Re: [ARSCLIST] Can 78s sound better than LPs?

[David Lennick <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Don Cox wrote:

> On 25/08/06, Tom Fine wrote:
>
> > I think it was a greater feat of great engineering to squeeze
> > fantastic sound out of ANY grooved medium, particularly 78's, than to
> > put out a clearly-audible recording using modern means. Alas, the
> > skill set has slipped so badly that many modern recordings are
> > horrible. Think of a band, producer and engineer working with the
> > requirement of live takes, a set time limit imposed by the disk
> > medium, very primative recording equipment (maybe 3 or 4 ribbon mics,
> > a mixer with no EQ and limited patching) and the known fact that the
> > result will lose 2 or 3 generations of quality by the time it gets
> > into the consumer's hand. That's the 78 era. Now think of all the
> > luxury of non-linear time, overdubs, computer-screen editing and tools
> > like pitch correction and it's very depressing how bad the end product
> > is in most cases today. And I'm not even talking about the basic lack
> > of musical talent.
>
> Why would a 78 lose three or four generations of quality? The production
> disc is a directly moulded copy of the original, without going through a
> tape generation.

Not necessarily true after 1940, when Columbia began issuing all 78s as dubs from
16-inch lacquer discs. Decca and Capitol followed suit in 1943, and Victor began
issuing absolute garbage from 3rd generation dubs in late 1944.

> All that is wrong is the noise in the physical shellac material. (Plus any damage
> from playing - but that applies to LPs too.)

The processing was known to be faulty during WW2 when certain materials became
unavailable. Classic example, Toscanini's recordings with the Philadelphia Orchestra
in 1942, which he wouldn't approve because the test pressings were rotten.

dl

>
>
> I remember there were some audiophile "direct cut" LPs in the 70s, too.
>
> Regards
> --
> Don Cox
> doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx