[78-L] Silent surface (a personal history) and a new question

[Michael Biel]

Royal Pemberton wrote:
> If an original recording was made before the RIAA era, but was:  A)
> played back on a machine which reproduced it correctly according to
> how it was originally recorded, and B) mastered for LP release in the
> RIAA era, it should be played back RIAA for proper reproduction.
>
>   

I don't understand your bringing up playback machines because if these 
were licensed issues they would have either imported metal parts or were 
given a cutting-master tape.  They weren't mastering by playing an LP.  
If they DID, EQ would be the least of your troubles!!! 


I think his question is based on later pressings of pre-RIAA releases.  
Most companies did not re-cut their lacquer masters unless they had to 
because of wear, etc., so you might find a 1960 pressing using 1952 
stampers.  Many companies changed their label format around 1954, so for 
new releases that is usually a good indication if it is AES, LP, or 
RIAA.  But for repressings, label format doesn't always help.  But I'll 
tell you what occasionally will be a good indicator -- lead-out groove.  
1954 was also around the time that record companies started to realize 
that most LP changers did not need an eccentric lead-out groove and many 
of them switched to a concentric groove.  So if a 1960 pressing of a 
1952 record still has an eccentric lead-out, they are using an old 
mother to make their stampers, and it might not be RIAA.  This would 
probably be true of cuttings made by Columbia for other labels as well 
as their own.  But RCA Victor was always RIAA from the start, so any of 
their pressings on other labels would also be RIAA.  As for Uruguay 
pressings of American recordings, check if the master is from an 
American-cut metal part or if it has been re-cut in Uruguay.


On 12/1/08, Pablo Varela <pablovarela73 at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

>> Hello all: this is maybe an off topic since I will talk about 33 rpm and not
>> 78, but in the final item I will ask you some question about it.
>> After working near two weaks over 18 LP of clasical music for a radio
>> station I have a very little reflexion. How RCA can said that Dynagroove had
>> a "silent surface"?
>> I cannot say wich of the four LP I doubbed had the more scratchly sourface,
>> only compared with HMV early 33 RPM. Ironically, pre Dynagroove had more
>> silent sourface and was more easy to transfer and declick. Someone told me
>> that I need to change stylus for those records, I don't believe so, because
>> I try four diferent cartridges with a diferent sort of stylus and no
>> difference was noted. The most problematic was an 1964 LP containing
>> Beethoven's Leonora No 3 Ouverture and Schumann Fourth by Erich Leinsdorf
>> conducting the Boston Symphony Orchestra. I have to remove every visual
>> click by hand and let the other part of the work to DC7 wich I use very
>> sparingly.
>> Do you have similar experinces? What was the most difficult LP you have to
>> transfer?
>>
>>     

Dynagroove did use a groove size that was optimized for ceramic and 
crystal cartridges, and might be a little larger than earlier records.  
I am not sure, but it is possible.  What I do know about is that RCA was 
using several different grades of vinyl at that time, and some of their 
pressings from the 60s are VERY NOISY with a grain structure that can be 
seen if you look closely.  You can also hear it if you put the stylus in 
the ungrooved area of the lead-in and lead-out areas.  Black label pop 
albums that were pressed on the manually operated presses were the 
worst.  Usually a better grade of vinyl was used on the automatically 
operated presses.  Original Cast albums and the Vintage series usually 
also had the better grade of vinyl.  Red Seal also ususally had the 
better grade.  But ironically the best and quietest grade of vinyl was 
used on the Dynaflex pressings.  That is one of the reasons they could 
make them thinner.  They were always pressed on the automatic presses.

How do you tell the difference of which press was used?  The stamper 
holding bracket indication is about one inch in diameter for the 
automatic presses, while the manual presses have the deeper indented 
groove about a half inch from the outer edge of the label.   The  outer  
raised rim is also different.  The manual press has the higher part only 
in the lead-in area, while on the auto press the raised rim slopes 
gently down into a half-inch which extends into the groove area. 

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com

>> Here is the question.
>> My collection of LP and "78" is a special mix of edition from Uruguay (I'm
>> from Uruguay) Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the other portion from UK,
>> France, Germany and USA.
>> My question is the follow. Sometimes or very often I have uruguayan edition
>> of USA recording. The best is an example. Antar, was a local record label
>> that use to release records from Vanguard, Vox and Telefunken, very often
>> from pre-stereo era and also from pre-RIAA era. In those situation in wich
>> the master is from pre-RIAA era, what I have to do?
>> Look for the original label non RIAA curve? Asume that Antar use and
>> specific non-RIAA curve? What happend if the original is from 1952 and here
>> was released in 1964 (don't laugh, happends a lot here in Uruguay)?
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Pablo.
>>
>>