The original question was in the context of playing back a 78 (presumably
on today's equipment) as opposed to playing the same recording (also on
today's equipment) as dubbed on an old LP. Putting aside the degradation
added by a vinyl record itself (which is unavoidable--LP groove noise for
one thing), the main difference is going to be caused by the fact that in
the era when such LPs were done, our ability to play 78's was way, way more
primitive than it is today. Does that guarantee that a modern digital dub
is always going to sound superior to what is found on an old LP? Of course
not. But given source material of equally good quality, today's work, if
well done, should be remarkably better sounding.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Clark Johnsen <[log in to unmask]>
> Aaron --
> Suddenly you're a Jesuit now?
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Aaron Z. Snyder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Clark,
> > Please explain to me how “original 78s themselves” “sound.” Since they
> > incapable of making any sound without the assistance of a bunch of
> > reproduction mechanics and electronics, and since these can vary in
> > infinite ways, I have no idea how an original 78 sounds! A “restoration”
> > usually is an attempt to allow the listener hear something which
> > as much as possible the sound made by the original performers. Efforts at
> > “restoration” made today potentially can be superior to previous
> > or perhaps not. No doubt, most of the recent results are, indeed,
> > to the sound played back directly from original 78s, especially if the
> > playback equipment is contemporaneous with the recordings.
> > AZS
> > > On Jan 25, 2018, at 15:51, Clark Johnsen <[log in to unmask]>
> > >
> > > John Haley wrote:
> > >
> > > "78 transfers as issued on old LPs rarely ever sound as good as the
> > > original 78's themselves."
> > >
> > > Perhaps, but here's a (trick) question: When (ever) did transfers onto
> > > other media sound as good as the original 78s themselves?