Print

Print


Ben,

Something is definitely wrong there.  78 transfers as issued on old LPs
rarely ever sound as good as the original 78's themselves.

To play 78's properly, you need two things:

(1) the right stylus, which you find by trial and error--I start with 2.75,
elliptical (also truncated--which I bet yours are) and work both ways.  The
wrong direction is usually obvious.  Commercially issued unworn 78's from
the 30's and 40's often "like" the size 2.75.  The Shure styluses and
probably the others you have are often marked TE or TC--the "T" means
truncated, "E" means elliptical (often better), and the "C" means conical.
Worn records often want a larger stylus, and sometimes conical will play
them better.  Sometimes the "right" size is obvious when listening,
sometimes more subtle.  The "right" stylus is sometimes, not always, the
loudest one, and in general, for worn records, the one that is playing the
least noisy part of the groove is generally best.  Truncated styluses make
a big difference because they avoid the lower part of the groove, which is
often in the worst condition.

(2) you really need a preamp that lets you select the phono EQ.  If there
are no such settings on your preamp (or receiver or integrated amp), the
preamp will always be fixed on the RIAA setting, which is mostly wrong for
78's (way too bright and noisy), and almost always right for LPs if they
were released after 1956.   If you have seen the recent list discussion,
there are ways to do phono EQ with software, but there is general agreement
that doing it analog upon playback, before digitization, is best.  If you
are going to do it with software, you must start with a "flat" playback or
transfer, which will again require a preamp that lets you deselect the
built-in RIAA curve.  It is possible to undo RIAA and then apply another
curve, but nobody I know does that.  There are several "restoration"
preamps available,and they are not cheap, but they are the way to go.
There is an also older piece of equipment, impossible to find these days,
called an "Owl" processor, that lets you create the settings using two
dials to set the parameters.

Best,
John Haley








On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Gary A. Galo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Camden classical reissues are often swimming in fake reverb. I can't speak
> for any of the jazz reissues.
>
> Gary
>
> ____________________________
>
> Gary Galo
> Audio Engineer Emeritus
> The Crane School of Music
> SUNY at Potsdam, NY 13676
>
> "Great art presupposes the alert mind of the educated listener."
> Arnold Schoenberg
>
> "A true artist doesn't want to be admired, he wants to be believed."
> Igor Markevitch
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ron Roscoe
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 10:33 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] What am I doing wrong?
>
> Do you have the proper playback equalization for those 1930's 78's?
> Camden was an RCA label that specialized in reissuing 78's on LP, often
> with fake names for a lot of the Symphony Orchestras.
> Since RCA used so many different eq's in recording their stuff [some
> recorded in Europe] that Camden would know about, it could be equalization.
>
> Ron Roscoe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of 6295LARGE .
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 10:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] What am I doing wrong?
>
> Hello everybody.
>
> HELP!!
> I have two 78's of Benny Goodman's "Bach Goes to Town" Circa 1938.
> One is a US pressing and one is a UK pressing.
> Both are in good condition and they both sound terrible.
> I've listened to the reissue on a Camden LP.
> WHAT A DIFFERENCE!!
> I've tried many difference styli from Expert Stylus and I tried my GE VRII
> with a 2.5mil.
> The styli are nearly new.
> No luck.  How did Camden do it?!!
> Can anyone suggest a stylus for my Shure M44-7 or M44-G, or Stanton 500?
> I've got Shure 4.0 ET & CT, 3.5 ET & CT, 2.8 ET & CT, 3.5 FCR, and 2.7 C.
> I also have a Stanton 3.3 ET.
> They all sound muddy.
>
> Any suggestions?
> Please email to my work: [log in to unmask]
>
> Regards,
> Ben Roth
>