[78-L] experimental Victor electric?

[Dave Burnham]

And it's a good opinion. But I'm talking about the whole industry - the records and the players. I think the first electric players were plagued with distortion, the earliest LP players suffered from much lower levels, (because the early micro-groove records had micro-waves so the flip-over cartridges were receiving much lower modulation).  The earliest stereo phono cartridges still needed some refining and, of course, the first CD players sounded atrocious. But you're right, the earliest electrical records were generally better than any acoustics, but they never sounded better than they do using the finest modern playback equipment. 

db

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 1, 2015, at 10:29 PM, Rodger Holtin <rjh334578 at gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> Almost agree with your list David, but I've always thought every early electric Victor or Columbia was head and shoulders above any acoustic I ever heard.  The sonic range may not be all the much greater but the fine details of the fainter sounds sure seem to be registered much better; the sibilance of singers or the bite of a fiddle bow, fr'instance.  Just my opinion.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com [mailto:78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] On Behalf Of DAVID BURNHAM
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 12:30 AM
> To: 78-L Mail List
> Subject: Re: [78-L] experimental Victor electric?
> 
> 
> I think you'll find that almost every step forward in audio technology has been prefaced by a step backwards - the first electrics weren't as good as the best accoustics, the first LPs not as good as the best 78s, the first stereos not as good as the best monos and the first digitals not as good as the best analogs, (especially direct to disc analogs).
> db 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l