[78-L] Phonograph vs. REcord

[Michael Biel]

Taylor Bowie wrote:
> Thank you,  Mike.  I agree 100%.  I am not interested in the phonograph or 
> any other system except as to how well it plays the recording.
>
> I know an MD who collects antique medical devices...I doubt he ever 
> considers using them,  even on his older patients!
>   

Remember that great scene in the newer movie version of Little Shop of 
Horrors where Steve Martin uses ancient dental tools on Bill Murray to 
inflict the maximum amount of pain?  That's what playing rare records on 
an ancient wind-up is like. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAKYQjpDtpA&feature=related


> Over the years,  I've slowly upgraded my system to the point where I'm now 
> able to hear things from records which I hadn't even know were there.  They 
> were there all the time,  but the "period" equipment couldn't reproduce all 
> the sounds that were in the groove.  Good examples of this can be found on 
> late 20s and early 30s Viva tonal Columbias.  Simply put,  the recording 
> technique of the time was better than even the best machines made to play 
> the records.
>   

That is almost always the case in every era of recording.  Recording 
equipment was always better than reproduction equipment, and it is 
continually improving.   Even experienced sound restoration experts 
constantly say they could do better now than they were able to do five 
or ten or twenty years ago.  A few years ago I brought up the 
unbelievable fantastic sound from a 1932 Victor of Astaire and George 
Hall's Orch on the Buddha CD "Time Capsule".  I went back to the prior 
reissues of it and they couldn't compare, but you could tell that 
somewhere there was some of that fantastic sound that was still buried.  
Even that is far better than what that disc would sound like on a 
Credenza, even with dl's Soft Tone needles!  And I'm sure, so does 
dl!!!  And I cringe to think of what would have happened to the crisp 
sound of the drums after Big Steel got through with it.

> The"romance" or whatever of playing good records on some old wind-up machine 
> just eludes me.   As Mike put it so clearly,  either you are listening to 
> the phonograph or to the record...my interest is in the latter.
>
>
> Taylor B
>   

Just think of what your kidney's will feel like after riding in a 1912 
Model T!!!!

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com 

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Michael Biel" <mbiel at mbiel.com>
> To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Teddy Roosevelt 1912 Campaign Speech
>
>
>   
>> bruce78rpm at comcast.net wrote:
>>     
>>> Yes what a complete fool that so-called collector is to play an original 
>>> Acoustic Victor record from 1912, which was originally made to be played 
>>> on an Victor Victrola with a changable steel needle system, with a fresh 
>>> unplayed steel needle, actually having the gall to play it on an old 
>>> period Crank Victor with a fresh steel needle !! The nerve of some 
>>> people. Oh wait, that's me!!
>>>       
>>> I've Actually been destroying all these records for the past 20 years , 
>>> changing the needles after every play, and doing everything it says in 
>>> the original instructions to extend the life of the records.
>>>       
>> That is not extending the life of the record, it is merely extending the
>> shortening of the life of the record.
>>
>>     
>>>  Many of the records in my collection have been played hundreds and 
>>> hundreds of times with fresh steel needles,
>>>       
>> When Victor was considering releasing a record they would subject it to
>> a wear test.  It would be played 50 times (or some other amount
>> depending on the quality they were looking for.  It is possible they
>> would play operatic records for 100 times.)  to make sure it did not
>> wear out prematurely.  That is all they expected people to play the
>> records for.
>>
>>     
>>>  and still sound great.
>>>       
>> How do you know?  You're not listening to the record, you're listening
>> to the phonograph.  You haven't heard what the record sounds like. And
>> you have no means of comparison.  Wear develops incrementally and is
>> usually not immediately noticeable unless something is drastically
>> wrong.  Have you ever taken a new condition record and only played HALF
>> of a side repeatedly?  Say, 50 or 100 or "hundreds
>> of times and then compared that portion of the record with the unplayed
>> part of the same record??  That is the only means of comparison you can
>> have.
>>
>>     
>>>  I know there are folks who cringe everytime they see this, but to me it 
>>> is part of the pleasure of being a collector of both the old acoustic 
>>> records and the old acoustic machines they were intended to be played on.
>>>       
>> In 1912 it was intended that you would travel in a Model T Ford or some
>> other 1912 contraption.  They're fun to ride in, but only to ride in a
>> 1912 car.  It is not the preferred way to travel now.  It's fun to play
>> a record on an old wind-up but that is not the preferred way to hear the
>> recording now.
>>
>>     
>>>  Actually I cringe at the thought of being historical
>>>   incorrect and playing Teddy on modern electric phonograph with an light 
>>> tone arm and modern needle system. It is a debate we can have all day and 
>>> no one wins in the end.
>>>       
>> Yes, there is a clear and decisive finale.  If you want to listen to the
>> PHONOGRAPH, you play the records on old phonographs.  If you want to
>> listen to the RECORDING, you play it on non-destructive restoration
>> equipment.  Playing a record on an acoustical phonograph imparts a
>> measurable and audible modification of the sound of the recording.  The
>> horn resonances are there for each and every record played on it,
>> creating a distinctive sound of the machine on top of the sound of each
>> and every record.  Proper restoration equipment does not add any
>> distinctive sound to the record and if manipulated properly can overcome
>> the distinctive resonances that the acoustical recording system imparted
>> onto the sound the performers created in the studio.
>>
>>     
>>>  It's what ever makes you happy. Not what makes the other guy happy.
>>>
>>>       
>> But your claim of non-destructiveness to the record is demonstratively
>> false.  And on your video we were not hearing Teddy, we were hearing
>> your machine's horn's interpretation of Teddy, coupled with the varying
>> sound imparted by the moving of your camera-mounted microphone.  It's a
>> fun video, but only an approximation of what Teddy actually sounded like
>> or what the recording sounded like.
>>
>> Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com
>>
>>     
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "David Lennick" <dlennick at sympatico.ca>
>>> To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 6:24:55 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
>>> Subject: Re: [78-L] Teddy Roosevelt 1912 Campaign Speech
>>>
>>> Big Steel always wins.
>>>
>>> dl
>>>
>>> Michael Biel wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> simmonssomer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> A wonderful recording.
>>>>> Nothing much has changed!
>>>>>
>>>>> Al Simmons
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Yeah, it is too bad that Teddy and the workers of his day were set upon
>>>> by the big money bosses.
>>>>
>>>> And it is too bad that this rare record of Teddy was set upon by a steel
>>>> needle on this old acoustical machine.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Biel mbiel at mbiel.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>> From: <bruce78rpm at comcast.net>
>>>>> Here for all you 78rpm History Buffs is an original 1912 Record of 
>>>>> Teddy
>>>>> Roosevelt and one of his Campaign Speeches as the nominee of the Bull
>>>>> Moose Party that year. I have included a photo of Teddy on his way to 
>>>>> the
>>>>> Progressive (Bull Moose) convention on the back of his favorite Moose.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2R9-mo4FNQ
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>         
>> ____________________________