pre-war 78rpm archive to r2r

T

tanoka

New member
Hi all,

Many years since I posted here. I'm building a hi-fi archival system for pre-war disc recordings, a good number that have never been re-issued in any format, surprising how 90 year old discs can be neglected so long! It's a bit of a daunting task but I'm getting very close to completing the front-end which will include three different turntables with six tonearms/carts to cover the wide range of groove widths used. I'll be using tube phono pre-amp equalization through a S.E.T. amp and a field coil speaker.

The one thing I haven't done much research on yet is finding the best possible r2r for my recordings. I'm guessing full track mono 1/4" at 7.5 and 15ips will be ideal. I know this forum's filled with very knowledge people so I appreciate advice.

I would want to purchase one fully restored as well, any leads on that would be great.

thanks,
Tenyu
 
I archive 78s from time to time. If its going to tape I use a Nagra full track 1/4 mk lll. Fantastic little machines.
 
I dont know of any audio archivist today who makes a new analog copy. As far as I know, organisations from the Library of Congress down, stopped archiving to analog tape some years ago.

Tim
 
Tim,

I'm a 'private archivist' and my primary concern is being able to present music all analog. Obviously digital files are necessary to share with the whole world, for the few people who would even care, but eventually I'll have some sort of local installation where people can hear the source directly. Unless a disc has a lam or other precarious defect I'll just play straight from the original, so the tape copies are mostly for my own personal use at home as not to selfishly wear out the masters. Plus I love the sound of tape and I'm too old (31 yo) to be listening to digital now as main source.

L.O.C. and other organizations are mostly dark archives. They have too much exclusive music sitting idle, which does no good for anyone if no one ever gets to hear them. Joe Bussard noted historical recordings belong with private individuals who care about them and put in the effort in sharing them.
 
R2Rs don't amplify the input signal being recorded to tape correct? They only house amplifiers during playback? I don't want any transistors processing the signal for either. Do very few R2Rs have tubes though?

Please excuse my simple questions, internet search nor wikipedia aren't really helping me with this.

thanks,
Tenyu
 
Yeah, they do amplify the signal for recording. It's modulated with an ultrasonic tone as well to ensure it prints to tape correctly.
You'd probably be looking at a Ferrograph 631, a Revox G36 or (if you can afford it) a Studer C36 if you're dead set on a valve tape recorder.

Bear in mind that most studio machines since about 1968 were transistorised - going all-analogue is one thing, but pre-transistor might be a touch too far IMHO. You may have your work cut out getting the same level of quality as a 1970s or 1980s machine.
 
Thanks for listing those. I think I remember seeing a Studer C37 in NYPL's 3rd floor basement archive at Lincoln Center. I would love to have a mono full track version if I could find one listed for half of what's on eBay currently. The Revox G36 is obviously much more reasonable but they're all stereo units. I'd much prefer mono for higher signal to noise and the fact all 78s are mono.

I'm actually biased toward pre-1960's broadcast audio gear. My restored and CLD replinthed turntables are Garrard 301, Rekokut G2 deluxe, and RCA 70. Sound wise I would take these over anything made since then except maybe an EMT 927 st. My phono eq pres are all tube Fisher 50c, McIntosh C8, and Arthur Loesch, the last one which will even have an external tube power supply.

Most audiophiles can't stand the noise on 78s, but I think they have the most lifelike quality of any format ever. I even find vinyl to sound too thin now. Perhaps there are even older mono valve R2Rs that I should look into? Something from late 40's to 50's? Any suggestions for such 'antiquated' machines?
 
Tanoka,
I just read a long article about Joe Bussard. It's clear to me that he collects music from a certain period , from the 1920's to some of the 1930's, and that music was of course released on the format of the day, 78 rpm shellac records.

I didnt read Joe Bussard saying that 78rpm shellac records " have the most lifelike quality of any format ever." or making much comment at all on their fidelity as such.

Also it's clear Joe Bussard doesnt share your desire to share music "all analog". He happily loaned his discs to audio restoration professional Jack Towers who did the transfers to digital and from which the CD compilations were made for sale to the public.

Similarly the only reference I read to reel to reel tape machines was where Joe Bussard graduated from a disc cutting lathe for his live recording and replaced it with a reel to reel recorder, which everyone else at that time was doing anyway.

As I read him, Joe Bussard's message is overwhelmingly the music of that era, not the audio format.
 
Tim Gillett said:
Tanoka,
I just read a long article about Joe Bussard. It's clear to me that he collects music from a certain period , from the 1920's to some of the 1930's, and that music was of course released on the format of the day, 78 rpm shellac records.

I didnt read Joe Bussard saying that 78rpm shellac records " have the most lifelike quality of any format ever." or making much comment at all on their fidelity as such.

Also it's clear Joe Bussard doesnt share your desire to share music "all analog". He happily loaned his discs to audio restoration professional Jack Towers who did the transfers to digital and from which the CD compilations were made for sale to the public.

Similarly the only reference I read to reel to reel tape machines was where Joe Bussard graduated from a disc cutting lathe for his live recording and replaced it with a reel to reel recorder, which everyone else at that time was doing anyway.

As I read him, Joe Bussard's message is overwhelmingly the music of that era, not the audio format.
Click to expand...
nice ..... especially since the OP didn't mention Bussard at all nor asked what he would want to do. The OP spelled out his personal reasons for wanting to do this. Either answer his question or keep your denigrating insulting posts to yourself.
 
Hi Bob,

Thanks clarifying for me, perhaps Tim simply misread before morning coffee or such. The time I spent here before I do remember the "Analog Only" forum isn't immune to a little digital insecurity. I do sympathize though because besides a few things like tonearms, cartridges, and amps, almost everything has to be bought vintage and restored. It's difficult to do as I've already spent over a year having custom restoration work done and wouldn't wish my task on any human being. :cool:

I do stand by my opinions though, I've heard 2" masters many a day through a vintage analog board and MC240s so my benchmark is hard to beat. 78s have 'truncated' frequency range but that range, when properly reproduced, have a holism unlike anything I've heard in any other format including vinyl. I can even hear a difference between shellac and vinyl 78s. So it's not entirely about standard over microgroove or 78rpm over 33rpm. Most shellacophiles are very old in age and rarely post on internet audio forums, but they do exist.
 
jpmorris said:
Well, I guess there's the Ampex 350/351...
Click to expand...

I was reading about these last night. Their tape transports are identical but their electronics are unique. 350 has outdated metal tube casings and point to point wiring while 351 has regular tubes and a printed circuit board. The 351 sounds like a good option for me although I did read an unfavorable review by Albert Porter from some years back with his 351 restoration, he did disclaim he wasn't sure everything was up to spec though.
 
Tis the internet. I'm just happy people are willing to share their knowledge here. I do the same with music , which is one of my expertise, for others but I know little how electronics work. I do know how they sound of course. Leading to my next question, I notice the Ampex 351's pre-amp is a separate unit from the tape transport. Is there any reason why I can't use any pre-amp, the ones I listed earlier, to record and playback on the transport? I'm not finding any pics that show this, so I assume this isn't the case but can someone explain how a R2R pre differs from any regular pre?
 
tanoka said:
Is there any reason why I can't use any pre-amp, the ones I listed earlier, to record and playback on the transport? I'm not finding any pics that show this, so I assume this isn't the case but can someone explain how a R2R pre differs from any regular pre?
Click to expand...

Depending on the design, the amplifier unit may also contain the bias and erase circuits.
Most importantly, the record/repro amplifier will also have a particular equalisation curve (NAB or IEC) without which you're likely to get strange results (these curves exist for a reason!) and a tape that can't be played back on any other machine.
Beyond that, I'm not really qualified to answer.
 
I have extensive roll-off options on all my pre-amps for pre-RIAA compensation, but I see there's no getting around a second EQ process to IEC for tape. Lotta signal processing going on but I'm sure it'll sound wonderful. I guess my next step is to find the best Ampex servicer in the states?
 
tanoka said:
Hi Bob,

Thanks clarifying for me, perhaps Tim simply misread before morning coffee or such. The time I spent here before I do remember the "Analog Only" forum isn't immune to a little digital insecurity. I do sympathize though because besides a few things like tonearms, cartridges, and amps, almost everything has to be bought vintage and restored. It's difficult to do as I've already spent over a year having custom restoration work done and wouldn't wish my task on any human being. :cool:

I do stand by my opinions though, I've heard 2" masters many a day through a vintage analog board and MC240s so my benchmark is hard to beat. 78s have 'truncated' frequency range but that range, when properly reproduced, have a holism unlike anything I've heard in any other format including vinyl. I can even hear a difference between shellac and vinyl 78s. So it's not entirely about standard over microgroove or 78rpm over 33rpm. Most shellacophiles are very old in age and rarely post on internet audio forums, but they do exist.
Click to expand...

Thanks for not taking offence. Your approach is somewhat different to Joe Bussard's whom I'd not heard of until you mentioned him. Fascinating guy.

A few technical comments:

There shouldnt be any audible difference between a 2" master and a 1/4" one, so long as the track width is the same.

78's could have quite good frequency response. The fast speed helped it in this. The big improvement in 78's was the change from purely mechanical/acoustic recording to "electrical" or electronic recording and playback.

As I understand it, the difference between vinyl and shellac is that all things being equal, vinyl is quieter, allowing a bigger dynamic range. In practice though, part of this relative quietness of vinyl was traded off for longer playing time.

As for 78's having a "holism" unlike any other format, shellac 78's in practice had poor dynamic range, about 40db on first playing, and got worse with successive playings. (Look up the Wiki article on dynamic range which is a pretty good summary of the subject.)
Human hearing is much better than that, and that's the standard we ultimately come back to. It wasnt just a few audiophiles who found the noise/distortion objectionable.

Cheers Tim
 
Tim,

Music reproduction's not about frequency range for me but frequency quality. Almost all my 78s are a capella with only a few having one instrument accompaniment. People's singing voices, including the extremes of basso and soprano, don't need 20hz-20Khz. In fact I find almost every post-war recording too bright. All the new technology allowed voices to be recorded and mixed too upfront in the disc, hence too upfront from the speaker, I don't want the singer standing where the speaker is if you get my drift. In pre-war discs I can hear space, environment, and air in front of the singer, a point I can't stress enough, with multiple singers usually no additional mics the sound was coherent, again the holism, both sonically and musically. Music was subtle and infinitely more profound in my opinion. I too used to scoff at 78s as lo-fi and antiquated music, I wasn't ready for it then. I have thousands of extremely rare un-reissued vinyl LPs, with the clean 'sanitized' sound I used to enjoy. Stereo sounds wrong to me, I don't even like two-speaker mono. One speaker mono is the ultimate in coherence and I can never go back. When I pick up an LP now it feels as light as a CD. There's a reason institutions consider 78s the best archival format ever invented, it really was and is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top