[Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles
Many times the pros and cons of playing shellac discs on wind-up phonographs have been discussed here on this list. There are more than a few collectors who are completely convinced that if you follow the rules, no damage occurs to your records whatsoever (I even know of an eBay seller who admits to playing ALL his records on his wind-up for aural grading purposes, complete with a diatribe in this practice's defense, though he'll never convince me to buy one of his items), and outside of phono maintenance, there really is only one rule -- use a new needle every time, period. I have never agreed with this. I'm a child of the 80's, and I remember when CD's came out -- one of the selling points (though quite secondary to the issue of surface noise) was that you cannot play a record with some miniscule amount of damage, but that you cannot inflict any amount of damage on a CD by playing it no matter how many times you do so. (And remember, they were talking about modern vinyl records with lightweight tonearms and meticulously ground stylii, not a headless nail with a half-pound chunk of metal sitting on it.) It's absolutely true, as anyone who has ever fallen asleep during play of a modern LP on a modern, non-automatic turntable can attest, as they will hear what sounds like pink noise coming from the closed groove near the label, and a certain amount of black vinyl dust wil find itself on their stylus. Further proof: I have a very nice audiophile turntable rig (Music Hall MMF-9 with lots and lots of upgrades, Shure V15VxMR cartridge), and every time I change the stylus, I let it run in one of the locked-groove white noise grooves of the Cardas Frequency Sweep and Burn-In Record for at least a few hours (usually more like 5) before doing any serious listening. And if you go through my disc's tracks one by one, you will plainly hear a couple that have been used more than once, as evidenced by 3 to 6 dB decrease in the treble frequencies. But back to wind-ups. The idea behind the steel needle/diamond dust in the shellac system is that at the beginning of the record, the first few grooves of (hopefully) dead air will grind the surface of the needle to custom fit that particular groove. My expanded idea of this is that once the needle is sufficiently ground to fit, the grinding of both the needle and the record are reduced drastically, as the weight of the soundbox is then supported by the maximum amount of contact area between needle and groove; if this is true, then an ideal constitution of shellac and diamond dust could be arrived at, as the amount of grounding necessary could be calculated to a very fine degree. So what's the problem? Azimuth. The soundbox travels at a curve. And to compound the problem, tonearms were largely kept at a relatively short distance, something like 170mm compared to the 233mm of a modern tonearm. The length of the tonearm is one of the things directly responsible for the reproducer's perpendicularity to the tangent of the groove at the needle's contact point. I don't have a protractor with which to measure the degrees of arc the soundbox of my portable Victrola is subjected during full transverse of a disc, but believe me, it is sadly substantial, visually. Here's a non-scientific test: grab a small square and align one leg against the inside of the soundbox, with the other leg vertically aligned with the horizontal center of the diaphragm while in playing position (for another non-scientific test, line that leg up directly above the needle's contact point), at the start of a record and then at the end, and see for yourself how much the soundbox's relative position to the groove tangent rotates. (As a point of reference, if the square were arranged with the leg pointing at the spindle, it would continue pointing at it throughout the needle's travel if the angle of the soundbox to the groove tangent was consistent.) It is, in a word, severe. This necessarily means that the walls of the needle as ground flat(ter) by the first few grooves of the record are only in line with those first few grooves. What happens throughout the record is the same thing that would happen if you rotated the needle in the shank slightly and played those first few grooves again -- substantial damage to your record. The truth is that the whole grinding the needle for the first few grooves eliminates further damage theory is complete and total bunk. If your tonearm isn't at least 100 feet long, that record is getting gouged the whole time you're playing it. Engineers who design modern turntables, with tonearms more than 30% longer than those of many wind-up phonographs, still consider azimuth a chief design compromise. Granted, with modern tonearms, it's not as much about record damage as it is about the stability of the stereo soundstage and a number of other playback criteria, but the physics of the thing remain: they
[Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles
Thank you for your research, Robert! Your easy to understand facts have convinced me about record wear issues. You work was a very well done, I collect recordings that cover a span of over100 years and these facts apply to ALL speeds and types of recordings! John Paul.Subject: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles..
[Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles
Robert, I have used highly modified RABCO arms to play records on modern Thorens belt drive turn tables since the early 70s. What you are very clearly explaining here is correct but I quit trying to convince the true believers of the permanent damage they were inflicting on irreplaceable records. You are also correct in stating that the damage created by a properly setup DD machine is minimal when compared to all of the rest of the period machines. Your treatise on phonograph geometry and record damage should stir up some activity. I am picturing a young boy with a stick stuck far into a hornet nest stirring briskly while his brother looks on from a safe distance. Rich Robert Wright wrote: Many times the pros and cons of playing shellac discs on wind-up phonographs have been discussed here on this list. BIG SNIP I have never agreed with this. I'm a child of the 80's, and I remember when CD's came out - BIG SNIP But then, we all know that no matter how die-hard a collector's conviction is that no groove damage occurs from wind-up playback, it's not often we see any of them playing Caruso Zonophones and the like on their Vic VI's. Thoughts? Comments? Corrections? It has been quiet in here for a while, indeed! Best to All, Robert
[Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles
Well thank you very much for the kind words! I have to admit, a big part of me is really hoping I've missed something significant, and that I'm totally wrong; I would love it if any of our experts shared some bit of deeper research that proved e wrong so I could relax when playing records on my wind-ups! Best Regards, Robert Wright - Original Message - From: Teri Andolina tando...@rochester.rr.com To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l@oldcrank.org Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:33 AM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles Thank you for your research, Robert! Your easy to understand facts have convinced me about record wear issues. You work was a very well done, I collect recordings that cover a span of over100 years and these facts apply to ALL speeds and types of recordings! John Paul.Subject: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles.. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[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 -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Robert Wright Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:53 AM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles Many times the pros and cons of playing shellac discs on wind-up phonographs have been discussed here on this list. There are more than a few collectors who are completely convinced that if you follow the rules, no damage occurs to your records whatsoever (I even know of an eBay seller who admits to playing ALL his records on his wind-up for aural grading purposes, complete with a diatribe in this practice's defense, though he'll never convince me to buy one of his items), and outside of phono maintenance, there really is only one rule -- use a new needle every time, period. I have never agreed with this. I'm a child of the 80's, and I remember when CD's came out -- one of the selling points (though quite secondary to the issue of surface noise) was that you cannot play a record with some miniscule amount of damage, but that you cannot inflict any amount of damage on a CD by playing it no matter how many times you do so. (And remember, they were talking about modern vinyl records with lightweight tonearms and meticulously ground stylii, not a headless nail with a half-pound chunk of metal sitting on it.) It's absolutely true, as anyone who has ever fallen asleep during play of a modern LP on a modern, non-automatic turntable can attest, as they will hear what sounds like pink noise coming from the closed groove near the label, and a certain amount of black vinyl dust wil find itself on their stylus. Further proof: I have a very nice audiophile turntable rig (Music Hall MMF-9 with lots and lots of upgrades, Shure V15VxMR cartridge), and every time I change the stylus, I let it run in one of the locked-groove white noise grooves of the Cardas Frequency Sweep and Burn-In Record for at least a few hours (usually more like 5) before doing any serious listening. And if you go through my disc's tracks one by one, you will plainly hear a couple that have been used more than once, as evidenced by 3 to 6 dB decrease in the treble frequencies. But back to wind-ups. The idea behind the steel needle/diamond dust in the shellac system is that at the beginning of the record, the first few grooves of (hopefully) dead air will grind the surface of the needle to custom fit that particular groove. My expanded idea of this is that once the needle is sufficiently ground to fit, the grinding of both the needle and the record are reduced drastically, as the weight of the soundbox is then supported by the maximum amount of contact area between needle and groove; if this is true, then an ideal constitution of shellac and diamond dust could be arrived at, as the amount of grounding necessary could be calculated to a very fine degree. So what's the problem? Azimuth. The soundbox travels at a curve. And to compound the problem, tonearms were largely kept at a relatively short distance, something like 170mm compared to the 233mm of a modern tonearm. The length of the tonearm is one of the things directly responsible for the reproducer's perpendicularity to the tangent of the groove at the needle's contact point. I don't have a protractor with which to measure the degrees of arc the soundbox of my portable Victrola is subjected during full transverse of a disc, but believe me, it is sadly substantial, visually. Here's a non-scientific test: grab a small square and align one leg against the inside of the soundbox, with the other leg vertically
[Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles
It turns out the the DD does experience wear or damage, pick the one you like. And when does wear become damage? A properly setup and maintained linear tracking arm with a modern low mass high compliance cartridge will cause minimum damage to the grove walls. If you cling tenaciously to the pivoted tone arm with its changeable geometry and steel needle that needle will wear the grove as it rotates in the grove. You will be shaving rock dust off of the side walls as well as continuously reshaping the needle. Looks like damage to me. Ron L wrote: SNIP 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 From rich-m...@octoxol.com Thu Mar 6 07:54:58 2008 From: rich-m...@octoxol.com (Rich) Date: Thu Mar 6 07:55:36 2008 Subject: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles In-Reply-To: 47d008c9.2060...@mediaguide.com References: 410-2200834622125...@earthlink.net bay123-dav129880f3892337835dbaebaa...@phx.gbl 47d0015d.10...@octoxol.com 47d008c9.2060...@mediaguide.com Message-ID: 47d013d2.90...@octoxol.com You can buy a cartridge for your turntable that has 5 to 7 mil conical diamonds. You might find that the standard stereo stylus might miss the existing wear and produce a clean reproduction of badly damaged originals. These will fit into any of the modern turntables and play mono records. The Thorens TD 126 Mk III is not a bad choice if you do not have one. It will cover the 78 rpm to 80 rpm speeds without a lot of work. You will be surprised how good some of these old recordings sound. I think Kurt Kauck has information on the details of setting this up on his website, complete with pictures. Thatcher Graham wrote: Rich, In my general naivety toward this new hobby I'd assumed everybody knew that the steel needle damages the groove. I wasn't aware there was even a debate. A modern tone arm tracks in grams, the phonograph in ounces! But I do have a question. Most of my collection I've assumed to be relatively valueless. Is there a simple resource I can use so I don't happen to destroy one that /is /actually valuable? -Thatcher Rich wrote: Robert, I have used highly modified RABCO arms to play records on modern Thorens belt drive turn tables since the early 70s. What you are very clearly explaining here is correct but I quit trying to convince the true believers of the permanent damage they were inflicting on irreplaceable records. You are also correct in stating that the damage created by a properly setup DD machine is minimal when compared to all of the rest of the period machines. Your treatise on phonograph geometry and record damage should stir up some activity. I am picturing a young boy with a stick stuck far into a hornet nest stirring briskly while his brother looks on from a safe distance. Rich Robert Wright wrote: Many times the pros and cons of playing shellac discs on wind-up phonographs have been discussed here on this list. BIG SNIP I have never agreed with this. I'm a child of the 80's, and I remember when CD's came out - BIG SNIP But then, we all know that no matter how die-hard a collector's conviction is that no groove damage occurs from wind-up playback, it's not often we see any of them playing Caruso Zonophones and the like on their Vic VI's. Thoughts? Comments? Corrections? It has been quiet in here for a while, indeed! Best to All, Robert ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org From lhera...@bu.edu Thu Mar 6 08:03:03 2008 From: lhera...@bu.edu (Ron L) Date: Thu Mar 6 08:07:35 2008 Subject: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles In-Reply-To: 47d01171.7040...@octoxol.com References: 410-2200834622125...@earthlink.net bay123-dav129880f3892337835dbaebaa...@phx.gbl002501c87f9a$fbb6c710$90d42...@ad.bu.edu 47d01171.7040...@octoxol.com Message-ID: 002a01c87fa3$8efbe9d0$90d42...@ad.bu.edu Wear was a known entity. It was expected. My mom wore out a record of 'String of Pearls because she played it every day when she got home from high school as a young teen. She wore it out, not damaged it out. Damage is a scratch, a crack, a chip or a needle dig. Every time you start and run your car you are wearing components. Are you damaging the car? No. If you hit a tree, then you are damaging the car. It has nothing to do with wear of components. If you don't change the oil in the engine, wear will be accelerated. I don't think it is right to call planned for/expected change-with-use damage. Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles
Damage: The occurrence of a change for the worse. Wear: Impairment resulting from long use. Use the one you like. As far as I can tell its damage, regardless if expected or not. Ron L wrote: Wear was a known entity. It was expected. My mom wore out a record of 'String of Pearls because she played it every day when she got home from high school as a young teen. She wore it out, not damaged it out. Damage is a scratch, a crack, a chip or a needle dig. Every time you start and run your car you are wearing components. Are you damaging the car? No. If you hit a tree, then you are damaging the car. It has nothing to do with wear of components. If you don't change the oil in the engine, wear will be accelerated. I don't think it is right to call planned for/expected change-with-use damage. Ron L From d...@old-phonographs.com Thu Mar 6 09:26:11 2008 From: d...@old-phonographs.com (Daniel Melvin) Date: Thu Mar 6 09:28:53 2008 Subject: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles In-Reply-To: 47d013d2.90...@octoxol.com References: 410-2200834622125...@earthlink.net bay123-dav129880f3892337835dbaebaa...@phx.gbl 47d0015d.10...@octoxol.com 47d008c9.2060...@mediaguide.com 47d013d2.90...@octoxol.com Message-ID: d14f697b0803060926w2c13e6e2m4cb5e9be46052...@mail.gmail.com Being mostly a phonograph collector who enjoys records I look at this quite differerntly than many of you. While I do understand that there are those truely rare records that should be protected, I don't own many of them. And, if I cannot play the records on the original equipment I own, I have no hobby. So, knowing that there is some risk of ware, in my experience that ware is not so extreme that you have to avoid the enjoyment of playing your machines. I regularly play orthaphonic era records on my Cradenza for non-collectors. They are always amazed at how good they sound. And I play my cylinder records on my cylinder machines too. If I played any record every day I suspose I might wear one of them out. But, I don't play any one record often enough to have even notice a change in the sound quality. Listening to records on modern equipment or recording them is an interesting thing to do. But, it is no susbstitute for the sound on the real thing. It's exactly as there were intended to sound. Dan On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Rich rich-m...@octoxol.com wrote: You can buy a cartridge for your turntable that has 5 to 7 mil conical diamonds. You might find that the standard stereo stylus might miss the existing wear and produce a clean reproduction of badly damaged originals. These will fit into any of the modern turntables and play mono records. The Thorens TD 126 Mk III is not a bad choice if you do not have one. It will cover the 78 rpm to 80 rpm speeds without a lot of work. You will be surprised how good some of these old recordings sound. I think Kurt Kauck has information on the details of setting this up on his website, complete with pictures. Thatcher Graham wrote: Rich, In my general naivety toward this new hobby I'd assumed everybody knew that the steel needle damages the groove. I wasn't aware there was even a debate. A modern tone arm tracks in grams, the phonograph in ounces! But I do have a question. Most of my collection I've assumed to be relatively valueless. Is there a simple resource I can use so I don't happen to destroy one that /is /actually valuable? -Thatcher Rich wrote: Robert, I have used highly modified RABCO arms to play records on modern Thorens belt drive turn tables since the early 70s. What you are very clearly explaining here is correct but I quit trying to convince the true believers of the permanent damage they were inflicting on irreplaceable records. You are also correct in stating that the damage created by a properly setup DD machine is minimal when compared to all of the rest of the period machines. Your treatise on phonograph geometry and record damage should stir up some activity. I am picturing a young boy with a stick stuck far into a hornet nest stirring briskly while his brother looks on from a safe distance. Rich Robert Wright wrote: Many times the pros and cons of playing shellac discs on wind-up phonographs have been discussed here on this list. BIG SNIP I have never agreed with this. I'm a child of the 80's, and I remember when CD's came out - BIG SNIP But then, we all know that no matter how die-hard a collector's conviction is that no groove damage occurs from wind-up playback, it's not often we see any of them playing Caruso Zonophones and the like on their Vic VI's. Thoughts? Comments? Corrections? It has been quiet in here for a while, indeed! Best to All, Robert ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[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
[Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles
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
[Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles
Well, Robert, you make some good points in this discussion. But you are in error on some as well. First, what you term azimuth error is more commonly called lateral tracking angle error or LTA by the tonearm engineers. It was widely discussed and debated, particularly at the dawn of the stereo LP with many learned papers written about it in the audio engineering press. This tracking error became more of an issue with stereo records because it is associated with a slight phase misalignment of the two walls of the groove (thus the two stereo signals) as the cartridge tangency changes. (This is a separate issue from vertical tracking angle error VTA which was also an issue with stereo records but has no significance to lateral monophonic recordings.) The result of a lot of sturm und drang over LTA error was that, yes, it exists, and yes, it can be reduced to a minimum with the choice of the proper offset angle of the head of the tonearm as a function of the distance of the tonearm pivot to the platter spindle. You are correct that the shorter this arm pivot to spindle distance, the more the LTA error. You are also correct that this error results in the steel needle turning with respect to groove tangency as the record is played from one diameter to another. It is reasonable to assume at first blush that this turning will present a sharp edge of the previously flatted side of the needle to the groove wall and thereby do some gouging of the wall. However, you are forgetting that the groove is not without wiggles in it which represent the audio modulation. Which means that the groove wall is continuously changing in its instantaneous tangency with the needle. This means that the needle does not have purely FLAT spots worn on its sides, but rather slightly curved (convex) spots as the sharp edges are continuously worn down by the modulation in the groove. The higher the modulation, the more this curvature will present. Therefore, the additional slight turning of the needle in its tangency with the groove caused by LTA error is probably insignificant in its effect on groove wear as the needle doesn't present but statistically a very tiny amount of additional rotation beyond the curvature of the flats caused by the previous record modulation. In other words, the effect of LTA on causing additional record wear is probably negligible. The effect might be more noticeable on records with very low modulation such as some classical chamber music or similar. Your statement that vinyl record cannot and do not wear diamond styli is not correct. I was engaged in doing a lot of record compound wear testing when I worked at the RCA Records manufacturing labs in Indianapolis. We were developing two radically new record compound formulations at the time. One was needed for the new CD-4 quadraphonic audio records which contained supersonic signals up to 45kHz and the other was needed for the RCA Capacitance Electronic Disc (CED) video disc system that was still in development (it was vertical modulation, you might be interested to learn). Consequently, we had installed a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to evaluate the effects of wear both on styli and on records. The SEM allows remarkably detailed views of the minutest surface irregularities with extremely high magnification and extremely long depth of field view (sharp focus over a wide range of depth in the specimen) that is not possible with optical microscopes. I did wear testing of the audio record formulations using several stylus shapes and tracking forces that represented the typical users of the day, about 1975. We checked the amount of wear that could be seen at intervals of 25 plays from 0 to 200 plays using players operating typical high quality stereo cartridges operating elliptical diamond styli at 2 grams, Shibata diamond styli (line contact) operating at 2 grams, and conical diamond styli operating at 5 grams which represented a good consumer type player of the day. The results were frightening! The typical stereo vinyl record compound exhibited quite noticeable trenching of the sidewalls of the groove with the 5 gram conical in as little as 25 plays. When auditioned, especially after 50 plays, these records sounded well worn with much noise and crackling. The 2 gram elliptical fared better, but at 100 plays it produced noticeable trenching as well. The Shibata at 2 grams would show very little wear of the sidewalls at 200 plays. What's more pertinent to this discussion, however, is that the styli had to be changed at regular intervals as they ALSO exhibited noticeable flattening of their contact surfaces. I could get upwards of about 1000 plays from the 5 gram conical diamonds before I decided that they had gotten too flatted. And, as I have stated above, the flats weren't actually flat but rather broadly convex flatted portions at the contact points. 2000
[Phono-L] FW: records from 1907
Our members may find this article interesting. It is about the discovery of a bunch of records stored in a time capsule in the Paris Opera and mentioned in Phantom of the Opera. Ron L _ Here's the article on the records found from 1907 1912 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/preseence-200803.html featuring the opera singers. Cheryl
[Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles
This is the same argument / explanation that appeared in the audiophile press of the mid 50s when stereo and right before Hi-Fi records made their debut. After he expenditure of much ink and paper it was the opinion of the majority that the reproducer tip should follow the same line as the recording cutter with the minimum force required to maintain grove contact. There were several different terms for the geometry of the reproducer travel however to add to the general confusion. And, yes Virginia, the elliptical contact diamond styli does cause measurable wear in a vinyl recording grove. The diamond also shows visible wear over time. Much less per play than the machining operation that takes place between a steel needle and shellac record. The bottom line is that tone arm geometry of a classic acoustic phonograph designed for lateral cut records is horrid. I would play nothing on one of these machines that was either valuable or that I wanted to keep. The only good news is that a big stack of well played 78s and a case of shotgun shells can keep a couple of young boys entertained for an entire Saturday afternoon. Greg Bogantz wrote: Well, Robert, you make some good points in this discussion. But you are in error on some as well. First, what you term azimuth error is more commonly called lateral tracking angle error or LTA by the tonearm engineers. It was widely discussed and debated, particularly at the dawn of the stereo LP with many learned papers written about it in the audio engineering press. This tracking error became more of an issue with stereo records because it is associated with a slight phase misalignment of the two walls of the groove (thus the two stereo signals) as the cartridge tangency changes. (This is a separate issue from vertical tracking angle error VTA which was also an issue with stereo records but has no significance to lateral monophonic recordings.) The result of a lot of sturm und drang over LTA error was that, yes, it exists, and yes, it can be reduced to a minimum with the choice of the proper offset angle of the head of the tonearm as a function of the distance of the tonearm pivot to the platter spindle. You are correct that the shorter this arm pivot to spindle distance, the more the LTA error. You are also correct that this error results in the steel needle turning with respect to groove tangency as the record is played from one diameter to another. It is reasonable to assume at first blush that this turning will present a sharp edge of the previously flatted side of the needle to the groove wall and thereby do some gouging of the wall. However, you are forgetting that the groove is not without wiggles in it which represent the audio modulation. Which means that the groove wall is continuously changing in its instantaneous tangency with the needle. This means that the needle does not have purely FLAT spots worn on its sides, but rather slightly curved (convex) spots as the sharp edges are continuously worn down by the modulation in the groove. The higher the modulation, the more this curvature will present. Therefore, the additional slight turning of the needle in its tangency with the groove caused by LTA error is probably insignificant in its effect on groove wear as the needle doesn't present but statistically a very tiny amount of additional rotation beyond the curvature of the flats caused by the previous record modulation. In other words, the effect of LTA on causing additional record wear is probably negligible. The effect might be more noticeable on records with very low modulation such as some classical chamber music or similar. Your statement that vinyl record cannot and do not wear diamond styli is not correct. I was engaged in doing a lot of record compound wear testing when I worked at the RCA Records manufacturing labs in Indianapolis. We were developing two radically new record compound formulations at the time. One was needed for the new CD-4 quadraphonic audio records which contained supersonic signals up to 45kHz and the other was needed for the RCA Capacitance Electronic Disc (CED) video disc system that was still in development (it was vertical modulation, you might be interested to learn). Consequently, we had installed a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to evaluate the effects of wear both on styli and on records. The SEM allows remarkably detailed views of the minutest surface irregularities with extremely high magnification and extremely long depth of field view (sharp focus over a wide range of depth in the specimen) that is not possible with optical microscopes. I did wear testing of the audio record formulations using several stylus shapes and tracking forces that represented the typical users of the day, about 1975. We checked the amount of wear that could be seen at intervals of 25
