[78-L] Speed for old Edison, and Victor 78s

[Chris Zwarg]

Mike Biel wrote:

>because Victor advertised their speed as 78.  

When was that? I remember noticing a stated speed of variously 75 or 76 in the prefaces of several Victor catalogues from the late '10s and early '20s. I was surprised when I first saw it that from one year to another at some point, the stated speed was changed from 76 to 75, although the contents of that catalogue were over 80% identical with the foregoing one that had the slightly higher nominal speed.

>George Brock-Nannestad believes that acoustic playback at a faster speed reduces record wear caused by resonating horn resonances of the recording and reproducing horns.

He is wrong, sorry - an acoustic reproducer gets in trouble with high frequencies at high volume (because of the inertia of the rather large cantilever and diaphragm), and playing a record faster than intended will exaggerate that. There are some series of Gramophone Co. records from the first decade, which - accidentally or on purpose, who knows? - were cut at around 68 rpm instead of the usual 75-76 rpm, and these invariably turn up worn to shreds probably from being played much too fast with a heavy soundbox. Conflicting horn resonances will sound unpleasant but will not influence record wear much, they also cannot be reliably avoided by just changing the speed a 1 or 2 rpm as both recording and reproducing horns varied widely in construction and resonance characteristics.

>  And also, the records sound a little brighter played back sharp.  

Probably that's more to the point, although very questionable from a musician's point of view. There is an interesting article in the German trade press ("Phonographische Zeitschrift") around 1910 advocating - in answer to a query much like the present one about how fast the turntable should turn for best results - that the speed at which a record was cut is not necessarily the speed it should be played at. The writer uses the Caruso "Martha" aria as an example, stating that if played at score pitch the tempo drags and the "true tenor quality" of the voice is missing, and advises to play it one half-tone (ca. 4 rpm) or even a full tone (ca. 8 rpm) faster to bring out its musical beauties! Try it - the effect is hilarious to our ears, but it seems that's how it was done back then; just like there were people claiming that (silent) movies should usually be played back considerably faster than they were filmed, to underline the conciseness and rapidity said to be inherent in the esthetics of this medium. 

Among the numerous record reviews by critic Max Chop published in the "Phonographische Zeitschrift" from 1906 to 1914, there are several references to musical pitches, top notes etc. allowing us to reconstruct that Mr. Chop ran his gramophone at around 75rpm without adjusting even widely diverting pitches; he always preferred to believe the singers were transposing and/or choosing odd tempi, rather than his machine needed to run at a different speed for a particular record. Occasionally this leads to oddities like his mis-identifying the Viennese contralto Josie von Petru as a tenor "José Petru" after listening to one of her 1906 Odeons which are in score pitch at ca. 83rpm, and come out a full tone flat at 75.

Chris Zwarg