3 ms·

I'm a little surprised to learn that they use normal styluses instead of reading the grooves optically.

jandrese 6y ago
More than that, they use 4 different styluses and let you choose which one you think sounds best for a particular record. I think it's kind of sad that this is a purely volunteer effort and not an official effort of the Library of Congress.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  I'm on the opposite side; I think it's an amazing example of private actin for a public service.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    I'm annoyed that it is necessary though, as the official institution who is tasked with preserving recorded works is failing to do their job.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      I would encourage you to contact the LoC to express your dismay and your desire to see them improve: https://www.loc.gov/contact/ https://www.loc.gov/contact/ You will want to address your correspondence to Carla Hayden, the current Librarian of the LoC.
      - Denvercoder9 6y ago
        I expect it's better to contact your member of Congress to request a budget increase for the LoC. According to Wikipedia, the LoC has only a $6-$8 million/year budget for digitization.
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
        That is also a necessary effort, and I appreciate you pointing it out. My apologies for not enumerating in my above comment.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      I'm not. I think the LoC is a single point of failure for curation. No single institution is going to preserve everything, so having multiple institutions, public and private, is far better than relying on a single public institution to get things right.
myrandomcomment 6y ago
Any dirt in the grooves screwed up the playback in the case of using a laser. Remember the pits that are read on CD/DVD are under a clear coating and cannot get dirt in them.
- jandrese 6y ago
  They do thoroughly clean each record before it is played.
  - myrandomcomment 6y ago
    Yes, I saw that. Was replying to the person that questioned why they do not use lasers. I have a record collection and so need to upgrade my kit to that level of cleaning magic ;)
MarkusWandel 6y ago
These are not "normal styli" at least not for the old shellac records. It was very educational to watch this Techmoan video - https://youtu.be/AYn7aZZBMRA https://youtu.be/AYn7aZZBMRA - and learn that the original shellac records were harder than the steel styli; these wore down in one or two playings and so were bought in bulk, and the tracking force was on the order of 100 grams. Why does this matter? Because it probably keeps down the fine high-frequency crackle from very minor dust and surface imperfections. But I can see that you wouldn't subject a precious antique 78 to that kind of playback these days.
whanamura 6y ago
Here's what George Blood, the IA digitization expert, said: "LPs are soft and played with a very small diamond. 78s are made from shellac which is hard and abrasive. Originally they were played with steel needles at 10x the tracking weight used by our modern equipment. They also use a much larger diamond with 5-10x the surface area. The tracking force is spread over a larger area than vinyl playback. The contact pressure is less than 10% of vinyl playback. "
whanamura 6y ago
Here's what George Blood, the digitizer, reports: "laser turntables are designed to play 33rpm discs. Most will not spin at 78rpm. There is broad agreement they do not sound as good as stylus playback. I.R.E.N.E. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRENE_(technology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRENE_(technology)) captures the disc as an image, then transforms that into sound. It is not way slower than real time, and while it is arguable that the resolution of the image is superior to stylus playback, the software is not yet able to produce results as good as stylus playback. And it introduces it’s own, idiomatic noise spectrum. On the other hand it is far and away the best system for ‘playing’ damaged or compromised discs, such as lacquers that are beginning to delaminate."

More than that, they use 4 different styluses and let you choose which one you think sounds best for a particular record. I think it's kind of sad that this is a purely volunteer effort and not an official effort of the Library of Congress.

aidenn0 6y ago
I'm on the opposite side; I think it's an amazing example of private actin for a public service.
- jandrese 6y ago
  I'm annoyed that it is necessary though, as the official institution who is tasked with preserving recorded works is failing to do their job.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    I would encourage you to contact the LoC to express your dismay and your desire to see them improve: https://www.loc.gov/contact/ https://www.loc.gov/contact/ You will want to address your correspondence to Carla Hayden, the current Librarian of the LoC.
    - Denvercoder9 6y ago
      I expect it's better to contact your member of Congress to request a budget increase for the LoC. According to Wikipedia, the LoC has only a $6-$8 million/year budget for digitization.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        That is also a necessary effort, and I appreciate you pointing it out. My apologies for not enumerating in my above comment.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    I'm not. I think the LoC is a single point of failure for curation. No single institution is going to preserve everything, so having multiple institutions, public and private, is far better than relying on a single public institution to get things right.

myrandomcomment 6y ago

Any dirt in the grooves screwed up the playback in the case of using a laser. Remember the pits that are read on CD/DVD are under a clear coating and cannot get dirt in them.

jandrese 6y ago
They do thoroughly clean each record before it is played.
- myrandomcomment 6y ago
  Yes, I saw that. Was replying to the person that questioned why they do not use lasers. I have a record collection and so need to upgrade my kit to that level of cleaning magic ;)

MarkusWandel 6y ago

These are not "normal styli" at least not for the old shellac records. It was very educational to watch this Techmoan video - https://youtu.be/AYn7aZZBMRA https://youtu.be/AYn7aZZBMRA - and learn that the original shellac records were harder than the steel styli; these wore down in one or two playings and so were bought in bulk, and the tracking force was on the order of 100 grams. Why does this matter? Because it probably keeps down the fine high-frequency crackle from very minor dust and surface imperfections. But I can see that you wouldn't subject a precious antique 78 to that kind of playback these days.

whanamura 6y ago

Here's what George Blood, the IA digitization expert, said: "LPs are soft and played with a very small diamond. 78s are made from shellac which is hard and abrasive. Originally they were played with steel needles at 10x the tracking weight used by our modern equipment. They also use a much larger diamond with 5-10x the surface area. The tracking force is spread over a larger area than vinyl playback. The contact pressure is less than 10% of vinyl playback. "

whanamura 6y ago

Here's what George Blood, the digitizer, reports: "laser turntables are designed to play 33rpm discs. Most will not spin at 78rpm. There is broad agreement they do not sound as good as stylus playback. I.R.E.N.E. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRENE_(technology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRENE_(technology)) captures the disc as an image, then transforms that into sound. It is not way slower than real time, and while it is arguable that the resolution of the image is superior to stylus playback, the software is not yet able to produce results as good as stylus playback. And it introduces it’s own, idiomatic noise spectrum. On the other hand it is far and away the best system for ‘playing’ damaged or compromised discs, such as lacquers that are beginning to delaminate."