Surface quality of various companies.
A category about 45rpm vinyl records (a.k.a. singles) and 33rpm records (a.k.a. LP's).
-
larryh
Topic author - Regular Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:29 pm
- Location: Southern Illinois
Been playing thru a number of 45 sets lately. I was thinking that RCA most likely had the edge on quality, but, I have been most impressed with the Decca records for quite surface and full sound. Anyone else have any thoughts on which companies sound the best to you.. I know it has to do with record condtion too, but all things equal I haven't found nearly mint victors to sound as good as I would have liked?
-
Record-changer
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:11 pm
- Location: Bloomington IN USA
It also seems to depend on the year. RCA had really good quality in the 1950s and early 1960s, but that quality really suffered from about 1968 on.
-
victrolaguy
- Regular Member
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:39 am
Really, I love the sound on clean Columbia 7" 33 1/3 singles from '49 and '50. I purchased a collection of them not too long ago, and the music isn't cutting edge (mostly MOR), but the sound is phenomenal! Early RCA 45's, green and black/silver label, don't have enough volume. They also reissued a lot of 78rpm material early on, that could be it.... I have the same problem with Decca records. Decca's first 12inch LP, "Oklahoma!", sounds great! I have a lot of 49,50,51 Stan Kenton 45's on Capitol... They sound okay, but not the best pressing quality. During the late 50's, I'd say... RCA, Columbia, MGM. During the 60's, Capitol, Odeon (UK), Warner Bros. RCA went hay-wire in the 60's for some reason. They went from one of the best, to DynaFlex! What were they thinking!
Eric Lee
-
victrolaguy
- Regular Member
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:39 am
I couldn't resist putting this up! Here are a few of my Columbia 7" Microgroove singles. Notice the two white promo's, they are kinda rare.... Also, note the two different types of sleeves.
Eric Lee
-
larryh
Topic author - Regular Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:29 pm
- Location: Southern Illinois
Since I posted this message I have come up with quite a few more records.. Now I would have to say that a fine conditon RCA can sound very well, unfortunately a lot of them are as mentioned rerecorded making for poor quality. It turns out a lot of the first records I obtained were in poor shape which distorted the quality I was hearing.. Still the Decca and Columbias of the era seem to hold there own if not edging out RCA in earlier days.
Here's a couple more choices: Gee and Del-Fi. It seems like all my Gee 45's just explode with bass and even a tape dub played in my car stereo makes it seem like I'm listening to a jukebox (well, I'm sure they were mastered for such purposes). Del-Fi is great, too, if you can find a real clean copy (hard to do, since so many pressings were on styrene). And what is it about the mastering of "Reet Petite" by Jackie Wilson? Holy cow, that thing just tests the frequency response of my stereo to the max - sounds great on 200-watt speakers!
-
Record-changer
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:11 pm
- Location: Bloomington IN USA
Remember that most of these were not recorded in the RIAA curve. It did not yet exist:
Some Columbia 45s were recorded in the Columbia LP curve, and some were recorded in the NAB lateral standard for radio broadcast transcripts.
That booming bass might be the result of playing a non-RIAA record on an RIAA player. US records before 1958 were recorded in a variety of pre-emphasis curves,. Most of them were developed by record labels. Europe didn't standardize until 1962, and some Soviet recordings were still in nonstandard curves in 1975.
Here is my set of pages on the subject:
How to EQ old records
Some Columbia 45s were recorded in the Columbia LP curve, and some were recorded in the NAB lateral standard for radio broadcast transcripts.
That booming bass might be the result of playing a non-RIAA record on an RIAA player. US records before 1958 were recorded in a variety of pre-emphasis curves,. Most of them were developed by record labels. Europe didn't standardize until 1962, and some Soviet recordings were still in nonstandard curves in 1975.
Here is my set of pages on the subject:
How to EQ old records
I always thought that the record companies in the 1950's were mastering their records in such a way to sound better on jukeboxes - it's a stretch, I know, and I'm sure my theory's not based on fact.
Among record collectors, I've often heard the generalization that "Promotional Columbia 45's on colored vinyl from the 1960's sound better than their commercial counterparts". Well, duh - Columbia was using almost exclusively styrene on their mid-1960's commercial singles and naturally the vinyl would sound better. I have come across some late-1960's commercial vinyl Columbias - not sure which plant was producing them but they seem to be in the minority among the hits on that label from that era.
I'd like to offer my opinion of the 33 RPM singles from Columbia but the couple I do have aren't in the best condition. That microgroove doesn't hold up very well over the course of nearly 60 years.
Among record collectors, I've often heard the generalization that "Promotional Columbia 45's on colored vinyl from the 1960's sound better than their commercial counterparts". Well, duh - Columbia was using almost exclusively styrene on their mid-1960's commercial singles and naturally the vinyl would sound better. I have come across some late-1960's commercial vinyl Columbias - not sure which plant was producing them but they seem to be in the minority among the hits on that label from that era.
I'd like to offer my opinion of the 33 RPM singles from Columbia but the couple I do have aren't in the best condition. That microgroove doesn't hold up very well over the course of nearly 60 years.
Its probably a dumb question, but how do you tell a styrene record from a vinyl record?? 
Here in Australia, we didn't even have 33's and 45's until 1953, so it's great to see some pictures of different labels and companies that I'll never find out here.
Here in Australia, we didn't even have 33's and 45's until 1953, so it's great to see some pictures of different labels and companies that I'll never find out here.
Styrene is lighter in weight and more brittle than vinyl. I think the record companies loved it because the records were cheaper to ship. Unfortunately, styrene is more likely to crack - I remember when the quality control among record companies was so shoddy in the late 1970s that I used to buy BRAND-NEW 45's with built-in hairline cracks. Also, styrene tends to wear out faster and you get that irritating phenomenon known as "styrene hiss". Even records which appear to be in near-mint condition suffer from this, thanks to heavier armatures on phonographs from the 1950's and 1960s.
So, don't be embarrassed that you didn't know the difference. I'm embarrassed to come from a country that produced the things in the first place.
So, don't be embarrassed that you didn't know the difference. I'm embarrassed to come from a country that produced the things in the first place.
-
victrolaguy
- Regular Member
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:39 am
wand143 wrote:I'd like to offer my opinion of the 33 RPM singles from Columbia but the couple I do have aren't in the best condition. That microgroove doesn't hold up very well over the course of nearly 60 years.
I don't think it's the record that didn't hold up well... these things were made in '49-'51.... Have you ever seen the average record players of the day? They would destroy a modern 45 in a heartbeat...! The fact that these things exsist at all in playable condition is amazing! The ones I have in the picture above were bought at an estate sale. The original Sivertone phonograph that these were played with was still in the house. I cringed when I saw it!
Eric Lee
Yeah, whoever had my records didn't maintain them as well - there's at least one skip per side on both of them. The only reason I kept them is that the master numbers pre-date my earliest Columbia 33 RPM single (which is 1-103), and both are blank labels, so I believe I have test pressings of the first two ever released. I asked the question earlier in the forum about what the titles and artists might be but I never got any feedback.
It's nice that you have the original factory sleeves with those...very tough to find. The rarest variation is the one where they blocked out the "33 RPM" on the sleeve - these were used for their early 45s until they were able to get a "45 RPM" factory sleeve printed.
And, sorry to say, the majority of the music on these early singles was Contemporary - there are a couple rare R&B releases on this format but it's unlikely you'll find them these days.
It's nice that you have the original factory sleeves with those...very tough to find. The rarest variation is the one where they blocked out the "33 RPM" on the sleeve - these were used for their early 45s until they were able to get a "45 RPM" factory sleeve printed.
And, sorry to say, the majority of the music on these early singles was Contemporary - there are a couple rare R&B releases on this format but it's unlikely you'll find them these days.
-
Record-changer
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:11 pm
- Location: Bloomington IN USA
I have an RCA set of Spike Jones doing the Nutcracker Suite on three 45s. While the music is delightfully awful (as only Spike Jones could do), the surface is in quite good condition. They are on black vinyl with the turquoise label.
They didn't skimp on their early R & B releases, either. I have one of the "cerise"-colored vinyl 45s and the fidelity is full and fine on that, too.
Interesting story how I got it: I was in a collectors' record store, one of those dusty little joints where nothing was priced, and I brought it as well as a few other 45s up to the counter. You can probably guess how the guy priced his records: right at the counter and right out of the Jerry Osborne guide. Of course he was charging mint values for some otherwise ordinary records (even reputable dealers I've known for years don't charge full guide value for records, but this guy was anything but reputable), but when he came to the RCA Victor record, he was absolutely stumped because he couldn't find it in the Gospel According To Jerry...he finally said, "Ahh, I'll let you have it for a buck". Had he done a little more homework, he would've found he had sold it to me for roughly 1/50th of its actual value (yes, it was near-mint).
Interesting story how I got it: I was in a collectors' record store, one of those dusty little joints where nothing was priced, and I brought it as well as a few other 45s up to the counter. You can probably guess how the guy priced his records: right at the counter and right out of the Jerry Osborne guide. Of course he was charging mint values for some otherwise ordinary records (even reputable dealers I've known for years don't charge full guide value for records, but this guy was anything but reputable), but when he came to the RCA Victor record, he was absolutely stumped because he couldn't find it in the Gospel According To Jerry...he finally said, "Ahh, I'll let you have it for a buck". Had he done a little more homework, he would've found he had sold it to me for roughly 1/50th of its actual value (yes, it was near-mint).
-
victrolaguy
- Regular Member
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:39 am
SWEET! I hate record dealers who sell EVERYTHING at mint book value! I'm glad you got one over on him! 
Eric Lee
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
It is currently Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:39 am