rjr@mgweed.UUCP (07/12/83)
In response to Steve's inquiry; The previous comments are correct in that the 16 rpm records were of the "talking book" types and are still issued. The 45 rpm records were originated by RCA, sometime in the 50's I think. They made dedicated changers that would only handle the 7 inch discs. The 45 was certainly a good replacement for the old 10 inch 78's. I don't know how the speeds were arrived at. 78.26 rpm is no longer considered a standard speed. Neither are 16 inch transcriptions. Anybody out there remember inside-start discs??? I still have a few of those. There were even some 12 inch 45's made in an attempt to obtain better response than 33's but they didn't catch on. The old Edison 10 inch discs were microgroove and had vertical, rather than lateral modulation to increase playing time. Seems to me that early 78's were really somewhat faster, like 80 rpm. Anyone recall that???
hazel@hogpc.UUCP (07/14/83)
In discussing record speeds, someone said "There were even some 12" 45's made in an attempt to obtain better response than 33's but they didn't catch on." Judging from record store shelves, I'd say they sort of caught on. You can see quite a few 12" 45's marketed today (especially dance tunes). Some examples: Come on Eileen by Dexy's Midnight Runners Rock the Casbah by The Clash Baby Doll by Girls Can't Help It Physical Attraction by Madonna and a bunch of others I can't remember... Dale Hazel
jeff@tesla.UUCP (Jeff Frey) (07/16/83)
Our local Discount Records recently had a shipment of 12" classical 45s; clearly a ripoff at their list (or even regularly discounted) prices, they`re a very good buy at roughly $3. per disc, even counting in the reduced playing time. Longer selections just take two discs. THey`re not much better (if at all) than good LPs though. ANother question: does anybody have the Columbia LP of Kubelik conducting the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orch. in Mozart Symphonies 38, 39 (and another record of 35, 36). This is ostensibly a digital recording, which sounds so bad as a CD I`m wondering if the CD mastering got screwed up. By "so bad" I mean lack of detail, diminished highs, muddy bass, everything you`d have expected to hear in 1958. JF
saf@clyde.UUCP (Steve Falco) (09/18/84)
Someone asked me the following question: Where did the speeds for records come from? (78 rpm, 45 rpm, 33 1/3 rpm) I had no idea so I thought I'd ask the net. Incidentally, the questioner observed that 33 + 45 = 78. (Yea I know it's 33 1/3...) This latter point strikes me as coincidence... If you have any information or comments on these two points, please let me know. Steve Falco AT&T Bell Laboratories clyde!saf
rkp@drutx.UUCP (09/20/84)
>Someone asked me the following question: > >Where did the speeds for records come from? >(78 rpm, 45 rpm, 33 1/3 rpm) > >I had no idea so I thought I'd ask the net. Incidentally, the >questioner observed that 33 + 45 = 78. (Yea I know it's 33 1/3...) >This latter point strikes me as coincidence... > >If you have any information or comments on these two points, >please let me know. > >Steve Falco AT&T Bell Laboratories clyde!saf Don't forget about 16 2/3 (which is half of 33 1/3). I would also like to hear the reasoning behind these speeds (if there is any reason). -- Russell Pierce AT&T Consumer Products Denver, Colorado ...!drutx!rkp
brad@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Brad Spear) (09/20/84)
Distribution: Organization: System Development Corporation, Santa Monica Keywords: In article <clyde.591> saf@clyde.UUCP (Steve Falco) writes: > > Where did the speeds for records come from? > (78 rpm, 45 rpm, 33 1/3 rpm) Sorry this is not an answer, but more question. In addition to the above speeds, where did 16 rpm come from, and more importantly, what was it used for? I remember reading in an old "Electronics Illustrated", circa 1972, that it was used for a few "talking story" records in the fifties. I've never seen one of these, so I don't know if the story is true. Can anyone speak with the voice of experience? Actually isn't 16 rpm actually 16 2/3 rpm, which is half of our favorite speed? Brad Spear sdcrdcf!brad
roger@cornell.UUCP (Roger Hoover) (09/22/84)
When I was in Jr. High school, we had some of these 16 2/3 "talking records" in the library. As I recall, they didn't sound very good, but than no records in that library sounded very good.
wdc@homxa.UUCP (W.CLARK) (09/24/84)
>Sorry this is not an answer, but more question. In addition to the above >speeds, where did 16 rpm come from, and more importantly, what was it used >for? I remember reading in an old "Electronics Illustrated", circa 1972, >that it was used for a few "talking story" records in the fifties. I've >never seen one of these, so I don't know if the story is true. Can anyone >speak with the voice of experience? >Brad Spear >sdcrdcf!brad The voice of experience speaks: When my parents got married in 1956, they had the ceremony recorded and then pressed onto 3 16 RPM discs. I believe these discs were the same diameter as an lp. At their 25th anniversary, they took them out and played them. They sounded awful. Maybe the slow speed adversely affected the quality in the same way that 1 7/8 ips tape sounds worse than 3 3/4 ips tape does. Perhaps the low fidelity rendered them suitable only for "voice-quality" recording. -Dave Clark (homxa!wdc)
gjphw@iham1.UUCP (09/24/84)
This is a comment about the origin of the 45 rpm record speed. All other
speeds have probably been dictated by some other market or engineering detail.
The first recordings and use of flat records (rather than drums) came from a
series of experiments performed by Bell Laboratories in the 1930's. This was
the outgrowth of studies devoted to voice storage and reproduction technology.
As I have read (in AUDIO magazine) but forgotten all of the names, the
research team consisted of a few engineers and mathematicians. Several lines
were run from New York City (Radio City Music Hall??) to Bell Labs in NJ in
order to have suitable source material for making recording experiments at any
time.
The mathematicians on the project were concerned with discovering the
optimum recording speed that would balance the requirements for good signal-
to-noise ratio, high fidelity (wide bandwidth that matched the human hearing),
and reasonable storage (amount of source material). For 12 inch records, this
optimum speed is 45 rpm.
I suspect that most of the other speeds exist due to technological
limitations at the time. The faster 78 rpm records were probably used because
the original mastering and cutting techniques did not yield good results at a
slower speed. I don't know why specifically 78 rpms was selected. Perhaps
it was related to the availability of electric drive motors which were
inexpensive at that time.
All of the speeds slower than 45 rpm are designed to pack more material onto
the same disk, sacrificing some technical parameters for marketing
considerations. I have read that the few 45 rpm, 12 inch audiophile disks
that are available sound marvelous. It would be interesting if someone could
compare and contrast one of these 45 rpm analog pressings against the newer
CDs.
Anyone else have specific knowledge about the reasons for 78, 33 1/3, etc?
--
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!iham1!gjphwwkp@lanl-a.UUCP (09/24/84)
This article is in reply to the question appearing in net.audio regarding
the reasons for choosing the peculiar speeds of 33-1/3, 45, and 78 rpm on
those primitive analog recordings called records :-).
1. The true speed for the old shellac pressings are not 78 rpm,
but 78.26 rpm.
2. Analog recordings are a compromise. On the one hand, a listener
wants a long playing time; on the other hand, most also desire
a decent frequency response.
3. For a given fixed diameter disk (e.g. 10 or 12 inches) one can make
the tracking speed very very slow so that the playing time will be very
long. However, the slower the tracking speed, the poorer the frequency
response.
4. A formula can be derived for the maximum playing time of a record as
a function of the highest frequency f one wishes to resolve and the record
radius. The rpm at this playing time is given by the handy-dandy formula:
rpm = 4*f*h/R
where h is the groove waveform size (~1/100 in).
Thus, for a 10 inch record, and for a frequency band of up to 8000 Hz
(people in the 1930's were not golden ears) one can derive that the
rpm necessary is about 78 rpm. A similar story holds for speeds of 33-1/3.
5. A corollary to this: The reason why there is so much wasted space on
the inside of a record near its center (e.g., where the label is) is that
near its center the needle goes slower, and hence the higher frequencies
are not resolvable.
6. A second corollary: Higher frequency music should sound better at
the beginning of a record, since these frequencies are easily resolved
at the start of a record. Towards the end of the record (near the label)
it is harder to resolve these frequencies.
7. Any further technical discussion of this belongs on net.physics where
I can go into more detail. All flames should be sent to dsl@lanl and
alp@lanl who helped write this article; all money should be sent to
me (wkp@lanl) as I am saving for a CD.
bill petergino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (09/24/84)
[rotate this line slowly] Re the question: why 16 2/3 RPM records. Yes - that speed was used for `Talking Books' - I've seen them in stores, but never bought or listened to one. I vaguely recall that they were (at least in part) intended for blind people. -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino)
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (09/26/84)
[.] I don't think anyone is now alive, certainly not on the net, who remembers exactly why those particular speeds. The rationale for around 78 rpm makes sense but doesn't convince. In the good old days when 78 rpm was standard, the commercial or professional standard was 33 1/3 rpm with transcriptions made on 16 inch (if I remember right) discs. You could record a 30 minute radio program on one side that way, I recall, which may have had something to do with the choice. When LP records came along (also called "microgroove records") the grooves were smaller and you could get 30 minutes on a 12 " record at 33 1/3. RCA came out with 45 rpm just to be difficult. -Dick Grantges hound!rfg
jj@rabbit.UUCP (09/26/84)
There's another consideration of record speed that I haven't seen yet, which is the fact that surface noise rises as the speed increases. The speeds that currently exist are derived from a set of metrics that optimize noise/time/bandwidth. There are a few works in OLD Bell System Tech Journals tht go into this problem. <I think A.C. Keller is one of the authors, but it's been about 5 years since I read any...> -- BE KIND TO SOFT FURRY CREATURES, THE LIFE YOU SAVE MAY BE YOUR OWN! "Bugler, bugler, turn the tide..." (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (09/26/84)
>>The first recordings and use of flat records (rather than drums) came from a >>series of experiments performed by Bell Laboratories in the 1930's. >>I don't know why specifically 78 rpms was selected. Perhaps >>it was related to the availability of electric drive motors which were >>inexpensive at that time. Apparently you've never seen 1920's wind-up 78-RPM flat disk players such as my grandparents owned. I've played many shellac flat 78's from the 20's (the Grosvenor Library in Buffalo had a great collection when I was in high school). -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino)
george@sysvis.UUCP (09/28/84)
<funny line> Does anyone know what the effective speed of the old cylinder recordings was (as related to disc RPM speeds). Knowing how some engineering decisions are made, there might be a direct relationship with the tangential speed of the cylinders to the RPM speed of the 78 RPM discs.... Those who said that 16 2/3 was the correct speed are in agreement with the old advertisements for these "records". Actually, the speed was advertised as a compact disc form for voice recordings. Their "compactness" in storing "talking books" was to be the best way for the visually impaired to hear the information without hiring a relatively expensive reader. Whole libraries were supposed to be made into this "audio microfiche" format for "permanent" storage...etc...etc.
lutton@inmet.UUCP (09/30/84)
#R:lanl-a:-1381200:inmet:2600105:000:559 inmet!lutton Sep 28 19:18:00 1984 <> I need to correct a misconception: The first use of flat records (rather than cylinders) was by Emile Berliner in 1887. By 1893 he was selling gramophones and records. The machine Nipper is staring into in "His Master's Voice" is an 1896 Improved Gramophone. Cylinders originally were individually recorded; later I think they were molded like bottles. But it was flat records that were really DESIGNED for mass production. Thousands could be stamped out from a single master. Also they took less space in storage. So they quickly eclipsed cylinders.
lutton@inmet.UUCP (10/01/84)
#R:angband:-1900:inmet:2600106:000:173
inmet!lutton Sep 29 17:39:00 1984
<>
> RCA came out with 45 rpm just to be difficult.
Then they came out with a needle-played video disc system just
to be difficult again.
-- Mark Luttonhrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (10/01/84)
Didn't you know that 78 - 33 +n
hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (10/01/84)
Didn't you know that 78 - 33 = 45?
lutton@inmet.UUCP (10/03/84)
<> 33-1/3 records are played with a needle one-third the size (diameter) of the needle used to play 78-rpm records. (Nowdays an elliptical or other-shaped needle is used with a maximum width equal to the diameter of the original 33 needles.) This has an effect on the frequency resolution, doesn't it?
davew@shark.UUCP (Dave Williams) (10/03/84)
>> RCA came out with 45 rpm just to be difficult. >Then they came out with a needle-played video disc system just >to be difficult again. -- Mark Lutton No company comes out with a product just to be difficult, but to make money. RCA and CBS brought out their competing record formats in the late forties. Both had good and bad points. The RCA 45 rpm format actually had better fidelity than the CBS 33 1/3 format. The main problem was you could not get a full album on one RCA disc, even in the EP (extended play format). The industry finally chose the 45 for singles and the 33 for albums. The fidelity problems with the 33 1/3 format have been solved for a long time. The main problems in disc reproduction now are in the mastering, not the disc. This is what digital mastering is attempting to deal with. As for the RCA CED video disc. They were trying to provide a cheap system for the masses. It was a marketing decision that failed. The cost of LaserDisc units came down and people were willing to pay more for the superior quality of the laser unit. Worse yet, most people wanted a medium they could record on so the VCR market took off and left the video disc market in the dust.
sjc@angband.UUCP (Steve Correll) (10/04/84)
The following information comes from two books, "The Fabulous Phonograph" by
Roland Gelatt (Appleton-Century 1965), and "Revolution in Sound" by C.A.
Schicke (Little, Brown 1974):
1. Emil Berliner's early hand-cranked phonographs ran at 70rpm (plus or
minus the tolerance of the cranker's arm!) and Edison's belatedly
introduced disk phonographs ran at 80rpm. Between 1900 and 1925, speeds
varied from 74 to 82rpm depending on the vendor. When 3600rpm
synchronous electric motors became cheap enough to use in consumer
equipment, manufacturers used 46:1 gear ratios to obtain 78.26rpm,
which became standard.
2. In 1931, RCA Victor introduced a long-playing record system using
33-1/3rpm on 12 inch disks; that speed had previously been employed
with 16 inch disks for radio broadcast transcriptions and with early
attempts to synchronize disks with motion pictures. The system flopped
because its technology wasn't very good, and because players weren't
cheap enough to induce the public to risk changing standards.
3. In June, 1948 Columbia introduced the 12 inch 33-1/3 rpm microgroove
record, today's standard. Some years before that, the company began
keeping a duplicate copy of each release, engraved using the 33-1/3rpm
broadcast transcription equipment, in anticipation of developing
commercially feasible long-playing consumer equipment. It immediately
promoted a cheap player that would attach to many existing phonographs.
RCA rebuffed overtures from Columbia and within a year announced the 7
inch 45rpm disk. When, by 1950, the response from other vendors and from
consumers made it clear that Columbia's system had won the classical
record market, RCA concentrated its marketing on jukebox manufacturers
and the popular music market. Eventually RCA conceded defeat and adopted
the Columbia system.
--
--Steve Correll
sjc@s1-c.ARPA, ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!sjc, or ...!ucbvax!dual!mordor!sjclutton@inmet.UUCP (10/05/84)
<> Re: Talking books You'll probably never be able to buy a 16-2/3 record in the store, but the U.S. Government distributes books to blind people recorded at 16-2/3. Along with the book (usually on 2 to 6 discs, about 45 minutes per side) comes a preview of coming attractions, on a small disc recorded at 8-1/3. So, yes, there IS something even slower than 16-2/3. The Government also lends phonographs. There is a standard model with three speeds (33, 16, 8). Fully manual. It looks like the phonograph you probably had in a classroom in the 60's. Mono, with an Astatic phono cartridge. Low-Fi but functional and heavy-duty. Books are also distributed on standard cassettes, and there is a low-fi but functional cassette player available too.