ingredients, 3 hours to make the initial batch, and then it is heated 2 more times to anneal the wax. When you start your molding day the first two out of the mold, are discarded. Each cylinder takes from 30 minutes to an hour each to mold, it takes 20 minutes to process, that is trim, and ream the blank, and about 20 minutes to shave it down to the desired thickness. And now I make the mandrels for the cylinders, for the boxes, that takes 15 more minutes, and also labeling and shipping. So you see a lot of time goes out to make and ship these.

[Orchorsol]

There are modern vinyl 78's, or at least one, that I am aware of.

There's a small 78rpm revival going on! http://kittydaisyandlewis.sandbag.uk.co ... 5-0-0.html

Another example - there was a Beach Boys 78rpm release only a couple of years ago.

[De Soto Frank]

With regard to record materials in the late 1940's and early 1950's, I have a variety of classical and light classical long-playing records from that era... all mostly 10" micro-groove 33-⅓ rpm.

Those from Columbia are some of the best, being made from "modern" vinyl, and aside from being monaural, have decent sound quality and acceptable surface-noise qualities.

Then there are records like those released by Varsity (10-inch, 33-⅓ rpm), which feel and sound like a shellac 78 (1930's or '40s)... I think they might be almost as brittle.

Every 45 rpm record I have ever seen has been pressed on "modern vinyl". I have a few classical releases on 45 rpm... including a Bruckner symphony ( which is pretty darned funny when you consider how long his symphonies were... )

[Wolfe]

There are modern vinyl 78's, or at least one, that I am aware of.

There's a small 78rpm revival going on! http://kittydaisyandlewis.sandbag.uk.co ... 5-0-0.html

Another example - there was a Beach Boys 78rpm release only a couple of years ago.

There's been certain one-off retro 78 rpm's released ever since 78's supposedly ended in the 1960's. Some time ago I posted a PDF listing a bunch of them on this site. Recently I acquired a bunch of the vinyl jukebox 78's that Rhino records put out in the 1980's - those are fun.

[Lucius1958]

There are modern vinyl 78's, or at least one, that I am aware of. It was recorded by Robert Crumb, and here is his feedback of it (from this web site http://matsgus.com/discaholic_corner/?p=2048):

- In 1973 you released your own 78, “River Blues/Wisconsin Wiggles.” Was it hard to find a place to do a 78 at that time? Your remaining releases were 12” LPs, would you have preferred them to be 78s?

It was a dumb idea to put out a 78 rpm record, even in 1973, ‘cause — DUH — guess what? Nobody could play them! There was no longer a 78 speed on modern record players! I was so blinded by my love for 78s. It was fun to create the graphics, and for our little band of 78 collector-musicians to have our own 78 record! We liked it so much we made two more of them! By that time the publisher got wise and told us to knock it off, that this was an exercise in economic futility. In the 1970s it was still possible for a few American pressing plants to manufacture a 10-inch 78 rpm record. It became will-nigh impossible through the 1980s. Sure, I would have preferred to make all our records on 3-minute single 78s. I don’t like the long-playing album idea, or the micro-groove vinyl technology of the 33 ⅓ record. The only nice thing about the LP album to me is the big 12-inch cover, with lots of room for nice graphics and notes. Otherwise I think it’s a jive idea, a sales pitch, as is stereophonic sound. Gimmicks to sell more product. I think the 78 record of 1930 with the level of sound quality achieved at that time was as good as a sound recording for commercial retail needs to be. The only possible genuine improvement would have been a truly unbreakable record, and the light-weight tone arm to prevent surface wear. The ideal would be to do away with the stylus altogether and have, instead, a beam, a laser perhaps, that reads the groove, as with the compact disc.

I have that disc, as well as "Missouri Waltz/Duck's Yas Yas" (unfortunately, the first few grooves of "Missouri Waltz" got trashed as a result of a misguided attempt to play it on my VV-IX…. hey, I was young, it was the '70s…)

It's not quite true about turntables not having the 78 speed back then: my old stereo had that option, and I even got a 78 cartridge for it…

Bill

[De Soto Frank]

High-end turntables ( Thorens, et al) may have dropped the 78 rpm speed by the mid-1960's, but i think most American "changer" machines still had a 78 rpm and "turn-over" stylus into the mid 1970's...

[SteveM]

I can imagine now, getting some new shellac records as a birthday or Christmas present. How cool would that be. Something the wife doesn't have to risk getting sniped for.

[Swing Band Heaven]

With regard to record materials in the late 1940's and early 1950's, I have a variety of classical and light classical long-playing records from that era... all mostly 10" micro-groove 33-⅓ rpm.

Those from Columbia are some of the best, being made from "modern" vinyl, and aside from being monaural, have decent sound quality and acceptable surface-noise qualities.

I agree, some of the early vinyl columbia releases had exceptional quality - both recording and pressing. As an example here is a transfer from an early columbia 1950's 10 inch LP which shows just how good they could be. I have applied only very light declicking here and correct equalisation. Other than that the sound is what came directly off the disk.

Just one of those things - Columbia 10 inch LP sample