What did 78 records really sound like when they were new? (PART 1)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2024
- This video details the playing of a vintage 78 recording using a record manufactured in 1949. The record shown has never been played prior to this making of this movie and is a 70 year old example of new stock as it was back in 1949. This test is not representative of all NOS, but only a test of this particular stock, so making a determination on original background noise levels is difficult to assertain without further examples to compare.
I have a 78 RPM set of the Grand Canyon Suite, and when played on a turntable with appropriate equalization, the lesser-played sides have nearly zero background noise. The fidelity is surprisingly good.
Holy cow. I have that same album. It's really good.
I think it can be better than vinyl, because of the speed: as 45 RPM sounds better than 33 RPM, it's natural that 78 RPM will sound really better.
But it gets worse faster than vinyl, and old gramophones has a very heavy cartridge, so it denigrate the records. And the resources of its time also influences on the quality.
Towards the end of the 78 era, London (and perhaps others) released classical music 78s pressed on vinylite, harder and quieter than shellac as used for standard 78s. My dad gave me some of those about 1960 when he replaced them with LPs. I recall that even on my Webcor record player, the improved sound quality and tonal range was remarkable.
@@rogerb5615 I concur with that based on my fathers' collection from his father. The records from the 1940s had a ton of surface noise and distortion, but a 78 from the mid 1950s had much lower surface noise and quality. (the 1955ish record in that collection was the "Gonna Get Along Without You Now" recording) Same record cartridge, same turntable, but a vast difference in the material used to make the record and perhaps the recording style too before that. (perhaps taped on magnetic tape in studio before going to the record cutter...)
@@peterfiveland3553 I’m 71 years old and when I was a boy growing up in the UK our gramophone only played 78s. Most of the records were pretty noisy, but by no means all. In 1970 in Australia I was given a set of Tchaikovsky 12 inch 78s in pristine condition and the surface noise was comparable to vinyl LPs of the day. Sadly they were very fragile and some fool at a party demonstrated that by smashing them at a party. My very first LP purchase also met its end that night: Jimi Hendrix _Are You Experienced?_ that would likely be worth a few bob these days...
Alcohol based cleaner dissolves the shellac, the correct way to clean them is dish soap and water to rinse them.
Exactly
If you really want to care for your records you should buy an ultrasonic and wash lightly with very dilute dish soap mixed with RO water. With the stock being so old there is a good chance mold has grown in the grooves probably not a great deal but nature abhors a vacuum so microscopic mold/fungus spores floating around the shop floor sttled into the grooves and humid air is enough to get some growth.
@@CulturedThugPoster agreed I do this as well before i let records hit the turntable.
I clean mine with a wire brush.
@@EggnogonthebogProductions *stares in confused normie*
Don't mean to burst your bubble, but these 78's have been played before, and several times. You can see many scars on the label near the spindle hole made by the spindle when someone was about to play them. You can also see slight concaving (or convexing) around the spindle hole indicating that these records were stack-played on an automatic player. Also, a new 78 does not have the background noise yours has, I've owned several brand new 78 records and they all sounded fantastic. BTW, record company employees who packed the records always wore gloves so they don't leave any fingerprints and they were always handled by the edge and spindle hole, the grooves were not to be touched.
This isn't what they sounded like brand new. That D3 fluid contants alcohol which melts shellac so some audio quality was lost with that.
My heart sank when he said he cleaned it with that!
Absolutely bless him he sadly is a threat to the world of 78 records , but hopefully he will glean some wisdom from our comments . I would have loved the opportunity to have played his records on my system but ha ho life is never that simple , unlike the person in question
@@Mc674bo A lot of late 78s were pressed with vinyl. This one is from 1949 and the vinyl LP was introduced in 1948. So there is a possibility that this is made from vinyl.
@@arthursredni1598 ; Uhh, no. Not from RCA in 1949.
@@arthursredni1598 RCA Continued to make their 78's in shellac till the late 1950's. The Radio Promos which had white labels & some of their Kiddie 78's were vinyl or vinyl type though in this era.
When I was a teenager,I tried cleaning a Glenn Miller 78 from WWII with alcohol and it took the finish right off of it. I learned the hard way to never use alcohol or anything stronger than very mild solution of slightly soapy water on a shellac 78, and I wouldn't risk alcohol with the later vinyl ones, either. Also, I seriously doubt that these are previously unplayed and unhandled, despite the presence of original packing material.
They more than likely got played once at the factory for testing before being sealed
Alcohol is good for cleaning Edison records but 78s nope
Alcohol is basically in every cleaning solution for vinyl records and there is no evidence that shows that it would affect the material in anyway. And also why would they not be unhandled and unplayed if they where sealed ? Sure handling in the factory and maybe testing but that would be it I presume.
@@trevor245 78 RPM Records are not made of vinyl
@@elmoredneal5382 No shit sherlock. He said "I learned the hard way to never use alcohol or anything stronger than very mild solution of slightly soapy water on a shellac 78, and I wouldn't risk alcohol with the later vinyl ones, either."
A brand-new shellac record will sound amazingly good,
and it will sound better if played with a magnetic cartridge equipped with the proper size tip.
The best results will come with the use of appropriate frequency response in the playback chain.
Blew my mind thinking that there were still fingerprints. Very cool video
I wish we could have heard that record on a higher fidelity sounding player, it would have been worth the video time and effort.
Califone record players were made to be rugged and used in schools. They do sound awful though.
@@bactanite Well they are 100% sounding better than a grammophone. ;) I think what Mike meant was that it would have been nice to have gotten an direct feed from the record player through the lineout...
Let’s hear it on a 1940s console radio turntable! Yeah they take up floor space but are my favorite type of equipment to hear 78s on!
@@katho8472 I once got to play an Yma Sumac record on a wind up gramophone - it sounded way better than that Caliphone - very smooth, pure sound, with very little noise. Still have the record, but the gramaphone was not mine. Wind it up, engage the clutch, lower the needle, open the baffles - quite a spiritual experience. "Don't use the low needle..."
@Lloyd Stout re: "Folks who believe they can hear fidelity on TH-cam "
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Maybe you are referring to ppl who listen to YT on their iPhones? Some of us use good gear to listen to YT via high-end PCs ...
I think if you were to invest in a better deck and high quality 78 cartridge you would find a better standard of play back . 78 records per say are not that bad sounding, but modern equipment can really bring out the best of the format . Also if you have pitch control you can modulate the speed to reflect the production of the record which can vary to sum degree . I must admit you have done very well in finding such a wonderful collection . Best wishes and kind regards. 😀👍
I find that a GE "Magnetic Variable reluctance" mono cartridge with a conical diamond sounds best..
Yes just use new ,the lnly problem 78where very hard on the pickup where there hard in nidels
It's actually "per se."
Most record players are set with the standard RIAA equalization for microgrove records. Playing it on a good turntable with a quality cartridge/stylus connected to a preamp with selectable equalization would sound much better. Also EQ should roll off above 12K Hz as their is little or no audio above that frequency, but lots of surface noise.
Also worth noting for anyone else playing these records: pre-1958 shellac 78s expect a 3.0 mil needle. Vinyl 78s, 33s, and 45s use a 0.6 mil needle. That can make a huge difference in sound quality.
I had some old kiddie records I used to play for my kids and one I had a 45 and a regular size 78. The 78 had a whole LOT more sound come out of it.
There was no single standard of equalization for 78 records. The RIAA curve did not come along until the mid 1950s. High end preamps in the early days of "Hi-Fi" had "turnover" and "rolloff" controls which needed to be set for each record brand for the most accurate sound.
Repent and trust in Jesus. we deserve Hell for our sins. For example lying, lusing, saying God's name as a cuss word and stealing our just some examples of sin which we can all admit to doing at least one of those. For our sin we deserve death and Hell, but there is a way out. Repent anf trust in Jesus and you will be saved. Repentence is turning from sin. So repent and trust in Jesus. He will save you from Hell, and instead give you eternal life in Heaven.
John 3:16
Romans 3:23❤😊❤❤
@@smithno41That's the point that most people miss. For every record company that produced discs, there was a different equalization curve - there was no standard for 78 rpm discs.
What is amazing is that 30 years earlier in the late 1920's, Columbia had a recording process and surface--and by extension Okeh and other derivatives such as Clarion and Harmony after 1930--called Viva-Tonal that was absolutely silent, that would produce no surface noise, practically equivalent to the vinyl LP's of the late 40's and early 50's. This process was lost by the mid-30's due to economic factors and would never be experienced again. Here's an example of a 1928 Okeh Electric being played on a wind-up Victrola: th-cam.com/video/Hytvm3bma_k/w-d-xo.html
I LOVE late Harmony records ('27-'29), the last of the acoustic recordings. Apparently, Columbia bought them the best of the best recording equipment and they sound amazing.
@@Bigbadwhitecracker And the vocals are usually fully electric I've noticed!
Many players had the hiss, I believe it was more the players than the records themselves. Just what I remember as a kid.
In follow up to this. I recently purchased some vintage phonograph equipment (Grundig Majestic with new stylus) and could not detect any hiss when played on that unit. Perhaps the Caliphone I used in the video is too sensitive.
Not enough tracking force, unlike vinyl, shellac actually needs those grams on it…
You are correct in your assumption. As someone else said these are a 1949 repress and the record player and tone arm is incompatible with your records
“Here’s the packaging” (ripped open / destroyed)
“We’ll get to hear this for the first time” (I’ve already played it)
“Never been removed” (I’ve already cleaned it REALLY hard and still can’t get the finger marks out)
“Let’s play it” (plays 3 seconds of it)
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What a joke man! Sad to see this wait 70+ years to be abused like that.
I think they sounded better than that when new. I believe record players back then had less treble response. Especially the acoustic wind-up players. I think equipment is as important as the media being playing on it. I've seen TH-cam videos of 78's being played, and they sound great. (Assuming it's not dubbed with something or filtered)
I have always thought trebley singers went well eith old, acoustic recording. Think Jimmy Rogers or Caruso
Thanks for all the comments. I didn't realize there was such interest in these old records. I thought I was the only one. Yes, I used the correct stylus on the record player. I do have other 78 records that I have played on that same player, that do not generate much of any hiss, so I thought the baseline was pretty good. I also carefuly adjusted the weight of the tone arm on the phonograph. I also have a 1957 Magnavox Astro Sonic tube driven record player and it sounds better on that one with proper stylus (As it did with the Grundig) I have cleaned records before with the vintage fluid. I have not noticed any degradation in the process, but I am not an all knowing expert. I appreciate the comments.
In my own experience... It was an RCA Victor record exactly like these that I first discovered on my own that alcohol ruins shellac 78's. In my case it stripped ALL the shiny surface off & was left with a rough discolored playing surface. I never used an alcohol based item on my 78's after that! Interestingly so though... I had been using alcohol on all my 78's prior to my misfortunate event & none of my 78's seemed to have any damage from it... Not even my Victor 78's from the 1920's! But but nevertheless... When it ruined my RCA-Victor 78 I stopped using it completely. So I'm sure the stuff you used caused a little damage... But since it's diluted, it's not as noticeable.
The best way to record the audio would be hooking the turntable directly to the Computer (using the pre-amp of course, or USB, if it has one). The Shure M78S is a good cartridge/stylus for playing 78rpm records. It comes with a pair of interconnectors to play in mono.
and then use a software like Soundforge, to clean away the hiss, hum, clicks and pops... without degrading the original musical content of the record 😁
Getting a better player with proper 3mm needle will work wonders
You also need to apply the correct equalization, since the RIAA curve which all modern phono preamps have did not exist until about the mid 1950s
I have an Elvis 78 hard headed woman and it still sounds brand new
You know that feeling you get from hearing a favorite song of yours? This was *someone's* favorite track. That's cool.
Thanks for sharing your new shellacs with us! I believe shellac may develope some hiss trough the years, even without use, because depending on the formulation it could shrink a bit, making microscopic cracks. It's just a matter of luck, I think.
Cheers!
For authentic sound you need an original 78 player.
From 1949 records made after about 1935 will not play properly on an acoustic machine
The biggest problem with accurately playback of 78 RPM discs is the equalization. Long before standard equalization was introduced around 1954, every record production company had its own form of equalization that was applied during the cutting process. There were nearly 150 different equalization curves and the only way to ensure accurate playback was to use the same filtering as was used when the disc was cut.
Modern phonographic pre-amps all employ RIAA equalization, but any disc produced before 1954 would likely not have been cut with this filter curve (it isn't certain at what point the RIAA equalization was formally adopted) so any 78 RPM record played on a modern turntable will not sound the way it was intended or recorded at the time.
The record was produced on valve equipment, therefore you need to play it on a turntable that employs the same technology - a point a lot of people don't actually appreciate.
not really, you'll be fine with transistor amplifier - just need a fucking record player an stereo
Hopefully one day you'll learn how to clean 78's as well as handle records properly.
I know little about 78s, but winced when I saw the fingers gripping the edge like that.
No--- the hiss is not from age. It comes from the recording process. Even many years later recordings had hiss, although not as much. As I recall learning when digital recording was invented, it did away with hiss,but lost some of the warmth of analogue recording. From the early 70s on the sound became very high fidelity despite being analogue still at that time.
For the hiss, perhaps period record players weren't as sensitive to high pitches such that a setting a bit more towards bass would've been appropriate.
As for "the first album when you played it"... in this case the whole collection there, in a book form, was the album; the individual records were not albums in and of themselves. But this is where the term "album" for a single record containing multiple tunes to a side comes from.
Why yes, i am bring pedantic, but I'm also a fan of etymologies.
Super nice find and many thanks for playing these for us.
Cheers!
I have to say, I might have kept that outer paper wrapper in excellent condition too with its lovely period graphics.
It's also my understanding that some sort of equalization curve (predecessor to RIAA) was applied to 78s too.
I had a McIntosh C8 preamp. It came with a chart to set ste switches (there were quite a few) for the 'Label' being played (Every company seemed to have their own curve. RIAA became the standard.
A fun listen was a 33 recording of the original Orson Wells War of the World. You can hear the response changing as each transcription disk was played to make The LP.
I have lots a interesting 78s , they still sound fantastic , I have a Jolson from 1921 , it’s over a hundred years old and it still plays perfectly , I tend to look for really old records now I’m in my 50s , I want to preserve these lovely old recordings
A tell tale sign that a record has been played is compression marks on the paper label which have been traced out when the record was placed on the turntable. Unless the record is placed down on the mat dead centre, you will always get tracks skidding across the paper label and zoning in on the centre hole. The marks are caused by the pointed centre spindle on it's way to find the locating centre hole on the record.
These records here do not display these marks so it is safe to assume they are unplayed.
“Standard record player” - “The needle is new”
Did you use a 78RPM needle for replacement, or a standard record needle replacement?
The 78’s require a special needle*
You will hear more hiss if the stylus is not the right size. Other than that, that's the best I ever heard a 78!! Thank you for sharing 😊
Each piece is a record. The whole collection is an album - like a photo album. You wouldn't call each photo an album. 78s sound better on proper equipment. Were you using a 78 stylus (needle), or an LP stylus? 78 grooves are wider and require a wider needle. They will hiss when using an LP needle. I think people who know more about the items they're reviewing should be the ones to make videos about them.
I was going to ask that but found your post instead. It sounded to me like an LP stylus, so I am curious too
Players from the 50s and 60s had a switchable stylus head marked 'LP' on one side and '78' on the other for the reasons stated above.
@@godfearingheathen Hey you're right! I'd completely forgotten that little fact.
I was just going to comment re: the first point you made, after hearing him erroneously call one of the discs 'an album'. It's only when seeing a book of shellac discs like this that it makes sense of why we call a larger collection of about 8 or more tracks packaged together 'an album', even still today in the streaming era when the 'package' isn't even tangible, and arguably isn't very meaningful either in a world of cherry-picked tracks, and weekly playlists 'curated' by the platform (probably with money changing hands for the privelidge of being 'curated' onto the playlist).
@@MrDannyDetail , and the origin of calling a bound 'book' of paper record-sleeves an "album" is that it resembles an album for photographs. And why were books for photographic prints called "albums"? It comes from the fact that many early paper photographs (as opposed to those on metal and those on glass) had emulsion made of the whites of chickens' eggs-and "albumin" is another name for egg-whites.
Oh dear, such a shame to relate to lack of knowledge on such a grand scale. The styli used for 78 can be devided into three groups for correct reproduction. I doubt that the equalisation curve used in the electrical circuit of that player was correct as it did not tail off a lot of that hiss which has also been surmised as maybe caused by use of the wrong cleaning materials. The peak distortion on piano notes is undoubtely caused by miss tracking by use of an incorrect stylus probably .0028" which is the smaller size used toward the end of 78rpm records instead of .0035" which was in use at the time of manufacture of these pressings. There are lots of books and writings available on the subject. Indeed the information contained in your own Library of Congress could have given you all the information necessary, including how to clean.
exactly, this video might have been well intentioned but it doesn't illustrate what these records sound like.
I also cringed at the way he was handling the record, putting his own fingerprints on the record by pulling it out of the sleeve by pinching the record itself to pull it out, and kept holding onto the record by its playing surface. The correct handling of records is essential as well, especially something that old! I would still like to hear what that record would actually sound like when played properly, and with the sound output routed directly into the PC. What I heard in this video is not what the record actually sounds like and was really quite disappointing.
I enjoyed the video. Why are you people sounding so condescending? Relay your knowledge but don't sound so patronising.
Shellac 78s have wider grooves. When using a needle/cartridge designed for vinyl, what's happening is the needle is scraping the surface of the record between the grooves rather gliding along the walls of the groove. This is what's causing the additional noise.
Modern record players EQ the sound with an RIAA curve. 78 records are recorded flat or NAB. Playing a 78 record on modern equipment will increase bass and highs, and will not sound as intended. That is why you hear so much background noise.
There must be millions and millions of 78s still kicking about there's usually hundreds of them in every charity shop you walk into .
There’s a lot of talk of surface noise developing with age and suchlike here. Obviously we can’t go back to hear them fresh from the factory, but I have an old Spike Jones 78 pressed for radio broadcast only- it’s pressed on vinyl (rather than shellac), presumably for the better audio quality. The shellac 78s had slate used as a filler in order to sharpen the steel needles to better fit the groove- this kind of abrasive quality is, I I suspect, the main reason why there is so much surface noise with 78s.
Are you using a micro-groove needle?
78’s are cut in standard groove, which is a wider than 33/45’s rpm records.
My guess is that hiss you hear is feedback echoing from the open area around the needle.
Sound great. I always wanted to hear a brand new 78 record from the 1920's.
78s in good condition played back with the right stylus, cartridge and eq can sound amazing. I have heard them played on quality players from the era. They were never meant to be played on school issue record players.
This album was a 1949 reissue of tracks originally recorded between 1940 and 1942, when Billy Eckstine was the band singer for Earl "Father" Hines. Obviously the reissue was done to take advantage of Eckstine's subsequent popularity as a solo artist. I've heard excellent sound from relatively unworn 78's of classical music, and I suspect they sounded better than this because they may have been pressed on superior material and they almost certainly were played less often.
Going on what you’re saying, unless the original recordings were made on tape, these are transfers of older shellac recordings. That means we’ve got a recording of surface noise rendered through additional surface noise.
It’s possible that all three factors are at work here.
It’s possible that these are repressings from the original stampers.
Being a 1949 reissue, it is more likely that the original sides were transferred to tape before they were re-issued, as tape machines were in wide use at that time.
It is also possible that the original record was played into a direct feed, tapeless, into the cutter for the re-issue. This method, plus the tape method, would both give us a combination of both the original surface noise plus the surface noise on the current record.
In any event, yes, a lot of the noise probably is coming from the use of the wrong stylus as well.
I don't think they used tape masters until much later and then only the big companies like Capitol, RCA, Columbia, etc. They have 78 acetate masters which wear out and break and are a general pain the the a**. Why does "I'll never smile again" by Tommy Dorsey, et al. always sound so horrid, because the master broke back in the '40s so they find the best copy available. Why has Crosby's first version of White Christmas never been rereleased (1941)? Not because it broke but because it wore out by making so many copies from it. We have only had the 1947 version rereleased over and over again.
Me on playing old records on modern equipment: “Hissing and crackles.”
Also me: “Mmm, hissing and crackles.”
A bloke at work found a box of NOS 78rpm needles - not cartridges. That record needs an old player that runs in lo-fi and not hi-fi.
3 things: as another commenter has pointed out, alcohol cleaner softens and dissolves shellac, if that’s a shellac 78. Also, you’re probably using the wrong stylus - modern records have a 0.7 mil “micro groove” but the 78s have a 3 mil groove which is designed for a 3 mil stylus. Using a 3 mil 78 stylus will remove most of the hiss. (Ortofon still sells special 78 cartridges). Lastly, old 78 players had much less high treble so you wouldn’t hear that high frequency hiss. The preamp EQ may also be wrong for the 78s of that era
They sounded liek that originally! tahnks for the Video!
I grew up in the 1950's so am very familiar with 78's and groove noise and other recording artefacts. They quickly gained a scritchy scratchy sound with use. I remember how the needles wore out and learned how to change them. The family favorite was Kate Smith, favorite song - Twenty One Years. I remember well how records would skip when someone crossed the room, and so everyone had to sit still to listen to a song. I remember the main entertainment was listening to the radio for a couple of hours on a Sunday evening.
I don't miss those terrible old records and the terrible record players and the terrible sounf reproduction, but I do miss the way performer's had to have real talent back then. People like Satchmo, Al Jolson, Ella Fitzgerald, Sinatra, Nat King Cole couldn't mask imperfections with digital enhancement, and performances had a greater sense of "aliveness" because of that lack of over-production. I seems like the performers were doing it for art and the joy of singing instead of doing it to be a celebrity. Singers relied on the quality of their voice rather than just a slick video.
All of the noise vanished when we got better turntables and needles.
That's a childs "CLOSE AND PLAY" record player.
CHEAP!
You wouldn't get those sounds from a Magnetic Cartridge Needle.
@@lonniedobbins1195 All of the noise never vanished. you still hear it with the best equipment, but it is much diminished. Howerever in 1957 that was an unimaginable distant future. Needles were a big seller back then with higher grades that promised better results but in reality were only marginally better at best. As someone who grew up with the reality of those terrible monoaural recorderdings that suffered at every stage from poor microphones at the recording stage to the limitations of the players. I remember the late 60's when recordings had improved dramatically, but having to spend 20 grand hand building HiFi equipment with giant speakers and vain attempts to reduce wow and flutter, and using expensive reel to reel decks, then big improvements in equipment in the 80's and 90's, and of course the joy of the CD revolution when we could finally hear music without the so-called warmth of record artefacts. I went through it all, and I shudder at the limitations we experienced back in the 50's.
I can't believe you went through all the trouble of cleaning the record and then using bare fingers to pull it out of the sleeve! Jeez.
Wow beautiful bass and clarity for a new record made in the old days. Amazing, beautiful and fresh in spite of the passing of time. I think the hiss is caused by how the needle interacts with the shellac because it was such a hard material. Thank you so.much for sharing such a rare and beautiful item♥️♥️♥️🙏🏽🎶🎶
There was always some surface noise, because shellac surface is cast rather than injection molded like an LP. further complicating that was the variety of substrates used. Another problem is modern phonograph needs are narrower than the needles of the era these records were made in and that lets the tip rest near the bottom which also adds to the hiss.
Powdered stone was added to shellac to make it harder wearing.
Each disc is a RECORD. The entire collection is an ALBUM, which is why LPs and CDs are called albums. This original album (a few records in an actual album) is the source of the word.
Incredible that those fingerprints survived so long
Are we certain they aren't his? No-one with any understanding would hold a record that way, but he does.
All that hiss is why vinyl was such a major breakthrough when it came out because shellac, used in the earlier 78s was course and noisy. If you really want to hear the best sound you could get off a 78 RPM record, find one of the vinyl ones that came out before the newer microgroove records were introduced to the public in 1949. (I think they heavily touted their "noiseless" and "unbreakable" qualities when vinyl records were introduced.)
The hiss is caused by the type of needle used. For the type of record, produced so it could be played on a wind ip gramophone type machine, the correct needle is a soft cactus type. On the record player you used, your needle is of a gemstone type. This kind will automatically begin to carve into the record groove snd cause the hiss..
The reason for the hiss was due to my opinion that he wasn't using a 78 RPM stylus.
Or a windup acoustic phonographs with steel needles and a heavy tonearm that tracks over 100 grams.
Sure, a camera mic seven feet away from a bad, portable record player - that's the true test of fidelity. If I could, I'd go to this guys house and sneeze on those 78s...and then on him.
It’s funny because the hissing effect might have been a result of the techniques they were using to record or mass produce at the time.
These days, there are music producers who purposely alter the quality of their recordings to get that vintage sound effect.
There are audio production plug-ins designed to emulate tape/vinyl saturation.
Sometimes I like to record my audio and run it into a cassette then run the output back into the computer.
The hissing is the needle.
That's the sound of the record player itself.
The cartridge is dragging on the record.
That's a cheap record player.
I own a victrola and the records are like just new from 1916 and they sound amazing
Can anyone comment on the music itself? I dont know the piece or the orchestra, but the players did not sound like they were together on the little sample you shared with us. It happens a lot with live music…first few measures on a banana peel, until everybody tightens up eventually…i wonder if early recording artists concerned themselves with that? Very cool video!!
This is fascinating. I never use isopropyl alcohol to clean vinyl as it leaves a residual crackle. Best quick fix is zippo lighter fluid
The 78s made after 1948 were of a lesser quality shellac and you have to be careful you don't break off an edge. Also the hiss was from the graphite they put in the records to resist record wear. In 1949, they were still using steel needles with steel tone arms that were relatively heavy. Also, the hiss was more noticeable on the later shellac 78s because the technology had greater pickup than the records in the early 40s and before
Sounds wonderful
I personally have always loved the look, feel, and sound of 78's. Later vinyl is superior sounding of course, but I actually like the fast hiss in the background of early jazz recordings. Some labels offered very good quality and others are noisy, even in mint condition. By the late '50's they were much improved, but the market for them grew ever smaller. I believe 1960 was the end.
Shellac Records were still made in the 70's HMV took them out of the catalogues in 1962
@@benw26 Wow! 78RPM's? I know in America, other than some commemorative pressing, 78's were gone by '60. I had even read that was debatable. Many will say '59.
There's beatles 78's.
@@kensims4086 Not in the US
@@kensims4086 And Elvis
I love this. An all in one system back in the day. I'm an audiophile but this so cool!
To get the best out of 78rpm records you really need the right player. I have an HMV 157 cabinet model with a 5b soundbox. The sound quality is great with very little hiss although I find HMV (Victor) have more surface noise than other makes such as Columbia, Brunswick and Decca
The needle used for modern records is not as wide as a needle used originally for 78's. generally, use a basin of lukewarm distilled water with a DROP or two of mild dishwashing detergent using a soft-bristled toothbrush (I use a small child's toothbrush). FOLLOW THE GROOVE - DO NOT GO AGAINST THE GROOVE. (Note: there is usually only ONE groove on each side of a record, unless it is a Jimmie Rodgers' Puzzle record). Dry on a clean, soft lint-free cloth. (I use a cotton sack-cloth dish towel.)
What cartridge/stylus are you using? There are different types, even for 78's.
It depends on the quality of the original recording, but a 78 record can sound almost the same a a 33 1/3 record if played on good equipment. As someone old enough to have heard 78s when they were almost new I never really noticed much of a difference between 78, 33 1/3 and 45 other than size and playing time.
As it turns out, you are correct. Check out my second video under the same title, but Part 2. "What did 78 records really sound like when new - Part 2)
Most of the record players sold in recent years that can turn records at 78 RPM do not have the correct stylus radius, and this increases the hiss, clicks and pops. And they have cheap electronics.
I inherited hundreds of 78 RPM records from my father, some of which he had played, but most had not been played. The ones he had played were ruined, but the unplayed records, when played on a 1960's era quality turntable with a good cartridge AND THE CORRECT STYLUS sound very good.
DO NOT clean 78 RPM records with cleaners meant for microgroove, or anything other than plain soap and water.
Many people believe 78 RPM records lack bass, but this is due to preferences at the time. Until the transistor era, amplifiers had a power output of only a few watts and could not handle the heavy bass often found on CD's.
However, in the 1950's, many rock & roll recordings were released on both 78 and 45 RPM. I have some songs in both formats. They sound just the same as far as hiss, distortion and frequency response goes - provided each is played with its correct stylus and with the correct equalisation in the preamp, and have never been played on an acoustic player, or any player made before the 1950's (these had a heavy playing weight that wears away the record surface, exposing the grit filler). The 78 RPM records have an advantage - they do not warp. 45's and 33's warp which puts vocals off key. Neither 78's, nor 45's and 33's come anywhere near the technical quality of CD's - but bear in mind that good producers in the 78 era knew what they had to work with, and designed their production to exploit 78 RPM to its best advantage. Music recorded in the 78 era can sound less "musical" or not quite right when available on CD.
Even thought it is was unplayed, 70 years of direct contact with acidic paper can give you surface noise. A lot depends on the temperature and humidity that the record was stored at all those years.
Yeah, exactly. The album sleeves are actually murder on shellac, well vinyl too.
It sounds great is how it sounds. Playing 78s always makes me happy
If you kill somebody, just leave the record to throw the cops off your track.
Lt. O'Sullivan- "We ran the fingerprints...The killer has been dead for 40 years!! We're chasing a ghost!" Case closed.
My Dad had a whole collection of 78s of classical music. There were normally extraneous sounds, more so than for 45s and LPs when I was young in the seventies.
A bit of hiss is an understatement. That was about a 5db snr.
Most, if not all, 78 rpm records had a canned, tinny sound to it. I think that was mostly due to the recording equipment at the time. I have to admit that the tune that was demonstrated in the video sounds like it should have been included in Fallout 3.
I just picked a mint copy of mozart 78 rpm set cheap from the goodwill. A library bought it new on april 29 1948 but it has barley been played. I was surprised at how good and clear the music was. To make the story short I will be buying 78's from now on along with 33's and 45's
These old records had abrasive powder added to the shellac which provided a bit of hiss. This was a trade - off against longevity of the record. This way the needle would wear out, (ever heard of single play, and 5-play needles?) not the record. Given the very heavy tracking weight of the gramophone, this was a very real consideration. With vinyl Lps tracking force was reduced to a mere 4 grams on good turntables by the late 1970's and to just 1,6 grams a decade later.
Not only did you use an improper cleaner for a shellac based record, but a better "playback" method should have been used. In that era, the best cartridge would have been a GE magnetic "Variable reluctance" cartridge, used with a good tube driven "push pull" amplifier and decent speakers...
Discwasher is the WORST thing to clean your records with. The velour brush doesn't lift the dust out; it pushes the dust into the grooves. And when the liquid dries, it forms a gunk that ruins the record and puts additional wear on the stylus.
Get a Pro-Ject VC-E record cleaning machine. After cleaning, use LAST record preservative. The noise floor will plummet. Use the VC-E every 15 -20 plays and use an AudioQuest carbon fiber brush in between. And never touch the carbon fibers or it will pull oil from your finger.
To understand the at time amazing amount of correct information that
Is often held in 78 rpm records, first of all you need the right turntable, the right tone arm, the correct cartridge with the correct cantilever and correct needle.
Then you need gthe right modern pre Amp with the right equalization curve the recor.d being played. Then you need a modern top level Amplifierand speakers which work well with the 78 sound. Once you have done that you can really start to I nderstannd the,as above mentioned, amazing amount of information 78's RPM records hold.
INCLUDING sometimes Directionality
So in a stereo system certain 78's and speakers 10 or more feet apart. When you play some 78 's a discernable SOUND
FIELD is generated. You can. HEAR the different placements on the performance stage which was recorded.
I know, but this HAS been demonstrated to me several times where the record IS the true and only source of the sound being produced by the system. I can't offer an insight. Into the physics what I heard but directionality was present
They sound pretty good, actually. Like most recordings, it depends on the production quality of the recording, as well as the condition of the media and the quality of the playback device. But I've converted a few 78 songs into MP3s on my computer, most notably "It's Love" by the DeCastro Sisters, and it sounds fine in comparison to my other mp3s from vinyl, cassette, or cd. Admittedly, I used some audio software to clean it up, but I'd do that with anything converted to computer.
Thank you for sharing this! It’s very interesting! ☮️🖖🏽
I have a Grady Martin 78 from 1955, at the end of the 78 era. Sounds good. Not the harminc width of a vinyl 33 but studios were getting good and by the late 40's, 78s sounded good
I dig new old stock when it comes to the automotive world.....can't beat the fit or quality , but Ive never heard a brand new 78 rpm record. Very cool. Most millennials or Gen Z think they didn't have good sound until the 90s-2000s. Hell, I still have me "made in Japan" late1970s receiver/tape deck and it blows away stereos made 30-40 years later. 3 way full size speakers of that era I think were far superior to the junk they make know, unless you spend a fortune. The old console stereos of the late 50s-60s sounded really well. Can't beat analog sound. CDs and digital are over rated
Most interesting thing I've heard today
This is not an accurate test because the needle for 78 rpm records had a wider stylus than the one being used here, which is designed for LP records that required a much narrower stylus. Thus the enhanced noise.
Vinyl at any speed will never sound as good as digital.
But 78s? Please!
I have about 150 78s and an old stand up crank up victrola. Sounds great.
Yeah, I don't bother playing 78s on anything but my Orthophonic with a soft needle anymore. (That said, I probably wouldn't play NOS on it except maybe with a bamboo needle or some other fibre.)
@2:08 I wonder why there are so many scratches around the spindle hole of an unplayed record.
Sounds clean
I have that same record on both formats; 78 rpm and 45 rpm. The 78 rpm has a much richer sound. The best turntable for playing 78 rpm records in good condition is a Garrard 4HF. Otherwise, a vintage electric player using steel needles is the way to go.
personally i would chalk up any problems with the audio quality to the medium of shellac and recording equipment of the time. those sounded phenomenal to me, all things considered. also, the 73 year old fingerprint was cool as fuck
I have heard 78's played on a late 60's RCA console stereo with the original 78 needle in it (these older stereos had flip-needles for the different sized grooves) They 78's sound remarkably good, and not a whole lot different than the microgroove 45's and 33's sound on the same stereo :) Having the proper stylus is very important when playing 78's. When Shure was making pickup cartridges, they even had a specific magnetic cartridge engineered to play 78 RPM records, with the proper stylus size, and equalization built into the cartridge
Very short demo, & is that considered a good turntable?
I've played some new old stock 78s before years ago my cousin bought me some at a closing record store in Michigan and brought them back to Connecticut it really depends on the record player that you use, unfortunately they never really sounded that great it was super high fidelity because of the speed but sound quality was not the greatest. Although I like the sound of a 78 record you don't hear that anywhere else.
As someone said in another comment, had you played the record on a newer more modern record player, most of the hiss and cracks you hear would be gone, I’ve got some old records that sound better..
Oops!! 1949 new old stock then played on a poor quality turntable, not mentioned what the stylus is, and that's all after contact with a cleaning fluid which tends to DISSOLVE shellac!
Why did you touch it so much? Shure makes a 78rpm cartridge/stylus. I have one on a 1970s garrard changer. Not sure a better, true 78-stylus cartridge exists
More impressive that the record was the cover. Beautiful condition. I have never seen a 78rpm album cover look so pristine. Yeah, you're always gonna get hiss on shellac. They always sound better on my 1926 Victor Orthophonic than they do on any electric machine. 78rpm is still my favorite format. So flexible.
Actually, the 12" 78rpm which are mostly classical and some jazz, sound unbelievably good by anybody's standards.
One of my grandmothers had what may well have been a late-1930s/early-1940s stand-up gramophone. It was about a metre and quarter tall built into a lovely wooden cabinet. It had a folded horn inside. Grandma had a few 1930s and 40s 'pop records'. In the late-50s and 60s. Some of them still sounded pretty good and even had pretty good bass. Unfortunately, the case is now a cocktail cabinet thanks to a cousin with, erm, different values than mine.
"A cousin with, erm, different values than mine..." Love how you put that! What you _don't_ say is how you would have liked to get to know him better; maybe in the convivial surroundings of your basement, where you could take advantage of the opportunity to familiarize him with the contents of your toolbox... A _Cocktail Cabinet!_ I mean, I like a Martini as much as the next person, but _really!_ Hanging's too good!
Gasoline would have eliminated all that noise from the record.
That's a 1949 re-issue of a 1941 recording, cleaned with the wrong cleaner, and played back with a cheap ceramic cartridge. This is not a good example of how a new 78 sounds.