The 45 is born.

by **jmailand** » 03 Sep 2008 03:30

Found this while doing some web searching. Its a copy of RCA's 1949 technical paper on the 45rpm record design. I thought somebody might get a kick out of this. It is a piece of history and includes quite a lot of technical data for any 45 buffs.
http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/recording/speed45.html

by **newdreams** » 03 Sep 2008 04:37

Thanks for that! I'll have to wade through some of it. My first record was a 45, back in the days when you could still get your top 40 hits on either 45 or 78. Old number one was the Kingston Trio's "Tom Dooley", and I still have it. (Number 2 was the Everly Brothers' "Bird Dog".)

by **delcam1n0** » 03 Sep 2008 20:15

jmailand,

Interesting post, thank you muchly! And not only for
45 rpm buffs! This seems really to have been a RCA
management diktat: "Dammit! Cook me up an alternative
to (Columbia's) Peter Goldmark's microgroove 33rpm 12"
LP or I'll have your ass??"
(That medium had of course been introed on the US market
not even a year earlier...)

We all know who won that RCA/Columbia
battle in the end don't we?

by **jmailand** » 03 Sep 2008 22:00

delcam1n0 wrote:jmailand,

Interesting post, thank you muchly! And not only for
45 rpm buffs! This seems really to have been a RCA
management diktat: "Dammit! Cook me up an alternative
to (Columbia's) Peter Goldmark's microgroove 33rpm 12"
LP or I'll have your ass??"
(That medium had of course been introed on the US market
not even a year earlier...)

We all know who won that RCA/Columbia
battle in the end don't we?

True, but RCA's little 45 lives on, and is still being manufactured today.

http://www.urpressing.com/pricing/vinyl/7inch.php

by **delcam1n0** » 03 Sep 2008 22:09

Of course, but so do 33
rpm LPs, fortunately!!

Long Live Vinyl!!

by **bauzace50** » 03 Sep 2008 23:01

HI,
fascinating piece of history!
bauzace50

by **oldgarrards** » 14 Feb 2011 20:11

Columbia also came out with a 7" LP in the late 40s. Most likely to compete with RCAs 45s. Columbia's idea wasn't bad. If you already had a changer with two speeds, and most new changers did in 1949, you wouldn't need to buy RCA's 45 changer.

Columbia's 7" had the small center hole. It also had a ring around the label that had closely spaced verticle lines that was an interlock for the next record in the stack. This prevented slippage when played on changers with heavy tone arms in the 9-10 gram ranges. The records were also thicker than RCAs.

I have six of these records and the fidelity on these is better than RCAs 45's during that time period. This was a short lived format only until Columbia started making their own 45s.

by **KentT** » 26 Feb 2011 15:38

Some notes,

RCA's internal code name for this project was Madame X. Plans began for it in 1940 but World War II put an end to it. So it was shelved until 1948 and released in 1949. Microgroove Columbia Long Play discs forced it's release. So RCA may have revised their groove size to be compatible before the release of 45 RPM records. RCA was battling Columbia and post World War II had lost their leadership position in records. Columbia was real competition for RCA after Columbia Broadcasting System purchased the label in 1940. Up to that time, Victor and then RCA Victor was the undisputed leader in records. RCA never got #1 back in sales ever again. So begins the tale of the War of the speeds which didn't settle until 1951. And about cost RCA Victor their top artists.

After the 1949 introduction of 45 RPM, customers were really having to make decisions about which format to adopt. They could stick with 78 RPM (some did). They could adopt 33 1/3 RPM Microgroove LP discs. Or they could adopt 45 RPM single discs. RCA however, and Columbia would only offer 78 and their own format. And phonograph makers had it very hard. Many of them had to contrive some unusual methods of dealing with the new speeds. Some had a 2 speed phono for 78 and 33 1/3 RPM and two tonearms for it. Some also had that system and a separate 45 RPM changer available installed in their consoles.

What finally got sense in both camps came when RCA almost lost Arturo Toscanini to Columbia in 1950. Maestro Toscanini hated all those side changes when Eugene Ormandy could have a whole symphony unbroken or with only one side change. And contract renewal time was there. Maestro Toscanini bascially told RCA's CEO David Sarnoff to begin issuing LP discs or he would switch labels to Columbia. RCA then approached Columbia and announced they would issue LP discs if Columbia would issue 45 RPM singles and thus stop the war between the speeds. And then phonograph maker V-M introduced the revolutionary Tri-O-Matic record changer which happily played all 3 speeds. And history was made.

Decca in the UK introduced the LP to England in 1950 having already exported them to the USA on the London label. EMI was very slow to the party some 3-4 years later.

by **oldgarrards** » 14 Mar 2011 22:19

Some of those early three speed changers were nothing but retooled versions of 78 only players. I have a 1950 Philco console with their own changer. It uses a pusher platform for all speeds. No large hole 45 adapter was available. So when I play records I have to use inserts.

The changer only recognizes a concentric runoff groove for LPs and when playing 45s the mechanism changes to velocity trip. This particular model was available for only one year and then Philco brought out a completely redesigned changer that used a large hole 45 adapter.

For a short period of time some American manufacturers like Columbia and Capital issued 45s with built in adapters. Capitol called theirs "O.C." (Optional Center). They could easily(?) be pushed out to accommodate a large whole 45 spindle.

by **robottaway** » 28 Mar 2011 23:34

This interesting stuff, the history of the analog music is long and interesting. I myself don't know much of this history, and really enjoy hearing this all. Can anyone point out the reasoning behind the large whole in a 45 RPM? It always has sort of bugged me.

by **mysticfred** » 29 Mar 2011 10:49

robottaway wrote:This interesting stuff, the history of the analog music is long and interesting. I myself don't know much of this history, and really enjoy hearing this all. Can anyone point out the reasoning behind the large whole in a 45 RPM? It always has sort of bugged me.

45rpm Singles were designed to be played in a Juke Box, home users were provided with an adaptor though most RCA home use record players in the USA had a large automatic centre spindle designed to stack the records.

In the UK records had removeable "snap out" adaptors for Juke Box use, though many were issued with a standard small spindle hole the same as on an LP, also designed to work on home automatic players.

.

by **alanomt** » 31 Mar 2011 15:47

It's a little like the chicken and egg scenareo, certainly the advent of the 45 was a godsend to the Jukebox manufactures.

It was light, promoted as 'unbreakable', had a long life (relatively for a jukebox record) and of course compact.

Whether the large hole was an RCA design or a jukebox manufactures request we will probably never know. certainly it enabled Seeburg to modify their mechanism to use the 45 and the large hole makes location easier, all jukebox manufactures had mechanisms which would play 78's with the standard small hole so it was not an engineering requirement. What it did enable, at a later date was for Jukeboxes to use the different size centres to change the speed when for a short time 7in 33rpm EP discs with a small hole became available (at an extra charge to the customer).

Pictured a RCA 45 only record player from around '49/50.

Alan