78 r.p.m. records

[ppppenguin]

A standard stylus for microgroove records (LPs) will sit in the bottom of the larger 78 groove. The results are horrible. Purists will have a range of styli for 78s, choosing the one that works best with a given disc. I use a Shure N75-6 stylus (in a Shure M75 cartridge) which is a good compromise for most 78s. Not sure of its exact size.

RIAA equalisation will make most 78s sound bass heavy. You can do an approximate correction with tone controls or build a pre-amp with switchable EQ. A few pre-amps such as the Quad 22 had switchable EQ as standard. Ordinary record players that could play boht LPs and 78s didn't have such switching. You just used the tone controls to get the sound you preferred.

[Electronic M]

Once LPs had settled on RIAA that was usually the only equalization circuit in the system, but there were some exceptions.

I have a Fisher (IIRC model 50C) that is a mono tuner/phono preamp and it had a few switchable equilization options I think they were RIAA, EUR, 78, and possibly something else...I don't do a lot of mono listening so that Fisher has been in the closet for a good 5-10 years now.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

I wonder if the sound from here is true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF2zQNGUKPc

No because your listening digitally (You cant hear how it really sounds)

[Telecolor 3007]

So it isn't the original sound from the record...

[old_tv_nut]

A blanket statement that you aren't hearing the original quality just because the YouTube posting is digital is wrong. It depends on what was done to make the video.

If the sound for the youtube video is being picked up by a microphone in front of the loudspeaker, then the mic arrangement and room acoustics can affect the result much, much more than digitizing the signal ever could. However, the audio may have been processed to reduce noise, which would make a big difference as well.

So, are you interested in the overall result using the vintage phonograph? That may be what you have here. If you want to know the quality of the record and cartridge output, then you need a recording of the equalized signal. Again, straight digitizing without additional processing will not contribute any audible effects.

Disclaimer: using too low a bit rate for the audio could produce audible effects.

In this video you can definitely hear the level of distortion typical of recorded music of that time, which the digital processing does not contribute to in any audible way as far as I can tell.

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

So it isn't the original sound from the record...

I'd advise against taking seriously any comments written by dude111. I've read them for the past 10 years, more for amusement than anything. Some of the crazy stuff he believes is hilarious...for example the dude won't update to anything newer than windows 98 (or was it XP?) Because he read some cock and bull tall tale that there's some kinda mind control digital noise baked into the newer opperating systems. He believes all digital audio and video is terrible. And if you read his replies to threads he started to ask how things work it becomes evident he has close to no technical knowledge, and even less aptitude.

He's good for cheerleading, necro-posting to 10+ year dead threads (if you can even call that a good thing) and seat warming his account here.

I kinda think of him as the only bot that hasn't been kicked off VK for being a bot.

[mr_rye89]

Ah Dude111 is alright, he annoys audiophools and know-it-all types on other forums I haunt. I’d buy him a beer or..erm maybe a chocolate milk or instant ice tea

Anyways here’s what I play 78s with. A GE VRII with a turn around rather than turn over stylus. Push down to flip between LP and 78. It has no vertical compliance so NO playing stereo records with this one

[DavGoodlin]

I got this replacement for a Cobramatic in a 1956 Zenith "Rhapsody" https://www.thevoiceofmusic.com/cata...th&Categories=

I Then advised the new owner of this equipment that he cannot play stereo records. It would not be hard to swap in a stereo cart but why do this for a pre-stereo unit?

GE carts seem to be a favorite though I have never seen one in the wild.

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by DavGoodlin

I got this replacement for a Cobramatic in a 1956 Zenith "Rhapsody" https://www.thevoiceofmusic.com/cata...th&Categories=

I Then advised the new owner of this equipment that he cannot play stereo records. It would not be hard to swap in a stereo cart but why do this for a pre-stereo unit?

GE carts seem to be a favorite though I have never seen one in the wild.

The older 78 RPM only Zenith Cobras were really good quality phonos...I have a table top model and it has very good tone and seems to pick up less surface noise off of worn records. Wurlitzer even used the cobra pickups in their 1100 and other models of jukebox.

Some of the 4 speed changers did have a funky "compromise" stylus that was in-between the standard 78 and 33 tip sizes.

[Ed in Tx]

I have one of these, a 10" 78 RPM record made in late 1970 that was part of a promo package given out to radio stations promoting the new at the time Uncle Charlie And His Dog Teddy album. I have nothing to play it on after I sold my Dual 1219 years ago. When I DID have a turntable capable of 78 it sounded great, high dynamic range for sure.

[Telecolor 3007]

It's microgrooved or haves big grooves?

[Ed in Tx]

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

It's microgrooved or haves big grooves?

Ha! Yeah, next time I'm talking to the mastering engineer I'll ask ...☺

Pretty sure it was cut to "78" standards. It takes up the whole side for a 3 1/2 minute tune.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by Electronic M

I'd advise against taking seriously any comments written by dude111. I've read them for the past 10 years, more for amusement than anything.

Im sorry Tommy but how are you gonna hear how beautiful analogue is if your listening digitally??

You cant.......

The record source maybe indeed by analog but listening over youtube we cannot hear it!! (We hear a digital translation which isnt in my opinion nearly as good)

kinda think of him as the only bot that hasn't been kicked off VK for being a bot.

Im not a bot,im a real person like you buddy...

[Dude111]

This is for you Tommy,someone mentioned this on another thread im on (Different site)

Digital is actually an approximation of the sound. Like a Xerox copy of the sound, if you will. It's like looking at a photocopy of the Mona Lisa or other famous painting rather than the real thing.

Its not real listening digitally........ You cant hear the real sound......

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by Dude111

This is for you Tommy,someone mentioned this on another thread im on (Different site)




Its not real listening digitally........ You cant hear the real sound......

With 78RPM the best scientific arguments against digital recording are basically moot (and non-scientiffic arguments are just some fool's opinion).

Let's use CD quality recording as an example, because it lacks compression (compression damages quality of digital recordings). 78s max frequency response usually topped out around 8-12KHz for the best copies. CD audio samples (instantaneously measures amplitude and records it as a data point) at 44KHz...The Nyquist Shannon sampling theorem states that to capture a frequency you need to sample it at atleast double the frequency, and the higher above the measured frequency you sample the better. With LPs where you could get upwards of 20KHz the highest frequencies are poorly sampled because they approach or exceed the Nyquist limit of 22KHz. But with 78s having a max frequency only half that 22KHz number they have effectively double the number of samples per cycle of what a digitized LP would have on their highest frequency and thus don't rub up against the sampling limit. 78s typically had fairly subdued dynamic range (difference between loudest and softest sound recorded) compared to even LPs (because 78s had higher surface noise) so CD quality has more than enough discreet amplitude levels to faithfully capture that.

And that's just CD quality audio...a standard nearly 40 years old! Nowadays there are digital recording standards that have much higher sampling frequcies that allow faithfully capturing audio frequencies so high humans can't hope hear them (which improves the number of samples in the audible range). These newer formats also have more discreet amplitude sampling levels than CD improving dynamic range. It's reached the point where you could AB test (or do the Pepsi challenge if you will) a quality LP and an uncompressed high quality digital recording of that LP and even an audience of sharp eared listeners couldn't tell you which is which...

You might be able to argue that with less than state of the art digital recording and a good master tape the digital is noticably worse, but against 78 RPM arguing that digital isn't capturing the sound faithfully is just plain silly.

Let me clue you into something if your playing a 78 that has been played before you aren't hearing the true sound of it either...Last time it was played the needle (probably in some heavy tracking windup machine 70-120 years ago) scapped off enough of the groove to see with the naked eye... resulting in high frequency undulations in the groove scraped clean off and replaced by noise, lower frequency wave shapes distorted and peaks chopped off or rounded.
The folks that complain that 5g tracking crosley phonos ruin LPs would have a stroke if they saw the damage most Pre-WWII equipment did to 78 records each play.