regarding this subject and especially ELP machines, it is matter of (so much
expensive) trial and decision of transfer strategy. One friend of mine in
Bulgaria who owns the ELP unit (as well as "classical" turntable) put some
RAW transfers of the very same ordinary, slightly worn 78 rpm record
It is interesting that ordinary setup (he used "standard" Shure needle)
produced result with less clicks and craquelures.
So here are those samples, anyone judge for himself:
(wave files, compressed by zip archiver)
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Technics apparently really has discontinued their
> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> turntables vs. historic machines:
> I do use a portable wind-up HMV gramophone for demo purposes and to prove
> fabulous quality you can get from records made for them (excepting organ
> records), due to the scientific approach by Maxfield and Harrison.
> But I confess that for listening (and analytical listening) I am happy to
> the ELP Laser Turntable. I have a fair number of vinyl pressings of 78s,
> I rejoice every time that there is absolutely no wear. And most shellacs
> play well. I do not have to change stylus, I do not have to replace worn
> stylii, and the clicks are easily tamed, because they are much cleaner
> what most, even moving coil pickups will provide. I can adjust the depth
> tracing during replay, and I can adjust the rpm. I can repeat a groove
> endlessly, with just a delimiting click once per cycle. Ah, bliss!!
> I had a stupid dealer in antique records send me a rare record, and he
> have been drunk while packing the record, because the pack was designed to
> put uneven stress on the record. He instantly paid me back everything,
> including shipping, but like Kodak, there was no replacement for content.
> can easily fit the shards on the ELP turntable, let it run and reproduce
> content for me, albeit with clicks that need more work to clean up. But my
> old-time painstaking repair of records is now of the past.
> However, we have not solved the problem with peeling lacquer records.
> Best wishes,
>> I've also owned antiques machines in the past and enjoyed hearing a 78
>> as might have been heard in its day, but I must argue that one doesn't
>> hear it with the same ears as someone who lived in that day. A machine
>> such as an Edison player was probably regarded as what we now call
>> "state of the art" or "high tech". A mind blowing experience. To us it
>> is an antique and a curiosity, a charming and quaint item. hopefully
>> appreciated for its role in the history of home music. To a contemporary
>> listener, it may have been regarded as the ultimate home listening
>> experience, second only to live music.
>> Perhaps the way to understand a little about how they must have felt in
>> that day by comparing it to the first time you saw a 60" HD screen
>> playing a blu-ray disc movie. You can't help but be blown away.
>> joe salerno
>> On 1/4/2011 8:36 AM, David Breneman wrote:
>> > --- On Tue, 1/4/11, Tom Fine<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >> That said, I bet I'm not the only one who buys cheap and
>> >> common but musically-enjoyable 78's specifically to play on
>> >> the Victrola. They are never intended for transfer or
>> >> preservation, they are intended to allow me to enjoy my
>> >> antique Victrola. I'm sure others do similar things for
>> >> their cylinder players and Diamond Disc players.
>> > Guilty as charged. There's something to be said for the
>> > "time machine" aspect of seeing and hearing a record played
>> > as a person would have experienced it "back in the day."
>> > An old machine puts on a good show; an mp3 doesn't.