johnb@gatech.edu (John Baldwin) (12/04/90)
The only "stereo" records you are likely to stuble across which are not compatible with modern stereo cartridges are the Cook "Binaural" records. They were played with a forked tonearm (a variant on the Fairchild 280, I think) and two mono cartridges (left and right!). I presume that the two channels were never really in phase. They are numbered in the BN1000 series, many are 10". There never was a forked stylus. There are also a few very rare Sudgen records from England that were cut with V-L (vertical-lateral) stereo (left horizontal, right vertical). These would require matrixing the signals from the cartridge. (Left was horizontal because that is where the voilins are, and the horizontal channel had better freqency response. Similarly, AM-FM stereo had FM on the left and AM on the right, for the same reason. AM-FM stereo was an abomination that died a deserving death in 1962.) The only "must" about playing on a stereo cartridge is that old mono cartridges had zero vertical compliance, and would wear out (ruin) a stereo record real quick. Later, low frequency mono blending to reduce the vertical excursions of the grooves "solved" this problem (at a sonic penalty). Those records of your mothers may be worth a pretty penny. It depends on condition, age, and content. The Boston Pops ones won't fetch as much as the Fritz Reiners. That Magnavox probably tracked at 5 grams, and may have had a worn out stylus much of the time. Footnotes: As Harry Pearson noted for us young folks, Cook was the "Sheffield" of the 50's. The choice of music (or sounds) to recorded was quite ecclectic (symphonic to guitar to steel band to burlesque). They were the demo records you saw at the Hi-Fi salons in the 50's. They were cut at levels that most 50's cartridges rapidly wore into a pulp, so almost all copies are hopelessly worn today. Yes, that is the same Fairchild that wound up as a semiconductor company, they made tonearms, amplifiers, even oscillating sanders in the 50's! (I have one of each.) They were "Fairchild Camera and Instrument" back then.
johnb@gatech.edu (John Baldwin) (12/05/90)
In a previous article, John Shriver wrote:
JS> In reality, London records did not go through the decline or quality
JS> in later pressings that afflicted RCA, Columbia, and others. Indeed,
JS> later pressings can be better than the earlist ones. Also, until the
JS> Philips buyout, their pressing quality was pretty consistent.
One question: When did the Phillips buyout occur? I have some London
FFRR recordings of my own, which date to my high school years (late 70's).
JS> There ARE differences between the different masterings (there was a
JS> decoder ring for that in TAS back when they were looking at the Phase
JS> 4 records), and some are better and some are worse.
Is there anything which differentiates the Phase-4 recordings from others?
A number of the recordings belonging to my Mom are in that category.
The previous poster (whose name got mangled by our news software,
which claimed *I* posted it), wrote:
?> That Magnavox probably tracked at 5 grams,
?> and may have had a worn out stylus much of the time.
Judging from the looks of the tonearm (size, weight, construction), that
Magnavox probably tracked at 5 POUNDS. :-)
So I don't doubt the probablility that it got used with a worn out stylus.
:-(
BTW, apparently the bogus "split stylus" story is not altogether uncommon.
I mentioned to a friend (who used to be my boss at a previous employer)
that he should look at his older records, because they might be worth
something. He is in his 40's, and both of his parents are living (they're
in their 70's and live nearby). I knew that both he and his dad were into
audio, and that they never throw anything away. [Geez! Maybe we're related.]
His response was, "Yeah, we have a lot of the old 'split stylus' stuff." [!!!]
"Dad tried playing some of it about 9 months ago, and had to go and replace
his cartridge and stylus; it 'tore' them up!"
Okay, assuming that this is the vestige of 1959 sales-doublespeak, then why
did his records trash his cartridge and stylus? My friend said it happened
very quickly, on the third or fourth recording played. Perhaps the records
were extremely damaged and worn? Would this account for the incident?
Or maybe we're dealing with the placebo effect here: his dad *expected*
his setup to get ruined, and *thought* he heard a difference.
No, that last doesn't make sense, since he said his dad didn't know it
would do that.
Any possible explanations?
--
John Baldwin | srchtec!johnb@gatech.edu
| johnb%srchtec.uucp@mathcs.emory.eduSteve_Graham@ub.cc.umich.edu (12/11/90)
The fellow who claims his dad's "split stylus" records tore up the cartridge/stylus is, I am almost certain, mistaken. The only thing that I have found to do damage to a stylus was some 78's, which have abrasive material mixed in. To my surprise I once found a Stanton 78 stylus to have a large notch in it after playing a few disks that had been unplayed for many years and were stored under random conditions. (The stylus was examined under a Shure stylus microscope.) Possibly he was trying to play such disks. But I'm sure it had nothing to do with the notion of "split stylus". At any rate, I'm certain that no vinyl disk will tear up the stylus/cartridge, unless maybe it's actually cracked, and even then it's doubtful that it would do more than make a nasty noise. --Steve Graham
bill@uunet.UU.NET (Bill Vermillion) (12/13/90)
In article <8254@uwm.edu> Steve_Graham@ub.cc.umich.edu writes: >The fellow who claims his dad's "split stylus" records tore up the >cartridge/stylus is, I am almost certain, mistaken. The only thing that >I have found to do damage to a stylus was some 78's, which have abrasive >material mixed in. To my surprise I once found a Stanton 78 stylus to have >a large notch in it after playing a few disks that had been unplayed for >many years and were stored under random conditions. (The stylus was examined >under a Shure stylus microscope.) Possibly he was trying to play such >disks. But I'm sure it had nothing to do with the notion of "split stylus". >At any rate, I'm certain that no vinyl disk will tear up the stylus/cartridge, >unless maybe it's actually cracked, and even then it's doubtful that it would >do more than make a nasty noise. Well a cracked disk could bend the canteliever or pull the stylus point from it's mount, but I am replying to the "abrasive material" in the 78's. Yes, VERY OLD 78's do have abrasive material in them, and it is most likely carborundum, the material that is used to make sharpeing stones for knives, scissors, axes, what-have-you. Now you may wonder why such a detrimental (to modern stylii) material is used in a record. The old accoustic records were played with either steel or cactus "needles". They really were like a needle. Just a piece of metal with a rounded point on the end. (It was rounded like a needle, it felt sharp but was slightly round at the tip). The abrasive in the record shaped the needle to the groove! Cactus needles didn't have the high output of steel, and had a much more mellow sound. (I guess the cactus needles were the equivalent of tubes or lp sounds, while the steel were CD's and DATs :-) :-) ). The cactus needles also made the records last much longer. I have not heard a cactus needle since I was little so I can't tell you what the difference is. On a similar note, does anyone know where I can get needles (both steel and cactus, or either) for the old accoustic machines. I normally don't follow the antique crowd so this is out of my area, but I have two old units that I show off every once in a while. One is a 1906 Marshall (?) licensed by RCA/HMV. Old tulip horn with THE dog still visible. I say 1906 because I was told that was the last year of outside horns, it could be older. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP