happy anniversary 33 1/3 rpm

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

retro-man

Well-known member
Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
1,645
Location
- boston,ma
today i was reading in the paper that the 1st 33 1/3 rpm long playing album was introduced in 1948. it was made to play for 23 minutes per side. funny that this week we moved and it took a couple of hours just to move all my albums and 45's into the new house. they now cover over 20 feet of floor space one row ontop of the first row. everyone should play an album today.
Jon
 
33 1/3rds

i'll play some today!I heard that experimental 33 1/3 rpm records were made as far
back as 1920 but never made it to market.It was around 1988 or 89 when i last saw
LPs for sale in stores,but i have a couple euro pressings from '93-94.
For general listening CDs are handy but when i want to enjoy some "HI FI"
listening has to be analog record or cassette.
 
RCA Victor introduced the first long playing record in 1931

Bad timing with the depression and all and some problems with sound quality I think.

 

I have a few.... to play them you needed to by a special turntable that lowered the speed for your existing phonograph or buy one of there new two speed Radio Phonograph combinations.  I have an RAE-26 with the new record changer design.  The records sat in a tray that swung over the turntable, picked up the played record from the bottom and then put a new record on to play from the top.  It would play continuiously until you stopped it. 

 

I remember seeing in the Victor Record catalogs whole sets of funeral music that would play for hours.  Would be curious to see what those sound like!

 

miele_ge++6-18-2011-09-38-49.jpg
 
Experimental stereo sound in 1932 also. I just bought a 1970 Magnavox console for the variation of the changer that appeared between 1969 and 1971, and the motor died! And I've bought more record albums over the last 30 years than anyone would need in two lifetimes. I'll crank up the Astro-Sonic armoire in a bit though, and enjoy my latest vinyl finds.

112561++6-18-2011-11-48-37.jpg
 
Interesting.  1948 was clearly the year that things got moving again after the WWII hiccups.

 

I was listening to NPR's science program yesterday and they were talking about Bell Labs inventing the transistor in 1948, and how the father of modern day computers was using the term "bits" to describe the transferred information.
 
Happy Listening

As an analogue fan myself I can only concur with what has been said a million times about vinyl playback

electron1100++6-18-2011-13-27-30.jpg
 
It's 1970 and Columbia feels the first breaths of the Gr

Why would Columbia Records take out full-page ads in large-format magazines like LIFE to sell something that's as ubiquitous as air and water? Scroll to the bottom left of the ad. The tiny print pretty much sums up Columbia's attitude toward any non-vinyl medium including the CD.

Oh, they tried, with audiophile technologies like CX noise reduction, half-speed mastering and heavier-than-normal records (but only by a few grams which was claimed to enhance rotation stability).

The final insult: they eventually merged with mortal enemy RCA when Sony Music merged with Bertelsmann.

joeekaitis++6-18-2011-13-27-40.jpg
 
Vote for vinyl. Slight exaggeration to say, CD sounds like playing a Brillo pad with a bad needle. However, an audiophile friend just got a TUBE CD player and says it now sounds like records except without the scratches. The 12AX7 is just the buffer/line driver of course. Building a CD decoder out of tubes would take up your whole bedroom and spontaneously combust the cat.
 
Yay. I have about 250 or so 33 1/3s upstairs on my 90 s console stereo. Also have a Crosley connected to the sound system in the living room for the even more epic vinyle sound.
 
Have several mover boxes of LP'S DVD's are stacked atop my turntable--a Rega PL3.Nice little TT.It plays thru my Onkyo receiver.I have some tubed amps-they all need new filter caps which I just can't put my hands on-none has them.Yes-something about LP's VS CD-A WELL recorded and pressed LP sounds great-esp from the 50's-toearly 60's.tubed mixers and recorders used then-and engineers and producers knew how to use that equipment.In the later 60's the nice tubed 3 and 4 channel tube mixer consoles used at RCA,Columbia,Capitol and others were replaced with early CRAPPY sounding early solid state boards.Now the recording companies have seen the light-those old tubed consoles are restored and put back into service.I would LOVE to take a sledgehammer to those HORRIBLE early SS boards and rid us of them foreever!Some reissue RCA and Mercury recordings have been remastered with those early tubed consoles-the SACDS do sound fantastic!and its in ORIGINAL 3 or 4 channels.No mixdown to mono or stereo.the mix downs to stereo today from 100 channel or more can sound pretty bad.and SLAP the hand of any producer or engineer that fiddles with the console EQ controls!Thats why so many recordings today --SOUND LIKE CRAP!Those early tubed custom boards DIDN'T have EQ controls-the engineer had to know how to chose and place the microphones for the best results-too many of them today just don't have that ability.and early tubed Ampex and Scully tubed ANALOG recorders are being put back into service.I had used and worked on these-truely GREAT peices of audio equipment.Long roll the Ampex 300's and 350' and Scully 280's!
 
In the mood

"NOW'  you can hear the whole thing without turning the record over. My late father used to say that was the "longest song ever", of course that was when the parents were dating.

 
Marketing is a good chunk of what made 60s releases (including the Beatles) sound as bad as they did. A&R guys droned "louder is better" and since most phonos of the era had about one usable watt and a 3" speaker, the 'industry wisdom' was to take all the bass off since it eats power and wouldn't reproduce anyway. Then compress the begeezus out of what was left.

Yes, I worked on Ampexes too. I worked FOR Ampex for a year, CEPD, Hawaii branch, the bulk we got were consumer, studios and stations generally took care of their own. Circa 1970, I briefly owned a working A-format 1" video recorder. 10 years later I was in charge of $3M worth of Ampexes at a 40-market NBC affiliate.

Those were the days. Today... well exactly how long has what's left of Ampex been in bankruptcy?
 
They are under the name "Quantegy"supplier of magnetic tape and digital magnetic storage devices.The recorder section is completely gone.If you have Ampex recorders-parts-you are on your own.I don't know if Minnesota Magnetics is still around-they provided replacement heads for about any recorder out there.They were also a OEM supplier as well.And another sad thing-most recordings made from mid 60's to even present were made to sound "best" on mono AM or FM radio-thru a typical table radio or mono car radio.Most recording studios and broadcast stations for that matter have a small speaker in a cabinet to replicate those in radios.Or the producer will tune in on his (often lo fi)car radio or table radio and say"Make it sound good on this".But the station sounds like CRAP on a Hi-fi type radio-Shrill highs,booming one note bass.And not to mention what this compression and loudness does to AM transmitter modulator tubes and modulator transformers.the RF PA tube doesn't last as long either.then the station manager gripes about why the station is burning up expensive tubes.I did most of my work with the Ampexes in radio stations.Now we don't see RR machines or TT's in stations anymore,not even CD players!Just a music library stored on a computer hard drive-a touchscreen in the studio allows the jock to select and play what song or ad is called for in the program log.Guess none of the new jocks don't know how to "Q" a tape or record!
 
@miele_ge, interesting about that RCA. I'd be curious about the technology it used. The two real innovations of the Columbia Long-Playing format were not the speed per se, but the use of PVC vs. shellac as the medium, and the microgrooves with the diamond stylus. PVC hadn't been invented in 1931, so that might have been one of the things that crippled the RCA system.

I've got about 400 LPs, nearly all of them purchased new in the 1970s and '80s. I believe the last time I purchased a new LP would have been around 1992. And yeah, I've got some of the Mobile Fidelity Labs half-speed pressings. They really were good, about as good as the format was capable of getting. The surface noise is low enough that you can hear where the master tape was started during the disc cutting. During my teenage years in the early-mid '70s, we all played our albums on whatever equipment was available. I didn't have the money to purchase a decent turntable until 1979, when I bought a Technics SL-230 belt drive. I still have it and use it; the motor regulation is a bit flaky but it still runs. It's on its third belt, third neon strobe bulb, and fifth or sixth cartridge. At one point I had an Audio-Technica cartridge with a Shibata stylus in it. I believe that was just about the best sound I ever heard come out of an LP turntable that didn't cost megabucks.

I still play my LPs, but I'm in the (very, very slow) process of digitizing them for more convenient formats. Unlike some folks, I have no nostalgia for the LP sound. I don't miss surface noise, wow and flutter, rumble, scratches, or tracking error one bit, nor do I miss some of the mastering compromises that had to be made in order to render a disc cuttable and trackable. And I don't miss the per-side length limit. I'll take a properly recorded and mastered CD or lossless-compression file any day.

However, I will admit to nostalgia for the technology. Looking back, it's rather amazing to look at the evolution of the equipment over my lifetime. We went from all-in-one portable players, to console stereos, to separates in about 20 years. Changer concepts came and went, and in the end we went back to manual changing. 45s had their day, and there were a zillion different methods of accommodating the larger center hole. People played with various EP formats. There was direct-to-disc, dual-groove mastering (Monty Python's Matching Tie and Handkerchief), various funny noises recorded into the runout grooves, and stuff that people wrote in the runout blank area next to the matrix number. 4-channel formats came and went, as did various noise reduction systems. And finally there were the hip-hop turntablists, who grabbed the format and used it for their own purposes. An amazing number of changes, considering that the basic concept remained the same throughout.
 
For the last 20 years I've been enjoying LP's, 8-tracks, Cassettes, as well as CD's once they became affordable in the mid-90's.

Like all formats, it really depends on the equipment. There are lousy turntables just like there are lousy CD players. Buy the best you can afford and enjoy the trade-offs in a limited fashion.

The warmth of a fresh, brand new LP played back with a brand new stylus will always sound pleasant to the ears, but the refinement and lack of flutter of a CD on a comparable player (early 80's Sony or Philips) will blow the doors off the cabinets with the right amp.

(Pictured: 1976 Sansui 990db receiver, 1978 Pioneer PL-630 turntable with an AT-12s Shibata stylus, 1985 Sony CDP 620ES CD player, 1984 RCA Colortrak 2000 monitor)

swestoyz++6-20-2011-10-16-5.jpg
 
I just bought a brand new Roxy Music album today for $2.13. I have a copy of the same album I bought in the mid 1970s. I'm so tempted to open it. Album number MS2114, and further down the spine it says 0598--WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC. PRINTED IN U.S.A, just for the record so to speak. I don't think I'm sitting on a fortune, just more amused that I own a brand new album pressed anywhere from 1972 until whenever they stopped pressing that particular piece.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top