78 labels to avoid

[autobayer]

Hi Woody and Richardz.
First - thanks for another great subject to learn from. I have an addition that could maybe lead to another topic?
Had the chance to compare (usually don´t do that really) two original pressings of Miles Davis´ Relaxin Session. Looked alike to me. Played the first one - amazing. But when I put the second one on, I realized - or the fine abilities of my fingers and hand muscles did - that this one was a tad lighter. 10 Gramms maybe? And not to our surprise is sounded "worse" - would have been completely fine if not compared. But it definitely did not sound as good as the other. No indication on the sleeve or record? So what had happened? In the making of the first pressing, material costs have risen? They changed the factory? Something like this - and it shows that there are no easy answers but maybe there are some definite explanations  - Richardz?
Cheers
Chris

[tomatamot]

Hi Woody and Richardz.
First - thanks for another great subject to learn from. I have an addition that could maybe lead to another topic?
Had the chance to compare (usually don´t do that really) two original pressings of Miles Davis´ Relaxin Session. Looked alike to me. Played the first one - amazing. But when I put the second one on, I realized - or the fine abilities of my fingers and hand muscles did - that this one was a tad lighter. 10 Gramms maybe? And not to our surprise is sounded "worse" - would have been completely fine if not compared. But it definitely did not sound as good as the other. No indication on the sleeve or record? So what had happened? In the making of the first pressing, material costs have risen? They changed the factory? Something like this - and it shows that there are no easy answers but maybe there are some definite explanations  - Richardz?
Cheers
Chris

Chris does it has a yellow or blue label? And If it`s yellow is there a W. 50str adress on the label? Or a Bergenfield, NJ adress?

[richard]

I will address two issues in response to this topic and what Mario just brought up.

I did a few recordings and radio broadcasts before and during my teens. I can look back and see steady changes in the technologies even at that time. I think that recording practices traversed a steady trajectory toward improvement. First one device would be adopted, then another, etc. There were always finite "brick walls" that reined in what was possible.

For example, tracking restrictions of consumer phonographs clamped down on what the cutting engineer could get away with. You can't sell records to people that'll cause their arm to jump grooves. Also, techniques were developed (much later) to permit more "stuff" (called in the trade, "psycho-acoustics") that was used in order to squeeze the psychological effect of dynamic expansion into reduced FM signal-noise ratio (I'll stop on this subject before getting too far afield). Some FM radio stations actually limit their dynamic range to three decibels). I think that the economic desires of the broadcasters and the signal processing desires of the Top-40 music purveyers, caused a few techniques to go back and forth between the two industries.

I've got an old Dinah Washington 78, I think from the late 40s, on which I can definitely hear a compressor at work. I have a hunch that compressors and limiters were on-the-job during the late 30s. A Top-40 house that I toured during the mid 50s was already using, in addition to compressors and limiters, expanders, ducking, and companders. These devices made singers sound "bigger," and ensured that their voices would cut through a complex instrumentation mix.

In my funky workshop, just a few years ago, I was testing something or other with a 78rpm 12" Victor record and either a GE RPX or a Stanton 500 cartridge. As is always the case in my workshop, I don't use any music that I like for test purposes, and in this case, it was some sort of "classical" material known as "pops," (I don't regard Strauss Waltzes as classical music, just the commercial Top 40 of its culture: the musical equivalent of candy bars made with phony "chocolate").  I was surprised to notice very distinct dynamics in the performance. Like, 'Hey: this stuff actually has a dynamic range, and the quiest passages are not being buried in the groove noise!." I believe that dynamic microphones, even ribbon condenser mikes, were used during the 30s. In the playback realm, FM phono cartridges were being fitted to the most expensive radio-phono consoles in one or two brands. I assume that they proved to be too touchy to continue with. But the dynamic range had to be restricted in order for the most difficult orchestral material to be playable using crystal cartridges just like the ones that I listened to. Your average home listener didn't have anything as high-falutin' as a GE variable reluctance or Stanton 500 (stereo) pickup. I don't think that GE RPX cartridge delivered compliance over 1.25. Your typical crystal cartridge had the compliance of a doctor's tongue depressor. A wind-up acoustical phono, which many people were still using during the 30s, was as compliant as that cement block where Jimmy Hoffa still resides.

I don't claim expertise in the recordings of this era, just what I've observed as well as bits and pieces of knowledge that I've picked up.  78s are a medium that kill the continuity of most classical material that I like, which wrecks the satisfaction that I experience from the development during a performance. The same rigid, short time limit, prevented the dissemination of modern jazz except via huge radio transcription disks, hearable through the static of AM signals.

So, the realm of "classical" music was filled with "fluff" music: short pieces by forgettable composers, tunes like "In the Clock Store," which I grew up with. These were great for broadcasters because they could squeeze in a lot of commercials between the sides. Pop music still tends to be short!

Sorry for being so long-winded. Just saying that although I was pulling apart record players and making my own needles from matchsticks and toothpicks before LPs, my musical interests didn't really expand until the LP began to take over.

Now to topic #2: Shall we be audiophiles or shall we be music listeners?  :
I think that I've just dropped a bomb. And it's really a whole 'nother discussion. But the carry-over is this: how do we extract the best listening out of lousy records? And here's where I'm bringing the thread back to Paul (Marq) because I think that his head is into this very issue where 78s are concerned. I suspect that you're not just a "passenger" in this either, Mario, but you're both coming at it from different directions. I believe that we've got one or two members in the UK as well who are into this.

In my own life, I've been faced with great performers who were contracted with indifferent record companies well into the LP era. Which needles, for example, do I need to use, in order to enjoy their badly-made recordings? Or the damaged grooves that we buy in the thrift shops? Yeah: I can get my audiophile high from a superb reproduction of a superb work played by a superb performer. How often does this happen? Damn rare! But most of the records that have music that grabs me are technically defective in some way. And that's the real world.

The truth is that some record companies were "lo-fi'ing" their reords. I sometimes worked at Columba, and I can attest to the excellence of their master tapes. I can also say that the records that were pressed from those same masters sounded mushed, mushed in exactly the same way as the sound of the FM radio station where I announced was mushed by its Conax high-frequency limiter (high frequency limiting is virtually an absolute requrement of the medium).

This is why the old conical 78 needle that nobody's bought from me yet is such a winner vs. the needles that Stanton recently started selling again: those new ones are ellipticals: a great way to gain no high-frequency jollies while enhancing groove noise. (Well, du-uu-h!) For the 680/681/Pickering XV15 bodies: $69. Don't all jump at once.

In this case, I'm going to have to sit in the back seat of this car and learn from you guys. Enough out of me!

[richard]

I just re-read this thread and want to add something from a bit later.

In general, classical music LP listeners in the USA who knew the difference, preferred European pressings over American ones. There was one mail-order retailer who specialized in these imports.

As always, classical music, with its wider dynamic range and simultaneous complex wave forms. sounds its worst when poorly reproduced. And since the issue of bad Decca 78s came up, I'll add that I have a few Decca LPs of wonderful, departed performers pressed in utter garbage plastic. It's got the feel of a styrene mixture. Bloody corporate bastards! Nice jackets, though, but that no-way makes up for screwing over the incredible subtle finger work by the finest lutanist to grace the 20th Century, the rarely recorded Joseph Iadone.

Decca was a division of Capitol records. I was underwhelmed by Capitol's New York studio and amazed by their screwing around with frequency response on their masters. The engineer actually bragged to me about this!

[autobayer]

Hi.
All of that, that´s the joke, all of that - completely identical in those terms.
Tot ziens
Chris

Chris does it has a yellow or blue label? And If it`s yellow is there a W. 50str adress on the label? Or a Bergenfield, NJ adress?

[GP49]

As always, classical music, with its wider dynamic range and simultaneous complex wave forms. sounds its worst when poorly reproduced. And since the issue of bad Decca 78s came up, I'll add that I have a few Decca LPs of wonderful, departed performers pressed in utter garbage plastic. It's got the feel of a styrene mixture. Bloody corporate bastards! Nice jackets, though, but that no-way makes up for screwing over the incredible subtle finger work by the finest lutanist to grace the 20th Century, the rarely recorded Joseph Iadone.

Note that there were two Deccas: American Decca and British Decca.  British Decca did press styrene-like classical records in the USA.  Their budget-priced "Richmond" line was pressed in the USA out of that hard plastic.  They wore poorly and sounded poor to begin with.  I don't know whether the poor sound when new was due to their American subsidiary, London Records, re-equalizing the audio for more brightness, or due to poor mastering and pressing, or to a different set of resonances in the hard plastic, as opposed to softer vinyl.  Richmond records were mono, but some excellent performances by such artists as the conductor Erich Kleiber were condemned to those poor-quality discs for years, only emerging from the murk as CD reissues.  British Decca also pressed some high-volume classical recordings in the USA, and handled Telefunken in the USA for some years; they pressed those LPs in poor-quality American mastering/pressings but on conventional vinyl.  They did sound better than the Richmonds.

Decca was a division of Capitol records. I was underwhelmed by Capitol's New York studio and amazed by their screwing around with frequency response on their masters. The engineer actually bragged to me about this!

Decca was never associated with Capitol.   Capitol was started by lyricist Johnny Mercer (dozens of great American songs to his credit) in 1942 and was never affiliated with ANY Decca company.  It is now a subsidiary of EMI.  Its corporate history is simple compared to Decca's.

Decca was first a British company.  In 1934, Decca bought the Brunswick record factory from Warner Brothers, which didn't need the plant, and established production in the USA via a partly-owned subsidiary.  But British Decca sold its interest in 1939.  American Decca  bought what was left of Brunswick in 1941 and operated independently...as a COMPETITOR to Capitol.  American Decca was a competitor to British Decca after 1947, when the Brits, dissatisfied with how American Decca was handling its issues, established its own distribution in the USA under subsidiary London Records.

What goes around, comes around.  American Decca bought Universal (the motion picture studio) in the early 1950s, and merged with MCA in the early 1960s, the parent company becoming MCA.  The Decca Records name was dropped in favor of "MCA Records" but the "Decca" label was later revived.  The MCA company name was changed again to Universal Studios after some corporate dealings found MCA in the hands of Seagram, the Canadian liquor company. The record division became Universal Music.  They bought Polygram Records, which by then owned British Decca, thus putting both Deccas under the same ownership again.  "London Records" was then killed off.  Universal Music then bought the record division of Philips, which by then had taken over the moribund Deutsche Grammophon.  The combined company, now ultimately owned by General Electric through its ownership of NBC Universal, operates as Universal Music Worldwide with classical issues under the Decca and Deutsche Grammophon labels (Universal did not retain its rights to the Philips brand but owns the Philips library), resulting in such strange-looking issues (to those of us who have been classical collectors for decades) as American Decca recordings by Andres Segovia and Leopold Stokowski, appearing on the Deutsche Grammophon label.

After all that, back to Capitol.  Richard mentioned Capitol Records and their technical "prowess" and I should add that Capitol was known for those shenanigans and more. Due to frequency tampering and volume-overboosting, their engineers couldn't get the side-lengths that their British parent company, EMI, could; so if a classical piece taped by EMI and being issued on Angel Records (Capitol's classical label) was close to their limit per side, they'd (1) spread out a two-side LP onto four and charge for two records, (2) split single movements in the middle if that would "spread out" the music onto two sides that WOULD fit; (3) cut out part of the musical composition to get it to fit, or (4) split the contents of one EMI record onto different Angel albums. A pox on them; a lot of us sought out the original EMI issues, importing them ourselves from Britain or buying them in Canada where they were officially imported.  They were quite a bit more expensive that way, so we only did that for EMIs that we REALLY wanted.  

[richard]

Thanks for the correction, Gene. Somehow, I had it in my head that the Deccas of the New York Pro Musica Antiqua came by way of Capitol.

Your story is so convoluted, I couldn't quite get it into my head. It seems even more bizarre than mine about Empire.

A chart that shows the connections between record labels here and in the UK would be helpful. Do you know of anything like that?

I've forgotten which British record company orginated the American London records (LPs). They were British-pressed. I've been intrigued by these pressings. Most of the ones I have are mono. To my eye and hand, the plastic seems different than our own vinyl. If anything, these Londons have a cheaper look and feel. Yet, they have held up remarkably well over the decades. They seem to be especially resistant to abuse like hefty pressure from RPX cartridge with a jagged diamond. The sound is good. The earlier ones, of course, lack "air," as was typical of the time.

I think of these recordings as "mature." As in Ernest Ansermet, a conductor who had remarkable staying power.

Do you concur?

[GP49]

I've forgotten which British record company orginated the American London records (LPs). They were British-pressed. I've been intrigued by these pressings. Most of the ones I have are mono. To my eye and hand, the plastic seems different than our own vinyl. If anything, these Londons have a cheaper look and feel. Yet, they have held up remarkably well over the decades. They seem to be especially resistant to abuse like hefty pressure from RPX cartridge with a jagged diamond. The sound is good. The earlier ones, of course, lack "air," as was typical of the time.

British Decca.

I think of these recordings as "mature." As in Ernest Ansermet, a conductor who had remarkable staying power.

Do you concur?

Yup.  Good pressings, a stable product born of good engineering, both at the recording venue and in the production studio.  British Decca also pressed RCA records for the British market.  When RCA went to their stupid, thin, cheap Dynaflex pressings, many bought what RCAs they wanted from Britain to get those Decca pressings.  They may have originated from a master tape one generation removed from what RCA was using but their pressings and surfaces were much better, for an overall gain.

Ernest Ansermet was a Decca recording artist with his own L'Orchestre de la Suisse Romande until his death.
[/quote]

[richardz]

Had the chance to compare (usually don´t do that really) two original pressings of Miles Davis´ Relaxin Session. Looked alike to me. Played the first one - amazing. But when I put the second one on, I realized - or the fine abilities of my fingers and hand muscles did - that this one was a tad lighter. 10 Gramms maybe? And not to our surprise is sounded "worse" - would have been completely fine if not compared. But it definitely did not sound as good as the other. No indication on the sleeve or record? So what had happened? In the making of the first pressing, material costs have risen? They changed the factory? Something like this - and it shows that there are no easy answers but maybe there are some definite explanations  - Richardz?

I've got three copies of "Django / Milano" by MJQ on UK Esquire EP106, a 7" 45 rpm EP. Same cover, same label, each pressed by a different company, one is UK Decca, can't say who pressed the other two.

Back to 78s, UK Decca pressings were worse than EMI, especially war-time and post war copies which are very brittle. After twenty years of trying to replace a record that I broke, I found another copy last week.

Don't play 78s when you're tired, I've cracked the replacement and am now looking for another copy.

Dominion, a late 20s UK company also produced some awful surfaces.

It's been a bad month, I also destroyed my 0035" FCR stylus (Edison Diamond Disc and Pathe vertical cuts) but the plus side is that I've had some very interesting conversations with Expert Stylus and Cartridge Company which is their new(ish) name. One downside of having lots of different styli for 78s is changing them between records, Expert recommend a 0032" truncated conical as a one size fits all. So I sent two virgin N44Cs to them on Monday and they arrived back on Wednesday.

As usual Expert are right, (as suppliers to the BBC and Library of Congress they should be) - so far the 0032" works well and it's good to have a VC stylus back again.

One other thing - most "generic" 78 styli seem to fall into two camps, 0025" and 0030". I keep a cheap 0030" for playing worn records to save my Experts from wearing out too soon.

[richard]

RichardZ wrote:

It's been a bad month, I also destroyed my 0035" FCR stylus (Edison Diamond Disc and Pathe vertical cuts)

What was the "base" stylus/cartridge? What does "FCR" mean?
I have been amassing a collection of broken needles, a sort-of proto-museum ("Send me your tired, your Shure").

So I sent two virgin N44Cs to them on Monday and they arrived back on Wednesday.

So, you use Shure M44/55 cartridges?

As usual Expert are right, (as suppliers to the BBC and Library of Congress they should be)

Oh, this hurts: It used to be Stanton who made the custom needles for the Library of Congress. I'm not knocking Expert, just feeling the loss of what we once had in Stanton.

it's good to have a VC stylus back again.

Lost me again: what's "VC?" I feel that somehow, I should know these terms, and I've seen them somewhere. But the memory isn't what it once was (if ever).

One other thing - most "generic" 78 styli seem to fall into two camps, 0025" and 0030". I keep a cheap 0030" for playing worn records to save my Experts from wearing out too soon.

I like this approach. What's the 3.0 mil needle that you're using? Have you tried any Stanton 2.7 tips?

[richardz]

Hi Richard,

Your questions (well some) answered.

The broken stylus was a Shure N44C with a .0035" Full Conical Rounded (FCR) tip, i.e. not truncated, which was used for vertical cut (VC) records, Edison Diamond Discs and Pathe. I knocked the arm out of it's rest and the stylus bounced it's way across the grooves in the turntable mat before settling in one. It now had a nice 45degree bend in the cantilever and caught on the flip down guard, so it had a 90 degree vertical one as well.

I standardised on the M44/55 series for 78 and "everyday" record playing about six years ago. Having one type of cartridge and headshell across the complete range of record types gives consistency. For 78s. I can swap quickly from 0025", 0030", 0032" and 0035" and for vinyl there's 0005", 0007", 0010" and .

However for "serious" listening there's a Shure V15III/Jico SAS, Ortofon MC25FL, Denon DL-103 and DL-102 mono, and Shure M44s with 0007x0003" and 0007x0004" and for 78s 0028x0009"and 0035x0012".

I grew up with the Shure sound and after a couple of decades without them have returned for good. I've a few Stanton (500 old and new) and Pickerings (380A and V15 old) and I've tried a geniune Pickering 0027" in the 380. It's better than the Shure 0025" but I prefer the Shure sound. If I'd experienced Stanton or Pickering before Shure it would probably be the other way round.

For a one size fits all 78 stylus I think the 0030" is about right, unless you have a large number of pre-war records in which case the 0032" is better.

Shure's use of the number 3 to describe their 78 styli is a pain, as virtually all their tips were/are 0025", not 0030". Most aftermarket tips are also 0025" but the Pfanstiehl 4759-D3 is described by them on the packaging as 0030" and from using them I think that's correct. I buy them off ebay for around $25 each.

Regards

[richard]

RichardZ wrote,

I grew up with the Shure sound and after a couple of decades without them have returned for good. I've a few Stanton (500 old and new) and Pickerings (380A and V15 old) and I've tried a geniune Pickering 0027" in the 380. It's better than the Shure 0025" but I prefer the Shure sound. If I'd experienced Stanton or Pickering before Shure it would probably be the other way round.

I understand. I have one extra original Stanton 2.7 mil 78RPM stylus for the cartridges Stanton 680, 681, and Pickering XV15. It's for sale. Again. Nobody seems interested. True conical. Amazing. These are really nice needles!

For a one size fits all 78 stylus I think the 0030" is about right, unless you have a large number of pre-war records in which case the 0032" is better.

I agree. Stanton's long-time size of 2.7 mil seemed close enough, in-between the consumer size 3.0 and the transcription 2.5.  Each has its advantages.

Shure's use of the number 3 to describe their 78 styli is a pain, as virtually all their tips were/are 0025", not 0030". Most aftermarket tips are also 0025" but the Pfanstiehl 4759-D3 is described by them on the packaging as 0030" and from using them I think that's correct. I buy them off ebay for around $25 each.

Using the 2.5 mil tip as an all-purpose size is puzzling to me. Perhaps it sounds better riding lower in the groove. You know more about this than I do because my music interests usually begin with the LP. But in general, I'll opt for larger. And, then again, it's possible that Stanton's actual size was larger, considering normal manufacturing tolerances. I used to have their tolerance figure in my head, but I've forgotten.

It makes perfect sense that Pfanstiehl would use the same 78 tip size that they'd use for other, ordinary, consumer 78 needles. I'd think that other aftermarket companies would have done exactly the same thing. How has your experience been with these (older) Pfanstiehl needles?

A note: Pfanstiehl Chemical Co. sold off their needle business to an electronic parts company named "LKG" a few years ago. I don't know how they're distributing of late, but it's obvious that at least one of the ebay sellers is carrying some of their wares. The new operation has been moved halfway across Illinois, so the old factory is gone. Pfanstiehl usually (but not alwasys) made their own needles.

I have a couple of the LKG needles which definitely show signs of "growing pains." Our Brian sent them to me for my opinion. Two more that he sent look OK. I haven't listened to them; they're for the GE VR-II.  The new company didn't acquire the old parts, so new production is really new, and I have no details.

Any thoughts about this?