Print

Print


Thank you, Mr. Willens.
Regards,
Ben Roth

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 12:01 PM Jeff Willens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Best pre-amp IMHO is the Time-Step variable phono EQ. Dave Cawley, the
> inventor, is on this list. ([log in to unmask])
>
> Runner-up is the KAB Souvenir, but it's only a mono output IIRC.
>
> It is not the case that getting the right curve setting for an
> instantaneous disc is "pure trial and error". You can make some quite
> educated guesses based on the label information, the date of the recording,
> the source, etc. Sometimes the curve is stated on the disc itself
> ("Orthacoustic", "NAB", "AES", etc.) James R. Powell has a few reference
> books on this which are enormously helpful, at least as a starting point.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 20:26:00 -0500, Benjamin Roth-Aroni <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >THANK YOU, JOHN!!
> >I shall pass that info to my supervisor.
> >Right now we're using a flat pre-amp with no choice of settings.
> >Can you recommend a couple pre-amps for the purpose?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Ben
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:27 AM John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Truncated is generally better than not.  You usually want to stay out of
> >> the very bottom of the groove.  And as a very general matter, elliptical
> >> beats conical.  Also, an even more general rule--the loudest result is
> >> often the best one--but here you want to compare carefully as this is
> not
> >> always true.  The amount of noise can make you look for the quietest
> >> playing where the sound is still good, as opposed to the loudest.
> >>
> >> As for procedure, altho it is not quick, I generally record my samples
> so I
> >> can look at the WAV files and compare back and forth without playing the
> >> record.  It can help too see it on the computer screen.  If several
> >> candidate styluses seem good, I will dub the whole side with all of
> those
> >> so I don't have to record the record again once I have picked the best.
> >> Also, it is possible to edit together the best parts of different
> playings
> >> if there is a reason to.
> >>
> >> I have noticed a funny thing that I can't explain--sometimes using
> >> different stylus sizes will reverse the polarity of the resulting WAV
> file,
> >> which you see by looking at it.
> >>
> >> For many pressed 78's in good condition, I will start with 2.75
> truncated
> >> elliptical, and then try 3.0 and 2.5 etc.  It seems like often enough
> the
> >> decision comes down to 2.75 vs. 2.5.  Of course there is huge variety
> among
> >> 78 records as a whole.
> >>
> >> Very worn records can be special cases, because here you are not
> looking at
> >> optimal "fit" but rather trying to play the least worn part of the
> groove
> >> wall.
> >>
> >> For instantaneous records, such as radio transcription discs, it seems
> like
> >> there really are very few reliable general rules.  They are all so
> >> different.  Many of course play at 33 RPM but with 78 sized stylus.
> >>
> >> Please take special care with trying to pitch your results, either upon
> >> playback or as corrected on the computer.  It seems like no 78 really
> plays
> >> at 78.26 RPM (if that is right decimal number).  If the pitch is way off
> >> when played at 78 RPM, then you want to adjust the speed (pitch) on
> >> playback, not on the computer, so phono EQ "decoding" is more accurate.
> >>
> >> Obviously, you will get far better results with a special preamp that
> lets
> >> you select an appropriate phono EQ curve, and here you must often use
> >> judgment as to which setting is "right."  For the majority of 78's, the
> >> RIAA setting that is fixed in most phono preamps is NOT the right
> setting,
> >> and often it not even close.  Remember, acoustic records do not have
> >> phono-EQ added.  Getting the "right" EQ setting for an instantaneous
> disc
> >> is often just an exercise in pure trial and error. There is often no
> way to
> >> even guess.
> >>
> >> Hope some of that is helpful.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020, 9:46 PM Benjamin Roth-Aroni <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thank you.
> >> > I guess what you're saying is that *there's no rule*.
> >> > The ears have it - whatever sounds best is the right stylus to use.
> >> > I have at least 8 sizes and configurations from which to choose:
> conical,
> >> > elliptical, truncated or not truncated.
> >> > I also have a GE VRII and the GE RPX-050.  Sometimes, those two save
> the
> >> > day.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Ben
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Ben
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:28 PM Corey Bailey <[log in to unmask]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Use your ears!
> >> > >
> >> > > When I am unsure about which stylus is best, I will spend some time
> >> with
> >> > > a microscope & then, I will make three transfers; Above the wear, in
> >> the
> >> > > wear area & just below the wear area, avoiding the bottom of the
> >> groove.
> >> > > The styli that I typically use for this are 4mil, 3mil & 2mil. I
> will
> >> > > also try elliptical & conical & pick the best sounding transfer.
> When
> >> > > trying a stylus on a commercial disc, I will usually transfer about
> 30
> >> > > seconds & transfer the same 30 seconds for each stylus. For
> lacquers &
> >> > > other instantaneous discs, I will select a stylus based on my
> >> microscope
> >> > > observations in order play the disc or a section of ti as little as
> >> > > possible.
> >> > >
> >> > > Cheers,
> >> > >
> >> > > CB
> >> > >
> >> > > Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
> >> > > www.baileyzone.net
> >> > >
> >> > > On 12/1/2020 1:31 PM, Benjamin Roth-Aroni wrote:
> >> > > > Thanks, but what about elliptical/conical/truncated, etc?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ben
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:12 PM Mickey Clark <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Ben-I would use a 3 mil. I don't have a 2.5, and 3.5 I reserve
> for
> >> > early
> >> > > >> electric Victors-Mickey
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> >> > > >> From: Benjamin Roth-Aroni
> >> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2020 10:19 AM
> >> > > >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> > > >> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Best width and configuration for a 1946
> Victor
> >> 12"
> >> > > 78
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Greetings,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Please tell me the Best width and configuration for a 1946 Victor
> >> 12"
> >> > > >> 78rpm, specifically DM-899 (Dvorak's 5th with Iturbi and the
> >> Rochester
> >> > > >> Phil) in good condition.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Thank you.
> >> > > >> Ben Roth
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>