Re: Making shellac 78's in the 21st Century ?
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:29 am
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.
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.
