This channel is for those who love listening to 78 rpm records and appreciate the natural sound and beauty of an old gramophone or phonograph. I hope to share a few songs and ideas and hopefully inspire those who have never experienced such a wonderful era in music. Enjoy!
I have seen these coasters and have two questions : is it possible to use clear coat vs epoxy glue ? and do the records need to be 78's ? I have a few LP's i'd like to do this with as it is not a cost effective means to try and straighten them out in the oven ( 175 deg x 3 min. ) and then place 25 lbs of weight on them, besides two sheets of 20 x 20 tempered glass costs $ 80 per sheet and takes about 3 months to get them.
if you add more solvent the carbon settles out and you can syphon off plain golden brown shellac. if you add less solvent you might end up with a paste that could be used to repair bakelite, though i haven't tried it yet.
It would be nice to see the same test done with an acoustic-era record for the sound recording reasons already mentioned, but also because of the very different form factor of grooves from records cut in that era.
@@oldradiosnphonographs Just personal preference. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but in the context of this video I prefer diamond over cactus, wood or steel.
@@oldradiosnphonographs I've never tried a tube amplified system, and I've heard they sound great. They're really expensive though, and I lack the knowledge to maintain it.
@@alternateunreleasedshellac505 I admit i'm not technically inclined in soldering and replacing caps (paranoid about getting zapped) so it's good i know someone who can repair them. I have this 1954 Columbia model portable from with a GE rpx series cart that I replaced the motor mounting grommets in and got all speeds to work and got the changer to function, but the electronics part is out of my ability.
I cannot condone vandalism - even if it is enacted on a broken record. Vandals do not need any excuse and what they certainly do not need is fresh ideas.
Thank you for this video, it is very educational. I assumed that a cactus needle would go easy on a record, but I was surprised to see it shaving the record in this video. The steel needle didn't seem to shave the record, but the cactus needle did. Very surprising result! I was going to buy cactus needles in order to put less wear on my records, but now I'm having a second thought.
The wax residue from those wax infused needles just coats the grooves of the record with WAX. It's basically lining the entire recorded groove with muck every time. Your idea of a wooden needle is admirable ... however.... know when to stop. You created an alternative needle .... but coloring it and soaking it in wax is redundant and does nothing to improve the practicality of it .
It’s weird to see records being repurposed for a record player. It’s like making a hat out of hair. But still cool way of repurposing old unplayable records
I always thought that wooden needles sounded the best on these old acoustic machines. The metal needles just end up sounding too tinny for my tastes. While the wood on the otherhand kinda dampens the sound so it sounds more clean, and less harsh.
These machines destroy records, regardless of the needle. You can't defy the physics of a heavy reproducer and the resulting low compliance. These things should be a museum novelty and no important records should be played on them. Get an AT-120 or similar with a 78 cartridge and stylus and give your records some TLC and permanence.
The majority of damage on these records are from repeated use on a SINGLE USE steel needle. That’s why you don’t use a needle NO more than ONCE with the soundboxes rebuilt with new rubber gaskets and don’t play anything too valuable on ‘em! stick to Sousa Marches or Caruso or Billy Murray. Nothing worth a lot of money. You can own these machines and be responsible. an Uncle Josh or Henry Burr record isn’t gonna hurt. But something really expensive or rare I understand the need to treat those with the upmost of care. Especially labels by the WI Chair Factory the idiots that worked there totally pulled a DUMont and shortsightedly threw masters in the river.
You can also get a restored tube amp console player from the 1940s 50s and 60s too and play em on those!! (That’s what I like to play more valuable and post 1935 78s on) I have a ATLP120 but I broke the 78 stylus on the mono cart I bought for that turntable and I’m too damn cheap to get a $89 replacement so I play em on a Meissner turntable from 1947! (Also a radio and a acetate record cutter too!) Or my Magnavox console radio from 1946 with the Webster Chicago changer. One day I’ll get my ‘47 zenith console working with the cobra turntable.
I disagree on the novelty comment. I've been playing the same 1930s Django Reinhardt and 1920s jazz 78s on my 97 year old Victrola for over 14 years now and they still sound great to me. I follow the one needle per one or two plays rule.
@@voltaire7545 you will not be able to detect deterioration on the windup very easily because the fidelity is so low at baseline. It is only when you use good equipment that is becomes noticeable. Physics does not care about your opinion.
I have a modern turntable with a Shure SC35 cartridge/78rpm stylus with very nice Klipsch speakers which I use more often than the Victrola, so I can definitely hear the true quality of the records. I'm not saying that the Victrola doesn't cause deterioration (obviously it will), I'm just saying that after 14 years of playing a particular set of 78s (ones I designated for the Victrola) that I haven't noticed a real difference in quality. I actually just digitized several of the 78s and they sound pretty amazing.
thats not even close to being true. theres mountains of old 78s left. and master copies still exist. if anything this preserves legacy. something an old basement doesn't provide
I mean...I guess you could do that...but why? This is a classic Jurassic Park moment. You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think if you should. The end result looks like piece of abandoned junk that needs to be cleaned and restored on another RU-vid video. This is like the ending of Alien Resurrection. You know you can make a very pleasant Marshmallow Roasting Campfire by ripping the wooden studs out of the walls of a house and spending a few hours cleaning them up and pulling the nails out of them.
Some of you are talking like everyone got rid of their acoustic record players as soon as electric reproducers came out. Take a look through old Sears-Roebuck & Montgomery Wards catalogs. While people with more money could afford electrics (when you look through the catalogs, adjust the prices for inflation), acoustic machines were sold well into the 1950's (especially for portables). Also, MANY Victrola's, Grafonola's, & other internal horn machines were in use well throughout the war years & after.
Victor Ola, you are a Phillistine and should be ashamed of yourself. Please do not encourage these venerable pieces of modern history to be destroyed just to make a wood stain which, when completed, doesn't even look particularly nice. You silly man.
One flaw in this test I see is the mismatched frequency response curves between the late 1940's recording and the gramophone playback. The mechanical gramophone naturally follows a constant velocity response. That is output level at a specific frequency is determined by stylus velocity, not amplitude. That mean bass frequency records grooves must have wide a wide amplitude lateral swing and high treble frequencies a much smaller amplitude swing to provide the same loudness. Electronic playback which had superseded mechanical playback fully by the late 1930's in the US had taken advantage of altering the record playback response to reduce high frequency noise by boosting highs when recording and attenuating electronically at playback. Likewise wide amplitude groove swings at bass frequencies were reduced by cutting bass,at recording and boosting electronically at playback. Hence the test here is not accurate and inconclusive when using the Gene Krupa record which is incompatible with the mechanical gramophone.
The only difference I've noticed between playing a record from 1947 on a player from the same year and playing the same record on an acoustic machine is that they sound louder and more distorted on the acoustic, which can be solved by using a soft-tone steel needle instead of medium or loud. Otherwise, both turntables sound similar(the newer player sounds better of course). At least that's what I've learned by experimenting with needle types. Edit: by 1938, electric players were the only thing being sold EXCEPT for most portables, which still used mechanical playback until the decline of the 78 in the mid 1950s. Keep in mind that most of the electric players sold were a combination unit with a radio, which was more expensive than keeping an old turntable and buying a separate radio, and record changers were even more expensive. Which is why I personally think electric record players didn't become more popular until after the depression and world war 2. I could be wrong though.
@@randomperson7443 the pre emphasis of the highs in the 40's recording coupled with the constant velocity characteristic of acoustic playback will accentuate the distortion. And also must be included is the poor tracking compliance of the acoustic soundbox. These problems will be alleviated to some degree by using fiber instead of shell mainly because the soft fiber stylus will deform improving compliance and forming a crude low pass filter. It is said fibre needles tend to pick up abrasive matter and lap the grooves. This provides ay treenother form of wear which is not obvious to the eye yet causes distortion. The answer remains that a pickup with appropriate characteristics with a stylus which properly fits the groove is best.
