The Great 78 Project

[kb0nes]

For those that love the world of music that revolves at 78 RPM, the Internet Archive is undertaking a project to digitize and preserve 78's. The files are available for free download in various file formats but the terms of the copyrights are ambiguous. They haven't de-noised the recordings.

I poked around and listened to a few transcriptions. Boy howdy is there surface noise! I was raised on vinyl, not shellac, but I think it is still a great effort to preserve the history of these recordings.

http://great78.archive.org/

There is probably a joke in there about "busier then a 4-armed transcription table"...

 

[frigilux]

Phil, you've hit on a topic that is near and dear to me. I've been a huge fan of the 78 rpm format since childhood. No longer willing to move the collection--a Herculean task--I recorded my favorites onto reel-to-reel tape and divested it over a period of time to the then recently established Archive of Contemporary Music (a suggestion made by my college roommate who had relocated to NYC), a historical society, a collector, and (shudder) the local landfill.

While the reel-to-reel tapes were lost/damaged/accidentally recorded-over in the shuffle of various moves, I've found many of my favorites on CD (eBay/Amazon) and iTunes.

Hearing Mabel Scott belt out 'Mr. Fine' without the surface noise of a 78 was an ear-opening experience. Some of those digitally restored oldies sound fantastic without the extraneous noise inherent in the 78 format. Ditto recordings by Ruth Brown, Perry Como, Bull Moose Jackson, LaVern Baker, Bing Crosby, the Nat King Cole Trio, Kay Starr, Helen Forrest, Paul Weston & His Orchestra, Harry James, Dick Haymes/Orchestra, Dinah Washington, Frank Sinatra, Jo Stafford, Ruth Brown, The McGuire Sisters, Eileen Barton, Stick McGhee, and many others.

One of my favorite classical pieces is Rachmaninoff's Symphony #2 in e minor. I have at least a half-dozen recordings of it, but my hands-down favorite is a 1947 recording by the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra (now the Minnesota Orchestra) under Dimitri Mitropoulos. I listened to that for years on 78s. A lengthy search (years, actually) produced a digitally-preserved (but, unfortunately, not remastered) CD of the recording on a Russian label. It's one of my desert-island recordings.

Thanks for the great photo of a four-armed turntable! How they're used: Each tonearm is equipped with a different cartridge/stylus to determine which one sounds best with a particular recording. This is done by quickly switching between the signal of each tonearm and comparing the sonic characteristics of each stylus.
It's generally used in studios that specialize in preserving 78s to digital formats. The one shown in Phil's post has tonearms long enough to play 16" master discs (78 rpm format).

 

[tolivac]

Interesting TT-NEVER encountered that one in a radio station!!SP-10 was very common-usually used in production studios rather than air studios.The TT above with ONE arm was used in air studios.

 

[lordkenmore]

I have been interested in 78 RPM records since a teenager, although I've done very little with them. I played a bit as a teenager, but since that time, it's been more a hypothetical interest. I have a turntable that has a 78 RPM speed, and "one day" I'll probably try playing 78s... We'll see...

 

One of the more memorable experiences of 78s was a Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2, with Rachmaninoff IIRC playing the piano. Unfortunately, only one record had survived--but it was a memorable experience hearing even that.

 

I have reservations about processing to fix surface noise. I don't know where the state of the art is now, but it seems like it's potentially too easy to do more harm than good. Certainly that was the case with earlier systems--I recall reading a letter to an editor (of Audio, I think) in which the person commented about how his 78 RPM records were more enjoyable--noise and all--to the processed CD reissues.

 

 

 

[turquoisedude]

Wow, this is a great resource.  I've tried my best over the years to preserve some of my own rare 78s but it's not an easy task, alas.  Acoustic recording seems to work better for me, rather than mastering directly to an mp3 or other audio file.  No, not 'audiophile'....  LOL 

 

[kb0nes]

I too am glad that they made the non de-noised raw files available. But the beauty of working with the raw audio file (like working with a raw image) is that you can mess with it to your own liking. As long as you don't overwrite the original you always have that. As newer and more sophisticated processing evolves the noise reduction becomes better and less intrusive.

As far as the more harm then good from de-noising the files that would be up to the ear of the listener. Personally, while I LOVE that these recordings are being curated and preserved, there isn't a chance in hell that I'd ever listen to any of them as is. I just can't get past that surface noise! Even with a perfect LP on an very high end turntable, I have difficulty with the noise. I love the ceremony, experience and nostalgia of LP's but I don't need the 'agreeable' distortions to make me happy

As for transferring these to preserve them, digital is the only way to go. I'm actually to the point I can't ever imagine recording anything analog any longer, I just don't see the point. I may be a tiny bit of a Luddite, but I'm a pragmatist too.

 

[frigilux]

There was a time when vinyl records sounded better than CDs. Anyone with ears can hear the difference in warmth, crispness and dynamic range between my Japanese vinyl pressing of 'Tanx' by T.Rex and the early 1990's CD version. Vinyl beats it hands down. However, the recent CD remastered by producer Tony Visconti takes the checkered flag.

The quality of digital remastering has come a long way the past few years.

 

[kb0nes]

Eugene, alas it is all up to the ear and perception of the listener. I never thought that LP's beat CD's. Really good LP's are indeed very good, to the point of almost being indistinguishable on a great playback system (except for the surface noise and limited dynamic range). Even with the lousy players in 1984 I adapted to CD's right away. Yes there were always issues with overly hot mixes not being toned down by the LP format so some recordings may sound better on LP's, but I really think it comes down to perception and agreeable distortions.

I had a lot of trouble with LP's in the early 80's trying to tame feedback problems. I had a 110+db 30hz cutoff sub woofer fairly near my turntable. Lots of creativity was involved including bricks and a 2 lb record weight. I can only imagine the issues had I not been on a slab.

But as with all things music, the important thing is that the listener enjoy their music, no matter what the form, there really isn't any right or wrong way.

 

[lordkenmore]

I have been an vinyl diehard since the 1980s. Vinyl was, to my ears, much better. Perhaps it was "agree distortions." Perhaps the format is better in a way that matters to me, but does not matter to someone who prefers CD. The argument 30+ years goes on...just as the argument about tube vs. transistor goes on...

 

I can't speak about the digital of today. It certainly has gotten a lot better. CD definitely is hugely better than it was, although i haven't personally heard anything that suggests that well done CD beats well done vinyl. Then, I haven't really aggressively pursued the comparisons.

 

I am more interested in high resolution digital. I have little experience, but I  am hearing of people who, like me, really never liked digital who've fallen in love with high resolution digital. But...it doesn't seem likely that I'll do anything any time soon. Even if were better, there would be an investment required in hardware and software. At this point, my pennies are limited...and it makes far more practical sense to invest those in my existing system.

 

[rolls_rapide]

Maybe you need...

...the laser turntable.

Five lasers are employed: 2 for the stereo channels; 2 more to keep those first two on track; and a fifth to cope with warped records.

I remember seeing it demonstrated on BBC's 'Tomorrow's World' during the mid-nineties. Presenter Shanaz Pakravan demonstrated a Bing Crosby record on a standard record player. It popped and crackled.

She then played it on the laser machine: crystal clarity.

At the time the machine cost £20,000.

http://elpj.com/

 

[frigilux]

Phil-- In Reply #6 I meant to type that vinyl sounded better than some CDs back in the day.  There was such a rush to transfer everything on vinyl to CD back in the mid-to-late 1980s and the early '90s that little was done in the way of digital remastering. Record companies were salivating at the prospect of selling baby boomers their entire collection again on CD.  Unfortunately, what you got often sounded like a too-compressed version of the record.

 

I shouldn't talk; my entire music collection is now 'in the cloud.'  Got shed of all my CDs during The Great Downsizing of 2014. MP3s sound OK on my small Bose systems, but connect the iPod to a conventional high-quality home system and the warts become very obvious.  

 

Quite honestly, the convenience of having everything in the cloud---and no 1,500+ CD collection to pack and move---is worth the trade in sound quality to me.  Forty plus years of playing in bands and listening to music at ear-damaging decibel levels day in and day out has taken its toll on my high-end hearing. Throw some tinnitus into the mix and...well, you get the picture.

 

 

 

[mattl]

To be honest I have not touched a 78 in many decades.  I do recall playing them when I was a kid, my parents had a collection, that I now have stashed somewhere in the basement.  Anyway the question I have is how much of the true sound can actually be gleaned from these recordings?  I recall they had a very prominent mid range and not much else.  I would think that there is some semblance of a wider frequency range buried in the mix somewhere - am I wrong?  Is there a way to restore a more shall I say "realistic" sound?

 

[foraloysius]

I'd be interested in one of those laser turntables, but with the price still being around $15,000.- I'll have to wait until the price comes down. Although that might take some time, I don't think it will become a mass product.

 

[tolivac]

At one time the Finial Laser TT was advertised to the broadcast industry-but at that same time the broadcast industry was ditching TT's in air studios in favor of CD players and "carting" records to NAB tape carts.Now the broadcast industry primarily relies on music play,adplay,promos from digital audio from a touchscreen controller on the station computer network-and this can be automated!The record libraries in radio stations would be gold mines to oldies and other music collectors.Often these languish at transmitter sites or even generator rooms.And when the stations converted-their old TT's often could be got just for the asking-otherwise they got tossed into the dumpster!

 

[frigilux]

Wow! That laser turntable is a marvel to behold. The high-tech performance aspect of it is extremely attractive, but I have a rule about spending more on a turntable than I did for a car, LOL.

I was into the tangential tracking Bang & Olufsen and Harmon-Kardon turntables. Got the Harmon-Kardon in 1977 and went to (and stuck with) Bang & Olufsen around 1983. Had a vertical turntable for awhile; the 'wow' factor was off the charts, but it was kind of a pain to deal with in the real world. (All images from Google)

Haven't had a turntable for several years, now.

 

[lordkenmore]

I remember the Finial laser turntable getting a review in IIRC Hi-Fi News and Record Review. Two problems were mentioned. First, the records had to be clean, or else you heard every speck of dust in the groove. (As the reviewer pointed out, though, high quality record cleaning systems were considerably cheaper than the Finial...so if you could afford the Finial, you could afford to properly clean the records.) Secondly, the performance was only on a par with a turntable at a fraction of the price. I think right about that point the average reader likely lost interest in the product--people reading such magazines care about sound quality.

 

[lordkenmore]

The high-tech performance aspect of it is extremely attractive, but I have a rule about spending more on a turntable than I did for a car, LOL.

 

Just plan to buy a more expensive car next time. LOL


 

 

 

[frigilux]

Sound financial advice, Lord Kenmore!

 

[lordkenmore]

Interestingly, I saw one argument on a turntable forum recently that suggested that conventional turntables that cost as much as a car are actually better buys. They can last a lifetime...whereas the car will often wear out in 10, 20 years.

 

I'm not sure I'd make that sort of argument...although some would say it's sour grapes because I can't afford to drop twenty grand on a turntable. But it seems to me that a lot of buyers buying at that level aren't buying a lifetime product--they will upgrade as soon as something "better" hits the market.

 

Although on a lesser level, I recall reading on a forum years back one person who bought nothing but $2,000 cars. All he cared about was basic, reliable transportation, and cheap cars meant that he could invest in something (audio) that mattered to him. (This guy's approach makes sense to me. Why buy more car than you really need or want if you'd be happier doing something else with the money?)