cutting heads for cutting bigger, gramophone- spec grooves?

[subkontrabob]

Hi,

I found this beautiful forum of yours while doing research for a unique recording project:

A violinist wants to record Ysaÿes 6 sonatas opus 27 direct-to-disk and release the result on gramophone compatible 78 rpm discs. The aim is to have a "nostalgic" edition, with interpretation and playing technique typical for the period the composition was published, recorded the way it was done back then, on a medium that is playable on consumer playback devices of the period (=gramophones).

The obvious problem is the need for a suitable cutting head. How hard are these to come by?

By the way, is there a special term to distinguish between the different groove sizes (LP vs older)? In the stuff I've been reading, the distinction is made by referring to the speed the records are played back at.

best regards,

Robert Vierling

[emorritt]

First, are you referring simply to making a 78 RPM disk in general, the recording process (mechanical vs. electronic), or do you just want the wider groove size? "Gramophone" generally is used to refer to the old mechanical systems of recording and playback. The only working mechanical disk recording system that I'm aware of is in the UK and was restored and operated by Sean Davies et al when used for recording Roberto Alagna for an EMI '100th anniversary' recording session several years ago.

You can cut "78" size grooves on any lathe with any head, however finding cutting styli that are ground with the correct angle for the groove size is difficult as they aren't made any more. I know that Gib at West Tech Services had some NOS 78 cutting needles left, but I don't know how many he had or if there are any left. As far as terminology "standard" referred to 78 size grooves and "microgroove" referred to the LP size; this was around the time LP's were introduced and for years following. Now "78 size grooves" gets the message across just fine.

As far as recording "on a medium that is playable...etc." it depends on which playback technology you're referring to. If you want to end up pressing a record that could be played on an antique gramophone, you're out of luck. This required use of a pressing compound based on shellac, soot, vinsol resin, various clay fillers, pumice and some other ingredients that was made by the individual record companies and was never commercially available like vinyl used for modern pressings. Even if you could duplicate the "mix", modern presses wouldn't work with this compound without major re-adjustments that I'm sure pressing plants wouldn't be willing to make. Even though the Algana record was made mechanically, the pressing was in vinyl and you couldn't play it on a Victrola or other period phonograph.

Also, I noticed in the video included with the Alagna box set that even though they had a couple of the old wax recording disks, they put a modern 14 inch master lacquer on top of it and adjusted the height of the recording box accordingly. Looking at the grooves in the resulting pressing, it appears that the mechanical recorder either wasn't heavy enough for lacquer, or something just wasn't the same as cutting on a modern lathe so the resulting cut wasn't very 'pretty', although it would track and was fairly good sounding for a mechanical disk.

Your best bet would be to try to find a 78 cutting stylus, use a modern electric recording system in mono, and issue the pressings on vinyl disks. Otherwise you've got a lot more research to do... a LOT more. It would be great to be able to press "new" shellac disks, but the only market would be collectors and the price you'd have to charge to make up for the overhead to start a shellac disk production line I doubt you'd be able to market such a product. Hope this helps.

[cuttercollector]

Interesting project.

The previous post covered all the basics. I would only add that the reason you can't play back a modern pressed vinyl 78 with old "standard" width grooves on an old acoustic gramophone is just that the vinyl is softer than the old materials used then and the grooves will wear out very quickly with the heavy acoustic arm and steel needle of the gramophone. Back in the day, they used cactus needles for playback for less groove wear than the steel needles. Though they were not as loud, they were of a softer material that didn't wear the grooves as much.

Steve E. should chime in here as he has been cutting lacquers for playback on just such machines and was one reason for the existence of this whole forum.
Also Len of HRS records has experience with both direct to disc and cutting 78s in modern times.

[emorritt]

Through various customer requests and experimentation on my own, I've attempted many different materials for playback on a mechanical phonograph. The main problem is not necessarily wear, but softer materials such as vinyl, lacquer, polycarbonate, etc. simply cause the turntable to slow down and stop because of the much different frictional characteristic of the stylus against the newer, softer material. Shellac disks were very smooth and hard which allowed a heavier tracking tonearm to 'glide' through the grooves instead of generate heat and get bogged down in the groove, which would steadily pull the speed down to a halt. Plus, the pumice content of the pressing acted on the steel pickup stylus, wearing it to conform to the groove wall geometry. This is also a contributing factor to softer materials without any "grittyness" to cause heating of the steel needle and consequently exponentially increase drag.

[cuttercollector]

Through various customer requests and experimentation on my own, I've attempted many different materials for playback on a mechanical phonograph. The main problem is not necessarily wear, but softer materials such as vinyl, lacquer, polycarbonate, etc. simply cause the turntable to slow down and stop because of the much different frictional characteristic of the stylus against the newer, softer material. Shellac disks were very smooth and hard which allowed a heavier tracking tonearm to 'glide' through the grooves instead of generate heat and get bogged down in the groove, which would steadily pull the speed down to a halt. Plus, the pumice content of the pressing acted on the steel pickup stylus, wearing it to conform to the groove wall geometry. This is also a contributing factor to softer materials without any "grittyness" to cause heating of the steel needle and consequently exponentially increase drag.

I don't doubt your experimentation results - that all makes sense, but it seems to me I have played late pressed vinyl 78s on a spring wound acoustic playback machine without it slowing down. It did however as I recall, make permanent changes in the surface noise and visible appearance of the groove even with one playing. Perhaps they were styrene instead of vinyl. (childrens records from the 50s for instance) There were certainly electrically driven turntable, acoustic reproduction phonographs made for just such childrens records, but the turntables had more torque than the wind-up ones.
BTW, any acoustic "reproducer" is also a "recorder" by definition.
If mechanical recording is desired, such a system might be set up...

The best of that whole world was the Victor Orthophonic system with electrically cut discs and a properly designed acoustic playback system.

[subkontrabob]

thank you emorritt and others for your replies with all the nice trivia!

First, are you referring simply to making a 78 RPM disk in general, the recording process (mechanical vs. electronic), or do you just want the wider groove size?

I want to make a 78 rpm vinyl disc with 78 size grooves, that can be played back on gramophones.

Although there is a certain nostalgia and a vintage approach to this project, we don't want to take it ad absurdum. The recording process will be electric (vintage 40ies ribbon mic -> ortofon tube processing -> neumann lathe)

You can cut "78" size grooves on any lathe with any head, however finding cutting styli that are ground with the correct angle for the groove size is difficult as they aren't made any more. I know that Gib at West Tech Services had some NOS 78 cutting needles left, but I don't know how many he had or if there are any left.

That's exactly what I'm after. My knowledge of cutting lathes is (yet) somewhat limited, I thought that the cutting needle and head are one unit.

As far as recording "on a medium that is playable...etc." it depends on which playback technology you're referring to. If you want to end up pressing a record that could be played on an antique gramophone, you're out of luck. This required use of a pressing compound based on shellac, soot, vinsol resin, various clay fillers, pumice and some other ingredients that was made by the individual record companies and was never commercially available like vinyl used for modern pressings. Even if you could duplicate the "mix", modern presses wouldn't work with this compound without major re-adjustments that I'm sure pressing plants wouldn't be willing to make. Even though the Algana record was made mechanically, the pressing was in vinyl and you couldn't play it on a Victrola or other period phonograph.

bugger....... now I have to tell this to my poor violinist...... he's a real gramophone enthusiast, used to have a collection of 10 different ones. His dream was to be able to play his record back on one of these really old machines.

Your best bet would be to try to find a 78 cutting stylus, use a modern electric recording system in mono, and issue the pressings on vinyl disks. Otherwise you've got a lot more research to do... a LOT more. It would be great to be able to press "new" shellac disks, but the only market would be collectors and the price you'd have to charge to make up for the overhead to start a shellac disk production line I doubt you'd be able to market such a product.

otoh this is a funded project, it doesn't need to be commercially viable. But then again, there won't be ridiculous amounts of grant money to spend.

Maybe it will be wiser to just make a microgroove recording. There is little point in making a standard 78 size cut if it can't be played back with the real deal.

[blacknwhite]

It depends on LOTS of variables, whether the turntable will slow to a stop or not.

as a kid, I played 12-inch vinyl "club singles" made in the 1980's with "extra-large grooves", and recorded at 45 rpm, played back on a 1910's upright mahogany wind-up Victrola, with no problem, except it played "too fast".

Some factors to consider:

1) The weight of the tone arm of the victrola, and quality of build. If it is a lighter-weight pickup, such as either the higher-quality 1910's and 20's Victrola brand large home phonographs, or the later 1950's & 60's "kiddie" players with sheet-aluminum or plastic arms, it will play better. The old Victrola home phono tone arms were light because they had a "joint" in the middle of the tone arm with a nigh-precision bearing, reducing weight on the sound box, as well as friction in that pivot. If the player like one of the 1930's - 40's portable Victrola units with pot metal single-piece tone arm, where the entire weight of the arm is on the needle, it will slow and stop.

2) The size of the groove: Ironically, if you cut a smaller groove like what is used for a 12-inch club single (slightly smaller groove than 78s), the stylus doesn't sink as far down into the soft vinyl while playing, and therefore, less friction between stylus and record, therefore, the record doesn't slow & stop. Deeper 78-sized grooves in soft vinyl mean more contact between stylus and record, thus more friction, thus more likely to stop.

3) Loudness of cut, and frequency response curve of cut: You should study average acoustic phonograph discs on the Victor and Victrola "Batwing" labels (before the electrically recorded ones), and make your 78 rpm cut with the same loudness and frequency response: Fairly quiet, and fairly narrow (mid-range) response (with little or no bass and treble). If you include too much extreme high & low frequency sound on the record, the average reproducer is not compliant enough to follow them, and will drag and stop the record. If you cut louder than the Victrola "Batwing" label records, then either that will slow & stop the record also (due to friction), or else, it will skip continuously throughout the record.

4) Size of the motor of the victrola. If it's one of the large home Victrola's with large-barrell springs, or an electric motor, it should be fine. If it's one of the cheap portables with a tiny spring motor, it's more likely to slow & stop from friction.

My suggestion would be, try cutting with "club single" style groove size (i.e. modern V-shaped grooves, deeper than average LP), but with TRADITIONAL 78 RPM SPACING - that is to say, PLENTY OF SPACE between grooves (what is it, about 70 grooves per inch? I forget) - and use the volume and frequency response curve as suggested in (3) above - and you should end up with a record that will play on "many, if not most" Victrola's. The advantage of the V-shaped grooves, is that they will be playable with ALL stylii, of all sizes, including people who will want to play them on modern "Crosley" record players, or high-end turntables.

This would not require any special cutting head. Any style would do. Just be sure to cut in mono, not stereo. (You can use a stereo cutterhead, just be sure left & right channels are the same.)

Press on extra-thick vinyl, or else the thin lightweight stuff could just slip under the weight of the needle. The felt on those old turntables can add as a built-in "slipmat" when playing vinyl if its too lightweight.

As you can tell, this is a "no guarantees" thing. It sounds like a fun project. I think it would be very do-able, BUT, if the resulting vinyl 78s actually are played on wind-up Victrola's, they will not last as long as original 78s. On the better quality machines with ligher pickups, they may last longer; on some cheaper machines, they may not play at all.

Don't ask why I know so much about playing microgroove vinyl on Victrola's.

- Bob

[cuttercollector]

One other thing that comes to mind.
It might be easier to find a 78 groove size cutting stylus to fit a Presto or similar head, which would be somewhat period.

[emorritt]

Yes, if it's '40's technology/sound you want to mimic, then you could easily produce a vinyl pressing that would play back on a 40's vintage electric player. Just make sure the needle is good. Vinyl on a gram, no.

The only tests I've done are with either a Victrola No. 2 reproducer or a "dime store Victrola" (Starr Meteor or equiv.) that had really heavy reproducers. I would guess that something lighter like an Exhibition might work, but as cuttercollector said on a softer recording the needle damage is done (or was it Neil Young?... sorry).

And in agreement with blacknwhite, the loudness of the disk will also slow a spring motor machine but this isn't too much of a problem unless like he said the phonograph has a smaller motor. Many will play acoustics as well as later electrics which were much more dynamic. I've never tried playing a microgroove record on a Victrola - can't believe it works. I would think the needle/groove incompatibility alone wouldn't track. Never know...

[tape]

here is one that seems to have found a solution: http://www.discogs.com/Stephan-Mathieu-On-The-Concept-Of-History-A-Survey/release/1886943

4 x Lathe Cut, 10", Mono, Normal-Groove, 2 x Mechanical-Acoustic Gramophones, Edition of 1

[emorritt]

Probably not if you read the description. It states "The acetates will desintegrate slowly with each play, while this process is part of the piece. You can play the acetates over and over again." Also, "trailer needles" are simply transcription needles like those made by DuoTone, Actone, Recoton, etc. all under the ruse that less wear would occur if special transcription needles were used. They were designed to cause less wear than a typical steel needle, usually being larger than a needle designed for standard 78 pressing playback which would ride higher in the groove, but the weight of early electric pickups caused wear regardless of what needle was used.

Putting a trailer needle or any other "transcription" needle in a gramophone pickup and putting it on a lacquer would really cause damage, but as he says, this is "part of the piece". He's including two Columbia Grafonola 201's, and I don't recall the reproducers on these being any lighter than a Victrola No. 2. Actually, I've never tried using an Actone or other "transcription" needle with the gram/lacquer setup. Good Halloween experiment. Maybe I can cut some Nina Hagen and play it back on my Victor VI at 78 RPM to scare the kiddies tonight...

[subkontrabob]

I want to thank everybody for their input on this one. I had a meeting with my violinist, and he actually wants either a real shellac pressing or a regular LP if it is impossible.

What do you say - is there ANYONE in the world who still presses standard shellac discs? If not, do you think is there any chance to pull that off?
I am aware, like emorritt pointed out, that that would mean a lot of research. Then again, we finns are quite stubborn....



You people have probably come across this video already:

http://www.archive.org/details/CommandP1942

cheers,

Rob

[cuttercollector]

AFAIK, 78s shifted over to modern plastics like styrene and vinyl during the 1950s as the microgroove 33s and 45s took over and 78s went away. Interestingly, the last 78s were produced for 3rd world nations into the 60s. There were Beatles 78s. These were produced because the countries still had a poor rural power grid and wind-up acoustic record players were still common. So a pressing plant or the remains of one might still be most likely found in India or South America. But perhaps these were vinyl too and they just lived with the issues.
Where is our record pressing expert on this thread?

[emorritt]

You might find a plant, but as I noted before it's "the mix" and finding someone still living who knows how to make it. Any plant can press "78's", but from vinyl. I highly doubt even in third world countries that you'd find someone who could still successfully make the material for shellac pressings. I have several formulas from my research, but I've never tried making one of them. Most late commercial 78's were vinylite and a lot of 'kiddie' records were styrene which is why they didn't hold up well, even with the lightweight plastic tonearms on the acoustic kiddie phonographs.

[mossboss]

AFAIK, 78s shifted over to modern plastics like styrene and vinyl during the 1950s as the microgroove 33s and 45s took over and 78s went away. Interestingly, the last 78s were produced for 3rd world nations into the 60s. There were Beatles 78s. But perhaps these were vinyl too and they just lived with the issues.
Where is our record pressing expert on this thread?

Pressing dude is here! and has been following this with a smirk on his face
There is absolutely no problems in pressing the old stuff BUT why?
The novelty would be fine the effort?
It is not that hard to make the mix just about everything is available and I still have about 60 pounds of shelack in two colours
Pitch talk slate powder urea butane rubber etc are all available
We have the 78 rpm driver for the VMS and at a couple of 100 bucks or a bit more we can get a used stylus ground to the 78 profile of which there was any amount of variants
We can mono the input and introduce enough "noise" there so it seems like an "original"
Cutting making plates and pressing them would not be an issue for us as most would be aware these plates where copper with a flash of nickel ground back or buffed back to get rid of horns etc etc
All feasable
There is a four post press in our shop that would do this like a walk in the park
Heat the dies up with electric heaters as steam would not get up to the required temp or preheat the "puck"on an RF heater first as it was done in the days
About a 3 -4 minute cycle per record
Now here is the dilema the man would most likely want 50 units wants to "live" the dream and leave us with the Head F..k so as to get it right Limited edition sold at a few hundred dollars each but willing to expand no more than say $10-12 each including the covers and inners
Yeah a real good proposition
It is no different than the "flexi challenge" elsewhere here that I put up some time back twice, any one can have a look at the thread
Yes but lets be realistic the "vinyl romantics" are presenting all of us with sufficient challenges anyway
I don't think we want to extend this to the "shellack romantics" as well, may be we open another can of worms
Unlike a "cutter" who buys a Reko cut or a Wilcox places it in his bedroom or where ever, a pressing plant is a major investment as well as an energy hungry beast with lots of gear
Add to this cutting as well as plate making you have a major expense on a daily basis when you open the doors
Cynical? I can allways be persuaded otherways
My mind is quite flexible it can be opened or closed
But please provide it with some valid reasons or sufficient financial compensation, not to make a profit, as this would be near impossible any way
Just to cover direct cost's No more
So let's see how far this thread is going to go after this
Cheers

[subkontrabob]

hi mossboss,

thank you for your answer! Where are you based? Do you want to continue this discussion in public or through pm?

best regards,

Robert Vierling

[mossboss]

Hi there Bob
Look yes we can certainly do a pm on this for the sensitive stuff like financial matters as there is no need for it to be public
However it may be a worthwhile thing to keep this thread going as to the progress of the task the issues that will certainly raise their ugly heads without doubt as well as the process in getting there
The end result that is
There is no doubt that we will be travelling on a well worn path travelled by many in the past
However most of them have by now met their maker so there is not much help there although I did meet an old guy the other day who used to work with me He was an old man for me than any way it was quite a shock to relise that he did remember me and we had a chat about it Now this was around 40 years ago
This man was in his late forties than he told me that he just turned 89 Phew amazing
I am old enough but even so I just got the tail end of it in 1969 and it was a damn thin tail at that as well
The old compression moulders where coming to a grim end if they where book style they are running around now as Toyotas may be second or third time around
If they where lucky ie four posters they got a new lease of life
And yes we did do some modern stuff on 78's for the 3rd world due to copyright or whatever even though there was sufficient bootleged ones to satisfy these unrully markets any way
But that's another story
So Bob Pm do it here whatever
It is certainly a very durable deed despite of the obstacles which with out any shadow of a doubt will have to be dealt with in the process as the previous posters on the subject have already pointed out
It now looks like we will be going time travelling "back" or to the "future"
If there is a "vinyl revival" may be we are about in starting a "slate revival"

Ohh I am in Melbourne Australia and we are Zenith records
Look us up on the web

A word of warning
The site is not fit for humans but search engines love it
The important bits are OK for bots and humans
It normally pops up first page in the first 5-6 listings on a generic search with about 14 million hits it is not bad
I figured that if you can still produce a vinyl record from masters to finished product than surely you can work out what these "bots" want
and give it to them
It looks like the analogy has worked so far
Ok the humor is bad but we will have a crack at your 78 project
After all we don't do this to retire on the money we make now, do we fellows?
Cheers
and
Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh a 78 Re-Birth I never would have thought!

[blacknwhite]

If you actually make a shellac 78, sign me up to buy a copy for sure - this I gotta see!... You will sell at least one copy!...

- Bob

[mossboss]

Hey Bob and Blackie as well as others Here
I do not have an issue in making these things
I can cut the masters in wax Graphite them Silver or gold flash them for real early stuff
Vacuum metalise them for around late 20's to 30's
Make the stampers in acid copper and press out of them
This would be around the 15's 20's and mid 30's
I can make acid copper plates and flash chrome them for European sound
Flash Nickel them than chrome them for American sound or both one or the other
Or make a thin shell from nickel beef it up with copper and than flash plate it with chrome on the the face for an English sound
The UK was never part of Europe until recently
Or even Make a copper shell nice and thick and solder it on to Iron as in German sound
That prevented the "Shelack" pushing through the minute holes that where always there causing the records to stick to the plates or having more "pops" than accepted by the market of which there was plenty of any way
Or even make it out of Iron if it happens to be around the second world war era as there was no Nickel or copper for that matter, available
So from around 1938-1948 or so there abouts there was a scarcity of these two metals forcing record makers seeking other materials so as to do the job
There was plenty of Iron around so it was the material, not of choice
Of course each medium gave out a different sound
We can also do what we do today which is a straight out Nickel plate
So as to make things a bit more interesting and here is another valid point
We can do the master mother stamper trick on all of the above or just do a Convert master stamper and be done with it
It was the norm to make masters mothers stampers or How the Germans called them master father son, they could not help it could they?
We all know what this does to the recorded music don't we?
So here is another quandery for our poster to mull over
No doubt about that regardless of who cut it how it was cut what gear was used how many knobs they had to twist and all of that
Now
We do press vinyl here and we cut and we do a bit of mastering only to facilitate our cuts
But my actual real love is electroforming of matrices (matrix) in plural? (my English is failing me)
Keeping in mind all of the above in so far as to get as close as possible to the music as well as the era it was done in one needs to have a fairly accurate date as well as the region that the record was produced so as to get the idea at least how it should sound once it goes on to Shellack
So one needs to know all of the above so as to make a valid decision in so far as what the end resulting shelack record should sound like
It gets better! Ah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shelack formulations as every one knows were a well kept secret until of course shelack went out of favour with the introduction of PVC
Again the formulae used did affect the sound as well
So again it may be a good idea to also have a few clues on that aspect as well ie an example of a record of the era we want to say reproduce/recreate
So even though the original post did ask about stylii shape speed width depth etc it never addressed most of the important issues so far as I am concerned
Sure it was not a post without merrit however one needs to know a lot more than just the cutting head and shape of the cutting bit so as to get to the reality of the medium as it was and where it was mader at the time
Every one who has an interest in early sound recordings is aware of the plethora of speeds as well as the different eq schemes used by record manufacturers (another can of worms I am not going there The eq bit that is)
Most hand crankers as well as early electrofied T/T's or reproducers had a speed control with a fair variation of speed so as to get these things to sound right
I know I hand cranked from the age of 6 YO in family gatherings
I was always yelled at (nicely) to speed it up or slow it down so the dancers can show off They do know beat
Lovely memories
OK
It is the nature of forums to have a kind of "romanticism" which is all well and good as it creates exchange of Ideas as well as the
re enactment of things of long ago themes or methods of manufacture
Great way of spreading some knowhow receiving some back as well regardless how redundant it may be
At the end of the day when people are talking of sound transfer nearing 1/8 th the speed of light it is hard to deny that we are "Trolls"
And Blackie No need to buy one man
I am sure since I am the D......d that put his hand up to do this I think I may have the privilege to have a few copies to give Away
Say one for my collection and another for my archives another for the National Film and sound Archives that we always send records to for keepshake and one FOR YOU
All you need to do is be ready for input and buy me a beer when I am around your part of the woods
Oh Emorritt as well One for him
He would certainly be needed as a sounding board as well as any input he would offer in this rather fascinating project, would certainly be worthwhile I am sure
Now let's see how determined these Finn's are in so far as getting the right ingredients for this thing to move ahead if it ever does, of which I have great doubt's!
I am sure he never bargained for this But it is what it is or it was in this case
And someone here did call for the "pressing expert"
I am not sure about that as X is an unkown quantity and pert is a drip under pressure
Yeah Right another of Mossy's long post's
Cheers

[blacknwhite]

...amazing... Mossboss, I still can't believe you actually still HAVE some shellac material lying around...

Just for THAT, I'll buy you a beer ANYTIME!

That alone gives you the kind of "street cred(ibility)", as we call it in the US, that Money Can't Buy.

If word of that gets out, you'll be able to walk the toughest American city streets alone, without fear... You will be "Protected"...

- Bob