78 noise

3 minute wonder
Post Reply
Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
United States of America
Posts: 5747
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

Re: 78 noise

Post by Coffee Phil » 11 Aug 2019 17:02

Not just "my theory", but history. Google can be your friend. When electrical recording started the vast majority of machines to play the records were acoustic, and in fact acoustic machines were common into the 1940s. A stake had been driven into the ground. Records had to play on these machines and sound reasonably correct. In addition to that there are technical advantages to constant amplitude recording. As I keep mentioning the RIAA curve did not appear until the 1950s. Each record company had their own recording curve and in many cases they were proprietary. In essence they all did pretty much the same thing: make the recording constant amplitude at least at the low frequencies. The turnover frequencies varied and record players had to resort to tone controls to tweak out the differences between records of different labels. Finally in the 1950s the RIAA tried to bring an end to this free for all by adopting RCA's "New Orthophonic" as the industry standard.

And yes RIAA EQ is not necessary. As I said there were many recording standards which did pretty much the same thing. It just makes good sense to agree on a standard and use it for compatibility.

Records from the time of acoustic 78s to the latest Lps are, for most of the useful frequency range, constant amplitude. If you are using an amplitude responding pickup such as crystal, ceramic, Philco beam of light, Weathers FM capacitance, or strain gauge you do not need playback EQ. The points of inflection at 500 Hz and 2120 Hz will not be addressed but the results are acceptable.

Phil

H. callahan wrote:
10 Aug 2019 07:21
Coffee Phil wrote:
09 Aug 2019 20:01
Hi Bob,

Thank You! What you linked does state that acoustic records are largely constant amplitude cut. My experience with acoustic records and my phono stage which with other playback curves can provide constant velocity or constant amplitude leads me to agree with that.

There is literature out there which says constant velocity so this has led to discussion (arguement). The fact that early electrical cutting heads were constant velocity and had to be equalized to make electrical records sound correct on machines which had been happily playing the old acoustic records also supports those of us in the constant amplitude camp for acoustic records.

Phil
So your theory is that electrical recording heads had to be equalized to make records sound ok on acoustic machines. And what happened when electrical playback became common? Did they stop to EQ and went back to constant velocity?

According to your theory all the RIAA stuff wasn´t necessary on electrical playback.

Bob Dillon
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 561
Joined: 03 Mar 2019 20:22

Re: 78 noise

Post by Bob Dillon » 11 Aug 2019 20:17

josephazannieri wrote:
11 Aug 2019 07:35


I did note one error in the film, which had nothing whatever to do with the description of the recording process, which was enlightening to me. In my digressive way, I can't resist bringing it up. There is a card near the end, which describes "Enrico Caruso as Pagliacci on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera House." This is incorrect, but it is a common error. I Pagliacci is the title of the opera. The Pagliacci are a troupe of actors. The character's name is Canio. He stabs his faithless wife to death as the audience watches, seeing only what they think is a play. My reference is Felix Mendelsohn's wonderful little book, "The Story of A Hundred Operas," at page 226.
The Caruso clip is from the dramatized film My Cousin, where Caruso plays a dual role - one as an opera singer named Caroli. Very doubtful it was filmed in actual perfomance at the Met, in case anyone gets that idea. In any case, the film stock they used in the days of silent movies required the use of intense light from arc lamps (when shooting indoors) that would have been antithetical to a paying audience in the auditorium of the Met coming to see Caruso in I Pagliacci. Indeed, My Cousin was filmed in summer, 1918 when the Met season was off.

Caruso made another film around the same time called A Splendid Romance . He was payed $200,000 by Paramount for both films. A nice chunk of change in those days. Both films were relative bombs and that was that for his movie career.

OK, back to 78 noise, or constant amplitude vs. velocity, or general rambling on various 78 rpm topics, or something. :)

Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
United States of America
Posts: 5747
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

Re: 78 noise

Post by Coffee Phil » 11 Aug 2019 22:55

Hi Joe,

I did get out the Gershwin CD which you burned for me and took it upstairs to my in progress “stereo room”. My wife was watching movies in the family room so I retreated to my “man-cave”.

The only functioning CD player up there is an old Phillips portable. I put the disc on it and settled into the fine liner notes which you wrote. I got through Rhapsody In Blue OK and it sounded fine. The Soundstream software did it’s job. Partway through American In Paris things went south. It got very distorted and I heard scraping sounds out of the little machine. I jumped out of my chair and shut off the machine. I then opened the lid and held it almost closed such the the interlock let it play. I was relieved to find the the disc played and sounded fine. The little machine has a mechanical issue which I’ll have to find and fix.

After my wife went to bed and the movies were done I brought the disc downstairs. It turns out that the family room CD player has also gone south, but the blue ray player has a path to the sound system so I but Gershwin into it. American In Paris played fine. Later tonight I plan to listen to the disc in it’s entitreity.

Phil


josephazannieri wrote:
09 Aug 2019 20:44
Yo analysts of noise, and acoustic record freaks:

I have seen pictures of old acoustic record studios, and what they did was they stood the band and the singer up in front of a huge horn which funneled down to a small diaphragm which attached to a cutting stylus. The sound waves pushed against the diaphragm and the stylus, and cut an up and down groove into the record, regardless of whether the medium was a cylinder or a flat disc. This gave a resulting up and down groove which, on playback, pushed a small diaphragm in and out. The diaphragm was at the base of a bigger horn, which amplified the sound. Unfortunately, the sound, both in recording and playback took on the characteristic frequency response curve of the horns used for recording and playback. But, since there were no electronics in this process, there was no equalization that could be applied. I expect that these recordings were not true constant amplitude due to the irregularities in amplitude caused by characteristics of the horn used to make the recording.

Years ago, there was a system called Soundstream which was used to restore old recordings. What they did was they played the acoustic recording and analyzed the frequency irregularities cause by the process, and then they applied a reverse algorithm to the acoustic recording which flattened the response out, making a less "horny" sound. I have a copy of a Soundstream- processed 1924 acoustic recording of the Paul Whiteman band playing a shortened version, about 7 minutes, of George Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue." The process gave a remarkable result, though not exactly the same as a modern recording. I sent a copy of this recording to Phil, and I am sure that he will agree that the characteristic "horny" sound was no longer present.

As an aside, in my days as a theatrical sound man, I was once required to play a director picked modern recording to make it sound like an acoustic recording. I did not use filters in making the tape (It was 1976). What I did was play the modern recording through a 2 inch transistor radio speaker that I taped into the base of the horn of a prop acoustic record player. I then ran the playback, with the treble turned down, into the speaker. The result was a room-filling playback that returned the "horny" sound to the modern recording.

I am of the opinion that the question of whether an acoustic recording is indeed constant amplitude is answered at least experientially and anecdotally by reference to these anecdotes concerning elimination and addition of the "horny" sound characteristic, rather that by a theoretical or mathematical process. And good luck from that experiential and anecdotal old guy, whose motto is "It's all in the horn!",

Joe Z.

P.S. In closing I am not going to describe myself as "that horny old guy," because that's too easy, and, anyway, I am getting too old for that kind of stuff.

Joe Z. again

H. callahan
senior member
senior member
Posts: 840
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 17:59

Re: 78 noise

Post by H. callahan » 12 Aug 2019 03:18

Coffee Phil wrote:
11 Aug 2019 17:02
Not just "my theory", but history. Google can be your friend. When electrical recording started the vast majority of machines to play the records were acoustic, and in fact acoustic machines were common into the 1940s. A stake had been driven into the ground. Records had to play on these machines and sound reasonably correct. In addition to that there are technical advantages to constant amplitude recording. As I keep mentioning the RIAA curve did not appear until the 1950s. Each record company had their own recording curve and in many cases they were proprietary. In essence they all did pretty much the same thing: make the recording constant amplitude at least at the low frequencies. The turnover frequencies varied and record players had to resort to tone controls to tweak out the differences between records of different labels. Finally in the 1950s the RIAA tried to bring an end to this free for all by adopting RCA's "New Orthophonic" as the industry standard.

And yes RIAA EQ is not necessary. As I said there were many recording standards which did pretty much the same thing. It just makes good sense to agree on a standard and use it for compatibility.

Records from the time of acoustic 78s to the latest Lps are, for most of the useful frequency range, constant amplitude. If you are using an amplitude responding pickup such as crystal, ceramic, Philco beam of light, Weathers FM capacitance, or strain gauge you do not need playback EQ. The points of inflection at 500 Hz and 2120 Hz will not be addressed but the results are acceptable.

Phil
I´m aware that RIAA came up in the 1950s and that before similar EQ has been applied on electrical recordings, but differing depending on company.
Still you say that electrical recordings had to be EQd to play correct on acoustic machines. So what happened when playback became electrical? Why did they still EQ, if EQ only was necessary for playback on acoustic machines?

I see you have your opinion, just like you prefer to play your shellacs with a diamond needle, but you may want to go into my example with the acoustic guitar. Or the speaker, or the disco. Just for fun, or whatever makes you go into it.
You might be surprised.

Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
United States of America
Posts: 5747
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

Re: 78 noise

Post by Coffee Phil » 12 Aug 2019 06:06

OK, think about this: The mostly constant amplitude acoustic records and their players were the stake in the ground. The new records and future electric players had to be mutually compatible. In addition to that constant amplitude cutting has technical advantages. Early electrical recording EQ pretty much started with with constant amplitude at low frequencies changing to constant velocity at the bass turn frequency. As technology matured and it became feasible to extend the high frequency limit, the high frequencies were boosted with a corresponding cut in playback at the same frequency. The effect is that above the treble cut frequency the recording returns to constant amplitude.

Phil

PS: I believe I’m in pretty good company with diamond styli to play 78s. Shure used to make the N44-3 to play 78s with their M44 body. They also made one for their V15III. Joe can tell you about that. In addition Expert Stylus in the UK makes some fairly expensive styli for that purpose.

H. callahan wrote:
12 Aug 2019 03:18
Coffee Phil wrote:
11 Aug 2019 17:02
Not just "my theory", but history. Google can be your friend. When electrical recording started the vast majority of machines to play the records were acoustic, and in fact acoustic machines were common into the 1940s. A stake had been driven into the ground. Records had to play on these machines and sound reasonably correct. In addition to that there are technical advantages to constant amplitude recording. As I keep mentioning the RIAA curve did not appear until the 1950s. Each record company had their own recording curve and in many cases they were proprietary. In essence they all did pretty much the same thing: make the recording constant amplitude at least at the low frequencies. The turnover frequencies varied and record players had to resort to tone controls to tweak out the differences between records of different labels. Finally in the 1950s the RIAA tried to bring an end to this free for all by adopting RCA's "New Orthophonic" as the industry standard.

And yes RIAA EQ is not necessary. As I said there were many recording standards which did pretty much the same thing. It just makes good sense to agree on a standard and use it for compatibility.

Records from the time of acoustic 78s to the latest Lps are, for most of the useful frequency range, constant amplitude. If you are using an amplitude responding pickup such as crystal, ceramic, Philco beam of light, Weathers FM capacitance, or strain gauge you do not need playback EQ. The points of inflection at 500 Hz and 2120 Hz will not be addressed but the results are acceptable.

Phil
I´m aware that RIAA came up in the 1950s and that before similar EQ has been applied on electrical recordings, but differing depending on company.
Still you say that electrical recordings had to be EQd to play correct on acoustic machines. So what happened when playback became electrical? Why did they still EQ, if EQ only was necessary for playback on acoustic machines?

I see you have your opinion, just like you prefer to play your shellacs with a diamond needle, but you may want to go into my example with the acoustic guitar. Or the speaker, or the disco. Just for fun, or whatever makes you go into it.
You might be surprised.

Bob Dillon
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 561
Joined: 03 Mar 2019 20:22

Re: 78 noise

Post by Bob Dillon » 12 Aug 2019 19:01

Expert doesn't sell styli anymore, hasn't for several years. They offer retipping only.

Nauck's still has some sizes for the Shure M44 : https://shop.78rpm.com/index.php?id_pro ... on_catalog
But they announced awhile ago that they are phasing them out. Nauck's says that they will eventually offer a range of styli for the Audio-Technica AT95E instead. They announced them at the start of this year and as yet are still not available.

Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
United States of America
Posts: 5747
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

Re: 78 noise

Post by Coffee Phil » 12 Aug 2019 20:22

Hi Bob,

This is sad news! My N44-3 met with an unfortunate incident and I replaced it with a repackaged supposedly genuine Shure replacement repackaged by Astatic. It seems to be fine but I probably should get a backup while I can. Esoteric Sound has an elliptical for 78s to fit my cartridge. They have sound samples comparing it with a conical on their web site. I have been very tempted. I better jump on it while I can.

Phil
Bob Dillon wrote:
12 Aug 2019 19:01
Expert doesn't sell styli anymore, hasn't for several years. They offer retipping only.

Nauck's still has some sizes for the Shure M44 : https://shop.78rpm.com/index.php?id_pro ... on_catalog
But they announced awhile ago that they are phasing them out. Nauck's says that they will eventually offer a range of styli for the Audio-Technica AT95E instead. They announced them at the start of this year and as yet are still not available.

Bob Dillon
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 561
Joined: 03 Mar 2019 20:22

Re: 78 noise

Post by Bob Dillon » 12 Aug 2019 21:10

LP Gear has a (spherical 3.0 mil) replacement version of the N44 too. "Made by Japanese shokunin". For 30 bucks.

If it's like their LP Gear replacement for the Shure N78S, then it's probably good. The N78S replacement they sell is more robust, can take more tracking weight, than the stock Shure. I run it comfortably at about 5 grams, which can help cut down on surface noise.

Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
United States of America
Posts: 5747
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

Re: 78 noise

Post by Coffee Phil » 12 Aug 2019 23:59

Hi Bob,

This is a link to the stylus which is tempting me: https://www.esotericsound.com/CartStyli.htm

I'm not sure if the sound samples are for the Pickering or the Shure, but there is a decent price advantage for the Shure.

Your talk of these 78 styli going away may just scare me into buying this thing.

Phil
Bob Dillon wrote:
12 Aug 2019 21:10
LP Gear has a (spherical 3.0 mil) replacement version of the N44 too. "Made by Japanese shokunin". For 30 bucks.

If it's like their LP Gear replacement for the Shure N78S, then it's probably good. The N78S replacement they sell is more robust, can take more tracking weight, than the stock Shure. I run it comfortably at about 5 grams, which can help cut down on surface noise.

Bob Dillon
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 561
Joined: 03 Mar 2019 20:22

Re: 78 noise

Post by Bob Dillon » 13 Aug 2019 01:09

That's the REK-O-KUT 3.5 MIL ELLIPTICAL 78 RPM STYLUS D5135EJ I guess

In those sound samples, the "standard" 78 stylus is clearly skating because it's like a "standard" 2.7 or 3 mil or something, it's too small a tip. Then you hear the 3.5 mil D5135EJ and it sounds much better. Well of course, it's because the grooves on that record are better matched to a larger stylus. It's not necessarily because it's elliptical.

But I'll say one of my faves in my l'il stylus collection is a 3.5 mil truncated elliptical that I bought from Expert way back when. It's old now. It's given great service though. 3.5 is just a useful size. It plays many acousticals well, and it works very well on early electricals that often have grooves that are little wider.

H. callahan
senior member
senior member
Posts: 840
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 17:59

Re: 78 noise

Post by H. callahan » 13 Aug 2019 03:29

Coffee Phil wrote:
12 Aug 2019 06:06
OK, think about this: The mostly constant amplitude acoustic records and their players were the stake in the ground. The new records and future electric players had to be mutually compatible. In addition to that constant amplitude cutting has technical advantages. Early electrical recording EQ pretty much started with with constant amplitude at low frequencies changing to constant velocity at the bass turn frequency. As technology matured and it became feasible to extend the high frequency limit, the high frequencies were boosted with a corresponding cut in playback at the same frequency. The effect is that above the treble cut frequency the recording returns to constant amplitude.

Phil

PS: I believe I’m in pretty good company with diamond styli to play 78s. Shure used to make the N44-3 to play 78s with their M44 body. They also made one for their V15III. Joe can tell you about that. In addition Expert Stylus in the UK makes some fairly expensive styli for that purpose.
You still are assuming acoustics to be constant amplitude in the first place (and i know that there are benefits of constant amplitude if recording electrical).

You may want to go into the example i gave about the acoustic guitar, its strings, frequency and amplitude.

Regardings diamond styli i was reffering to the diamond needle you bought about two years ago for an electrical pickup having about 20g VTF.

Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
United States of America
Posts: 5747
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

Re: 78 noise

Post by Coffee Phil » 13 Aug 2019 07:49

Hi Bob,

The one which I am looking at is the N44-3E. It is what they are calling the low cost elliptical along with the D5130E for the Stanton cartridge. Now the question is if the samples which I heard is for the Shure. The samples for the stylus which you listed sound about the same to me.

Phil
Bob Dillon wrote:
13 Aug 2019 01:09
That's the REK-O-KUT 3.5 MIL ELLIPTICAL 78 RPM STYLUS D5135EJ I guess

In those sound samples, the "standard" 78 stylus is clearly skating because it's like a "standard" 2.7 or 3 mil or something, it's too small a tip. Then you hear the 3.5 mil D5135EJ and it sounds much better. Well of course, it's because the grooves on that record are better matched to a larger stylus. It's not necessarily because it's elliptical.

But I'll say one of my faves in my l'il stylus collection is a 3.5 mil truncated elliptical that I bought from Expert way back when. It's old now. It's given great service though. 3.5 is just a useful size. It plays many acousticals well, and it works very well on early electricals that often have grooves that are little wider.

Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
United States of America
Posts: 5747
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

Re: 78 noise

Post by Coffee Phil » 13 Aug 2019 09:08

Of coarse I assume that acoustic records are pretty close to constant amplitude. It is a rational assumption when I observe that virtually all my acoustic records sound pretty good when played back constant amplitude and shrill when played back constant velocity.

Now maybe having your pants fall off at a disco is an explanation of why acoustic records must be constant velocity, but I don't quite follow it. Regardless of what the Village People or Donna Summer might say, I still say that every acoustic record which I have played appears to be close to CONSTANT AMPLITUDE.

Phil


H. callahan wrote:
13 Aug 2019 03:29
Coffee Phil wrote:
12 Aug 2019 06:06
OK, think about this: The mostly constant amplitude acoustic records and their players were the stake in the ground. The new records and future electric players had to be mutually compatible. In addition to that constant amplitude cutting has technical advantages. Early electrical recording EQ pretty much started with with constant amplitude at low frequencies changing to constant velocity at the bass turn frequency. As technology matured and it became feasible to extend the high frequency limit, the high frequencies were boosted with a corresponding cut in playback at the same frequency. The effect is that above the treble cut frequency the recording returns to constant amplitude.

Phil

PS: I believe I’m in pretty good company with diamond styli to play 78s. Shure used to make the N44-3 to play 78s with their M44 body. They also made one for their V15III. Joe can tell you about that. In addition Expert Stylus in the UK makes some fairly expensive styli for that purpose.
You still are assuming acoustics to be constant amplitude in the first place (and i know that there are benefits of constant amplitude if recording electrical).

You may want to go into the example i gave about the acoustic guitar, its strings, frequency and amplitude.

Regardings diamond styli i was reffering to the diamond needle you bought about two years ago for an electrical pickup having about 20g VTF.

Bob Dillon
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 561
Joined: 03 Mar 2019 20:22

Re: 78 noise

Post by Bob Dillon » 14 Aug 2019 02:09

Even if the Trammps say it : https://youtu.be/A_sY2rjxq6M

Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
United States of America
Posts: 5747
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

Re: 78 noise

Post by Coffee Phil » 14 Aug 2019 04:34

Hi Bob,

No, not even if the Trammps say it! Until I see literature which is understandable from the period or someone’s paper where the early recording systems are modeled, and the operation is described with the laws of classical physics (stuff like F=MA, Hooke’s law, and a study on the force on a cutting
stylus moving through the sort of wax used in the day) I will assume that acoustic cut records are closer to constant amplitude than they are to constant velocity.

Interesting thing about the music in the link: Disco has from the start headed the list of music which I hate. While I would not listen to what you linked, I to be sure have heard stuff which annoys me even more. Is it possible that as I get older and even more senile I may come to like Disco?

Phil

Bob Dillon wrote:
14 Aug 2019 02:09
Even if the Trammps say it : https://youtu.be/A_sY2rjxq6M

Post Reply