WONDERfUL history, Steve, thanks so much for taking the time.
 Annie Stanfield-Hagert

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 5:21 PM Steve Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> A bit of history.
>
> During the acoustic period, Victor used a compound which made a quieter
> surface, thus better signal-to-noise, and allowed a lighter record which
> reduced shipping costs. They offered its use to its Gramophone Company
> cousin who declined it, as I believe it meant incurring the costs of
> replacing their presses with one suited to the new mix.
>
> Wiki: "Shellac (/ʃəˈlæk/)[1] is a resin secreted by the female lac bug on
> trees in the forests of India and Thailand. It is processed and sold as dry
> flakes and dissolved in alcohol to make liquid shellac
>
> It thus became unavailable during WW II. Given the war in the Pacific, it
> could still be shipped to the Italians (who presumably sent much on by rail
> to Germany) and the Japanese when shipping was more-or-less secure, less so
> as the war progressed.
>
> It is my understanding that 78s were made of a compound, primarily
> limestone, to which a percentage of shellac, dyes and other materials were
> added. Early wartime German pressings are excellent, much less so for
> those made later and immediately after the war. Most of the unoccupied and
> neutral rest of the world used substitutes with varying degrees of
> immediate success and long-term stability. The cost of materials also
> affected quality. Records made to sell cheaply at retail are usually
> noisier than their pricier cousins, but companies like Musicraft, who
> produced their own products and those of some other small outfits, were
> always lousy (a technical term.) Experience suggests that, for many of the
> smaller outfits, formulas changed as, for example, a supplier would cease
> shipments for non-payment of outstanding balances and a hungrier plant
> would pick them up, etc. Executives have relationships with specific
> plants and a change in job could lead to a different quality of product.
>
> The record industry is focused on making a profit which only comes with
> the first sale. The collector's aftermarket is of absolutely no concern to
> them, nor should it be.
>
> Others may have corrections and further data to add.
>
> Steve Smolian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <
> [log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Railroads On Parade
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 4:07 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] acetate and vinylite
>
> ARSDL
> It is my intention to find pertinent information about the specific
> composition of material used to make these 78 rpm discs.
> If you have the name of a book or library or librarian or scientist or
> chemist, anyone with that kind of knowledge I'd be most obliged.
> It is that simple.
> I've seen some very personal quips and back and forth at this Discussion
> List and would like it to remain a positive source for me.
> Thank you,
> Guy Walker
>
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 16:02, Railroads On Parade <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > DDR,
> > I'm writing about the "post 2nd WW grunge" Dave Deihl replied about.
> > GW
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 16:00, Railroads On Parade <
> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> DDR
> >> I just read the email I sent to a Columbia University graduate and
> >> they understood completely.
> >> GW
> >>
> >> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 15:59, Dennis Rooney <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am not sure what you mean by "bookish comprehensive resolve" but
> >>> with respect to Columbia vs. Victor:
> >>>
> >>> Munves's observation referred to production at the two labels. Until
> >>> 1939, when it was purchased by CBS, the Columbia Phonograph Co. had
> >>> a rather high quality product that didn't sell as well as Victor.
> >>> Immediately following the sale, the plating in the three-step
> >>> metalwork of post-1939 Columbias was cheapened and the introduction
> >>> of mastering on 33-1/3rpm acetate lacquer blanks made the subsequent
> >>> development of a long-playing record possible in 1947-48, but the
> >>> dubbing of every approved take from slow speed to 78rpm master
> >>> resulted in an inferior sounding product, and Columbia 78s from U,
> >>> S. metals all sounded inferior until the format was abandoned in
> >>> 1952. Matrices of European manufacture, however, did not have this
> >>> problem.
> >>>
> >>> Victor's "gold" then "white gold" pressings exhibit a similar
> >>> decline in manufactured quality which, fortunately, was limited to
> >>> pressing quality, particularly the "wartime" pressings. Vinylite was
> >>> introduced into the RCA biscuit immediately after WW2 and their
> >>> discs from that period are quieter, but are frequently bad sounding
> >>> due to the label's mistaken use of audio limiting in the mastering
> >>> process.
> >>>
> >>> Columbia's success with the Lp and its marketing strategy led to a
> >>> rapid improvement in the label's sales and production quality.
> >>> Hence, the second part of Peter Munves's observation.
> >>>
> >>> Ciao,
> >>>
> >>> DDR
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 6:36 AM Railroads On Parade <
> >>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Mr. Diehl,
> >>> > What is the compositional makeup of post war grunge? I'm pretty
> >>> familiar
> >>> > with what Carnegie did with the RCA Z recordings, but I've never
> >>> > seen anybody breakdown what was being watered down and/or what was
> >>> > being
> >>> added
> >>> > or subtracted.
> >>> > The RCA exec R. Peter Munves once told me that Columbia was not so
> >>> good,
> >>> > and then it was good, then it was not so good and RCA was better
> >>> > here
> >>> than
> >>> > there, but I have never gotten any more than that. I can see and
> >>> > feel
> >>> the
> >>> > difference between Columbia gold band and grey, I can hear
> >>> > differences
> >>> in
> >>> > HMV pressings and Columbia made in France, I am just at a dead end
> >>> > in
> >>> any
> >>> > bookish comprehensive resolve.
> >>> > GW
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 at 21:45, David Diehl <
> >>> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > The Haven sessions were re-released on Chronological Classics 1253.
> >>> They
> >>> > > sound pretty clean to me, maybe dubs of test pressings but not
> >>> typical
> >>> > > post-war 78 grunge.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > David Diehl
> >>> > >
> >>> > > -----Original Message-----
> >>> > > From: Mickey Clark <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> > > Sent: Tue, Nov 29, 2022 7:49 pm
> >>> > > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] acetate and vinylite
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Hi Guy - I think it would be worth your while to try a transfer
> >>> > > with
> >>> a
> >>> > > VRII
> >>> > > cartridge. Some records that sound terrible with a stereo
> >>> > > cartridge
> >>> can
> >>> > > sound flawless with a true mono cart-Mickey Clark
> >>> > >
> >>> > > -----Original Message-----
> >>> > > From: Railroads On Parade
> >>> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 2:08 PM
> >>> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> > > Subject: [ARSCLIST] acetate and vinylite
> >>> > >
> >>> > > After searching around for a good sounding Bill De Arango/Ben
> >>> Webster 78
> >>> > > Mr.Brim and Dark Corners it occurred to me that after listening
> >>> > > to
> >>> one on
> >>> > > youtube as rough sounding as mine, and the only transcription I
> >>> > > have
> >>> been
> >>> > > able to find, a better transcription might not exist. I don't
> >>> > > see
> >>> the
> >>> > > recordings were ever transferred (please prove me wrong) but
> >>> > > what
> >>> also
> >>> > came
> >>> > > to mind is, the different formulas (I assume) of acetates,
> >>> > > shellacs
> >>> and
> >>> > > vinylite and any documentation of what they were and who used
> >>> > > them
> >>> and
> >>> > > when?
> >>> > > My copy and the one on youtube both appear to the eye as new,
> >>> > > but
> >>> sound
> >>> > as
> >>> > > if they are not. It simply comes to mind that maybe the mix of
> >>> > > the
> >>> stuff
> >>> > > used to press the disc was inferior?
> >>> > > Guy Walker
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 1006 Langer Way
> >>> Delray Beach, FL 33483
> >>> 561.265.2976
> >>>
> >>
>


--
Annie Stanfield-Hagert
http://anniehagert.com