Transcription discs were also used by the old radio networks (CBS, ABC, NBC) to distribute programs to areas that didn't have access to the shared AT&T Long Lines network feeds. The records were delivered by couriers. Most of the programs were things like soap operas and radio dramas because the didn't go out of date quickly like a current events or news program would. On quad records, I used to have some of CBS Laboratories early test discs kicking around years ago, but sold them off cheap at a local flea market as I recall. I'm not a collector, just a former broadcast tech.
I would spend hours as a child in the early 70's listening to 78's and LP's at the 16 RPM speed. It would make music sound so creepy like a TV or movie soundtrack or haunted house.
The section on quadraphonic records sure brought back some memories! As an 18-year-old, I had a Saturday job in a local department store. Their 'audio' department at the time (next door to 'my' department) sold both SQ and CD-4 'record players' and the sales staff sounded almost as baffled as the potential customers, and the latter's questions about 'which system is better?' invariably got at best a confused and muddled comparison of the systems or a 'well, you need to go by the system that has the records/music you like …' (!!!). Clearly the entire home quadrophony enterprise was doomed to failure. Thank God!!!
@@paulbunch8388 the 16 setting was used not intended for music, but for speech, like foreign language lessons, children stories, theater, etc. They were somewhat common in the eastern block.
We also has a small Luma combo with speaker record player and radio in one set . I used to play 33rpm at half the speed .Same experience I have never seen 16 rpm record in my life -
Our home was built in 1974. Every room is fitted in its ceiling with quad speakers. The Study contains a Seeburg 100 disc player. Used to be (it is gone now, ach) a Marantz quad receiver. The 100 disc player can be controlled by a telephone-dial type selector box from upstairs or downstairs. The Study also contains, one in each of its four corners, a huge JBL boxed, single-driver loudpeaker. They are hidden in built-in cabinetry.
If you look up NY TIMES magazine or Sunday arts section you'll see ads f0r this system that from a sort of jukebox could play LPS or radio throughout house The remotes did have atelephone like dial to pick selections. I recall these were called BOLTON SYSTEMS.
I was a teen right when quadrophonic was a thing, and our local hard-rock station's slogan was "ROCK YOURS IN QUAD" for several years; apparently they broadcast in quad, but I never got to test this out. Actually, at that time we never even had a record player.
Oh, man... I used to go around and around with some guy arguing just like your dad. They don't seem to understand that the *source* of a sound is not the ear. How can you tell if some sound is coming from behind you? Can you make something sound like it's moving from front to back with two speakers?
@@shaggybreeks Actually, you kinda can. Dolby's virtual surround system uses psychoacoustic and phase manipulation to produce quite an effective surround sound simulation with two speakers. Unlike discrete channels with speakers behind you, the processor chip can create the aural illusion that sound is indeed coming from behind you. The drawback is that you need to be sitting equidistant from the two front speakers, or pretty close to that sweet spot. Move off it and the illusion gets less and less convincing. The trick is used in all sorts of sound playback equipment -- radios, computer sound, TVs and even cheap boom boxes. Dolby used it in their two channel optical soundtrack for film, where they use phase manipulation to encode a surround channel in the two analog channels recorded on the film. Upon playback the cinema processor decoder was then able to extract the encoded surround channel and send it to the single surround channel which consisted of speaker along the sides and back of the theatre. That phase matrix, btw, was actually stolen from Sansui's Vario-matrix II which was the process used to record (encode) Quadraphonic audio (the QS version) on LPs. Difference between Sansui Vario-matrix II and Dolby's cinema sound system is that Dolby modified their cinema processor so instead of having a Left Front/Right Front /Left Back/Right Back, as in the Quadraphonic configuration, Dolby was happy with only a single surround channel instead of two and put three channels behind the screen -- Left Screen, Center Screen, Right Screen plus the Rear Surround, mimicking the way magnetic sound-on-film played back in cinemas a decade earlier (in 35mm - it was Left, Center Right behind the screen plus Surround, i.e., 4 discrete channels; in 70mm, it was 5 behind the screen: Left, Left Center, Center, Right Center, Right plus Surround i.e, 6 discrete channels). But for reasons too numerous to mention, mag sound on film was another audio process that was relegated to the technology dust heap, but when Dolby wanted to put Stereo back in the theatres, they dug out the old Quadraphonic system used for LPs, and that is how we got analog stereo in cinemas before the advent of digital sound. Dolby's modification of Sansui's QS system also probably had a lot to do with not infringing on Sansui's patents. Quadraphonic sound on records was a bit more popular than the video here implies. Almost all of my friends in college had some form of it, especially anyone who was interested in good audio. There was plenty of content out there, as virtually all labels picked on of the formats and went with it. If memory serves me, I think the Sansui know as the QS system had the most labels and the more popular. The CD-4 system technically was a very sophisticated (and complicated) system and more expensive as it relied on adding a carrier frequency of, I believe it was, 35KHz on the record, a specialized cartridge and needle that could reproduce that high a frequence at a time when phono cartridges were struggling to reproduce the higher end of the audio spectrum let alone 15kHz beyond it. The system also required a decoder to read the ultra-high frequency carrier. And play those records with a standard cartridge and needle or even one that was not meticulously calibrated and that 35kHz carrier "tone" would be worn right off it. Not only was the fact that there were three competing systems, the marketing was aslo unnecessarily confusing. The Sony system, as the video pointed out, moniker-ed their quad system "SQ" while the labels using the Sansui system labeled theirs "QS" (how's THAT for making it confusing). They couldn't even settle on how to spell the name itself You would see it on some records and in print spelled "QuadrAphonic Sound" and in other places, even in the same magazines, spelled "QuadrOphonic." Talk about not getting their act together. But again, to slightly contradict the leaning in the video, For about a strong 5 to 7 years, Quadraphonic was quite popular with lots of content across all genres of music and record labels and for those years the was also plenty of hardware available. Electronic manufacturers were making Quadraphonic receivers with four amplifiers and usually at least two of the decoders built in, many with all three. I once saw Lafayette Radio offering headsets that had two big cup-like earpieces that had two transducers in each -- speaker one facing the ear from the front and the other from behind, vola! real quadraphonic headsets. I never heard them myself, it but supposedly it was able to send the two channels (front and rear channels) to each ear, each channel aimed at the front and rear of the ear. Interesting concept to be sure. How it worked, I couldn't tell you. Point being, the public's response to Quadraphonic sound and playback systems was fairly enthusiastic. And while a Quadraphonic setup did cost more -- you needed the extra amplifier and speakers, there was a poor man's version that let you get surround information without the need for an extra two amplifiers. ElectroVoice made a box which basically just phase inverted the phase of the Left and Right channels of the normal stereo signal coming from a stereo amplifier and fed it to one or two surround speakers and bingo, any out of phase information on the stereo record would come out of the rear speakers. It didn't decode encoded quad matrixed track records precisely as would a decoder specific to the system that recorded it -- the stereo soundfield would not necessarily place instruments exactly where the recording engineer placed them in a quadraphonic mixing session, but it did open up the playback to a full 360 degree surround soundfield. You did hear a marked special enhancement from almost any recording, even those not specifically mixed and recorded in one of the quad systems (all recording include a whole spectrum of phase shifting caused by the room itself. Sounds reflecting from the room environment reach the microphone in modified phase timing from the direct sound. Separate that information electrically from the direct sound and send it to surround speakers and you then are in the room where the recording was made and that room is all around you. It is quite amazing how open any recording will sound if you extract that out of phase information. Once my quad system was set up, I played everything in Quad -- quad recorded LPs and standard LPs; there was no reason to ever take it down -- it made everything sound so more spacious and instrument locations more defined in the soundfield. I loved the way it created ambient sound from the rear speaker from literally all stereo recordings. Then when Dolby ProLogic came on the scene, and later Digital 5.1, I was practically all ready to go.
16 rpm format was intended for "talking book" records for the blind, as many have pointed out. Seeburg used this speed on their Background Music System and the fidelity was quite acceptable. (The records themselves were mastered and pressed by Capitol). There was also an 8 rpm format. Very rare. RUclips's "RadioTVPhonoNut" has a feature on them.
Hey you know about Seeburg I thought I was the only one I have only 1 record of them it’s a Basic Record and it sounds pretty good if you put it on Mono in stereo they sound horrible
Don't forget the best part of having 16 RPM on a 33 RPM record player: you could play the song on a 33rpm record at half speed to figure out difficult musical passages and solos. If you are a guitarist, keyboardist or bassist, it made it ideal to pick these solos out note for note, since they were the same notes, but at half speed, only an octave lower. Play along at half speed until you got the notes down, then practice at faster speeds until you could play along with the record at 33 rpm. Win-win!
A bit off topic, however... Way back in the '50s my brother worked at a record store with the name of "Fee-fi-fo-fum", and their radio ads address tagline was: "Fee-fi-fo-fum, 27th, and Wisconsin-um". He cut and brought home some very interesting disks...
The other day I rented this cabin in the middle of nowhere and I somehow figured out how to get a 1904 crank Victor talking machine working, much different than a modern set up! It took me about 15 minutes and then I was able to play some 78s from the 30s. Cool experience.
I bought a Victor 1917 model about 20 years ago and gave me something to listen to when hurricane Sandy hit and I was with no power for 4 days, and do keep in mind, the older victrolas with the steel needles should never be used while playing any 78 from 1926 to 1958, it will ruin the grooves
I can honestly say in all the years I've been collecting vinyl I have never seen 16rpm discs. But growing up I remember nearly every record player we owned had a 16rpm speed setting. Those autochangers in the 70's were always 4 speed players. Strange.
I really enjoyed this. I had a few 16-2/3 records in the 60s (voice recordings), and remember having one pocket disc. Honorable mentions: floppy 33-1/3s, and 12" 78s. You would occasionally find the "floppy discs" inside magazines with some sort of voice advertising. The 12" 78s could hold a couple songs on a side.
We had 16 rpm aluminum, records from WW2 that were about 20". They were transcripts of radio programs. As the stylus neared the center the speed was slower and the sound quality went down gradually. To cover for this the flip side would start at the middle and play outward and the sound gradually got better. This avoided the sharp sound quality change between sides.
@@suburban60sKid, unfortunately, I must disagree concerning DAT. The format does qualify as a "failed" format. It failed due to corporate greed. The monopolists who owned the both recording industry and owned congress forced regulations that prevented companies from selling DAT recorders that could make multiple copies from other DAT machines. The format failed due to the high cost of recorders that were useless for what they were intended to do and high cost of media. CDs drove the final nail into their coffin when computers were excluded from those limitations. Regarding the DAT tapes used for computer storage, they were mainly for tape backup of network servers. See Wikipedia: "In the late 1980s, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) unsuccessfully lobbied against the introduction of DAT devices into the U.S. Initially, the organization threatened legal action against any manufacturer attempting to sell DAT machines in the country. It later sought to impose restrictions on DAT recorders to prevent them from being used to copy LPs, CDs, and prerecorded cassettes. One of these efforts, the Digital Audio Recorder Copycode Act of 1987 (introduced by Sen. Al Gore and Rep. Waxman), instigated by CBS Records president Walter Yetnikoff, involved a technology called CopyCode and required DAT machines to include a chip to detect attempts to copy material recorded with a notch filter,[4] meaning that copyrighted prerecorded music, whether analog or digital, whether on LP, cassette, or DAT, would have distorted sound resulting from the notch filter applied by the publisher at the time of mastering for mass reproduction. A National Bureau of Standards study showed that not only were the effects plainly audible, but that it was not even effective at preventing copying. This opposition by CBS softened after Sony, a DAT manufacturer, bought CBS Records in January 1988. By June 1989, an agreement was reached, and the only concession the RIAA would receive was a more practical recommendation from manufacturers to Congress that legislation be enacted to require that recorders have a Serial Copy Management System to prevent digital copying for more than a single generation.[5] This requirement was enacted as part of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which also imposed taxes on DAT recorders and blank media. However, the computer industry successfully lobbied to have personal computers exempted from that act, setting the stage for massive consumer copying of copyrighted material on materials like recordable CDs and by extension, filesharing systems such as Napster.[6]" With the development of recording methods for printing, audio recording, and video recording, the companies that owned the recording equipment have pushed for strong copyright laws to maintain their monopolies. Using the justification that there would a decrease in creative thinking if artists were not protected, laws were passed and then the companies bought the works from the artists and the companies reaped the benefits. Companies that record and distribute the work of artists now have a lifetime of income without doing a bit of creative work. These companies will do everything thay can to ensure that a recording format will fail if that format might cut into theri profits. When we stop letting the copyright laws go beyond fair profit for the artist for creative work for a limited time, then we will be able to see which formats succeed or fail due to technical merits rather than corporate greed.
I've heard Edison Diamond Discs played at a friend's house (he restored an original Edison Phonograph). To say they sound amazing would be an understatement. Very low vinyl noise and much fuller fidelity than standard 78s, the sound was so much better than any 78 I've ever heard (and I have a few hundred of them). It was just an incredible experience at the age of 47 to finally see one of those machines in action and to recognize how superior it was to the 78 format.
They are also louder than the standard 78s when played on a purely mechanical phonograph. That of course also helps to get the music up over any surface noise -- a great advantage of the hill-and-dale recording technology.
I also have heard Diamond Disks at a friend's house (he also has a large collection of restored theremins). The sound quality is astounding for that time period.
Thanks for that. A friend of mine was so into 78 rpm Jazz records that he would use a different size needle for each Company brand. He had a Radio program featuring Acoustically recorded Jazz/Blues. He was very passionate about getting it right. We miss him. It's good to know that other people share that attention to detail. Thanks for a great video.
I still remember my neighbors, they had a Soviet-made electric gramophone with the speed selector containing 16 rpm .... WoW)))) Unfortunately or fortunately .... the were NO records @ 16 rpm available in my country !!!! :o))
@@peterpaszczak4013 I said they were *essentially* never sold in the UK. Much of my adolescence was spent in record shops but I only once saw a 16 ⅔ rpm disc - I think it was a story being read out.
You totally missed the mark on the speed 16 records. Many of them were not seven inch but were larger discs. Although there was a small selection of commercial music available, its main musical use was for a short time to provide background music in stores. However its most popular use was in some teaching applications and as audio books both for the general public and also for the blind as they could get specially designed record players for free from organizations like Lighthouse for the Blind. Reel to reel Muzak replaced the music in businesses and cassettes replaced records for audio books but for a number of years records that were 16 2/3 RPM were vital in the talking book industry. The comment by VWestlife is correct that before switching to tape, records for the blind went to 8 RPM which provided an hour per side but they could only be played on record players available from organizations that assist the blind as no commercial record player was available that could play 8 RPM. Just because a certain format was replaced with something better does not mean the first format failed. Merle Sprinzen has a website dedicated to Little Wonder records (I have the first release from August 1914) which changed the industry by making records affordable to the average family. They were a victim of their own success because the major labels took their idea and made it better which eventually caused Little Wonder to go out of business. But you cannot say they failed because even though they could not keep up with the competition they were the first to make recorded music affordable and the idea remained even though the company did not.
TheScavenger71 is correct. 16-2/3 rpm was also a common speed for V-disks, which were recorded stateside and shipped overseas to our troops during WW2.
Not that my parents are music or hi-fi connoisseurs, but they are the right age to remember this stuff. I member as a kick using our stereo and we had 33's, 45's, and 78's. But our record player also had a 17 setting. When I ask them about it, they said it was so you could buy radio plays before everyone had a TV.
@@ressljs Yeah, the 17 setting was actually 16 2/3. Well, it was meant for them, played slightly fast, but not enough to notice. At such a low speed, you get worse distortion from dust :P
The statement about both stereo channels being sensed laterally by a stylus (needle) is wrong. Indeed, one of the channels are recorded laterally on the disc, but the other channel is derived from the vertical movements of the stylus. This is why early stereo record jackets warned about playing them on monophonic devices whose styli did not allow for vertical movement.
The lateral (A) movement is R+L (mono) and the vertical (B) is R-L. So for stereo R=(A+B)/2 and L=(A-B)/2. All is is because original mono LPs were only A. You can play a stereo LP on a mono player just fine as the full A signal is there. This made them backward compatible with older players. If you play a mono record with a stereo cartridge, you will still get the mono signal albeit with a little noise on the B.
This is so interesting - I see so many comments that pick on small details which I tend to ignore from people who don't produce any educational content on RUclips. Well done. I learned something new today.
Great video, I've been collecting for 60 years and was familiar with these formats, but I didn't really understand them. Looking forward to seeing more videos.
First, the Seeburg record you showed measures 9" in diameter with a 2" center hole. Also, that record was from the "Encore" series, which, along with the players were marketed to the home market. There were other series of the records which were intended to be used for background "elevator" music with each series catering to a particular work or public area environment. They were played by several different models dedicated to play these record, but Seeburg also made a model which would intermix these special background records with conventional 12" LP's. The sound quality was surprisingly good. The records were mono and had extra-fine grooves, which extended the playing time, and were played by a conventional Pickering 'redhead' stereo cartridge jumpered to mono with a .5 mil diamond stylus. The regular .7 mil stylus would play OK. Seeburg continued this record system well into the 1970's before they gave up, but then AMI-Rowe took it over and I believe continued into the 1980's. They did OK considering their competition. There was Muzak before and there was Muzak after. Wollensak competed with their tape system, and so on. Seeburg also had a broadcast background music system. The reason Seeburg got out of the background record business was because the company went broke. Stern, a pinball machine manufacturer took over Seeburg and continued making jukeboxes, including CD jukeboxes, well into the 1980's. Stern was not interested in the background music business. Next, the Edison Diamond Discs were a strange lot and although their sound quality was good, often the recorded performances were not. Compatibility with other record formats was a problem, Edison and other manufacturers had different reproducers available so that you could play practically any record format on any acoustic phonograph. Brunswick also made dedicated vertically cut phonographs at the same time as Edison. Pathe was also using the vertically cut discs. In modern times, you can take a stereo cartridge, with a wide-groove stylus, wire it out of phase and play the vertically cut records without a problem. Well into the 1940's and beyond, when transcription discs were still used in radio for recording, it wasn't uncommon for those to also be vertically cut. With those oversized transcription discs, that's how the 'talkies' movies were created. The had to be large enough to last through a 10 minute reel of film. This type of recording was replaced in the 1930's when they discovered recording optically on film. Eventhough magnetic recording tape was popular, syndicated radio shows(like Dr. Demento and American Top 40) were still being sent on transcription discs into the 1980's. The later ones were usually 12". Those 16" transcription discs were also popular for delivering commercials and public service announcements to radio stations. Those records were always banded so that when the track finished, it wouldn't start playing the next. Those pocket records were thicker than those Eva-Tone flexi records we received in the mail, mostly because they were recorded on both sides. The grooves were deep and the sound quality was astonishingly good. The Philco-Ford 'Hip-Pocket' records were 45 rpm and sold at Philco dealers. There were 'kiddie' versions which came inside cereal boxes. The problem was that of the popular music records, they were all 'oldies' with no current hits. The whole point of a single record was to get the latest hits for cheap. The Hip-Pocket records sold for 69 cents, whereas at the same time, you could buy the latest hit 45's at K-mart for around 60 cents. Another company, Americom, sold their flexi records through vending machines. They did have current hits, like from the Beatles. Those records played at 33 1/3 rpm. They failed quickly. Oh, you didn't have to 'tape down' these mini flexi discs. The center hole was tight so they gripped the spindle. After many plays, the holes would loosen up, but just putting a 45 adapter on top of the disc would hold it in place. With the quadraphonic records, multiple formats was a problem, but by the mid-70's, many quad receiver manufacturers had products capable of playing the 3 most popular quad formats, like my Pioneer QX-949 and several Sansui's I've had. All 3 formats could be played on a normal stereo. Besides the different formats the problems really were that QS and SQ were matrix systems and were not capable of providing 4 discrete channels. The CD-4 system could, but the sound quality was not as good as a stereo record. Buying extra speakers wasn't a problem. Heck, back in the 70's I bought 4 brand new Marantz 2-way 8" speakers for $25. each. A special extended frequency cartridge with a Shibata stylus was required for the CD-4 records, but an AT12S only cost me $20.
I am a retired electronic tech and was born in 1950. I had my own clockwork gramophone when I was 6 or 7. It played a 4" yellow vinyl record, similar in thickness to a "78" and had nursery rhymes on them. The gramophone was made of painted thin sheet metal with pictures of the characters from the nursery rhymes around it. You wound it with a clock key through a hole in the platter. One record had "Farmer in the Dell" on one side and "Three Little Indians" on the other. There were several other discs but that was my favorite. It used "78" needles, which needed replacing every few records and I was only allowed "quiet" volume needles. It was shaped like a tear-drop with the platter at the wide end and the hollow tone arm and head with a mica diaphragm fitted at the small end. It went "missing" when my parents split up later in my 7th year... like lots of my stuff. Another record format was the "talking book" type that played a 12" record at 16 2/3 RPM. In New Zealand, we had them issued to the schools with Shakespeare's plays and sonnets on them among other things. That was in the mid 60s and like most of those you mentioned, they were replaced by tapes and later on the cassette. The "8 Track" never became popular in NZ although a few imported cars still had them fitted when they arrived here. One car even had a cartridge still in it when it arrived and the customer didn't know how to remove it and that was my first introduction to them... and my last. During my apprenticeship, I used to buy an English magazine... "Practical Wireless" and occasionally I would also get a demonstration record similar to your "Pocket Record" with the magazine but it was 7" square and played at 45 RPM. The beginning of the "Moog era" arrived with a demo disc with a few sample tracks and being an electronic tech in the making, I was hooked. I even survived the "Discatron" era without buying one for myself although I repaired several. A portable "45" player that could be carried around and was a cross between a toaster and a jukebox. The records went in vertically and it used a slide instead of a tone arm. It could only play one side of a record at a time... just like a jukebox. High fidelity, it was not. Beaches were their worst enemy... the sand killed them.
Really great content and super interesting formats that just didn't quite make it, i think the 4" was probably my favorite as it feels very much like almost a sci-fi concept.
I have QUAD discs: CD-4 (and the decoder +shibata stylus still work), I have SQ discs (the decoder is gone), and QS (I cheated and used the SQ decoder). ALSO I have QUAD open reel (7" although the machine plays 10" as well). My problem is what to do when my Sony STR w/5.1 analog input dies (affects both disc and tape). Originally, I used a pair of SAE amps, but modern home theater needs a single unit to accomplish the switching. Patching speakers is fraught with issues (access or klunky patch bay and time to make the switch)
Great video. The strangest audio format I ever had in my collection were 4 tracks. They were basically half the size of 8 tracks and the thickness of a cassette. I sold them on ebay long ago but it would have been cool to find a 4 track player which is hard to find.
Love my pocket discs. Have several. Used to be able to buy them from a vending machine and other places. The ONLY drawbacks were you couldn't play them on an automatic turntable. The reject mechanism would kick in before the track finished. 2nd they slid on some turntables so you wpuld have to tape them down or maybe put a metal 45rpm adapter on it to weight it down and finally the sound quality. But it was better than some. The plus side...you could buy a portable battery or cord operated phonograph to play them as well as standard 45 and 33 records. Originally made by Ford/Philco after a short time there were other brands. Then once you got one of these portable record players...you could have a dance or a party ANYWHERE and ANYTIME. I WAS THE MOST POPULAR KID ON THE BLOCK till my friend got a cassette player recorder.
have we forgotten the RCA SELECT-A-VISION video system that used conductive vinyl LP's which spun at 450rpm and came in a large moulded sleeve, I know that this is an AV format not just an audio format.
Please stop referring to records as "vinyl," or worse "vinyls." Not all records are made of vinyl. Many different shellacs, and plastics have been and are still being used. I know it's a hipster thing, but it's also terribly incorrect.
Thank you for the information about the Edison Diamond Discs. I have an upright cabinet Diamond Disc player I restored and about 30 discs. The discs are just as you described-really thick and really heavy; I always wondered what they were made of. The tone arm/horn are run by a gear and rack that is an ingenious design and the cabinet has this terrific mahogany smell that is made the restoration effort worth it. The discs sound surprisingly good and the previous owner had some good taste when buying new recordings. It's always fun to crank up the Edison and listen to some real old-time songs. The surprising thing is that the antique store I bought it from had marked it down next to nothing because it was dirty and looked disused.
My Thorens TD125, made in the 1970's, had 16 RPM. I believe it was still used at the time for speech, like "talking books", something you didn't cover. I modified the oscillator to make 16 into 78, much more useful to me--though it needs a little push to get started. On a subsequent model, TD126, Thorens did the same. The 4 channel systems were all compatible with existing stereo systems, though sometimes might sound a little weird. The CD4 system used a high frequency subcarrier mixed in with the regular audio to encode the rear channels. It was known as "discrete 4 channel", and had the best channel separation. But not all cartridges at the time were capable of extracting the high frequency information. The other two were matrixing systems, giving at best 6dB separation front to back. Most of the reason this died off was probably competition between the various systems. To set up a 4 channel system you needed not only the four amps and speakers, but total buy-in to one system. Switching decoders was not very practical, unlike with today's digital surround decoders (which handle Dolby, and all the other systems in use at the time you buy your a/v processor or receiver, can't remember the names). The advantage of a matrixing system was that, once set up, most standard stereo recordings contain ambiance information obtainable by subtracting the L an r channels, which is what the matrix systems did.
Dude, I have my great grandfather's Edison Diamond Disc phonograph, from 1917, and his collection of records. All are early jazz, so you are mistaken. You're also mistaken when you say that playing diamond disc records on a regular hifi will ruin them. I've done it many times, and the Edison records are unharmed. Playing a regular LP on an Edison Diamond Disc phonograph, however, will ruin it immediately. I did that too.
He was wrong about almost everything he said. He failed to mention why the 16-2/3 RPM records were made to begin with. They were made for a specific purpose. He also failed to mention why the 20" Pathe records were made to begin with. They were created for a very specific purpose. He also incorrectly stated that the pocket records "were only around for one year - from 1968 to 1969" but I have one that Chevrolet produced in the 1930's when my grandfather was a mechanic at the dealership. And when talking about the quadraphonic records, he failed to mention Phase 4 Stereo.
The comment about ruining an Edison Diamond Disc by playing on an ordinary gramophone referred to the acoustic machines for playing 78s with steel needles. The weight of the reproducer on the needle point is several ounces, and the sharp needle will, indeed seriously damage an Edison Disc. Modern stereo players have stylus pressure of only a few grams, and can play Diamond Discs successfully without harm. The best way to play a Diamond Disc is with a stereo cartridge using a 3 mil stylus for 78 RPM records. Connecting the outputs from the two channels in reverse from the usual monophonic form allows the vertical component of the two elements to add, and the horizontal elements to subtract, which cancels out the horizontal component, reducing surface noise.
Oh my! You young people are so cute when you make stuff up. 1. 16 RPM. Primarily used for talking books and education where musical fidelity was not an issue. Also for background music (See Seeburg) 2. Edison/Diamond. Like Sony refusing to license out Beta Technology (players/blank tapes), most other manufacturers had settled on 78.26 (+ or -) RPM lateral cut records. With a score or more of manufacturers of players, and ever growing numbers or record labels, that simply equaled more choices for consumers. Also, the Edison discs were cost prohibitive to ship. Finally, it is absolutely possible to play these discs on modern equipment with a stereo cartridge. You have to change the cartridge wiring around to read vertically instead of horizontally and use a .3 mil stylus. Many people who use removable headshells keep one around wired in this manner so they can quickly swap it on to play Edisons and the few others with vertical cuts. 3. Yes. Pathe cut their own throat. Good call. They also used the hill and dale cut, so only their machines could be used to play their records. Those huge records were easily damaged in shipping and just not practical. However, the Pathe label continued on for 40 years, they eventually dropped the odd sizes and higher speeds, but their gamble, like Edison's, lost. With Edison and Pathe, you have to remember, there were no previous benchmarks, so it was anyone's game, but the masses decide, and as they usually do, they chose affordability and bigger selection. 4. You're partially correct. The LP and 45 were coming up in quality, as were the machines and cartridges that play them (less wear,/better compliance and better sound), and again 16" records were cost prohibitive to ship. Any record can be cut with a locked groove/s. 5. Pocket records. A novelty/not a serious format. Most homes post war until the 1980s would have employed a record changer, and they could not play a record that small without rejecting. People with better manual turntables, expensive at the time, weren't going to buy tiny, cheap records.
What he failed to mention about Pathe is that the records are center-cut (starts from the inside, ends on the outside. BTW, has there EVER been a record cut to play counter clockwise???
I disagree with the #1 pick, completely. Look at your calendar, and surprise (!), all my CD-4 and SQ albums still deliver wonderful and accurate 4-channel sound, and no one even close to being able to consider himself (or herself) an audiophile would dare equate a quad album to a 4.0 dolby movie machine. What a piece of video.... I haven't been talked down to this bad in Years!!!
If I recall correctly, the (Hip) Pocket Records were just part of their own problem. They had their own special tiny record *players* as well, and though you *could* play HPRs on a regular turntable with relative success, you weren't *supposed* to!
While I don’t have any records in the formats mentioned in this video, I do have a Victrola and many 78’s. My great-uncle was part of the duo The Radio Franks (Frank Bessinger (uncle) and Frank Wright.) He opened Radio Franks nightclub in New York about 1939. My parents taught us to dance to the big bands and in addition to the 78’s, we also had 45’s and 33's for the 'modern' music. Now when I get together with friends of different ages, we usually end up at my place where we literally roll up the rug, crank the Victrola, set up the turn tables and have fun. It gives all of us a better appreciation of how recorded music started and how it has progressed.
I also remember multi-spiral records. instead of the normal stack of bands, it looked more like an iris diaphragm. These were used primarily in early car audio warning systems and some early speaking toys.
Great video, but I wouldn't exactly call the 16", 33rpm radio transcriptions a failed format. They were in production for at least 40 years. I don't know when they stopped making them. I know they date back to the late 1920s. (I have a 16" shellac transcription with a Victor Talking Machine label on it, that makes it 1929 or earlier) Something made for 4 decades isn't exactly a failure. A format that's ultimately replaced by technology advancement doesn't make a failure. If that were the case, the CD should be included for the same reason. Cassettes and 8-tracks came out around the same time. Early cassettes sounded horrible compared to the 8-track. Technology advancement in the mid 70s made the cassette almost comparable to the best R2R recorders so the cassette replaced the 8-track. 8-track was the format of choice for around 10 years. Not a true failure. The Edison diamond disk is the same thing we had with the VHS vs Beta Max. Edison players had a much better tone and frequency response than the lateral Victor machines but Edison wouldn't release the rights to anyone else to produce. Another reason, nothing got recorded by Edison's company unless it had his seal of approval. Music changed dramatically in the 1920s but ol' Tom insisted on his 19th century tunes that were extremely dated even then. Edison's records and cylinders were in production for 30 years. A failure is an authentic rejection by the public.
Many BBC shows pre-1955 only exist in the form of 16" transcriptions. Toward the end of that period they began duplicate issues on 10" LPs, then discontinued 16" discs and later switched to 12".
You should pick songs that not many people know so that people would be discovering new music. Everyone knows Africa by Toto, and giving it song of the day isn’t going to do anything, it’s just playing it completely safe.
Playing stuff people already know gives them something to compare. If you hear something new you've never heard before, how do you really KNOW if it sounds good on these new formats and systems or not? Using familiar favorites provides a "benchmark" of sorts, peopel know how it "should" sound... if you wanna pitch/discover new music, tune into a radio station.
A Vintage Record Enthusiast told me you can Use an Out of Phase Stereo Cartridge to play Vertical Cut (Hill & Dale) Records, at least Vertical Cut Broadcast Transcription Discs (Light Weight Tone Arms are less hazardous to Edison Diamond Discs).
One thing that killed transcription discs at radio stations was the Magnetic endless loop audio tape Cart system, basically what the 8-Track cartridge system was based on. This allows DJ’s to quickly pop in a cartridge to play a jingle, ad, announcement, spoken word piece, news piece, music, etc, and you could quickly switch cartridges as needed. Thus the DJ would have several cartridges lined in a special holder near the cart player and just swap them out as needed, the. Load up another set once he went through s. Carts could be in varying short lengths of tape for accommodate standard ad lengths or jingle lengths or longer for spoken word/announcement type pieces. As they were endless loops too so they would automatically stop at the end the could start again from the beginning of reinserted at a latter time. While records remained the main way to play music before he CD or digits, files dominated, sometimes music was played for them (and not just jingles). Nowadays it’s all digital. Techmoan has a demo of an early radio station cart system on his channel if you want to see what they looked liked.
Great video! I have a set of "Spoken words of Mark Twain" 16 2/3-RPM records. (I'm surprised that Vinyl Eyezz didn't mention that 16 2/3 RPM is exactly half of 33 1/3 RPM). I also have a set of Hip Pocket records... I believe that at least some of mine came from inside cereal boxes. (I also have some cut-out cardboard records from the backs of cereal boxes.)
Martin Ian Goldberg the Spoken word of Mark Twain is not the same as read aloud by. It is well known that Twain did record a number of Cylinders for both Edison and Bettini, none have been found intact! Bettini took his whole library back to Italy when he moved there, but the building is known to have been bombed during WW ll.
My Dad was a BSEE and a huge audiophile. I remember at 10 years old, and his home built decoder, sitting in the middle of 4 identical speakers and listening to a quadrecord playback. OMG....four seperate channels of sound. Wow!!! If I remember right...it was a standard turntable. Thanks for the memory flashback!
Odd note: My grandmother owned many very early Edison Diamond records. Some of these were single-sided, a format you didn't mention. As I understand from my mother (who was born in 1914), the early ones were single sided then went to double-sided. Unfortunately, she passed away in 2002, at the age of 88. And yes, I, unfortunately, ruined a lot of these. On the other hand, I was the only high school student (fall of 1966 to spring of 1970) who was familiar with people like Sir Harry Lauder and Gracie Fields. Sadly, I had to leave an extensive vinyl collection behind when I moved to Portland, Or., in 1999. As far as a request for song for the day, I dare you to play a vinyl recording of Gracie Fields singing "He's Dead but He Won't Lay Down." Good luck with it! Failing vinyl, I know it can be had in other formats. But if you must stick with vinyl, then anything by Spike Jones and the City Slickers!
Awesome video like always! Haven't heard of some of these. Would definitely be cool to come across some of the formats while at the swap meets crate digging. Ran across one of those 16" records down in H.B. at Vinyl Solution. They have one on display there. I also have quite a few Quad records, but unfortunately no way to play them yet! My grandmother was apparently a huge fan of Quad when she was younger. She said she was freaking out when it first came out and she could hear sound from behind her.! Suggestion: No Children - the Mountain Goats
You can play quad records normally. They are backwards compatible. Incidentally, Phase 4 stereo is compatible with one of the Dolby digital surround sound codecs. to get full quad sound, you'll need a special shibata stylus and decoder, or a receiver that is quad ready.
Yeah I know you can listen to them normally, but I'd love to hear them in their full 4 channel glory. That being said, I didn't know it was Dolby digital compatible! That's cool I'll have to see if I have any phase 4 encoded ones.
Don't play the CD-4 records without the special shibata stylus and a compliant cartridge or you risk damaging the groves and destroying the 45 khz subcarrier that has the front-back difference signal!
This is a great video. The two things I want to mention are the Pocket Disk and the Quad records and systems. Since I quite a bit older than Vinyl Eyezz, it reminded me of the pocket disks. The main thing I remember about them is you would find them on kid's cereal box's. you could cut them out of the back of the box and play them. They would usually play kids song on them. Although crude they did play. I would not had recommended playing with an expensive playing stylus of the time. Second the Quad system. When I meet my second, her late husband owned a quad system complete with four floor size speakers. I wish I still had it, but I don't. The receiver was quite large and would take up allot of room. I don't even remember what format it was. I do know I still have a couple of the LP's. There are still many things you taught about the old records. Once again that's for this clip.
Back in 1972 I went into a "Head" shop and bought a bootleg, 12 inch, 33 1/3 LP of the Who playing in concert. If you looked at the disc in regular lighting it was black, but if you placed it under a UV "Black" light it turned into a sunburst of different bright colors. I've still got this album as well as just about all of my vinyl that I bought in the mid to late 60s and 70s. I saw no reason to get rid of the format, my turntable from that era still works fine. I regret investing in 8-track, though. I lost a hell of a lot of good music on that format. The problem with them was the recording tape would shrink with time and exposure to heat, as from sitting in the car, resulting in the tape dragging. Unfortunately, there was no remedy. I've also got a couple of those pocket records that I bought as a novelty in 1968. I liked the video, you've gained a new sub.
Pathe had a very interesting background. ALL of its acoustic era (pre-microphone, meaning pre-1926) recordings were dubbings from a large master cylinder. Thus the same selection could appear on cylinder, 8", 11" 14" or 20" disc. In the case of the discs, the larger diameter discs were recorded at higher speeds, which provided greater volume. In the pre-electronic era, record volume depended on the record itself, the needle and reproducer, and the phonograph's horn. 20" records were intended for concert hall or outdoor use. Prior to 1920 all Pathe records were vertically cut (as with Edison, though Edison used a different reproduction system) because of legal issues: the rights to lateral recording (as with modern LPs) were owned by the Victor Talking Machine Company and the Columbia Graphophone Company, and these entities enforced their patents vigorously. When the patents ran out after WWI, record companies scrambled to convert to lateral recording. Lateral cut Pathe records after 1920 were labeled "Actuelle" (by then they had paper labels, rather than the etched labels shown in the video.) Vertical Pathes were available in Europe until the early 1930s. While the Pathe label died out in the US around 1930, it continued in Europe for decades, after EMI purchased it in the 1930s.
The dubbing system that Pathe used involved a machine they called the "pantograph." In the pre-electric days it wasn't possible to do it electrically, so the system was purely mechanical. It introduced a lot of noise, and not just hiss. Pathe records from that era are notorious for spurious sounds like clunks and thumps. They often sounds like someone was moving furniture in the studio while the record was being made.
this is a bit off-topic, but your post reminded me: it took many years for films to standardize to 24 frames per second. Silent movies were often 16 fpm, then 18 fpm. So by the 60s and 70s, the public (and me as a child) associated old silent movies with sped-up background music and unnaturally fast movement, because projectionists had been playing these old movies on new 24 fpm projectors. Until I learned about the history as an adult, I thought that was the speed movies had always been played, and the film music was always played lightening fast!
How would you classify those cereal box records? I distinctly recall (as do many others) "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies, on the back of Post Super Sugar Crisp.
Well there's a blast from the past. I remember playing that "record" after cutting it out of the back of the box. I think that was around 1969. I was about seven years old at the time.
Yep, they played at 45 rpm, and had circular/spiral grooves of course, but they were square! And flimsy! Some kid books had those little 45s in them also.
Of the three 4-channel formats mentioned - QS, SQ and CD-4 - only CD-4 was discreet four-channel (Compatible Discreet - 4). SQ and QS were both phase-related ("Matrix" quad). CD-4 discs ("Quadradiscs") required more accurate tracking and offered lower dynamic range than ordinary stereo. The rear-channel info was encoded on a VLF "radio" carrier - circa 30KHz. The CD-4 "decoder" would "receive" and demodulate this signal to produce the signals delivered to the rear channels. SQ decoders - being phase-related ("matrix") - were useful for enhancing regular stereo playback since many effects used to create the "stereo image" use phase and balance to "position" sounds within the image.
I thoroughly enjoyed this easy-to-understand, but detailed account on theses failed formats! I was all over the quadrophonic LP's back in th day. You mentioned three different quafrophonic formats. Was it because RCA was different than Columbia...or ?? I still play my older quadrophonic LP's on typical equipment with the same two-channel stereo effect. I could never conceive how the stylus/cartridge setup can transform one groove on an LP to four distinct channels. Yet I guess that's where the decoder comes in. I had always thought it was some kind of nanosecond delay between the front and rear speakers. I figured it was something similar to Quad FM radio broadcasts also in the 1970's.
The absolute best thing I ever found was at a defunct record store in El Cajon CA called Blue Meanie records. I was a regular at this store for years. They had a supply of bootlegs behind the counter that only trusted customers could look at. One day I came across a box of radio transcriptions of "The Doctor Demento Show". Each week was a 2 record show with everything, including commercials pressed on. A guess would be that somebody snatched them from a radio station. He wanted $5.00 a show, but I said just give me a price for all of them. $100 bucks and i walked out with 56 different shows! I guess he valued my devotion to the store over all the years! The vinyl was pressed like fine wine, not mass produced with a sound quality consistency combining the best from CDs with vinyl. The best thing I every bought more than the 100plus Beatle bootlegs or the mint 78 Sun record of " I walk the line". I've got 10,000 albums between vinyl & CDs and about 1000 45s. Started collecting records at age 6 & I'm now 62. Father listened to traditional & bebop jazz, Mother's from Liverpool England & more into black r&b / rock n roll. We had The Beatles spinning in our house early in 1963, thanks to relatives mailing them from England long before Americans knew of them. Got a great musical education from those two, plus great cast offs from their record collections.
I remember the Dr. Demento show. It was carried by CFNY before they became the Edge 102.1 .They turned me on to Julie Brown and some other good parody artists. The good old days.
LMAO..I remember places like them. There were hundreds all over the UK (mostly swap meets/flea markets) but it sounded just as good as the store bought's ya payed 2 or 3 times as much for
Gar(r)y Schrum, Blue Meanie's longest owner, was working for an auction house I last heard. What a store that was! Especially the small location with John Lennon in the doorway.
I used to work at a radio station in Michigan that carried Dr. Demento, and many other weekend shows on vinyl. Usually they'd get stored for about a year, then thrown out. Glad you got to rescue a bunch from their usual fate.
Hi Kirk, I remember that store. I lived in Santee from 1969 to 1980. My brother and I would walk 7 miles to Parkway Bowl, the mall and Pinball Palace. I can vaguely remember seeing the record store, but who could forget that name.
Some facts are not precise, Pathe were also produced with normal grooves even in the late 40s early 50s, 20 inch pathe are ultra rare, most pathe were small and normal, Edison diamond included jazz, Edison Just didnt like It but for marketing he introduced jazz in the early 20s,
I have all, but the mini example. I also have one Edison Diamond Disc "LP"...a 12" version which revolves at 331/3 speed and required a special Edison two speed machine and reproducer. These rare discs where aimed at the audience which enjoyed backround music while dining! The mostly salon music, content lasted 15 minutes
to be fair it really wasnt a huge deal back then. It wouldnt be any worse than mishandling a CD something that i think weve all done at one time or another
I remember a flexi-disk that came in an issue of Mad Magazine. The one line I remember is "The laughing machine threw up". I think there were also some that came in or on cereal boxes. We also had a 33 1/3 that was the size of a 45. It had the small hole. I don't remember what it had on it though.
Over the years I had some of these formats of records. I remember when doing TV and sound system servicing back in the 70s I serviced some quadraphonic sound systems. I never owned one myself. I was servicing the Pioneer ones, since I was working part time for a Pioneer service dealer while I was studying electrical engineering. When I was a kid in the 50s, my grand parents had a windup 78 RPM gramophone. It had no electronics. It was all mechanical. At home during the 50s and 60s our TV set, record players, and radios were using vacuum tubes. I had some 16 RPM records during the 60s. I also had some very thin venal disks from magazines distributed as music samples. I had to tape the edges down to the turn table to hold them so they would spin. After about ten plays they were sounding bad. The idea was if you liked the music you would have to go out and buy the actual record. If I kept all that I had starting from the 50s I would have an interesting collection of electronics, records, and tapes. But, like most people, I discarded what I no longer needed...
Hey dude...just stumbled across this cool video. I am an audiophile. Had a quadraphonic system back in the 70's. I had the receiver/amp- 8-track tape player and a case pf quad-8 tracks to go along with it. Very brilliant for way back then. I did not have a quad record player- just a 2 way Dual. But the tapes did sound good. Very revolutionary for the times. I was the only one in my peers and (parents peers) who had one, so it was novelty to come into my sound lab (bedroom) and hear The Steve Miller Band in quadraphonic. But towards the 80's it was getting harder and harder to find quad 8 -tracks.
Quadraphonic was launched smack-dab in the middle of the mid-1970s recession. Four speakers, a quadraphonic amplifier/receiver, and a special quad record was a very hard sell in tough economic times.
@@danielgolus4600 Everyone cites reasons like that well afterwards but they are rarely that significant at the time. Quad was a high end product but still of interest to some deep pocketed hifi enthusiasts as is the more exotic and expensive gear today. More to the point, Quad was never going to be a huge commercial success across the board in an era when most families were delighted to have a furniture-esque stereogram with a ceramic cartridge and autochanger.
Yes, it was adopted for use in library services for the blind. It was never used outside these services, as far as I know. Apparently there were efforts to produce an even slower '4 rpm' format, but the audio quality was so poor that even speech was not all that intelligible. In any case, there was little need for it, the library services also began adopting specially modified cassette players that could squeeze six hours out of a C90 cassette.
dave idmarx It doesn't actually run at 3 rpm. It was just a marketing gimmick. The record was mastered at 16-2/3 rpm, with the audio fed to the lathe at 4x speed. The record played at 'proper speed' would be operating at 4-1/6 rpm. I don't know of any equipment (short of custom made) capable of that speed. There were experiments in the 1960s and early 1970s to produce records that worked at that speed, but it was determined that it wasn't practical to produce them. They'd have been special records for library services for the blind if they DID work. An 8-1/3 rpm format was introduced for those services, but to play them, you needed the special record player.
I'd heard they did run a bit faster than 3 rpm, though, it really wouldn't have taken much to cut them at the proper speed, as you can adjust the speed to anything digitally before feeding it to the lathe. I wonder why he didn't just have the record cut at the correct speed? Anyway, that record is a little out of my budget for what it is. If it were a Beatles Butcher cover in nice shape for that price, I'd gladly pay it. But not for a novelty record I'd never be able to play properly (other than doing a needledrop and speed correcting it).
dave idmarx They weren't cut at the correct speed because the equipment to do so doesn't exist. 16-2/3 rpm is the slowest speed supported by record mastering equipment (it's typically used to create 'half-speed' LP masters, which supposedly gives greater frequency response), and even that is somewhat specialized. Most equipment isn't designed for slower than 33-1/3. Yes, I know it can be digitally adjusted, and you're right, it wouldn't have taken much to do so. But nobody can actually play these records at the correct speed anyway, so it's really a non-issue. They get to claim it's a ridiculously low speed and there's only a handful of people who would actually know the difference. The people that actually bought the album probably didn't try to play it. Back in the day when 16-2/3 rpm records were produced, most were 'double speed' mastered at 33-1/3 rpm, because at the time, the audio quality of such records was a secondary concern and it was cheaper to simply use existing equipment than to buy the specialized 16-2/3 rpm equipment.
16 RPM mostly was used for Spoken Word. Vertical cut records (Edison Diamond Discs) can be played on Stereo Styluses connected out of Phase. Some Broadcast Transcriptions used Vertical Grooves also.
The first time I heard the Beatles' Sgt Pepper album, it was on a two-disk 45 EP format, available in Canada, but not in the US. 45 Extended Play records were larger in diameter, and IIRC the grooves were closer together. They could be played on an ordinary phonograph.
Actually that's not true. Going from 78 to 45, and then 33 you DECREASE the surface noise. Just as with tape, reducing the cutting speed also tends to reduce S/N ratio and frequency response because the output signal is reduced as less energy is available from the vibrating stylus. However, 78 rpm records had to generate ALL of the signal that drove the "speaker", THERE WAS NO AMPLIFIER, only a MEGAPHONE! Once pizeo electric and magnetic pickup cartridges and vacuum tube amplifiers were invented this was no longer a problem, and the effective S/N ratio at 45 or even 33 rpm was better than at 78. Records pressed onto vinyl had lower surface noise than earlier ones pressed into shellac or wax, higher signal output and better S/N ratio despite the lower speed. Improved cutting heads and playback cartridges had better frequency response too. The cartridge and cutting head tech that made CD-4 records possible would allow 16.66 rpm and even 8.33 rpm records to sound as good as today's 33's. Back in the late 70's and early 80's some audiophile recordings were cut onto 45rpm LP sized discs to get better channel separation and S/N playback. Some of these were also digitally mastered.
I listen mainly to Jazz Saxophonist. Unbelievable to hear an LP at 16rpm to seel all the notes that are being played in a short interval.@@tommytruth7595
I had a Marantz 4- channel amp @1976. It also had synthesized quad for stereo records. I only have one quad record by Doug Carn ' Adam's Apple ' and can't remember which quad format it is . I dont have a decoder or dint remember if it needed one! I played a Ron Carter record where the great jazz bassist played Willow Weep For Me on overdubbed piccolo and standard basses. Using the synthesized quad with 4 speakers it sounded so cool and mote real. I learned you can get ambient sound by tapping the positive leads hooking up two speakers then the negatives together. Like car fader systems. I got two DBX noise reduction discs free in the 80s when I bought dbx decoder. That was the big thing after Dolby A, B, and C on cassettes. They actually had dbx discs! The discs are rare I bet. Manuel De Falla ( 3 Cornered Hat)a Spanish composer and another was the first organ digital recording with an artist named Virgil Fox
You can get a quadrophonic effect on the cheap by using a Hafler circuit. You take the positive wire from left and right speakers and feed it in series through another pair of speakers, with a volume potentiometer in between to regulate the sound level of this pair of speakers. The whole set-up works from the existing two amplifiers and the only extra expense is a pair of speakers and a potentiometer. This extra pair of speakers gathers the out of phase signal to give the resonant effect similar to what you would get from the back of a concert hall when listening to musicians playing on stage.
in the late 90s early 2000 I had an Edison Floor model. Loved it. I had it for about a year before I found it had about 7 disc hidden in it. I listen to that thing all the time. Loved it.
One last hurrah for 16 rpm records was the "Environments" series of LPs, which had recordings of ocean waves, forest sounds, etc. They were supposed to be played at 33, but on the liner notes, mentioned that they worked great (and longer) at 16. I've tried it and it works (of course, my four speed turntable is long gone. You mentioned Flexi-Disks, which had a long useful lifespan, but I haven't seen any new ones in ages. I do have a set of Beatles Flexis that Musicland Record Stores gave out with purchases back in the early eighties, and a nifty 4-cut Flexi that was included in a book on Janis Joplin.
I have a number of these! I have Three Edison Diamond Discs (and about 150 cylinders, BTW). They are 80 rpm, and they can be played on a modern stereo, but you have to rewire the cartridge. As you said, do not attempt to play then on a convention Victrola / Gramophone, the record will be destroyed! The Seeburg 1000 records (I have several) were indeed 16-2/3 rpm, and they were used mostly as background music - but despite the low speed the audio is surprisingly good. They are 8" diameter and have a 2" center hole. I have a 16" transcription record from WFIN (year unknown) and it does not have locked grooves, just a single groove, each side. They cannot be played on a regular phonograph simply because of the diameter (I have a Newcomb TR-1625M which plays it fine). I do have one you didn't mention...I have a copy of a 1972 edition of Newsweek magazine on a record for the blind. It is one of those thin floppy ones - but it is 8 rpm and that one I have no way to play...
Some non-commercial discs for overseas military during WW2 and maybe Korea were marked Inside Start and were at least 16 inches across. The American Forces Radio Service has lots and lots of radio shows on transcription discs. These were sent overseas to the troops for rebroadcasting by the American Forces Network or isolated 'Mosquito Net' stations. At first these and the V-discs were shellac but quite a few broke in transit so they started using vinyl and stayed with it for the duration.
You should look up the word "Failed," because LPs, 45s, and Cassettes made tons of money for the music industry (a product doesn't necessarily "fail" when it's replaced by newer technology). 45's were very popular with teenagers because they were quite durable and easy to transport to parties or friend's houses for listening sessions. Many people purchased LPs and copied specific tracks to their tape recorders in order to create preferred playlists. The 8-track system was a flop because of its unreliability and was replaced by the cassette, which made great strides in listening quality with Dolby and various tape compounds. I still have a Nakamichi cassette player that rivals many modern forms of music playback. I guess one had to actually "be there" to fully understand this concept. And Four-channel sound was a gimmick to increase speaker and amplifier sales; that concept was similar to the latest gimmicks the industry is now touting in order to stimulate sales for Home Theater equipment. I should also mention that shopping for records on a Saturday was a great way to meet a date for Saturday night. This was probably better than Internet dating :)
me, only a few seconds into the video: "well is it failed or died? there's a difference, there, for example, 78's were popular for years and could never be considered a failure, but they did die, as all technology does eventually, when newer better replacements were found"
I inherited my father's AM /turntable from the time when all it played was the 78's. The stylus was fairly thick. Naturally it doesn't play anymore but it did when i was a kid. All my father's records are gone since most of them were opera, but I ran across one from my wife's late mother's "Mr Sandman" from the fifties which I though what an awesome 78 to have since it got popular all over by the movie Halloween with Jamie Lee Curtis. But you are right. Technology kill off the 78's along with all the other records.
🔔 Hit that BELL NOTIFICATION for more sweet Record Videos! 🔔
Transcription discs were also used by the old radio networks (CBS, ABC, NBC) to distribute programs to areas that didn't have access to the shared AT&T Long Lines network feeds. The records were delivered by couriers. Most of the programs were things like soap operas and radio dramas because the didn't go out of date quickly like a current events or news program would. On quad records, I used to have some of CBS Laboratories early test discs kicking around years ago, but sold them off cheap at a local flea market as I recall. I'm not a collector, just a former broadcast tech.
I would spend hours as a child in the early 70's listening to 78's and LP's at the 16 RPM speed. It would make music sound so creepy like a TV or movie soundtrack or haunted house.
The section on quadraphonic records sure brought back some memories! As an 18-year-old, I had a Saturday job in a local department store. Their 'audio' department at the time (next door to 'my' department) sold both SQ and CD-4 'record players' and the sales staff sounded almost as baffled as the potential customers, and the latter's questions about 'which system is better?' invariably got at best a confused and muddled comparison of the systems or a 'well, you need to go by the system that has the records/music you like …' (!!!). Clearly the entire home quadrophony enterprise was doomed to failure. Thank God!!!
Song of the day - Roads - Portishead
Track of the day fantasy Aldo Nova
When I was growing up, every single record player had a "16" setting, and I never saw a 16 record in my life. It used to mystify me.
Ignatz Mouse every vintage stacker player I have seen had a 16 setting. It’s weird.
I own a 16 and 2/3 record that was for education about france.
@@paulbunch8388 the 16 setting was used not intended for music, but for speech, like foreign language lessons, children stories, theater, etc. They were somewhat common in the eastern block.
How old r u?
We also has a small Luma combo with speaker record player and radio in one set . I used to play 33rpm at half the speed .Same experience I have never seen 16 rpm record in my life -
Our home was built in 1974. Every room is fitted in its ceiling with quad speakers. The Study contains a Seeburg 100 disc player. Used to be (it is gone now, ach) a Marantz quad receiver. The 100 disc player can be controlled by a telephone-dial type selector box from upstairs or downstairs. The Study also contains, one in each of its four corners, a huge JBL boxed, single-driver loudpeaker. They are hidden in built-in cabinetry.
Dang thats pretty cool
That is so cool.
If you look up NY TIMES magazine or Sunday arts section you'll see ads f0r this system that from a sort of jukebox could play LPS or radio throughout house
The remotes did have atelephone like dial to pick selections.
I recall these were called BOLTON SYSTEMS.
My Dad wouldn't get us a quadraphonic set-up. I tried to tell him the Quad was the wave of the future, to which he replied DO YOU HAVE FOUR EARS???
I was a teen right when quadrophonic was a thing, and our local hard-rock station's slogan was "ROCK YOURS IN QUAD" for several years; apparently they broadcast in quad, but I never got to test this out. Actually, at that time we never even had a record player.
Radio and records are different. @@scubadiva666
Oh, man... I used to go around and around with some guy arguing just like your dad. They don't seem to understand that the *source* of a sound is not the ear. How can you tell if some sound is coming from behind you? Can you make something sound like it's moving from front to back with two speakers?
Duh, @shaggybreeks. I was saying home audio wasn't a priority at all for my dad, who was an accountant. We listened to the radio in the car.
@@shaggybreeks Actually, you kinda can. Dolby's virtual surround system uses psychoacoustic and phase manipulation to produce quite an effective surround sound simulation with two speakers. Unlike discrete channels with speakers behind you, the processor chip can create the aural illusion that sound is indeed coming from behind you. The drawback is that you need to be sitting equidistant from the two front speakers, or pretty close to that sweet spot. Move off it and the illusion gets less and less convincing. The trick is used in all sorts of sound playback equipment -- radios, computer sound, TVs and even cheap boom boxes. Dolby used it in their two channel optical soundtrack for film, where they use phase manipulation to encode a surround channel in the two analog channels recorded on the film. Upon playback the cinema processor decoder was then able to extract the encoded surround channel and send it to the single surround channel which consisted of speaker along the sides and back of the theatre.
That phase matrix, btw, was actually stolen from Sansui's Vario-matrix II which was the process used to record (encode) Quadraphonic audio (the QS version) on LPs. Difference between Sansui Vario-matrix II and Dolby's cinema sound system is that Dolby modified their cinema processor so instead of having a Left Front/Right Front /Left Back/Right Back, as in the Quadraphonic configuration, Dolby was happy with only a single surround channel instead of two and put three channels behind the screen -- Left Screen, Center Screen, Right Screen plus the Rear Surround, mimicking the way magnetic sound-on-film played back in cinemas a decade earlier (in 35mm - it was Left, Center Right behind the screen plus Surround, i.e., 4 discrete channels; in 70mm, it was 5 behind the screen: Left, Left Center, Center, Right Center, Right plus Surround i.e, 6 discrete channels). But for reasons too numerous to mention, mag sound on film was another audio process that was relegated to the technology dust heap, but when Dolby wanted to put Stereo back in the theatres, they dug out the old Quadraphonic system used for LPs, and that is how we got analog stereo in cinemas before the advent of digital sound. Dolby's modification of Sansui's QS system also probably had a lot to do with not infringing on Sansui's patents.
Quadraphonic sound on records was a bit more popular than the video here implies. Almost all of my friends in college had some form of it, especially anyone who was interested in good audio. There was plenty of content out there, as virtually all labels picked on of the formats and went with it. If memory serves me, I think the Sansui know as the QS system had the most labels and the more popular. The CD-4 system technically was a very sophisticated (and complicated) system and more expensive as it relied on adding a carrier frequency of, I believe it was, 35KHz on the record, a specialized cartridge and needle that could reproduce that high a frequence at a time when phono cartridges were struggling to reproduce the higher end of the audio spectrum let alone 15kHz beyond it. The system also required a decoder to read the ultra-high frequency carrier. And play those records with a standard cartridge and needle or even one that was not meticulously calibrated and that 35kHz carrier "tone" would be worn right off it.
Not only was the fact that there were three competing systems, the marketing was aslo unnecessarily confusing. The Sony system, as the video pointed out, moniker-ed their quad system "SQ" while the labels using the Sansui system labeled theirs "QS" (how's THAT for making it confusing). They couldn't even settle on how to spell the name itself You would see it on some records and in print spelled "QuadrAphonic Sound" and in other places, even in the same magazines, spelled "QuadrOphonic." Talk about not getting their act together.
But again, to slightly contradict the leaning in the video, For about a strong 5 to 7 years, Quadraphonic was quite popular with lots of content across all genres of music and record labels and for those years the was also plenty of hardware available.
Electronic manufacturers were making Quadraphonic receivers with four amplifiers and usually at least two of the decoders built in, many with all three. I once saw Lafayette Radio offering headsets that had two big cup-like earpieces that had two transducers in each -- speaker one facing the ear from the front and the other from behind, vola! real quadraphonic headsets. I never heard them myself, it but supposedly it was able to send the two channels (front and rear channels) to each ear, each channel aimed at the front and rear of the ear. Interesting concept to be sure. How it worked, I couldn't tell you. Point being, the public's response to Quadraphonic sound and playback systems was fairly enthusiastic.
And while a Quadraphonic setup did cost more -- you needed the extra amplifier and speakers, there was a poor man's version that let you get surround information without the need for an extra two amplifiers. ElectroVoice made a box which basically just phase inverted the phase of the Left and Right channels of the normal stereo signal coming from a stereo amplifier and fed it to one or two surround speakers and bingo, any out of phase information on the stereo record would come out of the rear speakers. It didn't decode encoded quad matrixed track records precisely as would a decoder specific to the system that recorded it -- the stereo soundfield would not necessarily place instruments exactly where the recording engineer placed them in a quadraphonic mixing session, but it did open up the playback to a full 360 degree surround soundfield. You did hear a marked special enhancement from almost any recording, even those not specifically mixed and recorded in one of the quad systems (all recording include a whole spectrum of phase shifting caused by the room itself. Sounds reflecting from the room environment reach the microphone in modified phase timing from the direct sound. Separate that information electrically from the direct sound and send it to surround speakers and you then are in the room where the recording was made and that room is all around you. It is quite amazing how open any recording will sound if you extract that out of phase information.
Once my quad system was set up, I played everything in Quad -- quad recorded
LPs and standard LPs; there was no reason to ever take it down -- it made everything sound so more spacious and instrument locations more defined in the soundfield. I loved the way it created ambient sound from the rear speaker from literally all stereo recordings. Then when Dolby ProLogic came on the scene, and later Digital 5.1, I was practically all ready to go.
16 rpm format was intended for "talking book" records for the blind, as many have pointed out. Seeburg used this speed on their Background Music System and the fidelity was quite acceptable. (The records themselves were mastered and pressed by Capitol). There was also an 8 rpm format. Very rare. RUclips's "RadioTVPhonoNut" has a feature on them.
Hey you know about Seeburg I thought I was the only one I have only 1 record of them it’s a Basic Record and it sounds pretty good if you put it on Mono in stereo they sound horrible
Don't forget the best part of having 16 RPM on a 33 RPM record player: you could play the song on a 33rpm record at half speed to figure out difficult musical passages and solos. If you are a guitarist, keyboardist or bassist, it made it ideal to pick these solos out note for note, since they were the same notes, but at half speed, only an octave lower. Play along at half speed until you got the notes down, then practice at faster speeds until you could play along with the record at 33 rpm. Win-win!
Somewhere there must be a nostalgic record store called All Sales are Vinyl.
EXXXXXCELENT! If someone uses that, they should send you a nice check . . . and a record.
There used to be a used record store in East Lansing called "Flat, Black and Circular". Back in the day when vinyl was current, not retro.
There used to be "Licorice Pizza" in Southern California, too!
A bit off topic, however...
Way back in the '50s my brother worked at a record store with the name of "Fee-fi-fo-fum", and their radio ads address tagline was: "Fee-fi-fo-fum, 27th, and Wisconsin-um". He cut and brought home some very interesting disks...
That's as bad as opening a furniture store called The Ottoman Empire!
The other day I rented this cabin in the middle of nowhere and I somehow figured out how to get a 1904 crank Victor talking machine working, much different than a modern set up! It took me about 15 minutes and then I was able to play some 78s from the 30s. Cool experience.
That’s awesome! I’d love to own one of those someday!
So would I, currently I have my grandfather’s set up from the 60s, except I have an new Audio Technica turntable
I bought a Victor 1917 model about 20 years ago and gave me something to listen to when hurricane Sandy hit and I was with no power for 4 days, and do keep in mind, the older victrolas with the steel needles should never be used while playing any 78 from 1926 to 1958, it will ruin the grooves
True that- found out the hard way but it only took one.
Somehow figured it out? Wind it up
I was hoping you'd include the records that were carved out of the cardboard on the backs of boxes of cereal in the 70s and 80s.
Eg. The Archies. As I recall they were 45's so while a novel material, not a distinct format as such.
I can honestly say in all the years I've been collecting vinyl I have never seen 16rpm discs. But growing up I remember nearly every record player we owned had a 16rpm speed setting. Those autochangers in the 70's were always 4 speed players. Strange.
16 rpm was intended for speech. So you would have language lessons, children stories, radio theater recorded on them.
16rpm records were common for the blind. "Audiobooks" of monthly magazines, etc. It's why you had the speed on every player up to the 1970s
I have seen a 16 2/3 RPM. It was a Sermon that an uncle had from when he was a kid.
I really enjoyed this. I had a few 16-2/3 records in the 60s (voice recordings), and remember having one pocket disc. Honorable mentions: floppy 33-1/3s, and 12" 78s. You would occasionally find the "floppy discs" inside magazines with some sort of voice advertising. The 12" 78s could hold a couple songs on a side.
We had 16 rpm aluminum, records from WW2 that were about 20". They were transcripts of radio programs. As the stylus neared the center the speed was slower and the sound quality went down gradually. To cover for this the flip side would start at the middle and play outward and the sound gradually got better. This avoided the sharp sound quality change between sides.
@@suburban60sKid, unfortunately, I must disagree concerning DAT. The format does qualify as a "failed" format. It failed due to corporate greed. The monopolists who owned the both recording industry and owned congress forced regulations that prevented companies from selling DAT recorders that could make multiple copies from other DAT machines. The format failed due to the high cost of recorders that were useless for what they were intended to do and high cost of media. CDs drove the final nail into their coffin when computers were excluded from those limitations. Regarding the DAT tapes used for computer storage, they were mainly for tape backup of network servers.
See Wikipedia:
"In the late 1980s, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) unsuccessfully lobbied against the introduction of DAT devices into the U.S. Initially, the organization threatened legal action against any manufacturer attempting to sell DAT machines in the country. It later sought to impose restrictions on DAT recorders to prevent them from being used to copy LPs, CDs, and prerecorded cassettes. One of these efforts, the Digital Audio Recorder Copycode Act of 1987 (introduced by Sen. Al Gore and Rep. Waxman), instigated by CBS Records president Walter Yetnikoff, involved a technology called CopyCode and required DAT machines to include a chip to detect attempts to copy material recorded with a notch filter,[4] meaning that copyrighted prerecorded music, whether analog or digital, whether on LP, cassette, or DAT, would have distorted sound resulting from the notch filter applied by the publisher at the time of mastering for mass reproduction. A National Bureau of Standards study showed that not only were the effects plainly audible, but that it was not even effective at preventing copying.
This opposition by CBS softened after Sony, a DAT manufacturer, bought CBS Records in January 1988. By June 1989, an agreement was reached, and the only concession the RIAA would receive was a more practical recommendation from manufacturers to Congress that legislation be enacted to require that recorders have a Serial Copy Management System to prevent digital copying for more than a single generation.[5] This requirement was enacted as part of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which also imposed taxes on DAT recorders and blank media. However, the computer industry successfully lobbied to have personal computers exempted from that act, setting the stage for massive consumer copying of copyrighted material on materials like recordable CDs and by extension, filesharing systems such as Napster.[6]"
With the development of recording methods for printing, audio recording, and video recording, the companies that owned the recording equipment have pushed for strong copyright laws to maintain their monopolies. Using the justification that there would a decrease in creative thinking if artists were not protected, laws were passed and then the companies bought the works from the artists and the companies reaped the benefits. Companies that record and distribute the work of artists now have a lifetime of income without doing a bit of creative work. These companies will do everything thay can to ensure that a recording format will fail if that format might cut into theri profits. When we stop letting the copyright laws go beyond fair profit for the artist for creative work for a limited time, then we will be able to see which formats succeed or fail due to technical merits rather than corporate greed.
If you still have those aluminium discs, they could be worth a small mint. Have them appraised and insure them for the maximum amount.
I've heard Edison Diamond Discs played at a friend's house (he restored an original Edison Phonograph). To say they sound amazing would be an understatement. Very low vinyl noise and much fuller fidelity than standard 78s, the sound was so much better than any 78 I've ever heard (and I have a few hundred of them). It was just an incredible experience at the age of 47 to finally see one of those machines in action and to recognize how superior it was to the 78 format.
There's NO 'vinyl noise' on a Diamond Disc. It isn't made of vinyl.
bingola45 Touché! Let's call it "surface noise" then.
They are also louder than the standard 78s when played on a purely mechanical phonograph. That of course also helps to get the music up over any surface noise -- a great advantage of the hill-and-dale recording technology.
I also have heard Diamond Disks at a friend's house (he also has a large collection of restored theremins). The sound quality is astounding for that time period.
Yes they do sound good. See the explanation above. And, um, they are not even vinyl. They are shellac, but GOOD shellac!
I love seeing all the different formats! Thank you for posting this. I have been watching your channel for years and always love your knowledge!
Thanks for that. A friend of mine was so into 78 rpm Jazz records that he would use a different size needle for each Company brand. He had a Radio program featuring Acoustically recorded Jazz/Blues. He was very passionate about getting it right. We miss him. It's good to know that other people share that attention to detail. Thanks for a great video.
I still remember my neighbors, they had a Soviet-made electric gramophone with the speed selector containing 16 rpm .... WoW)))) Unfortunately or fortunately .... the were NO records @ 16 rpm available in my country !!!! :o))
All UK record players had 16⅔rpm speed - but such records were essentially never sold in the UK.
May be it was an open line to Moscow
@@v8pilot NOT ACCURATE THERE, THEY WERE GENERALLY MADE FOR SPEECHES , I REMEMBER SEEING LPS OF WINSTON AND JFK IN THE SHOPS IN THE UK AND ON UK LABELS
@@peterpaszczak4013 I said they were *essentially* never sold in the UK. Much of my adolescence was spent in record shops but I only once saw a 16 ⅔ rpm disc - I think it was a story being read out.
@@v8pilot your just contradicting yourself, essentially.
You totally missed the mark on the speed 16 records. Many of them were not seven inch but were larger discs. Although there was a small selection of commercial music available, its main musical use was for a short time to provide background music in stores. However its most popular use was in some teaching applications and as audio books both for the general public and also for the blind as they could get specially designed record players for free from organizations like Lighthouse for the Blind. Reel to reel Muzak replaced the music in businesses and cassettes replaced records for audio books but for a number of years records that were 16 2/3 RPM were vital in the talking book industry. The comment by VWestlife is correct that before switching to tape, records for the blind went to 8 RPM which provided an hour per side but they could only be played on record players available from organizations that assist the blind as no commercial record player was available that could play 8 RPM. Just because a certain format was replaced with something better does not mean the first format failed. Merle Sprinzen has a website dedicated to Little Wonder records (I have the first release from August 1914) which changed the industry by making records affordable to the average family. They were a victim of their own success because the major labels took their idea and made it better which eventually caused Little Wonder to go out of business. But you cannot say they failed because even though they could not keep up with the competition they were the first to make recorded music affordable and the idea remained even though the company did not.
TheScavenger71 is correct. 16-2/3 rpm was also a common speed for V-disks, which were recorded stateside and shipped overseas to our troops during WW2.
V-Discs run at 78rpm, not 16-2/3rpm.
Not that my parents are music or hi-fi connoisseurs, but they are the right age to remember this stuff. I member as a kick using our stereo and we had 33's, 45's, and 78's. But our record player also had a 17 setting. When I ask them about it, they said it was so you could buy radio plays before everyone had a TV.
Seeburg 1000 plays the 16 2\3 RPM discs on the Original vintage players on Stream.
@@ressljs Yeah, the 17 setting was actually 16 2/3. Well, it was meant for them, played slightly fast, but not enough to notice. At such a low speed, you get worse distortion from dust :P
The statement about both stereo channels being sensed laterally by a stylus (needle) is wrong. Indeed, one of the channels are recorded laterally on the disc, but the other channel is derived from the vertical movements of the stylus. This is why early stereo record jackets warned about playing them on monophonic devices whose styli did not allow for vertical movement.
The lateral (A) movement is R+L (mono) and the vertical (B) is R-L. So for stereo R=(A+B)/2 and L=(A-B)/2. All is is because original mono LPs were only A. You can play a stereo LP on a mono player just fine as the full A signal is there. This made them backward compatible with older players. If you play a mono record with a stereo cartridge, you will still get the mono signal albeit with a little noise on the B.
These kinds of videos are great and very informative unlike the many trending videos out there!!!
This is so interesting - I see so many comments that pick on small details which I tend to ignore from people who don't produce any educational content on RUclips. Well done. I learned something new today.
Song of the day- "Telstar" by The Tornados.
Great video, I've been collecting for 60 years and was familiar with these formats, but I didn't really understand them. Looking forward to seeing more videos.
What about crossing an LP with 8-Track tapes to get the Tefifon format.
First, the Seeburg record you showed measures 9" in diameter with a 2" center hole. Also, that record was from the "Encore" series, which, along with the players were marketed to the home market. There were other series of the records which were intended to be used for background "elevator" music with each series catering to a particular work or public area environment. They were played by several different models dedicated to play these record, but Seeburg also made a model which would intermix these special background records with conventional 12" LP's. The sound quality was surprisingly good. The records were mono and had extra-fine grooves, which extended the playing time, and were played by a conventional Pickering 'redhead' stereo cartridge jumpered to mono with a .5 mil diamond stylus. The regular .7 mil stylus would play OK. Seeburg continued this record system well into the 1970's before they gave up, but then AMI-Rowe took it over and I believe continued into the 1980's. They did OK considering their competition. There was Muzak before and there was Muzak after. Wollensak competed with their tape system, and so on. Seeburg also had a broadcast background music system. The reason Seeburg got out of the background record business was because the company went broke. Stern, a pinball machine manufacturer took over Seeburg and continued making jukeboxes, including CD jukeboxes, well into the 1980's. Stern was not interested in the background music business.
Next, the Edison Diamond Discs were a strange lot and although their sound quality was good, often the recorded performances were not. Compatibility with other record formats was a problem, Edison and other manufacturers had different reproducers available so that you could play practically any record format on any acoustic phonograph. Brunswick also made dedicated vertically cut phonographs at the same time as Edison. Pathe was also using the vertically cut discs. In modern times, you can take a stereo cartridge, with a wide-groove stylus, wire it out of phase and play the vertically cut records without a problem. Well into the 1940's and beyond, when transcription discs were still used in radio for recording, it wasn't uncommon for those to also be vertically cut.
With those oversized transcription discs, that's how the 'talkies' movies were created. The had to be large enough to last through a 10 minute reel of film. This type of recording was replaced in the 1930's when they discovered recording optically on film.
Eventhough magnetic recording tape was popular, syndicated radio shows(like Dr. Demento and American Top 40) were still being sent on transcription discs into the 1980's. The later ones were usually 12". Those 16" transcription discs were also popular for delivering commercials and public service announcements to radio stations. Those records were always banded so that when the track finished, it wouldn't start playing the next.
Those pocket records were thicker than those Eva-Tone flexi records we received in the mail, mostly because they were recorded on both sides. The grooves were deep and the sound quality was astonishingly good. The Philco-Ford 'Hip-Pocket' records were 45 rpm and sold at Philco dealers. There were 'kiddie' versions which came inside cereal boxes. The problem was that of the popular music records, they were all 'oldies' with no current hits. The whole point of a single record was to get the latest hits for cheap. The Hip-Pocket records sold for 69 cents, whereas at the same time, you could buy the latest hit 45's at K-mart for around 60 cents. Another company, Americom, sold their flexi records through vending machines. They did have current hits, like from the Beatles. Those records played at 33 1/3 rpm. They failed quickly.
Oh, you didn't have to 'tape down' these mini flexi discs. The center hole was tight so they gripped the spindle. After many plays, the holes would loosen up, but just putting a 45 adapter on top of the disc would hold it in place.
With the quadraphonic records, multiple formats was a problem, but by the mid-70's, many quad receiver manufacturers had products capable of playing the 3 most popular quad formats, like my Pioneer QX-949 and several Sansui's I've had. All 3 formats could be played on a normal stereo. Besides the different formats the problems really were that QS and SQ were matrix systems and were not capable of providing 4 discrete channels. The CD-4 system could, but the sound quality was not as good as a stereo record. Buying extra speakers wasn't a problem. Heck, back in the 70's I bought 4 brand new Marantz 2-way 8" speakers for $25. each. A special extended frequency cartridge with a Shibata stylus was required for the CD-4 records, but an AT12S only cost me $20.
I am a retired electronic tech and was born in 1950. I had my own clockwork gramophone when I was 6 or 7. It played a 4" yellow vinyl record, similar in thickness to a "78" and had nursery rhymes on them. The gramophone was made of painted thin sheet metal with pictures of the characters from the nursery rhymes around it. You wound it with a clock key through a hole in the platter. One record had "Farmer in the Dell" on one side and "Three Little Indians" on the other. There were several other discs but that was my favorite. It used "78" needles, which needed replacing every few records and I was only allowed "quiet" volume needles. It was shaped like a tear-drop with the platter at the wide end and the hollow tone arm and head with a mica diaphragm fitted at the small end. It went "missing" when my parents split up later in my 7th year... like lots of my stuff.
Another record format was the "talking book" type that played a 12" record at 16 2/3 RPM. In New Zealand, we had them issued to the schools with Shakespeare's plays and sonnets on them among other things. That was in the mid 60s and like most of those you mentioned, they were replaced by tapes and later on the cassette. The "8 Track" never became popular in NZ although a few imported cars still had them fitted when they arrived here. One car even had a cartridge still in it when it arrived and the customer didn't know how to remove it and that was my first introduction to them... and my last.
During my apprenticeship, I used to buy an English magazine... "Practical Wireless" and occasionally I would also get a demonstration record similar to your "Pocket Record" with the magazine but it was 7" square and played at 45 RPM. The beginning of the "Moog era" arrived with a demo disc with a few sample tracks and being an electronic tech in the making, I was hooked. I even survived the "Discatron" era without buying one for myself although I repaired several. A portable "45" player that could be carried around and was a cross between a toaster and a jukebox. The records went in vertically and it used a slide instead of a tone arm. It could only play one side of a record at a time... just like a jukebox. High fidelity, it was not. Beaches were their worst enemy... the sand killed them.
Really great content and super interesting formats that just didn't quite make it, i think the 4" was probably my favorite as it feels very much like almost a sci-fi concept.
How about "Highway Hi-Fi?"- It was Chrysler's attempt to put a turntable in a car's glovebox in the '50's. Didn't quite work out...
See his section on "16 2/3 records"
These didn't fit in the glovebox; they were installed below the dashboard.
I have QUAD discs: CD-4 (and the decoder +shibata stylus still work), I have SQ discs (the decoder is gone), and QS (I cheated and used the SQ decoder). ALSO I have QUAD open reel (7" although the machine plays 10" as well). My problem is what to do when my Sony STR w/5.1 analog input dies (affects both disc and tape). Originally, I used a pair of SAE amps, but modern home theater needs a single unit to accomplish the switching. Patching speakers is fraught with issues (access or klunky patch bay and time to make the switch)
Great video. The strangest audio format I ever had in my collection were 4 tracks. They were basically half the size of 8 tracks and the thickness of a cassette. I sold them on ebay long ago but it would have been cool to find a 4 track player which is hard to find.
Love my pocket discs. Have several. Used to be able to buy them from a vending machine and other places. The ONLY drawbacks were you couldn't play them on an automatic turntable. The reject mechanism would kick in before the track finished. 2nd they slid on some turntables so you wpuld have to tape them down or maybe put a metal 45rpm adapter on it to weight it down and finally the sound quality. But it was better than some.
The plus side...you could buy a portable battery or cord operated phonograph to play them as well as standard 45 and 33 records. Originally made by Ford/Philco after a short time there were other brands.
Then once you got one of these portable record players...you could have a dance or a party ANYWHERE and ANYTIME.
I WAS THE MOST POPULAR KID ON THE BLOCK till my friend got a cassette player recorder.
All along the watchtower- The Jimi Hendrix Experience, P.S. Nice haircut. Keep spinning that vinyl ✌🏻
16 2/3 was primarily for books on record. But that was also the speed of the under console record players offered by Chrysler in the 50's.
I just want one of each of those vinyls 😅😅 the pocket disc is so cute!! Haha
have we forgotten the RCA SELECT-A-VISION video system that used conductive vinyl LP's which spun at 450rpm and came in a large moulded sleeve, I know that this is an AV format not just an audio format.
Jumping jive cab calloway
*records, not vinyls
Please stop referring to records as "vinyl," or worse "vinyls." Not all records are made of vinyl. Many different shellacs, and plastics have been and are still being used. I know it's a hipster thing, but it's also terribly incorrect.
@@russ6541 Thank you! Hipsters....
Thank you for the information about the Edison Diamond Discs. I have an upright cabinet Diamond Disc player I restored and about 30 discs. The discs are just as you described-really thick and really heavy; I always wondered what they were made of. The tone arm/horn are run by a gear and rack that is an ingenious design and the cabinet has this terrific mahogany smell that is made the restoration effort worth it. The discs sound surprisingly good and the previous owner had some good taste when buying new recordings. It's always fun to crank up the Edison and listen to some real old-time songs. The surprising thing is that the antique store I bought it from had marked it down next to nothing because it was dirty and looked disused.
My Thorens TD125, made in the 1970's, had 16 RPM. I believe it was still used at the time for speech, like "talking books", something you didn't cover. I modified the oscillator to make 16 into 78, much more useful to me--though it needs a little push to get started. On a subsequent model, TD126, Thorens did the same.
The 4 channel systems were all compatible with existing stereo systems, though sometimes might sound a little weird. The CD4 system used a high frequency subcarrier mixed in with the regular audio to encode the rear channels. It was known as "discrete 4 channel", and had the best channel separation. But not all cartridges at the time were capable of extracting the high frequency information. The other two were matrixing systems, giving at best 6dB separation front to back. Most of the reason this died off was probably competition between the various systems. To set up a 4 channel system you needed not only the four amps and speakers, but total buy-in to one system. Switching decoders was not very practical, unlike with today's digital surround decoders (which handle Dolby, and all the other systems in use at the time you buy your a/v processor or receiver, can't remember the names). The advantage of a matrixing system was that, once set up, most standard stereo recordings contain ambiance information obtainable by subtracting the L an r channels, which is what the matrix systems did.
Dude, I have my great grandfather's Edison Diamond Disc phonograph, from 1917, and his collection of records. All are early jazz, so you are mistaken. You're also mistaken when you say that playing diamond disc records on a regular hifi will ruin them. I've done it many times, and the Edison records are unharmed. Playing a regular LP on an Edison Diamond Disc phonograph, however, will ruin it immediately. I did that too.
He was wrong about almost everything he said. He failed to mention why the 16-2/3 RPM records were made to begin with. They were made for a specific purpose. He also failed to mention why the 20" Pathe records were made to begin with. They were created for a very specific purpose. He also incorrectly stated that the pocket records "were only around for one year - from 1968 to 1969" but I have one that Chevrolet produced in the 1930's when my grandfather was a mechanic at the dealership. And when talking about the quadraphonic records, he failed to mention Phase 4 Stereo.
The comment about ruining an Edison Diamond Disc by playing on an ordinary gramophone referred to the acoustic machines for playing 78s with steel needles. The weight of the reproducer on the needle point is several ounces, and the sharp needle will, indeed seriously damage an Edison Disc.
Modern stereo players have stylus pressure of only a few grams, and can play Diamond Discs successfully without harm. The best way to play a Diamond Disc is with a stereo cartridge using a 3 mil stylus for 78 RPM records. Connecting the outputs from the two channels in reverse from the usual monophonic form allows the vertical component of the two elements to add, and the horizontal elements to subtract, which cancels out the horizontal component, reducing surface noise.
Oh my! You young people are so cute when you make stuff up.
1. 16 RPM. Primarily used for talking books and education where musical fidelity was not an issue. Also for background music (See Seeburg)
2. Edison/Diamond. Like Sony refusing to license out Beta Technology (players/blank tapes), most other manufacturers had settled on 78.26 (+ or -) RPM lateral cut records. With a score or more of manufacturers of players, and ever growing numbers or record labels, that simply equaled more choices for consumers. Also, the Edison discs were cost prohibitive to ship. Finally, it is absolutely possible to play these discs on modern equipment with a stereo cartridge. You have to change the cartridge wiring around to read vertically instead of horizontally and use a .3 mil stylus. Many people who use removable headshells keep one around wired in this manner so they can quickly swap it on to play Edisons and the few others with vertical cuts.
3. Yes. Pathe cut their own throat. Good call. They also used the hill and dale cut, so only their machines could be used to play their records. Those huge records were easily damaged in shipping and just not practical. However, the Pathe label continued on for 40 years, they eventually dropped the odd sizes and higher speeds, but their gamble, like Edison's, lost. With Edison and Pathe, you have to remember, there were no previous benchmarks, so it was anyone's game, but the masses decide, and as they usually do, they chose affordability and bigger selection.
4. You're partially correct. The LP and 45 were coming up in quality, as were the machines and cartridges that play them (less wear,/better compliance and better sound), and again 16" records were cost prohibitive to ship. Any record can be cut with a locked groove/s.
5. Pocket records. A novelty/not a serious format. Most homes post war until the 1980s would have employed a record changer, and they could not play a record that small without rejecting. People with better manual turntables, expensive at the time, weren't going to buy tiny, cheap records.
Addendum. I've beer repairing machines that play records longer than this guy's been alive.
What he failed to mention about Pathe is that the records are center-cut (starts from the inside, ends on the outside. BTW, has there EVER been a record cut to play counter clockwise???
@@tflood11 Yes.
I disagree with the #1 pick, completely. Look at your calendar, and surprise (!), all my CD-4 and SQ albums still deliver wonderful and accurate 4-channel sound, and no one even close to being able to consider himself (or herself) an audiophile would dare equate a quad album to a 4.0 dolby movie machine. What a piece of video.... I haven't been talked down to this bad in Years!!!
If I recall correctly, the (Hip) Pocket Records were just part of their own problem. They had their own special tiny record *players* as well, and though you *could* play HPRs on a regular turntable with relative success, you weren't *supposed* to!
Edison be *THICC*
Another problem with the Edison Diamond Discs is that the central core material tended to absorb moisture and expand.
While I don’t have any records in the formats mentioned in this video, I do have a Victrola and many 78’s. My great-uncle was part of the duo The Radio Franks (Frank Bessinger (uncle) and Frank Wright.) He opened Radio Franks nightclub in New York about 1939. My parents taught us to dance to the big bands and in addition to the 78’s, we also had 45’s and 33's for the 'modern' music. Now when I get together with friends of different ages, we usually end up at my place where we literally roll up the rug, crank the Victrola, set up the turn tables and have fun. It gives all of us a better appreciation of how recorded music started and how it has progressed.
I also remember multi-spiral records.
instead of the normal stack of bands, it looked more like an iris diaphragm.
These were used primarily in early car audio warning systems and some early speaking toys.
Great video, but I wouldn't exactly call the 16", 33rpm radio transcriptions a failed format. They were in production for at least 40 years. I don't know when they stopped making them. I know they date back to the late 1920s. (I have a 16" shellac transcription with a Victor Talking Machine label on it, that makes it 1929 or earlier) Something made for 4 decades isn't exactly a failure.
A format that's ultimately replaced by technology advancement doesn't make a failure. If that were the case, the CD should be included for the same reason.
Cassettes and 8-tracks came out around the same time. Early cassettes sounded horrible compared to the 8-track. Technology advancement in the mid 70s made the cassette almost comparable to the best R2R recorders so the cassette replaced the 8-track. 8-track was the format of choice for around 10 years. Not a true failure.
The Edison diamond disk is the same thing we had with the VHS vs Beta Max. Edison players had a much better tone and frequency response than the lateral Victor machines but Edison wouldn't release the rights to anyone else to produce. Another reason, nothing got recorded by Edison's company unless it had his seal of approval. Music changed dramatically in the 1920s but ol' Tom insisted on his 19th century tunes that were extremely dated even then. Edison's records and cylinders were in production for 30 years.
A failure is an authentic rejection by the public.
They stopped manufacturing the 16 RPM records sometime in the 60's.
Many BBC shows pre-1955 only exist in the form of 16" transcriptions. Toward the end of that period they began duplicate issues on 10" LPs, then discontinued 16" discs and later switched to 12".
Also before audio tape, they used a similar disc to record music and sound effects for feature films.
@@georgeprice7922 Except for Talking Books.
A variation of the 8-track was used by radio stations. It was a short one or two track "cart" used for songs, ads or station tags.
You should pick songs that not many people know so that people would be discovering new music. Everyone knows Africa by Toto, and giving it song of the day isn’t going to do anything, it’s just playing it completely safe.
Im playing despacito on the worlds smallest alexa 4 u bb
Mike Hegarty wow it really took you two weeks to think of that? Oof have a blessed evening
Africa by Toto? Never heard of it.
Bruce Adie ???????
Playing stuff people already know gives them something to compare. If you hear something new you've never heard before, how do you really KNOW if it sounds good on these new formats and systems or not? Using familiar favorites provides a "benchmark" of sorts, peopel know how it "should" sound...
if you wanna pitch/discover new music, tune into a radio station.
A Vintage Record Enthusiast told me you can Use an Out of Phase Stereo Cartridge to play Vertical Cut (Hill & Dale) Records, at least Vertical Cut Broadcast Transcription Discs (Light Weight Tone Arms are less hazardous to Edison Diamond Discs).
One thing that killed transcription discs at radio stations was the Magnetic endless loop audio tape Cart system, basically what the 8-Track cartridge system was based on. This allows DJ’s to quickly pop in a cartridge to play a jingle, ad, announcement, spoken word piece, news piece, music, etc, and you could quickly switch cartridges as needed. Thus the DJ would have several cartridges lined in a special holder near the cart player and just swap them out as needed, the. Load up another set once he went through s. Carts could be in varying short lengths of tape for accommodate standard ad lengths or jingle lengths or longer for spoken word/announcement type pieces. As they were endless loops too so they would automatically stop at the end the could start again from the beginning of reinserted at a latter time. While records remained the main way to play music before he CD or digits, files dominated, sometimes music was played for them (and not just jingles). Nowadays it’s all digital. Techmoan has a demo of an early radio station cart system on his channel if you want to see what they looked liked.
Great video! I have a set of "Spoken words of Mark Twain" 16 2/3-RPM records. (I'm surprised that Vinyl Eyezz didn't mention that 16 2/3 RPM is exactly half of 33 1/3 RPM).
I also have a set of Hip Pocket records... I believe that at least some of mine came from inside cereal boxes. (I also have some cut-out cardboard records from the backs of cereal boxes.)
Martin Ian Goldberg the Spoken word of Mark Twain is not the same as read aloud by. It is well known that Twain did record a number of Cylinders for both Edison and Bettini, none have been found intact! Bettini took his whole library back to Italy when he moved there, but the building is known to have been bombed during WW ll.
16 2/3 rpm 12" records were audio books recorded for the blind.
So if those 20 inch records were the biggest I guess you could say they were record breaking records? :D
🤣
As in "they broke at record pace"?
urgh......
I'm just glad Aerosmith never heard of this format... yikes!
If they were shellac, they probably were shattering records!
My Dad was a BSEE and a huge audiophile. I remember at 10 years old, and his home built decoder, sitting in the middle of 4 identical speakers and listening to a quadrecord playback. OMG....four seperate channels of sound. Wow!!! If I remember right...it was a standard turntable. Thanks for the memory flashback!
Odd note: My grandmother owned many very early Edison Diamond records. Some of these were single-sided, a format you didn't mention. As I understand from my mother (who was born in 1914), the early ones were single sided then went to double-sided. Unfortunately, she passed away in 2002, at the age of 88. And yes, I, unfortunately, ruined a lot of these. On the other hand, I was the only high school student (fall of 1966 to spring of 1970) who was familiar with people like Sir Harry Lauder and Gracie Fields. Sadly, I had to leave an extensive vinyl collection behind when I moved to Portland, Or., in 1999. As far as a request for song for the day, I dare you to play a vinyl recording of Gracie Fields singing "He's Dead but He Won't Lay Down." Good luck with it! Failing vinyl, I know it can be had in other formats. But if you must stick with vinyl, then anything by Spike Jones and the City Slickers!
My dad had quad and we had a local radio station *KWOD* which was broadcasting in Quad.
Now THERE'S a coincidence !
16" Transcription discs were more for radio shows not music.
Awesome video like always! Haven't heard of some of these. Would definitely be cool to come across some of the formats while at the swap meets crate digging. Ran across one of those 16" records down in H.B. at Vinyl Solution. They have one on display there.
I also have quite a few Quad records, but unfortunately no way to play them yet! My grandmother was apparently a huge fan of Quad when she was younger. She said she was freaking out when it first came out and she could hear sound from behind her.!
Suggestion: No Children - the Mountain Goats
You can play quad records normally. They are backwards compatible. Incidentally, Phase 4 stereo is compatible with one of the Dolby digital surround sound codecs.
to get full quad sound, you'll need a special shibata stylus and decoder, or a receiver that is quad ready.
Yeah I know you can listen to them normally, but I'd love to hear them in their full 4 channel glory. That being said, I didn't know it was Dolby digital compatible! That's cool I'll have to see if I have any phase 4 encoded ones.
Don't play the CD-4 records without the special shibata stylus and a compliant cartridge or you risk damaging the groves and destroying the 45 khz subcarrier that has the front-back difference signal!
This is a great video. The two things I want to mention are the Pocket Disk and the Quad records and systems. Since I quite a bit older than Vinyl Eyezz, it reminded me of the pocket disks. The main thing I remember about them is you would find them on kid's cereal box's. you could cut them out of the back of the box and play them. They would usually play kids song on them. Although crude they did play. I would not had recommended playing with an expensive playing stylus of the time. Second the Quad system. When I meet my second, her late husband owned a quad system complete with four floor size speakers. I wish I still had it, but I don't. The receiver was quite large and would take up allot of room. I don't even remember what format it was. I do know I still have a couple of the LP's. There are still many things you taught about the old records. Once again that's for this clip.
Back in 1972 I went into a "Head" shop and bought a bootleg, 12 inch, 33 1/3 LP of the Who playing in concert. If you looked at the disc in regular lighting it was black, but if you placed it under a UV "Black" light it turned into a sunburst of different bright colors. I've still got this album as well as just about all of my vinyl that I bought in the mid to late 60s and 70s. I saw no reason to get rid of the format, my turntable from that era still works fine.
I regret investing in 8-track, though. I lost a hell of a lot of good music on that format. The problem with them was the recording tape would shrink with time and exposure to heat, as from sitting in the car, resulting in the tape dragging. Unfortunately, there was no remedy. I've also got a couple of those pocket records that I bought as a novelty in 1968. I liked the video, you've gained a new sub.
Pathe had a very interesting background. ALL of its acoustic era (pre-microphone, meaning pre-1926) recordings were dubbings from a large master cylinder. Thus the same selection could appear on cylinder, 8", 11" 14" or 20" disc. In the case of the discs, the larger diameter discs were recorded at higher speeds, which provided greater volume. In the pre-electronic era, record volume depended on the record itself, the needle and reproducer, and the phonograph's horn. 20" records were intended for concert hall or outdoor use. Prior to 1920 all Pathe records were vertically cut (as with Edison, though Edison used a different reproduction system) because of legal issues: the rights to lateral recording (as with modern LPs) were owned by the Victor Talking Machine Company and the Columbia Graphophone Company, and these entities enforced their patents vigorously. When the patents ran out after WWI, record companies scrambled to convert to lateral recording. Lateral cut Pathe records after 1920 were labeled "Actuelle" (by then they had paper labels, rather than the etched labels shown in the video.) Vertical Pathes were available in Europe until the early 1930s. While the Pathe label died out in the US around 1930, it continued in Europe for decades, after EMI purchased it in the 1930s.
100% correct!
Not quite. Electrical recording dates from late 1924.
The dubbing system that Pathe used involved a machine they called the "pantograph." In the pre-electric days it wasn't possible to do it electrically, so the system was purely mechanical. It introduced a lot of noise, and not just hiss. Pathe records from that era are notorious for spurious sounds like clunks and thumps. They often sounds like someone was moving furniture in the studio while the record was being made.
To address sound quality many Pathe records were "center start" so the quality would actually improve as the stylus moved outward.
this is a bit off-topic, but your post reminded me: it took many years for films to standardize to 24 frames per second. Silent movies were often 16 fpm, then 18 fpm. So by the 60s and 70s, the public (and me as a child) associated old silent movies with sped-up background music and unnaturally fast movement, because projectionists had been playing these old movies on new 24 fpm projectors. Until I learned about the history as an adult, I thought that was the speed movies had always been played, and the film music was always played lightening fast!
How would you classify those cereal box records? I distinctly recall (as do many others) "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies, on the back of Post Super Sugar Crisp.
Well there's a blast from the past. I remember playing that "record" after cutting it out of the back of the box. I think that was around 1969. I was about seven years old at the time.
@@Saboteur709. Your memory of the time frame is good! How many folks thought to save those things?
Yep, they played at 45 rpm, and had circular/spiral grooves of course, but they were square! And flimsy! Some kid books had those little 45s in them also.
Gosh ! ... the Edison Diamond disc is thick like a Flintstones record ! lol
I got one in a lot of used records not long ago. They're pretty heavy for their size, too.
Of the three 4-channel formats mentioned - QS, SQ and CD-4 - only CD-4 was discreet four-channel (Compatible Discreet - 4). SQ and QS were both phase-related ("Matrix" quad). CD-4 discs ("Quadradiscs") required more accurate tracking and offered lower dynamic range than ordinary stereo. The rear-channel info was encoded on a VLF "radio" carrier - circa 30KHz. The CD-4 "decoder" would "receive" and demodulate this signal to produce the signals delivered to the rear channels.
SQ decoders - being phase-related ("matrix") - were useful for enhancing regular stereo playback since many effects used to create the "stereo image" use phase and balance to "position" sounds within the image.
I thoroughly enjoyed this easy-to-understand, but detailed account on theses failed formats! I was all over the quadrophonic LP's back in th day. You mentioned three different quafrophonic formats. Was it because RCA was different than Columbia...or ?? I still play my older quadrophonic LP's on typical equipment with the same two-channel stereo effect. I could never conceive how the stylus/cartridge setup can transform one groove on an LP to four distinct channels. Yet I guess that's where the decoder comes in. I had always thought it was some kind of nanosecond delay between the front and rear speakers. I figured it was something similar to Quad FM radio broadcasts also in the 1970's.
The absolute best thing I ever found was at a defunct record store in El Cajon CA called Blue Meanie records. I was a regular at this store for years. They had a supply of bootlegs behind the counter that only trusted customers could look at. One day I came across a box of radio transcriptions of "The Doctor Demento Show". Each week was a 2 record show with everything, including commercials pressed on. A guess would be that somebody snatched them from a radio station. He wanted $5.00 a show, but I said just give me a price for all of them. $100 bucks and i walked out with 56 different shows! I guess he valued my devotion to the store over all the years! The vinyl was pressed like fine wine, not mass produced with a sound quality consistency combining the best from CDs with vinyl. The best thing I every bought more than the 100plus Beatle bootlegs or the
mint 78 Sun record of " I walk the line".
I've got 10,000 albums between vinyl & CDs and about 1000 45s. Started collecting records at age 6 & I'm now 62. Father listened to traditional & bebop jazz, Mother's from Liverpool England & more into black r&b / rock n
roll. We had The Beatles spinning in our house early in 1963, thanks to relatives mailing them from England long before Americans knew of them. Got a great musical education from those two, plus great cast offs from their record collections.
I remember the Dr. Demento show. It was carried by CFNY before they became the Edge 102.1 .They turned me on to Julie Brown and some other good parody artists.
The good old days.
LMAO..I remember places like them. There were hundreds all over the UK (mostly swap meets/flea markets) but it sounded just as good as the store bought's ya payed 2 or 3 times as much for
Gar(r)y Schrum, Blue Meanie's longest owner, was working for an auction house I last heard. What a store that was! Especially the small location with John Lennon in the doorway.
I used to work at a radio station in Michigan that carried Dr. Demento, and many other weekend shows on vinyl. Usually they'd get stored for about a year, then thrown out. Glad you got to rescue a bunch from their usual fate.
Hi Kirk, I remember that store. I lived in Santee from 1969 to 1980. My brother and I would walk 7 miles to Parkway Bowl, the mall and Pinball Palace. I can vaguely remember seeing the record store, but who could forget that name.
Hi
You forgot to mention the 50’s binaural records that were depicting early stereo.
I actually played one. ONE
@Real Dudes Party Nude hes not talking about mono, early stereo experimental records used 2 needles and 2 sets of grooves
Some facts are not precise, Pathe were also produced with normal grooves even in the late 40s early 50s, 20 inch pathe are ultra rare, most pathe were small and normal, Edison diamond included jazz, Edison Just didnt like It but for marketing he introduced jazz in the early 20s,
I have all, but the mini example. I also have one Edison Diamond Disc "LP"...a 12" version which revolves at 331/3 speed and required a special Edison two speed machine and reproducer. These rare discs where aimed at the audience which enjoyed backround music while dining! The mostly salon music, content lasted 15 minutes
7:07 lmao, that disk jockey with the record in his mouth 😂 yeah, i dont think thats proper record etiquette
thetrashslingingasher I bought a record with a bite in it I think he bit it
to be fair it really wasnt a huge deal back then. It wouldnt be any worse than mishandling a CD something that i think weve all done at one time or another
That’s anti hifigienic
Oh come on, people...can't he show his taste in music?? Sheesh!! 😆😅😂🤣🎶
I love ur peach pit pfp
Before flat disks were invented could you be an Edison Cylinder Jockey
Possibly 😂
Do you consider yourself a true ,,CJ´´?
ElectroSwingable
In theory I guess but think discs had already superseded cylinders by time they started to boardcast sound.
Or you could be "That Guy" and break a rare cylinder with your big, beefy hands (that's a classic TV Blooper)!
The did try record spheres, but the needle kept falling off. ;)
Album covers behind the guy : I spot Black Sabbath 1st album and Dummy by Portishead, Sign o The Times Prince
I remember a flexi-disk that came in an issue of Mad Magazine. The one line I remember is "The laughing machine threw up". I think there were also some that came in or on cereal boxes. We also had a 33 1/3 that was the size of a 45. It had the small hole. I don't remember what it had on it though.
Peter C. I remember the floppy square ones too!had on and it seems like it was from a cereal box...
You relive the golden days of vinyl by playing a CD and frying eggs and bacon in the background.
Correct! Only dullards.
very well done video very professional
I recall buying EPs .. they were cheaper than the LPs and had the latest hit of the day.
Not to mention, the same RIAA & the same 45rpm..
This is a good video. Dont know why anyone would thumbs down it.
Over the years I had some of these formats of records. I remember when doing TV and sound system servicing back in the 70s I serviced some quadraphonic sound systems. I never owned one myself. I was servicing the Pioneer ones, since I was working part time for a Pioneer service dealer while I was studying electrical engineering.
When I was a kid in the 50s, my grand parents had a windup 78 RPM gramophone. It had no electronics. It was all mechanical. At home during the 50s and 60s our TV set, record players, and radios were using vacuum tubes.
I had some 16 RPM records during the 60s. I also had some very thin venal disks from magazines distributed as music samples. I had to tape the edges down to the turn table to hold them so they would spin. After about ten plays they were sounding bad. The idea was if you liked the music you would have to go out and buy the actual record.
If I kept all that I had starting from the 50s I would have an interesting collection of electronics, records, and tapes. But, like most people, I discarded what I no longer needed...
Hey dude...just stumbled across this cool video. I am an audiophile. Had a quadraphonic system back in the 70's. I had the receiver/amp- 8-track tape player and a case pf quad-8 tracks to go along with it. Very brilliant for way back then. I did not have a quad record player- just a 2 way Dual. But the tapes did sound good. Very revolutionary for the times. I was the only one in my peers and (parents peers) who had one, so it was novelty to come into my sound lab (bedroom) and hear The Steve Miller Band in quadraphonic. But towards the 80's it was getting harder and harder to find quad 8 -tracks.
I've never owned any of those formats, but I did own a phonograph with the 16 setting.
Quadraphonic was taken up enthusiastically by certain hifi buffs I seem to remember. On the whole a noble experiment - pushing the boundaries.
Quadraphonic was launched smack-dab in the middle of the mid-1970s recession. Four speakers, a quadraphonic amplifier/receiver, and a special quad record was a very hard sell in tough economic times.
@@danielgolus4600 Everyone cites reasons like that well afterwards but they are rarely that significant at the time. Quad was a high end product but still of interest to some deep pocketed hifi enthusiasts as is the more exotic and expensive gear today. More to the point, Quad was never going to be a huge commercial success across the board in an era when most families were delighted to have a furniture-esque stereogram with a ceramic cartridge and autochanger.
There was also an 8RPM format. There is a working example in a local museum here.
Yes, it was adopted for use in library services for the blind. It was never used outside these services, as far as I know. Apparently there were efforts to produce an even slower '4 rpm' format, but the audio quality was so poor that even speech was not all that intelligible. In any case, there was little need for it, the library services also began adopting specially modified cassette players that could squeeze six hours out of a C90 cassette.
Jack White put out a record that runs at 3RPM on his Third Man Records label.
dave idmarx
It doesn't actually run at 3 rpm. It was just a marketing gimmick.
The record was mastered at 16-2/3 rpm, with the audio fed to the lathe at 4x speed. The record played at 'proper speed' would be operating at 4-1/6 rpm. I don't know of any equipment (short of custom made) capable of that speed. There were experiments in the 1960s and early 1970s to produce records that worked at that speed, but it was determined that it wasn't practical to produce them. They'd have been special records for library services for the blind if they DID work. An 8-1/3 rpm format was introduced for those services, but to play them, you needed the special record player.
I'd heard they did run a bit faster than 3 rpm, though, it really wouldn't have taken much to cut them at the proper speed, as you can adjust the speed to anything digitally before feeding it to the lathe. I wonder why he didn't just have the record cut at the correct speed? Anyway, that record is a little out of my budget for what it is. If it were a Beatles Butcher cover in nice shape for that price, I'd gladly pay it. But not for a novelty record I'd never be able to play properly (other than doing a needledrop and speed correcting it).
dave idmarx They weren't cut at the correct speed because the equipment to do so doesn't exist. 16-2/3 rpm is the slowest speed supported by record mastering equipment (it's typically used to create 'half-speed' LP masters, which supposedly gives greater frequency response), and even that is somewhat specialized. Most equipment isn't designed for slower than 33-1/3.
Yes, I know it can be digitally adjusted, and you're right, it wouldn't have taken much to do so. But nobody can actually play these records at the correct speed anyway, so it's really a non-issue. They get to claim it's a ridiculously low speed and there's only a handful of people who would actually know the difference. The people that actually bought the album probably didn't try to play it.
Back in the day when 16-2/3 rpm records were produced, most were 'double speed' mastered at 33-1/3 rpm, because at the time, the audio quality of such records was a secondary concern and it was cheaper to simply use existing equipment than to buy the specialized 16-2/3 rpm equipment.
16 RPM mostly was used for Spoken Word.
Vertical cut records (Edison Diamond Discs) can be played on Stereo Styluses connected out of Phase.
Some Broadcast Transcriptions used Vertical Grooves also.
The first time I heard the Beatles' Sgt Pepper album, it was on a two-disk 45 EP format, available in Canada, but not in the US. 45 Extended Play records were larger in diameter, and IIRC the grooves were closer together. They could be played on an ordinary phonograph.
I have a record player that has 16, 33, 45, and 78 speeds.
The slower the speed, the worse the sound generally.
Actually that's not true. Going from 78 to 45, and then 33 you DECREASE the surface noise. Just as with tape, reducing the cutting speed also tends to reduce S/N ratio and frequency response because the output signal is reduced as less energy is available from the vibrating stylus. However, 78 rpm records had to generate ALL of the signal that drove the "speaker", THERE WAS NO AMPLIFIER, only a MEGAPHONE! Once pizeo electric and magnetic pickup cartridges and vacuum tube amplifiers were invented this was no longer a problem, and the effective S/N ratio at 45 or even 33 rpm was better than at 78. Records pressed onto vinyl had lower surface noise than earlier ones pressed into shellac or wax, higher signal output and better S/N ratio despite the lower speed. Improved cutting heads and playback cartridges had better frequency response too.
The cartridge and cutting head tech that made CD-4 records possible would allow 16.66 rpm and even 8.33 rpm records to sound as good as today's 33's. Back in the late 70's and early 80's some audiophile recordings were cut onto 45rpm LP sized discs to get better channel separation and S/N playback. Some of these were also digitally mastered.
And years ago, it was very amusing to play the record at the wrong speed----either too fast or too slow.
I listen mainly to Jazz Saxophonist. Unbelievable to hear an LP at 16rpm to seel all the notes that are being played in a short interval.@@tommytruth7595
@@tommytruth7595 Yeah, play Black Sabbath at 78 and see god, right? That was the joke back then.
Mine has the same four but, also, everything in between. You can tune a record to the key you want!
OMG I forgot I had pocket discs. They came as prizes in cereal boxes.
Im sad that i didnt experienced this times where they gave some kick@$$ prices in cereals.
I have a Quadraphonic copy of Eumir Deodato's second CTI album "Deodato 2".
I had a Marantz 4- channel amp @1976. It also had synthesized quad for stereo records. I only have one quad record by Doug Carn ' Adam's Apple ' and can't remember which quad format it is . I dont have a decoder or dint remember if it needed one! I played a Ron Carter record where the great jazz bassist played Willow Weep For Me on overdubbed piccolo and standard basses. Using the synthesized quad with 4 speakers it sounded so cool and mote real. I learned you can get ambient sound by tapping the positive leads hooking up two speakers then the negatives together. Like car fader systems. I got two DBX noise reduction discs free in the 80s when I bought dbx decoder. That was the big thing after Dolby A, B, and C on cassettes. They actually had dbx discs! The discs are rare I bet. Manuel De Falla ( 3 Cornered Hat)a Spanish composer and another was the first organ digital recording with an artist named Virgil Fox
You can get a quadrophonic effect on the cheap by using a Hafler circuit. You take the positive wire from left and right speakers and feed it in series through another pair of speakers, with a volume potentiometer in between to regulate the sound level of this pair of speakers. The whole set-up works from the existing two amplifiers and the only extra expense is a pair of speakers and a potentiometer. This extra pair of speakers gathers the out of phase signal to give the resonant effect similar to what you would get from the back of a concert hall when listening to musicians playing on stage.
Also, the caption under your name is me 24/7
Song of the day suggestion
I talk to the wind by King Crimson.
Progressive rock pioneer and way ahead of their time!
You Got It by Roy Orbison
THE MUSIC DRONING ON DURING THE VIDEO DOESN'T ADD ANYTHING. IT'S LIKE A MOSQUITO BUZZING IN YOUR WAR.
Nothing worse than starting a full blown war, only to have it trashed by mosquitoes.
@@Paul07791 *YES!* ("Buzzing in your war?" Bloody hell!)
in the late 90s early 2000 I had an Edison Floor model. Loved it. I had it for about a year before I found it had about 7 disc hidden in it. I listen to that thing all the time. Loved it.
One last hurrah for 16 rpm records was the "Environments" series of LPs, which had recordings of ocean waves, forest sounds, etc. They were supposed to be played at 33, but on the liner notes, mentioned that they worked great (and longer) at 16. I've tried it and it works (of course, my four speed turntable is long gone.
You mentioned Flexi-Disks, which had a long useful lifespan, but I haven't seen any new ones in ages. I do have a set of Beatles Flexis that Musicland Record Stores gave out with purchases back in the early eighties, and a nifty 4-cut Flexi that was included in a book on Janis Joplin.
Born to Be Wild -Steppenwolf
Ahhh, Edison, the famous thief.
derp
Love your work man❤️👍🏽
I have a number of these! I have Three Edison Diamond Discs (and about 150 cylinders, BTW). They are 80 rpm, and they can be played on a modern stereo, but you have to rewire the cartridge. As you said, do not attempt to play then on a convention Victrola / Gramophone, the record will be destroyed! The Seeburg 1000 records (I have several) were indeed 16-2/3 rpm, and they were used mostly as background music - but despite the low speed the audio is surprisingly good. They are 8" diameter and have a 2" center hole.
I have a 16" transcription record from WFIN (year unknown) and it does not have locked grooves, just a single groove, each side. They cannot be played on a regular phonograph simply because of the diameter (I have a Newcomb TR-1625M which plays it fine).
I do have one you didn't mention...I have a copy of a 1972 edition of Newsweek magazine on a record for the blind. It is one of those thin floppy ones - but it is 8 rpm and that one I have no way to play...
Some non-commercial discs for overseas military during WW2 and maybe Korea were marked Inside Start and were at least 16 inches across. The American Forces Radio Service has lots and lots of radio shows on transcription discs. These were sent overseas to the troops for rebroadcasting by the American Forces Network or isolated 'Mosquito Net' stations. At first these and the V-discs were shellac but quite a few broke in transit so they started using vinyl and stayed with it for the duration.
I grew up on 45's and I'll take them to my grave!...great video thanks!!!
My 1961 Seeburg jukebox is full of great 45s! Love them!
I'm being buried with all my records in my coffin - well, it WILL be my vinyl resting place! (You may laught, now!).
Lord of this world by Black Sabbath
Although it's not a bad song, I'm getting a little tired of talking about "Africa" ...
Toto-lly unacceptable.
Thanks Internet. You made Toto into a joke
So *that's* who did it!
You should look up the word "Failed," because LPs, 45s, and Cassettes made tons of money for the music industry (a product doesn't necessarily "fail" when it's replaced by newer technology). 45's were very popular with teenagers because they were quite durable and easy to transport to parties or friend's houses for listening sessions. Many people purchased LPs and copied specific tracks to their tape recorders in order to create preferred playlists. The 8-track system was a flop because of its unreliability and was replaced by the cassette, which made great strides in listening quality with Dolby and various tape compounds. I still have a Nakamichi cassette player that rivals many modern forms of music playback. I guess one had to actually "be there" to fully understand this concept. And Four-channel sound was a gimmick to increase speaker and amplifier sales; that concept was similar to the latest gimmicks the industry is now touting in order to stimulate sales for Home Theater equipment. I should also mention that shopping for records on a Saturday was a great way to meet a date for Saturday night. This was probably better than Internet dating :)
Thanks for the look at transcription disc. Now I understand what they were.
i never saw one on any other YT video.
me, only a few seconds into the video: "well is it failed or died? there's a difference, there, for example, 78's were popular for years and could never be considered a failure, but they did die, as all technology does eventually, when newer better replacements were found"
I inherited my father's AM /turntable from the time when all it played was the 78's. The stylus was fairly thick. Naturally it doesn't play anymore but it did when i was a kid. All my father's records are gone since most of them were opera, but I ran across one from my wife's late mother's "Mr Sandman" from the fifties which I though what an awesome 78 to have since it got popular all over by the movie Halloween with Jamie Lee Curtis. But you are right. Technology kill off the 78's along with all the other records.
I agree with you. Not failed, but died, or faded away. And another thing: why do you have to speak so slowly?