Compared to cds from 78 sources how did the 78s sound

[medjuck]

In his notes to the new "Original Masters" Ellington 4 disc set Bruce Talbot mentions that "improved sound retrieval on these rather murky mid 30s recordings" allows us to better appreciate Duke's pre-Blanton bassists. I had started thinking about this when listening to the Mosaic Basie set. Were record listeners at the time of the music's original release able to hear the bass the way we do know when many of us have large speakers and even sub-woofers?

[Chuck Nessa]

In his notes to the new "Original Masters" Ellington 4 disc set Bruce Talbot mentions that "improved sound retrieval on these rather murky mid 30s recordings" allows us to better appreciate Duke's pre-Blanton bassists. I had started thinking about this when listening to the Mosaic Basie set. Were record listeners at the time of the music's original release able to hear the bass the way we do know when many of us have large speakers and even sub-woofers?

The recordings were made to match the playback equipment and sounded fine, back in the day. Many current cd transfers are only pale reflections of the originals.

[medjuck]

In his notes to the new "Original Masters" Ellington 4 disc set Bruce Talbot mentions that "improved sound retrieval on these rather murky mid 30s recordings" allows us to better appreciate Duke's pre-Blanton bassists. I had started thinking about this when listening to the Mosaic Basie set. Were record listeners at the time of the music's original release able to hear the bass the way we do know when many of us have large speakers and even sub-woofers?

The recordings were made to match the playback equipment and sounded fine, back in the day. Many current cd transfers are only pale reflections of the originals.

So the bass would sound just as present as it does today?

[Chuck Nessa]

Usually, but it depended on the player - just like today.

[Christiern]

I recall Wellman Braud's bass sounding terrific in the pre-LP days. Like Chuck says, it depended on the player--I would add that a good needle also made a difference. There were people who swore by wood needles, but there was also a big difference between metal ones. Remember, too, that those of us who are old enough to have listened on that equipment are also old enough to have listened before there was anything else. So, what sounded good back then might not sound quite as good when a comparison can be made.

That said, I also agree with Chuck that many allegedly enhanced reissues do not compare favorably to a good 78 pressing played on the right equipment. Remember how awful some of the early CDs sounded? Well, some still do, actually.

[sidewinder]

I recall Wellman Braud's bass sounding terrific in the pre-LP days.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

A good needle still makes a lot of difference. If I forget to change my stylus when I play a 78, I certainly know it!

My stepfather's parents had a collection of 78s which I used to play when I was spending summer holidays with them; and a wind-up gramophone! I don't remember much about the sound, because the records they had were pretty lame - Tony Martin etc. But when it was the girl downstairs' birthday, there was suddenly Little Richard and Fats Domino and Presley (oh, and Pat Boone) to play on it and it definitely made an impact! (Well, not the Pat Boone, y'know.)

MG

[AllenLowe]

78s sound better played on modern turntables - like the famed Audio Technica (can't remember the model number) - or a good audiophile one (I use a VPI) - remember that old speakers were problematic as well (too much bass, probably why it was prominent) - but Chris is absolutely right about many CDs from 78, though the early ones were ALSO marred by horrific Analog to Digital transfers - with 78s, as with everything else, also, condition is the most important thing - the best transfer engineers in this respect were Nick Perls (from Yazoo, I think Chris knew him) and Carl Seltzer (did some Folkways stuff, also things for the notorious Rosetta Weitz) - and of course Joh R.T. Davies. All those guys are dead now, but there are still people around, like Dog Pomeroy or Seth Winner or Steve Lasker that can do it right - also that guy who posted here briefly, from Britian (kind of hit and run; plugged his stuff and than split) -

EQ and EQ curve, by the way, is also important, as are monitors, which can grossly distort what an engineer is hearing and how he resolves it - that's why, when I used to do this for a living, I invested in the world's greatest speakers (a pair of humongous Bryston's Labs) and a good digital EQ program -

Edited June 28, 2008 by AllenLowe

[Big Beat Steve]

A couple of years ago I bought a collection of some 700 78s of jazz, R&B and U.S. pop (mostly 40s, many small indie labels). A lot of the records are NM and when I played them on my relatively recent Dual turntable (which plays 78s with a special stylus but is certainly no high-end item) I was surprised to hear how full, warm and clear many of those records sound. Certainly not lo-fi or crackling or murky at all, and I really cannot see why any serious collector would automatically shy away from the music of that era on the grounds that they "all sound so hissy".

Of course I've heard a lot noisier CD reissues of music from the 78 rpm era (including lots that claimed to have been "remastered"), and in all fairness it also has to be said that it also not only depends on the condition of the 78 the reissuers have access to but also on the pressing quality. There were lots of labels from the WWII and post-WWII era that sounded poor and produced a constant hiss even when brand new. But this need not be always so. You CAN get excellent fidelity from 78s.

I'd agree that modern digital wizardry can work wonders with recordings from the 20s (especially from the "acoustic" era) but to what extent this faithfully reproduces the music and really makes formerly inaudible parts audible without actually ALTERING the music is for others to judge. Sometimes (even with later, i.e. 40s/50s 78s) I have a feeling many remastered 78s sound just too "clean" and "stripped" on CD. Somehow the "warmth" is missing.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[Teasing the Korean]

78s from the final decade of that medium - stuff recorded on tape and pressed on more durable vinyl - sound AMAZING when played with the right stylus. Of course, older 78 players with those 10 pound tone arms would destroy these records in a single spin.

Here is what I've always found curious: Some of the BEST EVER 78 transfers I ever heard were done in the early days of LPs. Not sure why; maybe there were more mint condition 78s at that time, and they may have artificially colored them with tube equipment during the transfers, but in general, they sound better than what I've heard on CD.

Anyone have any inside information on how they did those 1950s transfers and why the LPs sound so good?

Edited June 28, 2008 by Teasing the Korean

[AllenLowe]

I think the warmth issue is related to conversions from A to D - as in the first stage, I have found you can decrease the noise and INCREASE the presence and highs - if you know what you are doing - but most engineers haven't a clue -

[Christiern]

Ah, this brings me back to the late 1940s, when I had just developed an interest in jazz and my grandparents gave me their old gramophone, an HMV floor model. One day, the spring broke and the music stopped--but not for long. New springs of that type could not be found and the music had become an addiction, so I figured out a way to play my records manually: I simply pushed the turntable with my right index finger--when set at 78, it could not go faster, so I just had to push it to the limit. This was a lot of work, it gave me a callus on the tip of my finger and another in its middle, from brushing against the spindle 78 times per minute. It also wore the labels of my records to a point where I often had to identify them by having committed to memory the matrix number or the special characteristics of the grooves. I specifically recall Woody Herman's "Happiness Is Just a Thing Called Joe," which has the brass swelling up following Frances Wayne's vocal. Of course, not being able to walk away from my gramophone meant that I paid more attention to the music. I did this for two years and became very good at not hitting the tone arm in the process.

A long aside, I know, but Wellman Braud still came through in a most delightful, thumpy way.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Christiern

[mmilovan]

Seriously involved in analogue-to-digital transfer from 78rpm sources (usually records, but lacquers as well) I can tell that the most important thing is to find clean, unplayed source. With such material you can get the most beautiful sound and can transform it in sonically superior recording.

Not all those old records were recorded with the same equipment or with the same BALANCE of the recorded sound. For instance, there are few JR Morton sides from 1926. (recorded for Victor) that sound terrific, almost Hi-Fi, and then, later they spoiled the sound in bass register. It is the same with Duke, Wellman Braud bass playing with bow is registered on the record with clarity.

Personally I listened and transferred one Hungarian record with bass drum recorded clearly and loud in 1928. (recorded frequency was as low as 38 Hz!!!), but then, there are bunch of records from around that time that sounds as crap!

Acetates from begin 1940s is another story, they are Hi-Fi in every part of recorded sound with aliquots as high as 20000 Hz, but with clearly pronounced bass notes. Listen to the BMG CD called "Learn to Croon" with recorded voices of Frank Sinatra and Jo Stafford (broadcasts from 1941 and 1942). Amazing sound, with Buddy Rich and his bass drum pulse... unbelievable, that is (mastered by Steve Hoffman)!

Doug Pomeroy transfers of Benny Goodman band from 1930s are unbelievable as well (material on Bluebird BMG CD named “Benny Goodman, The King of Swing”, issued in 2003).

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

in all fairness it also has to be said that it also not only depends on the condition of the 78 the reissuers have access to but also on the pressing quality. There were lots of labels from the WWII and post-WWII era that sounded poor and produced a constant hiss even when brand new.

I'm sure you'll recall the story - I think it's in Arnold Shaw's "Honkers and Shouters" - about Al Greene, who owned a paint manufacturing business during the war. In 1944, one of his operatives developed a substitute for shellac (which was rationed) and they used that for making records. Apparently they sounded like shit but they played. And this event seems to have opened the floodgates, because the number of record companies active in the US about doubled that year. Green was selling so much of this stuff that he opened his own record company - National.

In the same book, Otis or Leon (I forget which) Rene talked about their need in those days to recycle and melt old 78s to get material. Can't imagine those records sounded any too good, either.

MG

[Big Beat Steve]

MG, I do think the main reason for many poor-sounding new 78s from the 40s was the use of recycled shellac. And I don't think this recycling was limited to characters like the Rene brothers; it seems to have been a very widespread practice in WWII USA. There are quite a few stories from collectors who'd been around in those days - stories that make you moan today, just imagining what rare prewar 78s were molten down that way in those wartime shellac scrap drives.

BTW, this practice also was commonplace elsewhere. In war-time Germany you had to turn in two old records just to be able to BUY one new one.

[mmilovan]

Video (film) clip about recycling 78s during WWII:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxPIgASBUdY

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I thought - that geezer looks like Stanley Holloway! And it was!

Lovely clip Milovan - thanks.

MG

[Christiern]

MG: "In the same book, Otis or Leon (I forget which) Rene talked about their need in those days to recycle and melt old 78s to get material. Can't imagine those records sounded any too good, either."

In the immediate post-war years, when I began to buy records (in Copenhagen) one had to turn in an old one in order to purchase a new one (This did not apply to used records) and your assumption is correct--they sounded terrible. But then, so did American Columbias, the red labels that were pressed on laminated discs--I think there was a cardboard layer, at least it looked (and sounded) that way.

[mmilovan]

It is the other way round with these Columbias - Columbia invented laminated records for usage of finest shellac at the top or at the bottom of record surface (and to save valuable materials by including cardboard core in the middle), so Columbia records sounded very fine!

[Christiern]

Perhaps yours did, but every red, laminated Columbia 78 I ever had sounded abyssmal--and quickly grew worse.

[mmilovan]

Interesting film clip about acoustical gramophone with oversized horn and fibre needles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKY_rb6VpJo

Such nice bass response.

[gmonahan]

So, if I'm going to dig out my old Dual 1215S turntable (which has a 78 rpm speed) to play my old 78s, what cartridge and stylus would you guys recommend I get for it?

Greg Mo

[Big Beat Steve]

So, if I'm going to dig out my old Dual 1215S turntable (which has a 78 rpm speed) to play my old 78s, what cartridge and stylus would you guys recommend I get for it?

Greg Mo

Ha, I've got a Dual 1210 that is my spare turntable (mainly for the presence of 78 speed). I think (without being sure) that the stylus system (the one that flips over for either 78 rpm or microgroove and therefore has a needle on both sides) is not very different from the 1215 (but you would have to ask 70s HiFi buffs to make sure). Anyway, the spare needle I bought for this some time ago had the following ref. No.: SS 253 (to fit Dual 52 STM/M). Manufacturer TONACORD (Germany)

Maybe this helps.

[mmilovan]

I've heard good stories about Shure cartridges and needles especially made for playing 78s. Some sources mentioned M44 as the best cartridge for this. I think Sure is currently now in production of M9x or M94 type cartridge.

I'm using Ortofon OM 78 model with special needle, and I am quite satisfy with it. Unfortunately, Ortofon stopped production of OM cartridges.

For correct reproduction of various 78 records you will need more types of needles than standard 2.7 mill type, and preamp with adjustable turnover frequencies (RIAA preamp is not suitable, because of fixed reproduction curve). Also, be sure that your preamp has enough headroom for stronger signals coming from old records (more modulated grooves with stronger amplitudes).