LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  August 2008

ARSCLIST August 2008

Subject:

Re: Visual evaluation of 78s

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:22:04 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (80 lines)

Everything Malcolm says is true. My friend and mentor Art Shifrin taught me -- clean it first, clean 
it well, then play it with the right stylus. Old records get all kinds of crud in the grooves from 
those lousy old "albums" they're usually stored in.

Malcolm's statement about modern playback methods combined with tasteful use of software can be 
experienced in the Mosaic set of Bix/Tram/Big Tea:
http://www.mosaicrecords.com/prodinfo.asp?number=211-MD-CD

The difference in the Bix stuff compared to old LP reissues and the CBS early-era CD's is shocking. 
Listmember Doug Pomeroy did the disk transfers. I have a few of the original Bix 78's and the 78 
reissue albums from the 40's (all in decent but not pristine shape) and none of those hold a candle, 
no matter how I clean them or what stylus I use. I assume Doug had access to metal parts. If not, 
then this work is all the more impressive.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Malcolm Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Visual evaluation of 78s


>A thought to add to this. Years ago I bought a 78 rpm record for a  few coins in order to hear it. 
>It appeared to be in poor condition.  and played very poorly. After cleaning with detergent and a 
>shaving  brush, it looked excellent and played very well. I might have retired  it to the garbage 
>bin if I hadn't cleaned it.
>
> It also might be pointed out that very rare records, today, can be  processed with audio software, 
> often producing a very good result. A  cracked record, if it hasn't been played a lot producing 
> damage along  the crack, or a record with bad needle scratches can often be run  through audio 
> software removing the clicks that are heard on each  rotation. A lot of records that were thrown 
> out in the past, today,  would have new life thanks to the digital revolution.
>
> How the records are played is another factor. Some records that play  very poorly with a standard 
> size stylus play well with a custom  stylus of the right size. A friend years ago who issued LPs 
> from  rare 78s sometimes copied them to tape played in reverse - from the  inside to the outside. 
> This sometimes made a considerable difference.
>
> There are examples of unpublished records that are better versions of  the music than the same 
> titles published. Some appear to be  unpublished because the singer was too close or too far from 
> the  horn. Unlike the times when these recordings were made, they play  well on modern equipment.
>
> Malcolm Smith.
>
> On Aug 6, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Clark Johnsen wrote:
>
>> To my mind there are two types of problem.
>>
>> -- Surface blemishes are relatively easy to see and span the range  from
>> actual cracks and gouges and dimples, to small-area abrasions of
>> different depths -- plus fingerprints and mold, never good signs.
>>
>> -- Groove wear in a well-handled (or machine-handled) disc can  easily escape
>> notice until a grayish pall from too much use overtakes the usually  hard
>> surface of the groove walls. This condition is far less easy to  rate in its
>> intermediate stages, although a corollary indicator can be the  condition of
>> the center hole.
>>
>> clark
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:01 PM, John Ross <[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a set of established standards for visual evaluation of  78 rpm
>>> discs? I'm working with the owner of a significant collection to  catalog the
>>> discs and ultimately transfer them to digital form. I would like  to include
>>> a preliminary note about the apparent condition of  each disc as  part of the
>>> preliminary catalog.
>>>
>>> Obviously, the ultimate evaluation of each disc requires playing  it, but as
>>> a first step, I want to go with a visual examination.
>>>
>>> So I will welcome your pointers to any kind of commonly accepted  terms for
>>> describing 78s. Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> John Ross
>>>
>>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager