[PHILLYPHILCO]

Recently, I came across one of Philco's M-15 record players (still in the original box).I already had the identical model but with "Columbia" embossed on it in my collection so I decided to sell it on the bay. With a little research I later found found that this was in fact the very first 33 1/3 LP model ever made!!! As told by Columbia's president Goddard Lieberson, here is Philco's contribution to recording history:

It was decided to have the LP record ready for the fall of 1948. We made a rapid investigation to see whether we could manufacture our own players and very quickly discovered that we had neither the skills nor the time to develop them. Consequently we talked to other manufacturers about making a player. Although several were willing, Philco was chosen to make the first models. I was a little unhappy about this, because I felt that all of the manufacturers should be making a player of some sort-the more players that got on the market, the more records could be sold. Philco did a good job, and it really took some very fancy tricks to develop the player and have it ready to go on the market in such a short space of time. Our engineering group showed them how; in fact all of the basic technology came from Columbia Records. In the field of plastic engineering we had the advantage of having with us Jim Hunter, who had developed Victorlac.
On June 20, 1948, the first public demonstration was held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. By this time. Bachman and the rest of the team had managed to lengthen the LP to about twenty-two minutes. As I stepped up to the podium to address the fiftv-odd representatives of the press, on one side of me was a stack of conventional 78-rpm records measuring about eight feet in height and another stack about fifteen inches high of the same recordings on LP. After a short speech I played one of the 78 rpm records for its full length of about four minutes,when it broke, as usual, right in the middle of a movement. Then I took the corresponding LP and played it on the little Philco attachment right past that break. The reception was terrific. The critics were struck not only by the length of the record, but by the quietness of its surfaces and its greatly increased fidelity. They were convinced that a new era had come to the record business. Subsequently, Philco introduced the cheaper M-15 under it's own name later that year....

Note from site admin: Sorry, but the photo which was attached to this post is no longer available.

[PHILLYPHILCO]

Here is the M-15 with the original box!!! Notice the little tag reminding you that this is a 33 1/3 player.

Note from site admin: Sorry, but the photo which was attached to this post is no longer available.

[Ron Ramirez]

Very cool!

I was not aware that there was a Columbia-branded version of the M-15 until earlier this year.

[Chuck Schwark]

VERY neat acquisition! A rare catch.
...and, if you need a copy of the Service Manual, you
can order it thru my site on the Schematic Info page.

Regards,

Chuck

[Doug Houston]

I've had one with the Columbia name (hope I'm right) on it for several years....in the box, and never could generate any interest in it. They're handsome, as the picture shows, but not an item that causes a stampede.

There's an amusing tale about Sarnoff being invited to a pre-showing of the Columbia system. Dr. Peter Goldmark was credited for the development of the microgroove LP disc.
After a demonstration of the discs, Goldmark offered manufacturing rights to the discs at no cost. Sarnoff graciously thanked him, and said that he'd give it thought.

Now understand, RCA's 45 system had been on the shelf since about 1942 at that time, because Sarnoff didn't want it to take sales from shellac discs. He returned to his office, got his entire staff together, and lambasted them to pieces for letting Columbia get the drop on them, when it was Sarnoff's doing that kept the 45 system on ice.

He ordered the 45 system put into production immediately. It was announced in January, 1949, and hardware was in the stores by the following April.

The 45 system was wonderful, for those who wanted single discs. The little changers are nice too, but the LP records sort of outlated the 45's.

[Arran]

I've had one with the Columbia name (hope I'm right) on it for several years....in the box, and never could generate any interest in it. They're handsome, as the picture shows, but not an item that causes a stampede.

There's an amusing tale about Sarnoff being invited to a pre-showing of the Columbia system. Dr. Peter Goldmark was credited for the development of the microgroove LP disc.
After a demonstration of the discs, Goldmark offered manufacturing rights to the discs at no cost. Sarnoff graciously thanked him, and said that he'd give it thought.

Now understand, RCA's 45 system had been on the shelf since about 1942 at that time, because Sarnoff didn't want it to take sales from shellac discs. He returned to his office, got his entire staff together, and lambasted them to pieces for letting Columbia get the drop on them, when it was Sarnoff's doing that kept the 45 system on ice.

He ordered the 45 system put into production immediately. It was announced in January, 1949, and hardware was in the stores by the following April.

The 45 system was wonderful, for those who wanted single discs. The little changers are nice too, but the LP records sort of outlated the 45's.

Were the original 45s that RCA-Victor developed in fact microgroove records or were they like the failed 33-1/3 format that they came out with in the late 20s where they used steel needles? I have a book on the history of the phonograph put out by either Tab or Sams in the late 60s or early 70s and it implies that the 45 was basically a rip off of the 33 1/3 LP microgroove record other then the speed it used and the size of the hole, both deliberately designed with the idea of making them non compatable with other machines and to compel people to buy an RCA 45 rpm record player. Even before reading that I always thought that they were a stupid design with that 1'' spindle hole in the center, aside from juke boxes RCA was the only one who actually made players with that spindle, all the others used an adapter. They made the 45s this way for years after RCA quit making the 45 RPM only machines.
Regards
Arran

[Don Lind]

There are more benefits to the large centetr hole on 45s than usually recognised, when used with a single speed 45 changer. Among them are:

1. Simpler change mechanism. No push off or stacking bar mechanism necessary
2. Rapid change cycle
3. All records spin thereby avoiding record skid during change cycle
4. Quieter change cycle
5. Easier to handle records
6. Less center hole wear
7. Inexpensive to manufacture

There are many more advantages when compared with the 78 RPM format it was intended to replace. In that regard, it is a very ingeneous product. The 33 RPM allows an album-length play time, but is too costly for a single play format and fails on many of the other 45 adavntages.

[Arran]

There are more benefits to the large centetr hole on 45s than usually recognised, when used with a single speed 45 changer. Among them are:

1. Simpler change mechanism. No push off or stacking bar mechanism necessary
2. Rapid change cycle
3. All records spin thereby avoiding record skid during change cycle
4. Quieter change cycle
5. Easier to handle records
6. Less center hole wear
7. Inexpensive to manufacture

There are many more advantages when compared with the 78 RPM format it was intended to replace. In that regard, it is a very ingeneous product. The 33 RPM allows an album-length play time, but is too costly for a single play format and fails on many of the other 45 adavntages.

How is a 33-1/3 too costly for singles? If anything they could have used a smaller record then the typical 45 or the same size record with more songs on it, the molds are made the same way. Furthermore why make a 45 record with a 45 RPM rotational speed? It seems to fit in with what I read that they made them with a 45 RPM speed just so RCA could sell 45 RPM players.
Again, with regard to the one inch hole, the only company that made record players with that hole, aside from jukebox manufacturers, was RCA Victor. But RCA quit making them after a time, all of the others used an adapter, but they kept making the 45 RPM records with that silly 1'' hole for a non existant 45 RPM changer right into the 1980s when they quit making them.
Regards
Arran

[Marsupial]

the 70s "stereo" console we had used a 1" cylinder with included mechanism for changing 45s. We could stack 10-15 of them. the mechanism was WAY BETTER then the slanted stack rod used for the LPs. Even as a young kid I recognized that. Although we never had issues with non-changing LPs, but the drop seemed to be more prone to damage the record than the way it fell on the 45s.

regarding changing the standard for smaller holes. that would have made little sense. A big part of the market for singles has always been the jukebox company, until they made CD ones; about when 45s stopped being produced. Making 45s with smaller holes would have been incompatible with jukes still in operation, plus a certain quantity of 45s players still in existence. You cannot change a standard in a non-backward-compatible fashion just because you stop producing the reader; that wouldn't be good marketing.

[Arran]

the 70s "stereo" console we had used a 1" cylinder with included mechanism for changing 45s. We could stack 10-15 of them. the mechanism was WAY BETTER then the slanted stack rod used for the LPs. Even as a young kid I recognized that. Although we never had issues with non-changing LPs, but the drop seemed to be more prone to damage the record than the way it fell on the 45s.

regarding changing the standard for smaller holes. that would have made little sense. A big part of the market for singles has always been the jukebox company, until they made CD ones; about when 45s stopped being produced. Making 45s with smaller holes would have been incompatible with jukes still in operation, plus a certain quantity of 45s players still in existence. You cannot change a standard in a non-backward-compatible fashion just because you stop producing the reader; that wouldn't be good marketing.

If jukeboxes were the only ones who needed the 1'' hole why burden the other 80% of the market with them, make the 45s with a 1/4 inch hole standard and punch 1'' holes for the jukes. It wasn't unusual for the record industry to produce special format records, Seeburg used to make a commercial music system for use in stores or factories that used 16-1/2 RPM records, about 12 inches across, but with a 1'' hole. Or they could have made them like they did in Britain and elsewhere, punch them out with a standard 1/4'' hole but with a 1'' knock out simialr to what you would find in an electrical box.
As I also mentioned it never made any sense to me to manufacture these records with a 45 RPM speed, if they had made them at 33-1/3 RPM they could have reduced the size. The whole format just seems stupid to me, it seems like they just made a different record for the sake of making something different. It's like the original Highway Hi-Fi records that Chrysler developed with Columbia for 1956-57, they made the records and players at 16-1/2 RPM with an 8'' disk I believe, they sold a number of machines but the format quickly died because of the limited music selection since Columbia was the only manufacturer. Then they brought the idea back in 1960 using the 45 RPM format, it faired a little better since there was more selection but the player was only really useful if you either parked the car or were driving down a really smooth road.
Regards
Arran

[Marsupial]

It makes as much sense as having VHS and Beta, or blu-ray and HDDVD...

but once the standard is out, changing it would make even les sense. While we might not agree about having the standard to begin with, changing it wouldn't make more sense.

Technically, if the record spins faster, don't you have a better "resolution" to store data, so "better sound quality"? Or am I thinking too digitally here.?

[Arran]

It makes as much sense as having VHS and Beta, or blu-ray and HDDVD...

but once the standard is out, changing it would make even les sense. While we might not agree about having the standard to begin with, changing it wouldn't make more sense.

Technically, if the record spins faster, don't you have a better "resolution" to store data, so "better sound quality"? Or am I thinking too digitally here.?

With digital it's the sampling rate and with magnetic tape it's inches per second, but it doesn't seem to hold true with records even though one would think it should. The 33-1/3 singles (not common but do exist) are considered high fidelity but I've never heard anyone classify 45 RPM singles that way. Maybe I'm a bit tone deaf but I can't really disern a difference in sound quality between a 33-1/3 RPM LP and a 45 RPM single all conditions being equal. Nobody would argue that a 78 has higher fidelity then an LP but 78 rpm records are not microgroove either. I've never had a 16-1/2 RPM record so I can't comment on those, they seem to have been most popular for transcription records or for issuing recordings of radio programs, the last 16-1/2 RPM records that I saw were for the U.S Armed Forces radio network. I guess if they were seen as a good enough format for rebroadcasting radio programs the fidelity couldn't have been that bad.
Regards
Arran

[Doug Houston]

It's all ancient history now, but when Emile Berliner invented the disc record, I don't think he ever thought of them being changed by some mechanism.

Disc records were sold for years before someone finally devised a gadget for handling the discs for the listener. By the end of the twenties, there were several changers, some of them so-so, and others even worse.

In 1939, the idea was finally made to design a record that was designed to be changed, and a changer to do it. That was the whole idea behind the 45 RPM system. WW II came on, and the new record system had to be shelved for the duration. As I've already said, shellac discs were selling well, and Sarnoff just left the new record system on the shelf. He could have scooped Goldmark, but just failed to make a good decision. Sarnoff, like most industrial moguls, laid quite a few eggs.

It became hard to buy just one selection from a LP format, even though it was done on 45 as well as LP. The stores just said that it wasn't available as a single, but most tunes were. The store wanted you to buy the $5 lp instead of the $1 45 RPM.

Actually, Goldmark's idea was a good idea, using a standard turntable speed, but his discs were STILL not designed to be changed. The Philco player was supposed to be able to play the equivalent of a stack of records on one disc, but of course, the public began to want a changer for those, too. They got clumsy in many forms.

By the way, Columbia DID have a 7 inch single play disc, for a short time in 1949, but it fizzled. I have a couple.

[Arran]

It's all ancient history now, but when Emile Berliner invented the disc record, I don't think he ever thought of them being changed by some mechanism.

Disc records were sold for years before someone finally devised a gadget for handling the discs for the listener. By the end of the twenties, there were several changers, some of them so-so, and others even worse.

In 1939, the idea was finally made to design a record that was designed to be changed, and a changer to do it. That was the whole idea behind the 45 RPM system. WW II came on, and the new record system had to be shelved for the duration. As I've already said, shellac discs were selling well, and Sarnoff just left the new record system on the shelf. He could have scooped Goldmark, but just failed to make a good decision. Sarnoff, like most industrial moguls, laid quite a few eggs.

It became hard to buy just one selection from a LP format, even though it was done on 45 as well as LP. The stores just said that it wasn't available as a single, but most tunes were. The store wanted you to buy the $5 lp instead of the $1 45 RPM.

Actually, Goldmark's idea was a good idea, using a standard turntable speed, but his discs were STILL not designed to be changed. The Philco player was supposed to be able to play the equivalent of a stack of records on one disc, but of course, the public began to want a changer for those, too. They got clumsy in many forms.

By the way, Columbia DID have a 7 inch single play disc, for a short time in 1949, but it fizzled. I have a couple.

They also had 33-1/3 singles in the 1970s and 80s, not common but I have one or two. Believe it or not those 33-1/3 singles have made a comeback in some circles, they prefer records at discos and nightclubs because the low end is supposedly better then the digital crap.
Regards
Arran

[Jayce]

My jukebox is designed to play both 45s and LP singles or perhaps they were 7 inch EPs? Not sure, but it can switch speeds. Personally, I prefer 45s over LPs for sound. There might be something to the old saying that speed equals fidelity. I have often found that the same song on 45 sounds crisper than the LP version. On a similar note, I have a couple early rock and roll singles on both 45 and 78! One pair is worn almost the same, yet the 78 version actually rocks harder than the 45 version. Never thought the Witch Doctor song could sound so good.