[78-L] dubs

[Michael Biel]

From: DAVID BURNHAM <burnhamd at rogers.com>
> I just found a Hank Snow record where side A is a dub and side B
> is an original pressing. I'm curious to know how one side's stamper
> gets worn out faster than the other side's if they both make the
> same number of records. Assuming side A is the top half of the
> waffle iron type of record stamper, does it take more of a beating
> than the stationary side B stamper on the bottom?

I've never seen any articles or papers discussing this possibility. 
There are pressing plants still in operation (vinal, of course, which
might make a difference in this factor) and perhaps some of their
engineers might be able to comment.

> If that were the case, I don't think it would take too long before
> they'd realize this and put the side A stamper on the bottom. 

This would be something that I would think would be in every article
about record pressing procedures if this were true.

> This is not a first for me, I've seen many records with the same
> situation. I've never seen a copy of the 12 inch "Harry Lauder
> Medley" where A isn't a dub and B the original. As we all know,
> a second generation 78 is a huge step down from the first.
> This is why it doesn't matter much if someone advertises a 78
> in mint condition - if it's a dub, you're better off with an
> original in just good condition. 

Good point about how records are described in lists.  This is now a
usual thing in speciality opera lists when listing the pre-1905 Caruso,
Melba, Tomango, etc. records where having a "First Plate" is very
important because the quality goes rapidly downhill with the use of
moulded stampers.  But it is never done routinely elsewhere.  There are
a few notable cases, like side one of the Prokofiev classical symphony
(?) which has a notoriously wretched dubbing which everyone assumes is
the only available version but I think it was Lenneck who has told us
that he does have a master pressing of that side.   
 
> If it hasn't happened already, the technology will soon be
> in place where 78s can be scanned with a laser, (not played),
> and even from a worn disc, the result will be all of the
> original material without any distortion, evidence of wear
> or remnant of the surface whatsoever. 

It has happened already and I have even had a chance to play with the
one owned by the Vienna archive.  Your supposition that wear would not
be a factor is quite incorrect.  In fact, the records have to be
spotlessly cleaned because dirt creates MORE of a problem then with
stylus playing.  The machine is very sensitive to any missing pieces on
the rim -- it won't play them at all -- and discolorization is also a
cause of rejection.  It will play cracked records -- you can even put
clear tape on the side you are playing!!!!!!!!!!!!  BUT if any white
from a lam crack shows thru it won't play it.  It is not as variable in
finding unworn parts of the groovewall as you can do with a large
assortment of different styli size, so that is a factor in your
supposition.  I have suggested -- in person -- to the head of the
company which makes these turntables that there be changes to allow more
for defective records because that would be the REAL advantage of this
table, but he indicated that the additional cost might add $10,000 to
the $20,000 cost of the table.


> What you will hear will be the same as what was heard in the
> recording studio from the mikes. This will be particularly
> interesting when they process first generation acoustic discs
> and we'll hear for the first time, a sound which wasn't even
> heard in the recording room at the time of recording.

When I was in Moscow I was given two modern white label pressings with
four 12-inch early acoustical operatics (I don't remember the titles and
I don't have them here to check the numbers) and the sound was uncanny
without any surface noise from the vinyl.  I suppose they are like the
RCA Victor Special De Luxe Heritage Series, and the Original Master
pressings Earl wrote about.  You hear the whur of the cutting needle and
the reverberation within the horn which is actually what the performer
on acoustical recordings hear while making the record.  The acoustical
recording horn is not a passive receiver like a microphone is, and THIS
is probably why performers like Billy Murray are noted to have disliked
electrical recording at first.  When I first made a video recording of
one of Peter Dilg's acoustical recording sessions I placed my microphone
right at the horn bell and heard all this whuring and resonances added
to the performers' sound, so I moved my mic to an inch above the horn to
get only the performers' sound.  But they hear it, and I could hear it
more clearly on the vinyl pressings than I have ever heard on shellac
pressings.


> But this process will only give such a result if it is dealing
> with the first generation, because on every subsequent generation,
> no matter how carefully it was mastered, the surface noise of the
> previous generations has all of the same characteristics as the
> original signal itself and can't be separated.  db

Similar to even modern dubs.

Mike Biel   mbiel at mbiel.com