I don't believe that anyone has mentioned the fact that there are some
serious differences between the playback curves for RIAA records and 78
RPM Records. While the RIAA curve was standardized, the Playback EQ for
78 RPM will vary depending on the era and the manufacturer. I'm sure I'm
preaching to the choir here but if one is going to transfer any disc at
a speed other than normal, one should transfer flat, then add the
correct EQ either during the speed conversion or after. Personally, I
prefer to work at speed (having determined the correct one) and apply
the appropriate EQ in the analog domain before the signal is digitized.
My $0.02
Corey
Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
www.baileyzone.net
On 4/11/2016 5:27 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> Trying to remember to change the subject line with the subject drifts ...
>
> Lou is correct about using the proper EQ curve. It's really amazing
> how much more natural things sound, and how the noise level can seem
> lower because the music is jumping forward, when the right EQ is used.
>
> By the way, further on what I said recently about playing back older
> mono LPs, and mono 45's well into the 60's if not the 70's ...
>
> I found online the documentation on the GE Variable Reluctance
> cartridges, including a listing of the options for stylus
> configurations. I had forgotten that they made both the flip-over
> dual-format (microgroove and wide-groove) types and a single-format
> snap-in type. All of the "LP" or "microgroove" options were 1-mil,
> mostly conical diamonds (some of the flip-overs had sapphires for both
> needles, some had sapphire for wide-groove and diamond for
> microgroove). So, the early LP records and 45's in the
> first-generation RCA format were definitely not cut to be played with
> a 0.7-mil elliptical needle. If you have old records that weren't
> played much (ie only a few times, at most) with a 1-mil needle, you
> can probably play them OK with a typical modern 0.7-mil conical needle
> (like what's standard on a "DJ" cartridge like a Shure M-44-7). But if
> the old record was enjoyed to any degree back in the day, it's been
> worn in for a 1-mil needle and an 0.7-mil is likely going to ride in
> the groove down where that wear pattern has done some grinding, so
> there's liable to be a higher surface noise level and/or more
> distortion/fuzz. If the disk was enjoyed on a typical heavy-tracking
> record-wrecker, all bets are off and it might be gouged out to where
> even a 1-mil needle is riding down in the damaged area. Because many
> AM radio stations were still using GE VR and similar cartrdiges well
> into the 60's, if not into the 70's, 45RPM mono singles were often cut
> with the intention of being played with a 1-mil conical stylus.
>
> Also, if you have a curve-adjustable preamp, you can listen for
> yourself and see how much different RCA New Orthophonic (RIAA) sounds
> from AES sounds from Columbia LP curve. Early LPs most certainly were
> cut with different curves, until RIAA standardized on New Orthophonic
> in 1954. From what I've been able to find out, most Columbia releases
> were cut with their curve right up to the announced RIAA
> standardization date. Many independent releases were cut at either
> Radio Recorders, United Recording in Chicago or Fine Sound in NYC, and
> all of those operations used the AES curve. As far as I know, all of
> those operations standardized on RIAA at the same time everyone else
> did in 1954. RCA LPs were always cut with New Orthophonic, as far as I
> know, and thus play back fine with a standard RIAA preamp. What I
> don't know is, did RCA also always use that curve for their 45RPM
> releases? There is mythology on the interwebs about Columbia and Decca
> using something other than the RIAA EQ after 1954, particularly in the
> stereo era. Simply not true! The RIAA curve was an INDUSTRY STANDARD,
> meaning EVERYONE used it for commercial releases. It is possible,
> however, that there were non-RIAA cuts made right up to the
> standardization date, and were released after that, so non-RIAA cuts
> were probably widely sold at retail into the mid-1950's. Also, no one
> went back and re-mastered their catalog so it was all in RIAA
> compliance immediately. In the case of Mercury, I know the early mono
> classical catalog wasn't re-cut with the RIAA curve until about 1958,
> and there was still probably old inventory out in retail. Same goes
> for the jazz and pop catalogs, except that only titles still selling
> well post-RIAA were ever re-cut with the standard curve. I imagine
> Columbia went the same way -- if something was still selling and new
> factory parts were needed after RIAA standardization, then it would
> get re-cut at RIAA, but maybe be packed in the same sleeve so it would
> be hard to tell what playback EQ to use.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lou Judson" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 7:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] When 78.25? Say Yea Today and my dub of
> Honeycomb by Jimmie Rodgers
>
>
> NOT being overly picky, but it still sounds like an old 78 (grainy
> midrange, fuzzy lo-mids) without the scratch.. But why I write is this:
>
> Wouldn’t it be better to transfer it at 78 with 78 curve? I think I
> can hear the RIAA which is not appropriate for any 78, as far as I
> know, and boosts the highs a lot. If you are up for it, I’d love to
> hear it transferred as a 78 without RIAA curve,,, a 78 with RIAA has
> +14 highs compared to 1k, and even the 45 had better LF on the old 6x9s!
>
> I do know it sounded lots better in my parents’ 1960 Olds on the AM
> radio, where I heard it a few thousand times…
>
> <L>
> Lou Judson
> Intuitive Audio
> 415-883-2689
>
> On Apr 11, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Mickey Clark <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Another discussion was the limitation of high frequencies present on
>> a 78 size groove record. I have included Honeycomb by Jimmie Rodgers
>> as a sample of a 50's 78 - with slow transfer at 33 no eq added aside
>> form phono preamp RIAA. I think it sounds better than an LP would of
>> this song - see for yourself!!! - Mickey Clark
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/m0jhsd5uykj0mdh/AAC4TV-q7tIpYhPJ6SVCsADVa?dl=0
>>
>>
>
|