One man's experiences --
I've got some 78's that were _played_ back in the day and they do not have the problems of
over-played LPs (nasty groove distortion grit and crunch, super-loud pops and ticks). They do have
noisy surfaces and some loud ticks here and there, but I look at them and say, "this is going to
sound awful" and then they don't because the grooves aren't that damaged.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milan P Milovanovic" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] late date 78
> Hello to all members of this list,
> Speaking of micro versus wider grooves, would wider grooved cut record be more resistant to micro
> scratches and easier to get clean from dust etc. than "microgrooved" LP record?
> Also, would 78 rpm speed be more suitable for recording/reproducing especially at the last 1/5 of
> disc with no groove distortion added in this area (often connected to ordinary 33 rpm records)?
> Best wishes,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 6:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] late date 78
>> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>> Mike Biel wrote:
>>> Theoretically the best sound at 78 would be with a microgroove size
>>> groove since it would be capable of higher frequency response than a
>>> wide groove, or a microgroove at slower speeds.
>> ----- now, I am speculating why this should be so. I do not understand why a
>> microgroove should give a higher frequency response than a NORMAL groove. It
>> has to do with the maximum acceleration of the tip and the ability of the tip
>> to trace precisely the groove shape. If the smaller radius of an elliptical
>> stylus (or the radius of the edge in a line contact stylus) is able to trace
>> without error a curve in one flank of the groove, it does not matter where
>> the other flank of the groove is.
>> If microgroove is associated with a higher groove pitch (which would mean
>> well above 200 grooves per inch), then the maximum amplitude would be reduced
>> compared to the ca. 100 grooves per inch in a traditional 78 rpm record. If
>> we maintain the 100 grooves per inch but reduce the groove width and depth,
>> we would have more land to use, and the modulation could be higher, which
>> would give a low frequency advantage. That is the rationale behind disco
>> singles (albeit at 45 rpm). And all of this without variable groove pitch. If
>> that is used, then we are even better of, bass-wise.
>> Kind regards,