Victor 78 sound quality

I have always been curious about the differing sound quality of Victor 78s from the start of the Orthophonic era. From 1925 to about 1931, they have a great high frequency response. After that time, they retain this quality, but now have the added resonance of a natural echo (change in studios or mic placement?). Then sometime in '35-'36, at the start of the Great Band Era, they, at times, take on a much duller sound, with poor high frequency and no resonance. By 1937, it becomes more consistent, with examples being Tommy Dorsey's Marie and Song of India.

Sometime in mid-1938, they start to display great high frequency, such as on Benny Goodman's Sing, Sing, Sing (recorded in Hollywood) and T.D.'s Boogie Woogie, but there are still several dull sessions mixed in. All of a sudden in 1939, they break out into marvelous high-fidelity never heard before, such as Glenn Miller's In the Mood and several Artie Shaw recordings like Copenhagen. This continues through early 1940, but starts to fall back into the dull zone again, G.M.'s Tuxedo Jct. being an example. From then until up to the 1942 recording ban, they are inconsistent again, with a change in '42 almost like the 1932 resonance "echo" again. T.D.'s last pre-ban sessions display this.

The next surprise is during the ban with G.M.'s V-Disc of St. Louis Blues March, recorded at Victor in N.Y., which is almost like 1949 Hi-Fi!

When the ban ends in Nov. '44, we now have a duller high frequency again, which lasts until the tape era.

Can anyone shed light on my analysis?

Thanks!

Kevin

I've noticed this, too, and I have Victor 78s in the same approximate age range as you noted. Maybe it's the quality of shellac used? They had to use recycled shellac during WWII due to shortages but that doesn't explain the late-Depression era discs. My guess without research: shellac quality or frequency response of the equipment used in that time period (boy, does that make me sound like a genius...)

Thanks for the response, but I don't think it had anything to do with shellac since the actual masters used for reissues sound the same! It may have been an engineering decision based on the playback equipment, but you would think that the fidelity would have steadily improved, rather than being erratic.

Remember that all those records were direct cut - each studio had its own engineers and cutting lathe. Those lathes were not standardised, and would include equipment from companies Victor had absorbed during the 30s.

Because playback equipment was "only-just" electric, the engineers would not notice much difference between recordings, although you can tell the difference using modern speakers.

Good point - take a listen to an RCA Victor 45 from the late 1940s and compare it to a 78 on the same label from the same time period. Different formats, different materials used, same frequency response.
Shoots my theory full of holes, that's for sure...

I have noticed the same thing. But, knowing the history of recording, I have an answer:

The bright ones in the late 1920s are on the hard shellac used with acoustic players. They were equalized (with what little equalization they had) mainly by the mic and the characteristics of the electric cutter.

The ones in the mid 1930s were the ones with the 500 Hz turnover, but no treble boost, and made of the softer shellac intended for electronic players.

In 1937, Decca records started boosting the treble on records to counteract surface hiss. RCA soon followed suit, and the basic RCA 78 curve was born:

800 Hz turnover for the bass cut, and a 8 dB treble boost at 10KHz. Decca used a 250 Hz turnover and a 6 dB boost.

That is great information on the treble boos--I did also notice it on Deccas--but what explains Victor's high-frequency response falling again in 1940-41?

Probably the change in frequency response was caused by the use of substitute materials, caused by the rationing. Between 1939 and 1947, most records were made of shellac mixed with other materials. The masters were also made of substitute materials. Not only was shellac and lacquer needed for the war effort, but japan also had captured the largest source of shellac. The substitute materials wore out faster, dulling the high frequency response.

In addition, what sounds like a cut in the treble response might really be a bass boost. RCA started off using an 800 Hz bass cut turnover frequency, but started playing with 500 Hz around then, to make its records play better on other machines, and to counteract the low frequency noises caused by the substitute materials. RCA continued to make records with both turnover frequencies (the choice depended on the recording engineer who cut the record) into the LP era.

800 Hz is so close to the comparison frequency of 1000 Hz that it might sound like a treble cut.

RCA stuck with the 8 dB treble boost at 10KHz until the LP era, when it started playing with a 12dB boost at 10KHz instead. 78 Reissues had the 8 dB boost, while new recordings had the 12 dB boost. Then, in 1952, they created what is now the RIAA curve as a solution to the equalization wars.

If you like the 30's and 40's music it's better to look for european 78 pressings since not many people had electric record players they kept on producing the 78's the old way.
The American 78's of the 40's I have can not be played with steel needle without ruining them.
Thantis my experience...French HMV pressings are extremely good,they seem to have a laminated layer on top of the schellack...

Bert

I agree Bert! Australian pressings are also awesome. Even disc's from the RnR era play well on acoustic machines, and without any sign of wear. I'm lucky to get 5 plays from a disc made in the USA or UK in the 40's or 50's on an acoustic machine, without the disc being visually & audibly damaged.

shane wrote:I agree Bert! Australian pressings are also awesome. Even disc's from the RnR era play well on acoustic machines, and without any sign of wear. I'm lucky to get 5 plays from a disc made in the USA or UK in the 40's or 50's on an acoustic machine, without the disc being visually & audibly damaged.

Australian 78 laminated pressing also sound fantastic when played on modern equipment. They have very low surcace noice and even when a bit worn can sound quite good. I have been a fan of these for some time now and have many of my favorite disks in standard UK 78 pressing (for my acoustic machines) and the Australian laminated pressings for doing transfers from.

Sam.

As the years progress, specifically in the 30's and 40's, some sessions were recorded through equalized phone lines from a remote studio location to another studio where the cutting lathe was. Those sessions sounded fine on playback equipment of the day however, played back now, you can tell the difference between that of a remote recording and a studio recording. Bands were on the road a lot in those days as that's how they earned a living.

I have some Rudy Vallee recordings on Victor where the fidelity is just stunning . I agree with the former poster about In The Mood.

KJ