You know you are getting old when:

[LizzieMaine]

There was quite a bit of discussion of these "phone music" systems in the entertainment trade press in 1946 and 1947. You'll find an article from "Billboard" discussing the opening of such a system in Kansas City here. And another discussing the setup used by a similar system in Chicago -- this latter was the direct inspiration for the sequence I mentioned earlier from the Dick Tracy comic strip.

You'll see from thes articles that the setup was likely to have been confusing to the user and somethinig of a pain in the backside to service -- certainly more so than having a hood from the local Syndicate drop by once a month to load a fresh batch of 78s into the Wurlitzer.

 

[Zombie_61]

When you remember Compact Discs.

I still prefer physical media (CD/DVD/Blu-Ray) to this upload/download nonsense. First, because if I've spent my money on something like that I want something tangible to show for it. Second, because the device(s) a person uses to listen to or watch digital media will eventually fail and all of those digital files, and the money spent on them, will go with it. If our CD/DVD/Blu-Ray player died today, I'd still have the discs to play in the replacement. Now, I know proponents of digital media would argue, "Well, that's why you make back-up copies and store them on an external drive," but with CDs/DVDs/Blu-Ray you don't have to do that extra work.

That being said, I'm fully aware that the "experts" are predicting a time in the not-so-distant future when all forms of physical media and their assorted devices will be obsolete; I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

A couple of my old record players had a 16 rpm speed. Did anyone here have any records made for that speed? I didn't.

When I was young I had a record player that could play 16, 33-1/3, 45, and 78 rpm albums, and I had ONE 16 rpm single--a faux-country novelty recording about the merits of Hesperia, California. Incredibly, I just found it on You Tube:

Not that I've done any in-depth research, but I never really understood why such things were recorded at different speeds; as long as you played them at the proper speed, they sounded the same--no better or worse audio quality than other recordings played at other speeds. But it was fun to play them at the wrong speeds from time to time.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The main advantage to slow-speed recordings was additional playing time for an equivalent amount of disc space. There was however no particular reason for 45 rpm records to exist except as RCA's proprietary weapon in the "speed wars' of 1948-50. 45s are sonically inferior to 78s, but offer less playing time than LPs. The only advantage they offered was that they could be manufactured more cheaply than 78s, and thus were ideal for marketing to teenagers.

All other things being equal, an analog recording made and played back at a higher speed will sound better than the same material recorded at a lower speed. But this difference wasn't always observable on the consumer-grade equipment of the time.

 

[BlueTrain]

I believe that 45s and LPs came out at about the same time. An LP was frequently referred to as an "album," I guess because the old 78s were sometimes sold in literal albums, just like a photo album. An album might have a half-dozen discs in it.

I imagine that 45s lent themselves to jukeboxes and one source said that jukeboxes accounted for a high percentage of 45 rpm record sales. They would also lend themselves to the teenage market, especially for new artists that didn't have enough to fill up an album and, sometimes, not even both sides of a 45.

The technology is forever changing, of course, and everything has to progress at the same speed, in a sense. The telephone operator jukebox, for instance, was only practical in a large market (that is, a city) and only worth it as long as jukeboxes had just a few selections at a time. The original Victrola was probably considered to be an expensive novelty at the time. But I don't know when low-priced record players became relatively common.

 

[LizzieMaine]

LPs came out first -- they were introduced by Columbia in 1948, with RCA rolling out the 45 the following year, along with a line of specialized 45rpm record changers to play them on.

The 33 1/3 rpm speed wasn't the innovative aspect of the LP -- it had been around since the late 1920s for radio transcriptions, and RCA Victor had sold a series of 33 1/3 rpm records to the public starting in 1931. These flopped largely due to the Depression, but 33 1/3 recordings continued to be made for radio use thruout the 1930s and 1940s. The real difference with the Columbia LP system was its use of a narrow groove -- the "microgroove" idea had been experimented with by the Edison company in 1928-29, and Columbia helped itself to the idea in 1948.

RCA refused to acknowledge the LP during 1948 and 1948, and marketed "albums" of 45s containing longer-form musical pieces divided into parts just like had been done with 78s. These proved fantastically unpopular, and RCA finally gave in and licensed the Columbia system for its own LPs.

Jukebox operators watched all this with interest -- they had a huge investment in 78rpm equipment and records, and it was well into the 1950s before 45rpm jukeboxes became the standard.

 

[vitanola]

Then of course there were the abortive Long Playing records which Edison introduced in 1927. Up to 20 minutes a side at 80RPM, using an incredibly fine groove of 275 threads to the inch. The records were rather low in volume, but might have been a success had a phonograph with electrical amplification been offered to play them.

Here is an Edison Long Play selection. The volume is a bit low, and the Fidelity just does not compare to the brilliance of the then new electrically recorded lateral records.

The RCA Victor "Program Transcriptions", the 33 RPM discs Miss Maine mentions above were of excellent Fidelity, and had quiet surfaces, but they did not wear very well with the heavy pickups in use in 1932, besides which 1932 was the absolute nadir of record sales. The format was still born, and disappeared almost without a trace.

Here is a 1932 selection showing the quality of the recording:

Now this next video shows one of these records being played on a period machine. The long play records starts at about 1:01. The surface noise is excessive because the fellow who was doing the demonstration was not using pristine discs. Like many record collectors he apparently saves 0erfect copies for archival purposes, and only plays lesser copies in old machines.

 

[vitanola]

I believe that 45s and LPs came out at about the same time. An LP was frequently referred to as an "album," I guess because the old 78s were sometimes sold in literal albums, just like a photo album. An album might have a half-dozen discs in it.

I imagine that 45s lent themselves to jukeboxes and one source said that jukeboxes accounted for a high percentage of 45 rpm record sales. They would also lend themselves to the teenage market, especially for new artists that didn't have enough to fill up an album and, sometimes, not even both sides of a 45.

The technology is forever changing, of course, and everything has to progress at the same speed, in a sense. The telephone operator jukebox, for instance, was only practical in a large market (that is, a city) and only worth it as long as jukeboxes had just a few selections at a time. The original Victrola was probably considered to be an expensive novelty at the time. But I don't know when low-priced record players became relatively common.

While the original Victrola

was sold for $200.00 beginning in 1906, Victor had always offered a $15.00 model, going back to its beginnings. The Victor Royal, The Victor Z and the Victor 0 were open horn machines which occupied this niche. In 1911 Victor introduced the fantastically popular Victrola IV, which also sold for $15.00, anchoring the bottom of the line.

 

[Stearmen]

I still prefer physical media (CD/DVD/Blu-Ray) to this upload/download nonsense. First, because if I've spent my money on something like that I want something tangible to show for it. Second, because the device(s) a person uses to listen to or watch digital media will eventually fail and all of those digital files, and the money spent on them, will go with it. If our CD/DVD/Blu-Ray player died today, I'd still have the discs to play in the replacement. Now, I know proponents of digital media would argue, "Well, that's why you make back-up copies and store them on an external drive," but with CDs/DVDs/Blu-Ray you don't have to do that extra work.

That being said, I'm fully aware that the "experts" are predicting a time in the not-so-distant future when all forms of physical media and their assorted devices will be obsolete; I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

I to am also having trouble getting used to not having a product in my hands. My 2011 Triumph Thruxton, is not running well at all, I found out it is the MAP program in the black box. Both our dealers have stopped carrying Triumph, so it is up to me to fix it. It is strange to send money to England for the program files, through my computer, then download them onto my computer without ever getting a package in the mail! Well, it is the 21st century and if it solves my problem. On a funny side note, the former Triumph dealer has been selling motorcycles since the early 50s. I asked him, if I went back in time and told you I could tune a Triumph with a computer that fit on my lap, what would you have said? He said, "I would have called the men in the white coats to come and pick up this nut!"

 

[BlueTrain]

I still haven't found a reference to the TV mystery show that included a telephone operator jukebox. In the show I'm remembering, the operator was a man (I think) who would also go to places and request music that nobody else liked. I did, however, find reference to it in a movie from 1944, "Swing hostess." Talk about a forgotten technology, if that's the word. It's as dated as a dime-a-dance hall.

 

[Tiki Tom]

You know you are getting old when a famous James Bond actor dies and a colleague who is 30ish says "Roger who? Never heard of him."

 

[MisterCairo]

When I was young I had a record player that could play 16, 33-1/3, 45, and 78 rpm albums

I still do. My parents' Phillips "stereo" console.

Photos to follow (0430 hrs as I type this - cannot sleep...).

 

[MisterCairo]

You know you are getting old when a famous James Bond actor dies and a colleague who is 30ish says "Roger who? Never heard of him."

Ouch...

 

[MisterCairo]

I'm watching lovely "Alien" at the moment, on my 51" CRT-TV from 2000, played from my 2005s Philips DVP520 DVD-Player, on my TV-roll-fronted cabinet from 2001.

Oh Lord...

Rockin' it old school, I see....

 

[MisterCairo]

When you remember Compact Discs.

I still buy CDs, and, in fact, world wide physical media account for 34% of total revenue, and the CD is the single largest format in terms of unit sales (digital sales figures include both "sales" to consumers to purchase digital copies and streaming revenues and licensing fees).

 

[BlueTrain]

I still buy CDs, too, and all of mine come from either Germany, Austria or Switzerland. I've even bought one direct from the artist (the Oesch family), who included an autographed photo with the order. Frankly, they don't seem that Swiss if they have names like Melanie, Mike and Kevin, and Annemarie, although the father's name is Hansueli. Melanie is the star.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Ask the kids about the meaning of a tank-top.

How much percent of todays (german) youngsters would give the right answer after some seconds??

"Panzer-Hemdchen"...

 

[BlueTrain]

You know, I was in Germany for two years in the 1960s and my daughter was there for two or three years, off and on, in this decade. But Germany is easily as diverse as the United States. One could easily imagine Berlin (West Berlin at the time) as being another country, the Berliners being so different. Having travelled in both Germany, France and the U.K., I much prefer either France or Germany, if for no other reason than the fact that their English in better.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I can't imagine living in a world without physical media, and I don't think I'd want to. Serious reading on a screen, no matter what kind of a screen it is, is something I just can't do. No doubt there's a generation coming that will feel that holding and turning the paper pages of a book is weird, but I'm not and cannot be part of that generation. And I don't have much use for high-definition digital downloads of TV or movies given that my TV is 63 years old 525-line monochrome NTSC. A VCR and a DVD player do just fine for what I need done.

That said, not all kids today are all about downloads or "cloud media" or whatever it's being called these days. Several young persons in my circle are just as rabid about actual books and records as I am, and will willingly spend as much time in a used bookstore as I do. The dividing line seems to be newspapers -- even the book-reading kids don't seem to see the point of them, and I fear that they will disappear before the end of my life. Which I won't like a bit.

 

[Fading Fast]

I am either agnostic or contradictory depending on how kind I want to be to myself.

I love physical books, but can read a book online as easily as a physical one. I just love the tactile nature of physical books and, in many cases, the things the publisher did to make the book attractive - "The Great Gatsby's" cover art, the thick uneven edges of "Youngblood Hawk's" pages or that haunting black falcon on the cover of "The Maltese Falcon." With old books, I love their history, that they've been around for x number of years and, like me, have a bit of wear and tear owing to that. Hence, my passion for physical books is more about their feel, aesthetic and history, than the actually reading experience.

With newspapers, I grew up passionate about them and for, about, the first 40 years of my life they were a major part of my day (and were my morning). The feel, look, layout all spoke to me. Knowing how to fold them so I could read and turn pages on the subway (depending on the paper's format, there were several variations of a "four fold" that worked) all spoke to me somehow. I'd go out in the morning, buy several and come back happy just to see the stack sitting on the table.

I resisted on-line papers at first, but then succumbed. I gave in initially because I could get them earlier in the morning than the physical ones (I get up and work very early) and, then, the interactive features - links to related stories, more in-depth graphics, access to past issues, etc. - won me over. Now I hardly ever read a physical paper and miss the interactiveness when I do, but still feel a bit happy and nostalgic at the same time. As I said, I'm a bit contradictory on the subject.

 

[scottyrocks]

A little less than 10 years ago I read one book on a Kindle. To paraphrase Mr. Horse, 'No sir . . . I didn't like it!'

I much prefer the tactile feel of a book, turning its pages, popping the edges of the pages on my finger to be sure I'm not skipping a page. I like the smell of a book, the older the better.

And because electronic books don't have actual pages, instead of page numbers, each 'screen' shows what percentage of the book you are at. I prefer page numbers.