Sounds like you folks who would never play an old record on original equipment shouldn't play them on anything that creates drag, wear, damage, etc. Perhaps you should consider the purchase the "really cool" and really "expensive" laser player. I saw it demoed at the CAPS show a few years ago. Nothing but light when you play records on that machine. But, not very affordable (many thousands if I remember correctly). I would think the records would never wear out if played on this equipment. The biggest risk would just be the risk of breaking the record getting to the machine.
I don't collect particuallary rare records. I have a modest collection of records that work well on my original machines. I have a handful I keep hidden away and never play that are rare. But, that isn't interesting to me. I have several CDs I have purchased that are digital captures of records and they are nice enough. But, for me hearing Caruso on my 1905 Vic VI is far more satisying than hearing the digital capture on my stereo. No matter how good the transfer might be. That might not be as true for some of the later electronically recorded music. But, I listen mainly to acoustic music anyway. It's all perspective and interest. And as we all know if we shop much for records, most old records can't be given away let alone be considered rare. I promise I won't ruin any rare records (as I don't owm many), but I won't likely listen to any of my records on anything but oringial equipment. Just my preference. Dan On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Robert Wright <esrobe...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "I don't think anyone ever said that no wear (not damage-the choice of > terms > shows a prejudice) to a record occurs." > > Au contraire, dear Ron, it is eBay seller "nickjay" (or that's what he > used > to go by) who has said in no uncertain terms that he believes ZERO damage > (or wear) happens with a single playback with a new steel needle. So yes, > I'm afraid someone has said it, and I'm sure he's not the only "true > believer" out there, as Rich pointed out. > > I'm suprised by the strongly defensive stance you take on behalf of steel > needles, though I know you must have your reasons. But no amount of > positive semantics replacing my negatively prejudiced choice of terms is > going to reduce the amount of shellac dust I find all over the tip of > every > brand new soft-tone steel needle I play a shellac record with, so the > terms > really don't make any difference in the real world. > > I absolutely agree that optimal set-up on any machine reduces wear to a > minimum (that's most of what the set-up is for, as minimum wear often > equals > optimum sound), but I was pointing out the one aspect of pivoted playback > that the purveyors of this myth seem to be either ignorant or unaware: > that > azimuth error reduces the "new needles wear down to precisely match the > groove and cause little to no wear after the first few grooves" theory to > bunk. > > I also agree some machines had better designs than others. I know a lot > of > earlier, outside-horn machines had tonearms that were pretty darn long; > every millimeter of added distance between the pivot point and the needle > tip helps correct the azimuth error by some degree. I don't know how much > heavier or lighter these older machines register at the needle tip, but > I'd > be willing to bet records suffered less wear played on them with new > needles > than on newer, shorter-tonearm'd models. (Unless, of course, there was > very > little compliance at the needle shank pivot on the older machines... I > wouldn't know, I've never messed with any of them.) > > What I don't agree with is there being some great difference between wear > and damage -- wear IS damage as far as I'm concerned, whether expected or > not. Frankly, who among us makes such a distinction when considering > buying > a record that we later find out has almost completely greyed-out grooves? > Who among us minds the occasional edge chip or flake? I fully expect > those > with shellac discs, as a part of "normal use" involves handling, and > normal > handling includes the occasional, accidental chipping of a record edge. > No, > I say it's a matter of simple semantics, none of which make any real > difference -- but by all means, use whatever terms suit you, as will I. > > Lastly, a bit of quick clarification: regarding Edison DD's and the > reasons > for their relative lack of wear through playing, Pathe discs, unlike > Edison > DD's, are made of the same stuff as lateral shellac discs (minus the > diamond > dust, I'm assuming), and the only Pathe's I find with groove damage have > obviously been played on a lateral machine with a steel needle at least > once > (it's a very obvious "look" the surface has when subjected to such > numbskullery). As I said, Pathe's sapphire ball stylus machines offered > exactly the same tip profile to the groove regardless of position and/or > angle of the soundbox, because it was spherical; as such, I've never seen > a > clean vertical Pathe disc in the middle -- it has either been shredded to > nothing by misuse, or its playing surface looks -- and sounds -- pristine. > > Final point (so to speak, ha ha): you won't get me to believe that the > world's hardest substance can be altered by one of the world's most > pliant. > Modern cartridges are not "retipped" because of wear to the diamond; the > entire cantilever is replaced, along with the cantilever's suspension. > When > burning in a new stylus, it is this cantilever suspension that is being > broken in, and when the stylus needs replacing, it is because of the > cantilever suspension, which cannot support the recommended Vertical > Tracking Force after so many hours of use, making the magnets attached to > the cantilever become misaligned with the coils inside the cartridge. > Plastic does not wear down a diamond. (Playing shellac discs with diamond > dust in them is, however, another story completely, as a diamond will > obviously be reshaped by grinding against diamond dust -- that's how > jewelers shape them to begin with.) > > Don't let wear OR damage stop you from playing your records, but do know > what you're signing up for and act accordingly. > > Best as always, > Robert > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron L" <lhera...@bu.edu> > To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" <phono-l@oldcrank.org> > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:01 AM > Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles > > > >I don't think anyone ever said that no wear (not damage-the choice of > >terms > > shows a prejudice) to a record occurs. That is clearly wrong for the > > reasons you have stated. Wear to the needle continues throughout the > play > > of the record. If a machine is properly maintained and the reproducer > has > > compliant parts, when a new steel needle(not a nail - see comment in > > parentheses above) is used, wear is kept to a minimum. Having said that, > > further qualification should be made. Some machines had better designs > > than > > others. Steel needles are ground to a point and tumbled to create a > > particular radius on the tip they are not merely, "headless nails." > What > > has happened over time is that the whole playback system has become > > refined. > > Even diamond styli are worn by vinyl records and the records themselves > > are > > worn (degraded) every time they are played. No contact system of > playback > > will eliminate this. If you have a super-valuable/rare record, should > you > > play it repeatedly with a steel needle? No. But then again, you > probably > > shouldn't play it repeatedly with any needle/stylus. > > > > I think Greg Boganz mentioned the lack of wear on DDs on the Electrola > > list > > recently. It is not entirely because of the tone arm and has to do with > > vertical grooves and the nature of the DD surface. > > > > Ron L > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > From lhera...@bu.edu Thu Mar 6 12:55:14 2008 From: lhera...@bu.edu (Ron L) Date: Thu Mar 6 12:58:31 2008 Subject: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles In-Reply-To: <bay123-dav51414b1b8a88b4b7515ebaa...@phx.gbl> References: <410-2200834622125...@earthlink.net><bay123-dav129880f3892337835dbaebaa...@phx.gbl><002501c87f9a$fbb6c710$90d42...@ad.bu.edu> <bay123-dav51414b1b8a88b4b7515ebaa...@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <004d01c87fcc$616230a0$90d42...@ad.bu.edu> Are you sure the whole cantilever is replaced during a re-tip? I don't think I am defending steel needles any more strongly than you are condemning them. I don't use steel needles exclusively but I don't shy away from steel needles either. Ron L -----Original Message----- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Robert Wright Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:20 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles "I don't think anyone ever said that no wear (not damage-the choice of terms shows a prejudice) to a record occurs." Au contraire, dear Ron, it is eBay seller "nickjay" (or that's what he used to go by) who has said in no uncertain terms that he believes ZERO damage (or wear) happens with a single playback with a new steel needle. So yes, I'm afraid someone has said it, and I'm sure he's not the only "true believer" out there, as Rich pointed out. I'm suprised by the strongly defensive stance you take on behalf of steel needles, though I know you must have your reasons. But no amount of positive semantics replacing my negatively prejudiced choice of terms is going to reduce the amount of shellac dust I find all over the tip of every brand new soft-tone steel needle I play a shellac record with, so the terms really don't make any difference in the real world. I absolutely agree that optimal set-up on any machine reduces wear to a minimum (that's most of what the set-up is for, as minimum wear often equals optimum sound), but I was pointing out the one aspect of pivoted playback that the purveyors of this myth seem to be either ignorant or unaware: that azimuth error reduces the "new needles wear down to precisely match the groove and cause little to no wear after the first few grooves" theory to bunk. I also agree some machines had better designs than others. I know a lot of earlier, outside-horn machines had tonearms that were pretty darn long; every millimeter of added distance between the pivot point and the needle tip helps correct the azimuth error by some degree. I don't know how much heavier or lighter these older machines register at the needle tip, but I'd be willing to bet records suffered less wear played on them with new needles than on newer, shorter-tonearm'd models. (Unless, of course, there was very little compliance at the needle shank pivot on the older machines... I wouldn't know, I've never messed with any of them.) What I don't agree with is there being some great difference between wear and damage -- wear IS damage as far as I'm concerned, whether expected or not. Frankly, who among us makes such a distinction when considering buying a record that we later find out has almost completely greyed-out grooves? Who among us minds the occasional edge chip or flake? I fully expect those with shellac discs, as a part of "normal use" involves handling, and normal handling includes the occasional, accidental chipping of a record edge. No, I say it's a matter of simple semantics, none of which make any real difference -- but by all means, use whatever terms suit you, as will I. Lastly, a bit of quick clarification: regarding Edison DD's and the reasons for their relative lack of wear through playing, Pathe discs, unlike Edison DD's, are made of the same stuff as lateral shellac discs (minus the diamond dust, I'm assuming), and the only Pathe's I find with groove damage have obviously been played on a lateral machine with a steel needle at least once (it's a very obvious "look" the surface has when subjected to such numbskullery). As I said, Pathe's sapphire ball stylus machines offered exactly the same tip profile to the groove regardless of position and/or angle of the soundbox, because it was spherical; as such, I've never seen a clean vertical Pathe disc in the middle -- it has either been shredded to nothing by misuse, or its playing surface looks -- and sounds -- pristine. Final point (so to speak, ha ha): you won't get me to believe that the world's hardest substance can be altered by one of the world's most pliant. Modern cartridges are not "retipped" because of wear to the diamond; the entire cantilever is replaced, along with the cantilever's suspension. When burning in a new stylus, it is this cantilever suspension that is being broken in, and when the stylus needs replacing, it is because of the cantilever suspension, which cannot support the recommended Vertical Tracking Force after so many hours of use, making the magnets attached to the cantilever become misaligned with the coils inside the cartridge. Plastic does not wear down a diamond. (Playing shellac discs with diamond dust in them is, however, another story completely, as a diamond will obviously be reshaped by grinding against diamond dust -- that's how jewelers shape them to begin with.) Don't let wear OR damage stop you from playing your records, but do know what you're signing up for and act accordingly. Best as always, Robert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron L" <lhera...@bu.edu> To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" <phono-l@oldcrank.org> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:01 AM Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles >I don't think anyone ever said that no wear (not damage-the choice of >terms > shows a prejudice) to a record occurs. That is clearly wrong for the > reasons you have stated. Wear to the needle continues throughout the play > of the record. If a machine is properly maintained and the reproducer has > compliant parts, when a new steel needle(not a nail - see comment in > parentheses above) is used, wear is kept to a minimum. Having said that, > further qualification should be made. Some machines had better designs > than > others. Steel needles are ground to a point and tumbled to create a > particular radius on the tip they are not merely, "headless nails." What > has happened over time is that the whole playback system has become > refined. > Even diamond styli are worn by vinyl records and the records themselves > are > worn (degraded) every time they are played. No contact system of playback > will eliminate this. If you have a super-valuable/rare record, should you > play it repeatedly with a steel needle? No. But then again, you probably > shouldn't play it repeatedly with any needle/stylus. > > I think Greg Boganz mentioned the lack of wear on DDs on the Electrola > list > recently. It is not entirely because of the tone arm and has to do with > vertical grooves and the nature of the DD surface. > > Ron L _______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
