Re: [ARSCLIST] Stereo records.

[phillip holmes <insuranceman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

One other thing.  They could cut some radical stuff back then when they 
wanted.  George Piros cut stuff that was impossible for the average consumer 
to play back on his/her Magnavox/RCA/Columbia changer.  Most turntables had 
horrible tonearms with horrible bearings, no overhang adjustment, and 
cartridges with conical diamonds.  What's the first elliptical stylus?  The 
Shure M3D?  And they tracked at 3 grams.  So they had to cut big easy to 
negotiate grooves.  I've heard anecdotal stories that RCA and Mercury got 
complaints from customers who couldn't get their cartridges to play their 
records, even to the point that the cartridge was "knocked out of the 
groove".  The cannon fire on the Mercury 1812 could do that.
Phillip
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Shoshani" <mshoshani@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Stereo records.


> On Friday 16 June 2006 10.25, Lou Judson wrote:
>
> > Curiosity quibble - isn't the groove on a 45 midway between microgroove
> > and 78 size? Is there a specific name for it, or is it really
> > considered microgroove like Lps? I see a distinct difference,
> > visually... or is that just the larger excursion?
>
> I think it depends on the 45...for EPs they cut really fine, 
> low-modulation
> grooves, but I noticed when I was a kid in the 70s that more recent stereo
> 45s had grooves that were not as fine as LPs, but not nearly so coarse as
> mono 45 grooves from the 1950s.  Pick up a 1950s pressing of an average 
> R&B
> or rock'n'roll record and you'll see the grooves are larger than modern
> grooves, plus the pitch is wider and the modulation is almost as wide as 
> some
> 78s were.
>
> Michael Shoshani