Hey everyone,
I've seen the odd thread now and again about people playing 78s.
I regularly play them myself and have been collecting from a very early age. I have also spent a long time experimenting with playback systems from steel needles in 1930's pickups with custom styli in Stanton 500S. Ask me anything about them!
What are you guys using to play your shellac with 😀 ?
So yeah, let's talk about 78s!
I've seen the odd thread now and again about people playing 78s.
I regularly play them myself and have been collecting from a very early age. I have also spent a long time experimenting with playback systems from steel needles in 1930's pickups with custom styli in Stanton 500S. Ask me anything about them!
What are you guys using to play your shellac with 😀 ?
So yeah, let's talk about 78s!
Hey Monty78pig
I have been playing 78's for many years. I have a Garrard 301 with two arms set up just for 78's.
The arms are a Garrard TPA12 and a Grace 727 GS Gyro Master.
On the Garrard arm, I use a modified Shure SC35C and on the Grace I use a homebrew mc cartridge I recently built just for 78's.
I usually use my Dynaco tube integrated amp SCA-35 as it has a useful filter.
For listening over rainy winter weekend days, I take a little more trouble and fire up a Leak Stereo 20 tube amp and a Varislope 11 pre with several equalisation settings.
Here's a pic of my homebrew MC cartridge.
bulgin
I have been playing 78's for many years. I have a Garrard 301 with two arms set up just for 78's.
The arms are a Garrard TPA12 and a Grace 727 GS Gyro Master.
On the Garrard arm, I use a modified Shure SC35C and on the Grace I use a homebrew mc cartridge I recently built just for 78's.
I usually use my Dynaco tube integrated amp SCA-35 as it has a useful filter.
For listening over rainy winter weekend days, I take a little more trouble and fire up a Leak Stereo 20 tube amp and a Varislope 11 pre with several equalisation settings.
Here's a pic of my homebrew MC cartridge.
bulgin
Attachments
Last edited:
Very nice! That Garrard looks amazing 😀 .
I'm currently running a Hitachi HT-350 with a Stanton 500, I butchered the direct drive circuit to let me run it at 78rpm.
At the moment I go straight into flat-level and then monitor my transfers through my PC with a little eq.
I'm working on a preamp that has a variable flat output for an audio interface and also a set gain equaliser + variable low pass filter so I can easily play back straight into my preamp.
I'm currently running a Hitachi HT-350 with a Stanton 500, I butchered the direct drive circuit to let me run it at 78rpm.
At the moment I go straight into flat-level and then monitor my transfers through my PC with a little eq.
I'm working on a preamp that has a variable flat output for an audio interface and also a set gain equaliser + variable low pass filter so I can easily play back straight into my preamp.
pivoted tonearm geometry issue
Hello monty78pig and bulgin,
are you aware that pivoted tonearms usually have their geometry/zero radii optimized for vinyl LP? To use them for shellac/78rpm is likely to do damage to the 78's inner grooves (lead out groove of a 78 can have a radius of 38mm in worst case whereas an LP's lead out groove has a radius of 56mm). So, unless one has a tonearm designed for playing 78's available, one would have to diy-build a tonearm for 78 use (consult John Elison's Baerwald/Löfgren excel sheet to find suitable zero radii for 12" shellac records.
Or, one can use a linear tracking tonearm capable of the needed excursion. BTW, this was one of my main reasons to start designing a linear tracker with tonearm units easily swappable: because i wanted to play my shellac records. And it was the main motivation to build a new motor and motor control for my 25ys old DIY turntable, managing platter speeds of up to 100rpm.
Some shellacs in my collection have mindblowing sonics (if you do not pay too close attention to treble and low end). Oscar Levant/Eugene Ormandy/PO playing Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue (on Columbia Records) for instance. However, i do not collect shellacs for their sonics, only for artistic value ... and the Levant performance is by far the best Rhapsody in Blue i ever heard.
Hello monty78pig and bulgin,
are you aware that pivoted tonearms usually have their geometry/zero radii optimized for vinyl LP? To use them for shellac/78rpm is likely to do damage to the 78's inner grooves (lead out groove of a 78 can have a radius of 38mm in worst case whereas an LP's lead out groove has a radius of 56mm). So, unless one has a tonearm designed for playing 78's available, one would have to diy-build a tonearm for 78 use (consult John Elison's Baerwald/Löfgren excel sheet to find suitable zero radii for 12" shellac records.
Or, one can use a linear tracking tonearm capable of the needed excursion. BTW, this was one of my main reasons to start designing a linear tracker with tonearm units easily swappable: because i wanted to play my shellac records. And it was the main motivation to build a new motor and motor control for my 25ys old DIY turntable, managing platter speeds of up to 100rpm.
Some shellacs in my collection have mindblowing sonics (if you do not pay too close attention to treble and low end). Oscar Levant/Eugene Ormandy/PO playing Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue (on Columbia Records) for instance. However, i do not collect shellacs for their sonics, only for artistic value ... and the Levant performance is by far the best Rhapsody in Blue i ever heard.
Hi dice45 and monty78
78 playback can be very rewarding, both sonically and for artistic reasons. If one listens to today's performers of good music and compare the consummate artistry of the past, there are few comparisons. This viewpoint does not mean all music of the present is bad - there are exceptions.
@ dice45
I have an unused, almost new air bearing ET11 arm with 4 wands. Do you think this arm will be suitable for 78rpm playback?
Regds
bulgin
78 playback can be very rewarding, both sonically and for artistic reasons. If one listens to today's performers of good music and compare the consummate artistry of the past, there are few comparisons. This viewpoint does not mean all music of the present is bad - there are exceptions.
@ dice45
I have an unused, almost new air bearing ET11 arm with 4 wands. Do you think this arm will be suitable for 78rpm playback?
Regds
bulgin
Hey dice45!
Generally speaking very few 78s get that close to the centre, the only ones I have that do are 8" Broadcast label discs and they already have pretty poor sound.
The vast majority of 78s that I own (and want to listen to!) occupy pretty much the same area as LPs and 45s in terms of groove space.
Yes the sound can be very good, especially on post 1950 pressings where the response could easily be about 40-15,000Hz. The distortion is also low due to the wide groove width and fast linear velocity. Once people started using hard gem pickups as opposed to steel needle (https://youtu.be/j8ZhZE4o4eQ?t=5m20s) in the mid 1940's, manufacturers started using a less abrasive and therefore lower noise compound (as the first few grooves had to wear the steel needle down into the right shape!
I you'd have to track pretty hard to damage your 78s, they were made to withstand upwards of 100 grams 😀 . Shellac being much harder than vinyl and all that.
Generally speaking very few 78s get that close to the centre, the only ones I have that do are 8" Broadcast label discs and they already have pretty poor sound.
The vast majority of 78s that I own (and want to listen to!) occupy pretty much the same area as LPs and 45s in terms of groove space.
Yes the sound can be very good, especially on post 1950 pressings where the response could easily be about 40-15,000Hz. The distortion is also low due to the wide groove width and fast linear velocity. Once people started using hard gem pickups as opposed to steel needle (https://youtu.be/j8ZhZE4o4eQ?t=5m20s) in the mid 1940's, manufacturers started using a less abrasive and therefore lower noise compound (as the first few grooves had to wear the steel needle down into the right shape!
I you'd have to track pretty hard to damage your 78s, they were made to withstand upwards of 100 grams 😀 . Shellac being much harder than vinyl and all that.
Hello monty78pig,
allmost all the shellacs i own are classical music and quite a percentage uses the available groove space to the utter limit, otherwise i would not have said a word.
But you are right, the shellac's resistance against wear is phenomenal. However, if you really play them at 100gr tracking force, their life will be very limited as the needle' tip area is quite small and the permitted contact pressure per unit area is exceeded.
Hello bulgin,
i personally would not use an airborne linear tracker at all, i have explained why in another thread. However, with higher tracking forces and constant pitch and hopefully no excentricity, it might work for you. The issue of lateral tracking angle certainly is adressed. But the issue of higher lateral stylus force due to high lateral mass remains unsolved.
I hesitate to recommend airborne/passive linear trackers as some shellac's sonic potential is soo high that i would not like to waste some of it. But that's just me 🙂.
allmost all the shellacs i own are classical music and quite a percentage uses the available groove space to the utter limit, otherwise i would not have said a word.
But you are right, the shellac's resistance against wear is phenomenal. However, if you really play them at 100gr tracking force, their life will be very limited as the needle' tip area is quite small and the permitted contact pressure per unit area is exceeded.
Hello bulgin,
i personally would not use an airborne linear tracker at all, i have explained why in another thread. However, with higher tracking forces and constant pitch and hopefully no excentricity, it might work for you. The issue of lateral tracking angle certainly is adressed. But the issue of higher lateral stylus force due to high lateral mass remains unsolved.
I hesitate to recommend airborne/passive linear trackers as some shellac's sonic potential is soo high that i would not like to waste some of it. But that's just me 🙂.
Thank you for the insight, Bernhard. Thank you too for the link which I read with much interest. I am happy with what I hear from my two pivoted arms. When modifying first the Shure and then later purpose-building the mc mono cartridge for 78's, I incorporated materials into my modified Shure and especially into the mc cartridge to reduce surface noise and previous steel needle damage as much as possible.
I don't know what else Stanton, AT and other cartridge brands offering styli for 78rpm playback have done besides offering suitable 78rpm styli profiles. Did they also offer harder suspensions for these 'special' needles?
My own experiments with styli for shellac records seem to favour spherical tips but that's only for my ears🙂
bulgin
I don't know what else Stanton, AT and other cartridge brands offering styli for 78rpm playback have done besides offering suitable 78rpm styli profiles. Did they also offer harder suspensions for these 'special' needles?
My own experiments with styli for shellac records seem to favour spherical tips but that's only for my ears🙂
bulgin
Dice45,
I don't recommend tracking at 100g or so, I usually track using a truncated elliptical from about 2.5-3.5mil with a downward force of 5 grams or so. I don't think any misalignment can cause damage at this pressure.
Bulgin,
The stylus depends on the era, from about 1939 onwards a 2.8mil truncated elliptical is best. Before that it is variable from about 2.5-3.5mil or so. Using too wide a stylus causes distortion and poor frequency response. Too narrow and it rests in the bottom of the groove and is noisy.
https://youtu.be/pEz3S3y6Wxk
This video is a good example of the differences between styli.
I don't recommend tracking at 100g or so, I usually track using a truncated elliptical from about 2.5-3.5mil with a downward force of 5 grams or so. I don't think any misalignment can cause damage at this pressure.
Bulgin,
The stylus depends on the era, from about 1939 onwards a 2.8mil truncated elliptical is best. Before that it is variable from about 2.5-3.5mil or so. Using too wide a stylus causes distortion and poor frequency response. Too narrow and it rests in the bottom of the groove and is noisy.
https://youtu.be/pEz3S3y6Wxk
This video is a good example of the differences between styli.
Hi,
There is no reason damage should occur. An arm can always
be set to any inner zero point of your choice, the geometry
determines what happens elsewhere. You don't need a arm
designed specifically for 78's.
What you do is choose your inner point and twist the cartridge
to suit. Then with whatever fore and aft movement available
investigate tracking error variations for that zero point.
(Obviously readjust the twist for each fore and aft movement.)
Its quite easy with a bit of practice, you either get two point,
or full forward or full backward gives the lowest tracing error.
rgds, sreten.
Quite. This is more or less what I do. Note the two 'pods' or adjustable armboards on the 301 which allows for easy alignment. Both the delrin laminated board for the Grace arm and the red ivory board are also decoupled as much as possible from the 301's chassis by using different materials.
bulgin
Anyone in the NE USA interested in an Edison Diamond Disc player, contact me!
Will trade for anything somewhat reasonable that I fancy.
Quite frankly, I am out of space...
Have a stack of re-issue and old Diamond Disc recordings too.
Unit is in GC, but not perfect cosmetically...
Fwiw.
Will trade for anything somewhat reasonable that I fancy.
Quite frankly, I am out of space...
Have a stack of re-issue and old Diamond Disc recordings too.
Unit is in GC, but not perfect cosmetically...
Fwiw.
Not for me, I can play diamond discs on my current set up. You have to switch the polarity of one of the cartridge channels as they are vertically modulated.
I'm very interested in 78s, particularly acoustically recorded (pre-electric) music. I actually had a CD label as a side business for a while doing transfers and restoration of rare 78s, and I could get spectacular results out of electricals, but the acoustics were a real struggle. When I would play a record on my Victrola VV-X, there would be a certain presence to the voices that gave it life and punch that got completely flattened out by modern transcription.
I recently bought a new acoustic phonograph, a top of the line Brunswick Cortez, and a Tascam digital recorder and I'm investigating miking techniques for trying to capture the sound of acoustic playback. This isn't my Brunswick, this is my VV-X, but it will give you an idea of what I am trying to do...
"Qual volutta trascrorre" from Verdi's I Lombardi
Enrico Caruso, Frances Alda and Marcel Journet (1912)
http://animationresources.org/test/VerdiILombardi.mp3
For comparison, here is the same record with pretty typical electrical transcription.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9UKZNQFVc0
Can you hear the difference I am talking about? There seems to be more natural dynamics and detail in the aspirates in the acoustic phonograph. It's more than just a difference in equalization curves.
This weekend, I plan to do some recordings of my Brunswick. If anyone is interested, I'll post some of my experiments next week.
I recently bought a new acoustic phonograph, a top of the line Brunswick Cortez, and a Tascam digital recorder and I'm investigating miking techniques for trying to capture the sound of acoustic playback. This isn't my Brunswick, this is my VV-X, but it will give you an idea of what I am trying to do...
"Qual volutta trascrorre" from Verdi's I Lombardi
Enrico Caruso, Frances Alda and Marcel Journet (1912)
http://animationresources.org/test/VerdiILombardi.mp3
For comparison, here is the same record with pretty typical electrical transcription.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9UKZNQFVc0
Can you hear the difference I am talking about? There seems to be more natural dynamics and detail in the aspirates in the acoustic phonograph. It's more than just a difference in equalization curves.
This weekend, I plan to do some recordings of my Brunswick. If anyone is interested, I'll post some of my experiments next week.
Here is a little treat for monty78pig... Ambrose and his Orchestra "The Night Ride" arranged by the great Sid Phillips. I didn't have an absolutely pristine copy of this to work from. It has a monster of a peak in there that had some distortion from acoustic playback. But it came out pretty nice after a little finessing.
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/thenightride.mp3
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/thenightride.mp3
I have heard this claimed before about acoustic vocal records. I don't think that enough really hard scientific research has been done modelling the interplay of the conical or exponential recording horns and the singers who would have been very close and would have experienced resonance fed back to them from the horn. Until this is done, electrical equalisation of acoustic records is guesswork to some extent. What gives very disappointing results is to try to boost the bass too much. I have experimented endlessly with this. At the moment I am using a first order filter with a 3db point at 100 Hz and flattening out at 400 Hz, i.e. much less than the theoretical mechanical filter introduced by the original horn. I have found that much more bass-boost than this causes the LF component of surface noise to overwhelm the music and the reproduction sounds rather thin. When my new (and hopefully much better) tonearm arrives in a few weeks time, I will see if this is still the case. I do think that the major part of the problem of reproducing very ancient records is a mechanical one.
Bigshot - very very nice! All around good stuff, thanks for that. 
@Bear. I did really want your Edison DD, but now that I'm back in Hawaii, no way. 🙁
@Bear. I did really want your Edison DD, but now that I'm back in Hawaii, no way. 🙁
The tricky thing about 78s is that there was no RIAA standards. Every brand of record was tweaked to play best on the label's own brand of phonograph. Recording equipment and venues varied wildly. I've found that every record has to be EQed by ear at least through the mid 30s.
It isn't necessarily true though that acoustic recordings are totally devoid of any bass though. Check out the bass drum hits in this record from 1911 by Prince's Band (Columbia) "Ramshackle Rag"...
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/ramshacklerag.mp3
When you EQ a bunch of different kinds of stuff, you develop a knack for it. It just takes a good ear.
It isn't necessarily true though that acoustic recordings are totally devoid of any bass though. Check out the bass drum hits in this record from 1911 by Prince's Band (Columbia) "Ramshackle Rag"...
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/ramshacklerag.mp3
When you EQ a bunch of different kinds of stuff, you develop a knack for it. It just takes a good ear.
One other thing I forgot to say... After EQing literally thousands and thousands of 78s, I think the philosophy of reverse engineering horn resonances and aiming at natural sounding balances doesn't always work, especially with popular music. The horn was just one part of the equation, the soundbox and its diaphragm and the tonearm shape and the way the needle fit the groove and a million other things also were a big part of the sound.
If you aim for a natural EQ, you'll end up with something kind of flat and weak sounding. If you add a little bit of the emphasis that the acoustic phonographs added, you'll find that the records sound much more live and present. I did several CDs of acoustically recorded music all the way back to the turn of the century, and I struggled more with setting the proper balances on that than I did with any other era of records. It was VERY easy to totally eviscerate the spirit in the music. I finally took the records I was transferring and played them on my Victrola to compare, and I realized that some imbalances in the right place made them sound MUCH better.
If you aim for a natural EQ, you'll end up with something kind of flat and weak sounding. If you add a little bit of the emphasis that the acoustic phonographs added, you'll find that the records sound much more live and present. I did several CDs of acoustically recorded music all the way back to the turn of the century, and I struggled more with setting the proper balances on that than I did with any other era of records. It was VERY easy to totally eviscerate the spirit in the music. I finally took the records I was transferring and played them on my Victrola to compare, and I realized that some imbalances in the right place made them sound MUCH better.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.