-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
Do 45's sound better than lp's ?
- Thread starter brickbuster
- Start date
A well made 45 rpm is superior to a comparable 33 1/3 rpm disc IMO. I own a few 45 rpm "audiophile" reissues and the sound quality is outstanding.
Although 78's have their limitations, I've got many (both shellac and vinyl) that sound incredible.
Although 78's have their limitations, I've got many (both shellac and vinyl) that sound incredible.
nitrous
96 dB freak!
Yes.
Some 78s sound surprisingly good. Unfortunately, their frequency range is not much better than AM radio.
Since the subject has come up...I have some very, very old 78s (1910-era single-sides) that sound terrible on a modern-style turntable, but sound just fine on my grandparents' Victrola. Does anyone make a stylus that can properly read those very early discs? Later steel-needle era 78s will play just fine.
The old acoustic era 78s were cut 'flat' without equalization. So if they're played on a modern turntable going through a standard (RIAA curve) phono preamp, they'll sound terrible. The later 1940s/1950s 78s may not be RIAA curve, but they're close enough that they'll sound reasonably good. For best results with 78s, you need to use a variable EQ phono preamp.
78 stylii in the 2.5 to 3.5 mil range will work fine with older acoustic discs.
Also be aware that many acoustic discs require playback at speeds other than 78.26 rpm. For example, Edison Diamond Discs require 80 rpm. Having a turntable with adjustable pitch control is a big plus for playing older discs.
Bob E.
Well-Known Member
Well, if you think about it, the faster the groove passes by the needle, the more kinetic energy the "wobbles" have to impart to the needle. That would seem to allow more scope for dynamic range. And yes, that would mean that a properly set-up 78 player with a good-condition, well-recorded record will sound amazingly good, but you have to work for it!
I have read that the 45 RPM form-factor (I'm talking 7" here) was the only speed/geometry solution that was determined scientifically and in consideration of sound fidelity. From outside diameter to inside diameter (label size) which resulted in a minimum arc-travel for the stylus, a minimum change in the tracking angle was sought compared to the other sizes while still allowing enough recording time for a 3 - 4 minute song. The other sizes/speeds were more determined by marketing forces or already-existing production equipment, i.e. profit-driven.
And while I'm on the subject, I just realized we need to get ready for a birthday celebration in four months...the 45 will be 60 years old!
--Bob
I have read that the 45 RPM form-factor (I'm talking 7" here) was the only speed/geometry solution that was determined scientifically and in consideration of sound fidelity. From outside diameter to inside diameter (label size) which resulted in a minimum arc-travel for the stylus, a minimum change in the tracking angle was sought compared to the other sizes while still allowing enough recording time for a 3 - 4 minute song. The other sizes/speeds were more determined by marketing forces or already-existing production equipment, i.e. profit-driven.
And while I'm on the subject, I just realized we need to get ready for a birthday celebration in four months...the 45 will be 60 years old!
--Bob
LPMike
Vinyllicus Diversicus
As was mentioned the early discs (prior to 1928 or so) were acoustically recorded. After that the new "electrical process" was used, which was basically an electrical microphone run to an amp which powered the signal to the disc cutting machine.
The Acoustical process was just that: 100% acoustic, meaning no electricity involved in the recording process, just as there was no electricity running the wind up victrolas. (Exception beiing the cutting machine *might* have had an electric motor to turn the disc)... These recordings were made by placing a metal "horn" extremely close to the band and performer. The horns shape naturally compressed the soundwaves down its mouth into the tiny cutting needle head and those compressed sound waves are what drove the cutting needle to cut the master disc.
On playback it was just the exact opposite. So the sound from acoustically recorded 78's is MUCH different from the electrical ones. Trying to get a good reproduction of the "intended" sound on a modern system is gonna take some work. Its not impossible, but unless you have a really nice othophonic VV Victrola from say, 1928, to use as a bench mark, your gonna have to spend some time fiddling around. I think its time well spent though.
There is something really special about the acoustic recordings.
Thanks for the info, there's lots to think about. Since I don't have any room to move the Victrola from my parents' house to mine, I might have to rehab the portable Columbia that has a broken mainspring.
I do have a couple of those weird 80rpm discs from Edison and others. My Victrola can play them back accurately if I run the speed control all the way to the top. The particular 1909 release I was thinking about is a Victor 78, though.
A further point to consider, especially relevant to most Edison discs. The Edison Diamond Discs (and some other early acoustics) are vertical-cut ("hill and dale") records, as opposed to more common lateral cut records. Lateral cut records have grooves that look like a crooked river, squiggling back and forth. That produces lateral action in the stylus, reproducing the sound. Vertical cut grooves move the stylus up and down, producing the sound in far different manner.
To achieve proper playback with an Edison Diamond Disc, you need either:
1. A vintage Edison (or similar) player, designed for vertical cut playback.
2. A modern stereo cartridge with one channel wired out of phase. Wiring in this manner will null the lateral signal, and reproduce the vertical signal correctly.
Patriot1776
Cancer Survivor at 26
I'm of the opinion I like 12" 45 RPM records more. I recently bought a 2 disc 45 RPM version of Metallica's 'Ride The Lightning' and it does sound a bit better than my 33 1/3 RPM 'Master of Puppets', but that's not the big reason I like it better. The big reason I like 45 RPM versions of albums a lot now is because to me it makes the individual songs more accessible. If you only wanna listen to one song or two, you more easily do that by just getting out the one of the two records you want and playing the side you want. The 45 RPM version of 'Ride The Lightning' has all 8 songs spread over 2 records, with two songs per side. I've come to like that quite a bit, and I'll definitely be buying more 45 RPM versions of albums in the future, if available.
Very interesting info! Thank you very much. I do have an Edison player, but it doesn't use discs. :scratch2: Unfortunately, it also doesn't have a reproducer. Or any recordings.
audiofred
Active Member
45's were convenient in their day. I had several record boxes full of them. As for the quality, on a high quality playback system, will reveal a lot of defects. They were equalized for radio station play. They were a mid-range type of sound for loudness on the A.M. broadcast. The low end porbably cut-off around 80hz.
I'll agree that the 10" and 12" inch disco discs will put your system "on notice"!!!! A great sound for vinyl. You can almsot see in between the grooves. Designed for loudness and the heavy bass.
Fred
I'll agree that the 10" and 12" inch disco discs will put your system "on notice"!!!! A great sound for vinyl. You can almsot see in between the grooves. Designed for loudness and the heavy bass.
Fred
audiofred
Active Member
LPmike that 'turntable' and steel needle arrangement looks scary!!!!!
Would I be on the right 'track' thinking that when copies had to be made of the early acoustic recordings that each 'copy' was the band or artist recording another disc? How did they duplicate the early 78's?
Some of the old ads for 45's were impressive too. 5 grams tracking for that little RCA 45rpm changer and the music was pressed in "the quality zone". The least distortion from tracking error from those old tone arms and phono carts.
Fred
Would I be on the right 'track' thinking that when copies had to be made of the early acoustic recordings that each 'copy' was the band or artist recording another disc? How did they duplicate the early 78's?
Some of the old ads for 45's were impressive too. 5 grams tracking for that little RCA 45rpm changer and the music was pressed in "the quality zone". The least distortion from tracking error from those old tone arms and phono carts.
Fred
audiofred
Active Member
Does any one remember the A.M. radio days from the 60's and going out and buying a copy of your favorite song, and when you played it at home, on your 'record player' or hi-fi, that your favorite song sounded very different??
The processing for A.M. broadcast changed the dynamics and sound quality dramatically!!
Fred
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
Middle to late 1950's 78 RPM pressings often sounded better than their 45 RPM counterparts when in nice shape. Many were on vinyl and cut with microgrooves. If you want to hear what a 78 RPM microgroove disc is capable of, find some old Red Vinyl Audiophile Records and play them on a good setup. Especially the Red Norvo one. These aren't called "Good Old Reds" for nothing. Google Ewing D. Nunn for more information.
Patriot1776
Cancer Survivor at 26
I often wonder if, now that the record renaissance is well underway, if any artists are considering 78 rpm stereo microgroove singles as a way to put out some of their 'signature' tracks in a very exclusive format, i.e. something for really their most devout fans to get a hold of. I think I'd like it very much, and if one of the right artists do it, it would seriously get me to want to get a 'table capable of running at 78.
