• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Stereophile: 78rpms are better

A

Alexander Gödde

Active Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2018
Messages
176
Likes
514
Even though I know that some Stereophile writers have somewhat ... idiosyncratic views on what constitutes great music playback the following from an article by Herb Reichert about a 78 rpms listening club surprised me.

"At the Hot Club, music from 78s felt disarmingly raw and unadulterated and so foot-tappingly danceable that when I went home to my flimsy LPs, they seemed hesitant transient-wise and droopy punch and dynamics-wise. They were also, in a way, less transparent. At 78rpm, Chess Records star Howlin' Wolf was presented at full height and full volume, with vocal immediacy today's audiophiles can't imagine."
(from Gramophone Dreams #105, highlighting mine)

Now I am in no way somebody who requires perfect sound quality in order to be able to enjoy recorded music. I can, if the music interests me enough, even listen through the limitations that 78 rpms have and get something from the experience (e.g. I like the Mengelberg/Concertgebouw 1939 recording of Mahler's 4th symphony).

However, claiming that the old shellac discs are superior to modern recordings and even vinyl playback in any aspect of the sound is plain delusional and a bit much even for Stereophile.
 
mhardy6647 said:
Well, sure 78s are better (than 33-1/3)... higher bit rate. ;)
EDIT: Bigger groove, too -- more bit depth!
Click to expand...
Unfortunately they use the illogical big-endian encoding...

Storing the bits from the little/inside end first is clearly superior!
 
Many transfers of 78s I've heard, have any top removed and heavy noise gating, the results usually sounding dire to me.

I have some WAV files somewhere of three or four 10" 78s played using what I recall a Tannoy 'Variluctance' pickup, one of which by Buddy Holly, is easily compared with the vinyl version (I did at the time). I think the deck was a Lenco but cannot be sure.

Played with a properly dimensioned stylus, a lot of the background noise seems to disappear, leaving just a gentle 'presence' in the background* (a bit like hearing a known LP played with a proper high-end stylus compared to a humble elliptical). These transfers 'sound' incredibly 'alive' and 'vital' to me and with plenty of top, but I suspect rather OTT in comparison with the master itself (certainly OTT compared to a digital transfer of said Buddy Holly master).


*I seem to recall a 'Readers Digest' box set of Glenn Miller recordings, which even before any subtle eq and processing, sounded so much better when the shellacs were played with properly dimensioned styli.
 
I heared many 78rpm's at my grandfathers house. He had a quiet deliberate collection and a Pathé phonograph. But as he had no electricy in his house untill the late 60's (they were poor after WWII) and before the system he had was driven by a spring that had to be wound up. He used that thing untill he died in 2000 at age 94, next to his more "modern" Grundig stereo consolette he bought second hand in the 1960's. It has it's charms, but i would not call it better than anything that came after it; it's very lofi.

edit: A picture of the phonograph model that my grandfather had:

1770393032075.png
 
Last edited:
I used to collect 78s, worked for a short time at Ray Avery's Rare Records in Glendale, California. We had a floor stack of Caruso 78s, single-sided, $10 a pop. Also, genuinely rare LPs and 78s upstairs, a few cylinders and cylinder playing machines downstairs. I mostly procured Be-Bop 78s, having an infatuation with the music of Charlie Parker at the time. Most 78s sounded similar to the LP transcriptions though there were exceptions. But the general drift of Herb Reichert's notes is true. I got these 78s in the LP era. The transfers of 78s to LPs involves the step of the "needledrop" to tape, then mastering the record. These are two additional steps in the process, both potentially audible. On the other hand, the 78 is a "direct to disc" recording. The folks who came up with Sheffield Labs direct to disc LPs caught the idea when hearing Arthur Schnabel 78s on really good equipment.

The one 78 I owned that exceeded any transfer I've heard (so far) is "Manteca", Dizzy Gillespie and his Orchestra. It's from 1947, so it was recorded direct to disc. This transfer seems to clamp down the dynamics and obscure the treble:


I've got a lot of transfers to CD of 78s, some are good. I think in a lot of cases the loss of transparency for some 78 transfers has to do with having an analog tape step in the process. But I have a lot of digital transfers of 78s that sound good, if not quite as direct as the sound of unprocessed 78s. I'm grateful that Warner Classics came up with a Busch Quartet box with up-to date (2015) transfer work, I'm grateful for my JSP box of Louis Armstrong Hot 5s & 7s.
 
Last edited:
But compared to wax cylinders…
Keith
 
Back in my vinyl days I saw no relationship between the the fidelity of more rigid discs and the flexible ones.
I had stiffies that had muffled highs and rice krispy damage and softies that played like a dream, and vice versa.
I don't have any of those problems now...
 
Great for ‘French’ polishing too!
Keith
 
Very brittle though, Herb would have to be careful.
Keith
 
Let's not forget that vinyl microgroove 78s also exist: I have one by the "Audiophile" label, and both sonically and musically, it's a hoot.

Nearby record store sometimes has (shellac) 78s in their freebie bin, and recently, I found a bunch by The Ink Spots: Alas, the disk containing "Java Jive" was missing.
 
Chrispy said:
Herb Reichert, seriously?
Click to expand...

Yes, as soon as I read the OP, and before I clicked the link, my first thought was, "It's gotta be Herb Reichert."

Seems like a perfectly fine guy and I appreciate his enthusiasm, but he often does this kind of poetic waxing about how stuff makes him feel, and quickly ends up with these silly assertions.

Yes of course, all things being equal, a faster rotational speed allows for higher fidelity in an analogue disc format. But of course as we all know and many folks have already pointed out, all things are most certainly not equal.

Best to ignore Reichert IMHO, unless you enjoy his writings for entertainment value.
 
Purité Audio said:
Very brittle though, Herb would have to be careful.
Keith
Click to expand...
Stereophile's a bit brittle. ;)

In full disclosure, Herb Reichert is one of the very few hifi journalists I've met IRL (as they say) and I like him. He and I do share some opinions/tastes in the reproduction of recorded music -- but, of course and as always, de gustibus non est disputandum. :)
Timcognito said:
As owner and huge fan of these CDs capturing the transition to what we call Jazz today by an early master, I highly recommend a listen. And guess what, no RIAA equalization, no snap-crackle- pop and one can just skip to your faves.
Click to expand...
No RIAA on 78s, but... by the time electric transcription was a thing, though -- there were multiple standards for EQ (i.e., pre-emphasis/de-emphasis).

1770397643325.png


Note the various (5) EQ options (and there were others) on this EICO HF-52 (not mine, but I did have one for years... and I wish I still had it!). Also note the variable loudness contour. :)

image source: https://www.vintageaudioexchange.com/product/eico-integrated-tube-amp-mono-model-hf-52
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom