new fan of 78's

[eljorge]

Hi guys, not too long back i began collecting 78's, just to see what they would sound like, and now i cant get enough of them.
I have started my own little collection (althou i find hundreds i only buy what intrests me), i have a couple of elvis, armstrong, fitzgerald, ellington, gene krupa,benny goodman, louis jordan etc. I love this stuff but am really trying to get the best sound possible so i recently purchased a shure n55e3, but i have quiet a bit of (surface) noise; I've read a couple of other posts and there are some really knowledgable people here.
I have some records that are over 100 yrs old, and have been played with some unsavory needles, what could i do to get the best out of them, needle size is a big problem, i have a couple of those old (50's-60's) needles that you turn to lps or 78's, do these maybe work better for these?
Would love to post some pics of my stuff if anyone is intrested but not sure hoe to, any suggestions, and where could i go see what you got?
jorge

[Coffee Phil]

Hi eljorge,

Welcome to the "fast spinners" club. There is a lot of enjoyment to be had in those old records.
First off I want to give you a link to a site with a lot of information on old records. http://www.videointerchange.com/vintage_78s.htm They discuss such things as the material which records are made of and the cleaning of them. They have information on stylus size for many vintage records.

I see that you bought a new Stylus 78s. Is that just a stylus for your existing Shure cartridge or was the whole assembly sold as a 78 cartridge. The reason I ask is that if it a Stereo Cartridge the channels should be summed for mono. That makes a vast difference in noise and distortion. I use an old Shure M44C with an AN44-3 stylus. It is a stereo cartridge and I sum the channels. I think the 78 cartridges which they sell now are stereo cartridges with the channels strapped at the pins.
The new Shure 78 cartridges don't seem to get much love on the forums but I like my old one.

I can't stress the importance of summing the channels enough. It does make a big difference. The strapping on the cartridge pins is OK until you want to get into vertical cut discs such as Edison Diamond discs. For those you need to be able to to reverse the phase of one channel relative to the other.

There is a lot made of using the correct equalization with 78s and of course it is true, but it is not a show stopper if you only have RIAA EQ. I made a post about this very thing relative to acoustically recorded records in this forum.

To place a picture in your post first you need to put it in the gallery. After you get the post in the gallery copy the number on the picture and go back to the forum and click on the Img button. There will be a cursor in the middle of the bunch of characters which appear. Paste the number which you copied there. I believe there is a 500 kbyte file size limit.

Phil

Hi guys, not too long back i began collecting 78's, just to see what they would sound like, and now i cant get enough of them.
I have started my own little collection (althou i find hundreds i only buy what intrests me), i have a couple of elvis, armstrong, fitzgerald, ellington, gene krupa,benny goodman, louis jordan etc. I love this stuff but am really trying to get the best sound possible so i recently purchased a shure n55e3, but i have quiet a bit of (surface) noise; I've read a couple of other posts and there are some really knowledgable people here.
I have some records that are over 100 yrs old, and have been played with some unsavory needles, what could i do to get the best out of them, needle size is a big problem, i have a couple of those old (50's-60's) needles that you turn to lps or 78's, do these maybe work better for these?
Would love to post some pics of my stuff if anyone is intrested but not sure hoe to, any suggestions, and where could i go see what you got?
jorge

[Coffee Phil]

Hi Joerge,

I found a typo after the time permitted to edit expired. My stylus is an N44-3.

You asked for pictures so here goes:



This is my modified Kenwood KD500. It plays 16 2/3, 33 1/3, 45, and 78.26 RPM quartz lock and in variable speed it will do 80 RPM for Edisons. It is shown playing a Count Basie record with Jimmy Rushing on vocal.

Below is my mono phono stage which I use for my legacy records. On top is an internet radio "tuner".



OK now let's see your stuff.

Phil

[78 archivist]

The reason I ask is that if it a Stereo Cartridge the channels should be summed for mono. That makes a vast difference in noise and distortion.

I can't stress the importance of summing the channels enough. It does make a big difference.

Hi Phil,

Can you expound on this idea more? Videointerchange.com guy says it's better to keep the signal stereo, although mostly for the best archival purposes with post digital editing possibilities, which I'm still intending to do with my own system. But personally, unlike anything for commercial release I may do, my ultimate goal is to stay analog with transfers to half-track 1/4" tape so I want the best signal path for 100% analog.

My thought is if I were to keep the stereo signal on tape then I would have bi-amping capabilities down the line without having to use crossovers. Also if a 78 is significantly more degraded on one wall groove over the other then I could just select and play the good channel in a true one speaker mono crossover-less full range driver setup. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your experience says summing the channels to mono before my McIntosh C8 pre would most typically provide the highest quality signal for all-analog reproduction? I've decided on going with 6 watt class A SET tube power amp(s) but still trying to figure out whether I should sum channels and go with two separate mono amps or keep stereo and go with a stereo amp, so as you can see I am going for the purest, minimalest, highest transparency system possible.

I was able to start a thread concerning my most recent configuration conundrum here:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1334874234&&&/McIntosh-C8
Perhaps you know the answer to that question as well?

eljorge,

Excuse me for the 'hijack' but if you continue on this shellac rabbit hole you too may be interested in my questions. You can read my epiphany in the vinyl?engine thread of this forum!

regards,
78 arch

[josephazannieri]

Yo eljorge:

You have come upon a decent forum concerning 78's with knowledgable participants. I have had discussions with Phil and 78arch a few times. That nice little rig of Phil's has the additional equalization curves. I built a similar device a number of years ago which I put on the tape loop of a Dyna PAS-3X that is in one of the tape loops in my Hafler DH101. I also use an old Heathkit 5 band tone control on the processor loop in the Hafler. I find that in general you have to bump the high end a little bit to get the edge back on 78's. This is because the RIAA equalization in most phono preamps will reduce the high end way too much for most 78's except the very few 78's that were made after 1955 that were cut with RIAA equalization, of which I have maybe a half dozen. I have the schematic for my box, which I will copy and send to you if you want it. It has the old AES, RCA, and Columbia LP curves in it, but it reduces gain a lot and you need to get some addtional gain in circuit to take care of losses.

I agree with Phil on parallelling the channels. Parallelling the channels eliminates the vertical rumble component and quiets the playback considerably. I have a 3 mil stylus on my Shure M44, similar to your 3 mil stylus. I also have a VN4G stylus on my V-15-IV, which is about 2 mils, and I pick the stylus that gives the best result. The 3 mil usually gives better highs, but the 2 mil is quieter, so you makes your choice. There is an alternative theory, apparently espoused by 78arch, that the best way to do it is use stereo cart and listen to each channel individually and pick the best channel, but in that case, you may need a rumble filter. My experience is that 78's are often plagued with vertical rumble which goes away if you parallel the channels. 78's, even the legendary FFRR's usually don't have much below 50 or 60 Hz, and not much above 5000 Hz, so you can use a good sharp cutoff filter at 50 Hz and at 5 kHz and then boost the 3-5 kHz range, below filter cutoff to put back the vocal sibilants and the "edge" on the instruments.

The secret to 78's is finding records that are in good shape. That is not easy, but I have run across a few really clean classical 78's. Popular 78's are usually played to death on miserable gear, so you have to work to get them to sound good. My philosophy is that I avoid any noise reduction software other than click remover because I don't like the artifact that the software leaves, which is a "squishy" sounding midrange caused by the out-of phase addition of the noise components to reduce them. It kills the impact of the sound. I think Phil has heard a couple of my transfers. I am willing to tolerate some noise to keep the impact and solidity of the sound. The cool thing about 78's is the amount of output they give, because of the high speed and the big grooves. They just bang away.

I hope that you find satisfaction and enjoyment in spinning these high speed records. But don't watch the labels or you'll get REALLY dizzy.

And good luck from the old guy going round and round and round,

Joe Z.

[josephazannieri]

Yo 78 arch, and other dizzy spinners:

As a followup and response to 78 arch's "hijack" ...

There was a long time when I was transferring 78's and LP's to tape, including 15 IPS half track. I used to simply cut the pops right out with a razor blade, just like they did making commercial transfers. But they usually started with excellent source material, often the master disc recording, not the shaved and beat up records we get out in the real world.

The big problem with excising pops in this manner is that though you will not be able to hear the edit, if there are enough of them, you can shorten the record a few seconds by making all the cuts.

There are some cases where the source material so bad that the original record was noticeably shortened and speeded up, even though the pitch did not change, but it was really rare.

And good luck from that speeded up, condensed and really rare (you might almost say wierd) old guy,

Joe Z.

[Coffee Phil]

Hi 78 archivist,

The notion of keeping the channels separate and processing them individually before summing them has some theoretical merit but in that case each channel should be not equalized and bandwidth of the D/A conversion and processing should be sufficient so there is very little time shift between the channels up to the point where the summing occurs. After the summing occurs the EQ can be applied. As you might expect bringing all this off with equipment which you can readily obtain will be a pretty good trick.

In a laterel cut record there is nothing of value in the vertical direction and in a vertical cut record (Edisons for example) there is nothing of value in the vertical direction so reading the record in the correct direction gives the least noise and distortion. Summing after the phono stage is better that not summing at all but the accuracy of the summing depends on the relative gains and frequency responses of the channels. With my phono stage I can switch between vertical and lateral in real time. Playing a lateral record in vertical lets me hear the crud which the correct summing is removing. By the way my phono stage will easily select the right, left, or both channels summed by just turning the input switch. I had heard the arguement for the ability to select either channel. It didn't cost any more so I just included the feature. So far I have yet to encounter a record which does not sound best summed.

Some folks argue that mono records are best heard with a mono cartridge. I am so far fairly agnostic in that belief, but I think it comes from comparing mono recordings on mono vs. non summed stereo cartridges. One note however. I have a GE RPX cartridge for which I bought new styli. This thing is massive and is hard to balance on my SME arm so I haven't used it much. A few days ago I did the best I could with it and got it down to ~ 10 grams. I played an Ella Fitzgerald 78 with it. There is some chance that I may become a member of the converted. I need to work on some added counterweight for the SME when using the RPX.

I have heard Joe's digital transfers of 78s. They are excellent. He is very tasteful. The clicks are tamed and his use of noise reduction is right on. The life of the music is still there. I'll also add that his transferring skills are matched by his skills in annotating the CDs he made from the 78s.

Phil

The reason I ask is that if it a Stereo Cartridge the channels should be summed for mono. That makes a vast difference in noise and distortion.

I can't stress the importance of summing the channels enough. It does make a big difference.

Hi Phil,

Can you expound on this idea more? Videointerchange.com guy says it's better to keep the signal stereo, although mostly for the best archival purposes with post digital editing possibilities, which I'm still intending to do with my own system. But personally, unlike anything for commercial release I may do, my ultimate goal is to stay analog with transfers to half-track 1/4" tape so I want the best signal path for 100% analog.

My thought is if I were to keep the stereo signal on tape then I would have bi-amping capabilities down the line without having to use crossovers. Also if a 78 is significantly more degraded on one wall groove over the other then I could just select and play the good channel in a true one speaker mono crossover-less full range driver setup. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your experience says summing the channels to mono before my McIntosh C8 pre would most typically provide the highest quality signal for all-analog reproduction? I've decided on going with 6 watt class A SET tube power amp(s) but still trying to figure out whether I should sum channels and go with two separate mono amps or keep stereo and go with a stereo amp, so as you can see I am going for the purest, minimalest, highest transparency system possible.

I was able to start a thread concerning my most recent configuration conundrum here:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl ... cIntosh-C8
Perhaps you know the answer to that question as well?

eljorge,

Excuse me for the 'hijack' but if you continue on this shellac rabbit hole you too may be interested in my questions. You can read my epiphany in the vinyl?engine thread of this forum!

regards,
78 arch

[eljorge]

HELLO, HELLO EVERYBODY!!!, i've never gotten such response for any one of my questions, i'm overwelmed with all the input, shot a lot guys.
1)78 archavist, i'd love to mono the cartridge to have a go at your theory, but how exactly do i do it?, do i just make a connection between the left and right lines? (it was an inherited cartridge and i just got a new stylus for it, so not evrything is new doea this make a diff.
2)Joe Z, please feel free to hijack , I live in south africa my wife has been hijacked 3 times already (no lies), hope you get the answer youre looking for, as i too would love to record some 78s into reels, i love reels too; but the advice you've given me, at this stage has gone way over my head, i started getting seriously into records only about 2 years ago and have no one around who shares in my love for it or has any worthy knowledge. but i will keep coming back to it till it all make sence. thanks (p.s i'd love to have a look at the schematics)
3) love the pics and experinces of orther people thanks for sharing them with us, but i'm struggling to load still as it tells me their too big, i'm trying to transfer from my cell phone, i want to show my Thorens 535, pioneer pl-6a, and revox b77, but i have manged to accumulate a shed load of other stuff i've picked up for close to nothing, my biggest score was a beogram 4000 for 5 bucks in almost working conditions, my dad the genius managed to fix it.
4) phill, thanks for the welcome to the fast spiners club (dig the name), will certanly have a go at the site recomended and try figure out the best way to protect and care for them, as someone said " we are not owners of 78's but mere custodians for future generations (in one way or another).
hope to continue building relations with like minded friends such as you .

thanks
jorge

[78 archivist]

Joe and Phil,

Am I glad you guys have experience with this. It's crickets over at audiogon, a search through their forums really doesn't provide any real depth into shellac. They probably laugh I inquire about a $40 mm cart (each Expert TE styli costs $165 though), but I don't waste any time reading about their $XXXX mc carts so it's only fair. Shellac reproduction is like a desert among audiophiles.

Your guys' advice convinced me to sum to mono before my McIntosh C8's now! It's almost a relief because why would I want to obsess about which groove wall was better when their sum is the best of all, especially for staying in analog! The C8 does have a rumble filter by the way. Splicing tape is really old school, I watched my former mastering engineer do a couple splices on some pops, no doubt it would take a lot of patience for old shellac transfers. I probably won't get into that because the sound quality is so damn amazing already I'm not bothered by noise any longer.

I do own several vertical discs on Pathe which have never been reissued in any format and eventually I'll have to accommodate for that. The C8 doesn't have a vertical mode so I have no idea how that's gonna work?

Phil I'm curious about the GE RPX you're using, I'm surprised it works at all on your SME unless it's the first version that's all stainless steel? I have Ortofon 309s on my Garrard so it shouldn't be a problem for me in the future if I try it out.

The SET tube amp I'm going for is custom made to order so it'll be at least another three months before my 'holy grail' system is up and running. I'll definitely be posting here once it's going. I might be tempted to post some pics of the rest of my system in the meantime.

spinning fast,
78 Arch

[josephazannieri]

Yo eljorge:

Sorry if I got into a side discussion with Phil and 78 arch. To answer the question you posed about summing channels, there is an easy, effective way to do it.

You can sum the channels of your cartridge easily by using 2 Y-adapters. Start with a 2-female to 1 male Y adapter and plug the 2 channels of your record player into the female sockets. Then plug the male end of your first Y adapter into a Y adapter that goes from 1 female into 2 males. Then plug the 2 female ends of that Y adapter into the 2 channels of your amp. Presto! you have converted your stereo cart into a mono output which sums the channels of your stereo cart Right plus Left. You will now get a good mono sound on both channels.

This is an in phase summing which will not work with vertical cut records, but it will work with all the electrically recorded 78's from about 1928 on. It will give you a good mono sound, and it will reduce the vertical rumble components. If you want to play stereo, just take the Y adapters out and plug the stereo turntable back into the stereo amp. Presto! It's stereo again! It's quick and dirty, and not very convenient, but it will work.

I will be happy to give copies of the 78 transfers and notes that I gave to Phil to others if they are interested, just give me a PM with an address I can mail them to. Eljorge, if you want the schematics you will need to PM me with email I can send them to. VE rejects images from my computer and from my digital camera

And good luck from that quick'n'dirty old guy,

Joe Z.

[78 archivist]

Joe Z,

That double Y-adapter idea is BRILLIANT. Sometimes the best solutions are so easy I can't even see them. With my 'purist' approach you're right it also does sound a little dirty, as long as I buy the best adapters possible and clean them with Deoxit or such then the signal 'degradation' should be nearly inaudible. If you have a recommendation for the 'best' Y adapters please let me know. You'd think some company could offer cables that wire the signal for this to eliminate the need for extra rca plugs in the signal line, but alas again we arrive at the shellac audiophile desert if I'm correct.

If I put a Y-adapter (stereo to mono) from record player to the C8 and then a Y-adapter (mono to stereo) between the C8 and the power amp will that decrease the voltage in half? One of my options is going with a pair SET mono blocks with only 2.3 watts per channel. But I'm thinking I'd be safer off going with an amp bridgeable to 6 watts mono or another with 6 watts per channel bridgeable to 12 watts mono.

I'll send you a pm later.

thanks,
78 Arch

[Coffee Phil]

Hi 78 archivist,

Here is my RPX:

[img][/img]

I believe the case is stainless. I have "shoehorned" it into an SME knockoff shell.

Below is the top view:

[img][/img]

Notice that I had to do some surgery on the head shell for the stylus change shaft. I wasn't about to do this to a real $ME shell so I used this knockoff. I think I paid about $10 for three of them on eBay. I still don't have the little knob to go on the shaft. This thing is pretty heavy for the SME. When I try to lift the arm with the arm lift it pivots on the lift, lifting the knife edge off its pivot block. I got the force down to ~10 grams by putting a large steel washer behind the counterweight. Either I have to come up with a more refined auxiliary counterweight or I may mount the RPX on an old Audax arm which I have and put an armbord extension on the left side of the Kenwood. So far I have not tried this cartridge on mono Lps. That will have to wait until I can get the tracking force in the 5 gram region. The try with the Ella 78 sounded pretty good. Who knows, I may become a mono cartridge for mono records convert yet. Of course the Shure cartridge will have to remain for the Edisons.

Phil

Joe and Phil,

Am I glad you guys have experience with this. It's crickets over at audiogon, a search through their forums really doesn't provide any real depth into shellac. They probably laugh I inquire about a $40 mm cart (each Expert TE styli costs $165 though), but I don't waste any time reading about their $XXXX mc carts so it's only fair. Shellac reproduction is like a desert among audiophiles.

Your guys' advice convinced me to sum to mono before my McIntosh C8's now! It's almost a relief because why would I want to obsess about which groove wall was better when their sum is the best of all, especially for staying in analog! The C8 does have a rumble filter by the way. Splicing tape is really old school, I watched my former mastering engineer do a couple splices on some pops, no doubt it would take a lot of patience for old shellac transfers. I probably won't get into that because the sound quality is so damn amazing already I'm not bothered by noise any longer.

I do own several vertical discs on Pathe which have never been reissued in any format and eventually I'll have to accommodate for that. The C8 doesn't have a vertical mode so I have no idea how that's gonna work?

Phil I'm curious about the GE RPX you're using, I'm surprised it works at all on your SME unless it's the first version that's all stainless steel? I have Ortofon 309s on my Garrard so it shouldn't be a problem for me in the future if I try it out.

The SET tube amp I'm going for is custom made to order so it'll be at least another three months before my 'holy grail' system is up and running. I'll definitely be posting here once it's going. I might be tempted to post some pics of the rest of my system in the meantime.

spinning fast,
78 Arch

[78 archivist]

C Phil,

I once lost the counterweight to my 3012 series II 'improved' arm and ended up taping a steel washer on the back too. I didn't find anything wrong with it and even found it sounding better than the lighter stock weight.

10 grams sounds really high still, what's the recommended force for RPX? The cart looks pretty heavy for your SME but I believe shellac's more forgiving with compliance issues.

78 arch

[Coffee Phil]

Hi 78 Arch,

5 grams is what sticks in my head for the RPX but I will have to check before I'm satisfied that I have it set up properly. I wasn't too afraid to play a 78 RPM shellac at 10 grams but before I try it with my mono Lps I want to be sure it is right.

I don't have a problem with adding an auxiliary weight behind the existing weight but I'm trying to figure what to do about the outrigger. It has been a long time since I set up the SME but I think is is positioned based on where the counterweight ends up. I do want what ever additional weights I need for the RPX to be sort of snap on without disturbing the normal weights. If there are any SME gurus out there I am open to suggestions.

The old Audax does have its appeal as I like funky old things but it won't fit under the Kenwood dustcover. I have started to gather stuff to make the arm-board for it. What I am considering is to screw a couple of pieces of angle iron to the bottom of the Kenwood plinth and mount an oak block to the angle iron on which I'll mount the Audax.

Phil