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  March 2015

ARSCLIST March 2015

Subject:

Re: Busy Bee records

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 1 Mar 2015 11:22:43 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (158 lines)

Hi John:

I agree about centering the disk. I've come to put more weight on this fact in recent times, and 
have been surprised how many 78s were pressed off-center.

-- Tom

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Busy Bee records


> The advantage of modern styluses is that you can get them with truncated
> tips, which you definitely want, especially for restoration purposes.  They
> generally play a 78 much cleaner than an original issue pointy tip that is
> hitting all the wear in the very bottom of the groove, which it seems can
> often be the most worn part of the groove.  You can also get elliptical
> ones, which sometimes play better than conical.  It's definitely a trial
> and error thing, as the history of the individual record matters a lot.
>
> Nauck sells all of these (see prior link that I posted), which is where I
> bought my array of styluses for restoration work.  While I have not
> compared to styluses available elsewhere, these have worked really well for
> me.  You can generally tell which of several styluses is "right" by which
> gives the strongest and least noisy result.  Sometimes I play little
> samples using different styluses and record them all to .wav files, then
> take my time comparing by playing back the .wav files and comparing this
> against that.  It is much easier to compare four or five samples this way,
> where the results are not obvious upon first playing.  For regular
> commercial 78's, especially after the acoustic era, the starting point is
> usually a 2.75 TE (truncated elliptical).  This is often the best one.  For
> transcription discs, there is no standard.
>
> Thanks for the tip about the different kinds of Stanton 500 cartridges.  I
> didn't know about the plastic-case ones.  I just looked at mine, which I
> have had forever, and it has a gold metal case.
>
> Finding the best stylus is just the first step.  Actually getting the 78
> record centered perfectly comes first.  Next it is imperative, really
> imperative, to work with phono-equalization curves at the preamp level to
> find the "right" match.  It makes a huge difference.  That's a whole
> 'nuther topic.
>
> Best,
> John
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi John:
>>
>> I agree with you that the Stanton 500 makes a good chasis for 78RPM
>> playback, but we should clarify that there are Stanton 500's with
>> metal-colored (I think actual stainless or aluminum) bodies and then there
>> are white-colored plastic versions sold in the late years of China-based
>> "Stanton." I have both kinds, and the metal-colored one sounds much better,
>> to my ears. I think the plastic one resonates or makes some other frequency
>> anomoly due to its body design.
>>
>> Since "Stanton" no longer makes a model 500, the choice today is the Shure
>> M78, which is based on the M44 and fitted with a conical wide-groove
>> stylus. I don't know this for fact but I'm pretty sure that the guys at
>> Expert Stylus in the UK would fit generic M44 stylus assemblies with
>> whatever tips a 78 collector desired. It's non-ideal, not as good as when
>> Shure itself made a high-quality 78 playback system with many needle
>> options (and real-deal Stanton did at the same time). But for 90+% of
>> wide-groove playing, it'll do the trick.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 3:56 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Busy Bee records
>>
>>
>>
>>  You can also buy styluses in various sizes from Nauck, here:
>>>
>>> https://www117.safesecureweb.com/78rpm/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=
>>> 39a49a1bd245242e82a072ec55d8b371&Screen=PROD&Store_Code=NRC&
>>> Product_Code=112-113&Category_Code=112
>>>
>>> and see the good advice toward the bottom of that page.  Most people I
>>> know
>>> use a Stanton 500 cartridge to play 78's (as I do).
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> John H. Haley
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Mark Hendrix <[log in to unmask]
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Ben Roth wrote, "Does anyone know what type of stylus or cartridge should
>>>> be
>>>> used for Busy Bee records?"
>>>>
>>>> Hello, Ben,
>>>>
>>>> Here is some information that I hope will help.
>>>>
>>>> Cartridges: Shure M-44 (still manufactured) with the N44-C stylus (I
>>>> don't
>>>> know if this is still manufactured; the N 44/7 stylus is the LP version)
>>>> or
>>>> the Stanton 500 series (no longer manufactured) with  the Stanton stylus
>>>> made for playing 78s (D5127 stylus, blue plastic stylus holder, also no
>>>> longer manufactured; the D5110, white plastic stylus holder, is the LP
>>>> version).
>>>>
>>>> Busy Bee disc records were lateral cut records designed to be played
>>>> with a
>>>> steel needle.  These needles had a tip radius of approximately 3 mil,
>>>> where
>>>> 'mil' means 'one thousandth of an inch.'  You will get the best sound by
>>>> choosing a stylus that plays the portion of the groove that was NOT
>>>> touched
>>>> by the original playback equipment, so depending on how worn your records
>>>> are, you need a variety of styli to ride above or below where the steel
>>>> needle traveled to get the best reproduction.
>>>> So, for styli: short answer: 2.3 mil, 2.7 mil, and 3.5 mil -sized styli
>>>> will
>>>> handle the majority of "78's" you will encounter.
>>>>
>>>> For general playback info from a collector's (and professional
>>>> remastering
>>>> engineer's) point of view, try the late Roger Beardsley's article at:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.therecordcollector.org/articles/aguidetoplaying7.html>
>>>>
>>>> He recommends - a set of 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 mil (or alternatively 2.0,
>>>> 2.8 and 3.2 mil) truncated elliptical styli should do for a start; you
>>>> will
>>>> rarely come across a record that does not sound acceptable with one of
>>>> these, although in some cases an 1.5 mil or a 4.0 mil improves the
>>>> reproduction noticeably.
>>>>
>>>> Here is where you can find Expert Stylus' recommendations:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.78tours.com/Expert_Stylus_Company.htm>
>>>> I hope this is helpful.  Best wishes, Mark Hendrix
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> 

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

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
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