[78-L] Columbia classics

[Royal Pemberton]

I've not heard many classicals by either Columbia or Victor, but of what few
I've heard the worst sound I've found was on some 1940s Victors, where they
went OTT with limiters and as a result, massed ensemble passages are a
congested mess.

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 3:15 AM, David Lennick <dlennick at sympatico.ca>wrote:

> Michael Biel wrote:
> > From: samhopper at mail.com
> >> I totally disagree with your comments re: Columbia orchestra recordings.
> >> After writing 250 pages of my pet project - the Columbia Masterworks 78
> >> rpm discography and having listened to hundreds of Col. recordings -
> >> I can say that there are countless excellent electrical recordings
> >> released by Columbia of US orchestras!
> http://masterworks.gramophile.com/
> >
> > And that discography is coming along great.  I will be providing
> > additional info and photos in a little while.  I have 4 or 5 of the
> > first dozen of the acoustical albums.  And yesterday I finally got a
> > chance to see and photograph the Kosty-Godfrey Peter and the Wolf MM
> > 1034.  Didn't get to listen to them to compare with the LPs.  I think
> > these past two weeks I have solidified my worldwide reputation as that
> > guy who comes to sound archives to look at the records instead of
> > listening to them.
> >
> > From: DAVID BURNHAM <burnhamd at rogers.com>
> >>> When Sony issued the Mitropolous recording of Mahler's 1st Symphony
> >>> and some Bruno Walter recordings by NYPO, they proved there was a
> >>> lot more quality tucked away in the master grooves than was ever
> >>> evident on the issued 78s.
> >
> > I think these were reprocessed by Seth Winner, and he gave an ARSC
> > presentation about these.  Considering playback equipment in the 40s was
> > not anything at all like we now have, it is obvious that the dubbed 78s
> > can not compare.  It has been my experience that the sound quality of
> > different transfers to the 78s can sound vastly different.  I noticed
> > that many decades ago when comparing two copies of one of the Rathbone
> > dramas, and this has led me to check every alternate copy I've come
> > across to see if the numbers are different.
> >
> > Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com
> >
>
> I believe the Mahler 1 was transferred from lacquers that had not
> previously
> been used as source material. Dave Burnham is correct that many Columbia
> orchestral recordings are bloody awful in their 78 incarnations. My
> experience
> is that the earliest ones, in late 1939, may have been direct 78 cuts with
> 33RPM safeties being made simultaneously but that they switched to 33rpm
> originals as sources not long after, necessitating dubs. Rodzinski's
> "Scheherazade" and Tchaikovsky 5th sound fabulous on early 78 pressings.
> Columbia's recordings of the Minneapolis Symphony from the same period are
> shrill and unlistenable. The Mahler 1 on 78s has a climax that sounds like
> a
> car crash and for some reason, later pressings were never made from new
> transfers but from the original 1941 dubs. I've never listened to "Karma".
> Their late 20s recordings of Damrosch and the New York Symphony are no
> great
> hell either but no worse than Brunswicks, and Victor made some pretty bad
> orchestral recordings in those days as well, like the Detroit Symphony
> records
> under Gabrilowitsch where they used a portable cutter that fluttered when
> large
> waxes were placed on it.
>
> Columbia also had some pretty mediocre playback equipment in the early 40s,
> and
> there's a Music & Arts CD that has a photo of Leopold Stokowski listening
> to
> one of his playbacks and probably re-equalizing the living daylights out of
> it.
> Wonder if it was Cowell's "Tales of Our Countryside"?
>
> dl
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>