More good info again!
If this photo shows the studio:
the recording horn seems to be about 2 feet diameter at the bell and maybe 1 foot diameter at the
beginning of the throat. It seems to me that wouldn't be able to capture low-frequency waves, but
there we have them on that Rienzi recording.
Here is another look at the Columbia studio, said to be 1921:
I would assume the photographer moved out to a corner to capture this view, in which case the room
doesn't seem large enough to accomodate 90 musicians.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Clark" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Acoustical Orchetral Records- A-440, was speaking of pitch
> Hello-I had this reply from Jolyon Hudson which sheds some light on the studio issue in the early
> teens-Mickey Clark
> Dear Mickey
> I was not following that thread on ARSC but decided to do some digging.
> I was wrong on my dates this is because several books are confused over the site of the studio and
> various publications give the Woolworth Building as the site. The offices of Columbia were
> consolidated in the Woolworth's Building in April 1913 and this has led to the belief by some that
> the studio was was also there. Thinking about the architectural construction of this building it
> would be impossible for the studio to be there it would not have been conducive to the other
> tenants to have Prince's band making a racket.
> However the answer lies in the October 1908 edition of Talking Machine World whewre the following
> announcement appears:-
> SECURE LARGER QUARTERS.
> Columbia Phonograph Co. Move Their New York Laboratories to More Commodious Quarters.
> The Columbia Phonograph Co. have secured for a term of years the entire ninth floor of the large
> building occupied by the Joseph W. Stern Publishing Co., on Thirty-eighth street. This building
> was rented for recording purposes after an exhaustive search and examination of hundreds of
> buildings in order to find a place where the acoustic and other conditions would meet the exacting
> requirements in the art of record making.
> Victor T. Emerson, superintendent of the Columbia laboratory, is most enthusiastic over the
> results secured in tests already made. He claims that records made in the new laboratory will be
> notable for their increased brilliancy, distinctness and musical quality. Mr. Emerson is probably
> the best known and most popular record maker in the world. His enthusiasm in the results so far
> secured guarantee that more than unusual success has been attained.
> This is number 102 West 38th street, a building that is still extant. The ninth floor is also the
> top floor of the building, a preferred position for a recording studio I believe. An overhead view
> of the building shows that the ninth floor appears to be in two part with the back of the building
> with skylights. I now think it was here that the recording were made from the end of 1908 until
> the beginning of electrical recording. A couple of views of this studio can be found here
> http://www.mainspringpress.com/studio_photos.html.With a crush 90 people could have been
> Someone local maybe could go and knock on the door and try and find out if the layout survives> I
> won't be back in NY until April next year myself to check it out.
> Kind regards
> Follow me on Twitter
> M.C.Productions Vintage Recordings
> 710 Westminster Ave. West
> Penticton BC
> V2A 1K8
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 7:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Acoustical Orchetral Records- A-440, was speaking of pitch
>> On 5/3/2015 6:58 PM, Steve Smolian wrote:
>>> Absolutely none of the group of orchestras that recording for Victor
>>> around this time have shown up in the throes of recording in any
>>> photographs. It astounds me that such monumental occassions were not
>>> taken down at the time. The same holds for Chicago and Cincinnati on
>>> Columbia around that time.
>>> The earliest ones I've found, obviously posed, are in the teacher's
>>> manual for the Ginn & Co set of New York Philharmonic records in 1923.
>> It should be remembered that the technology of photography in the early 20th century was
>> comparatively primitive. Photographing indoors without an elaborate lighting apparatus was quite
>> difficult, since the average photographic sheet film or plate had about the equivalent exposure
>> index (ASA to fellow veterans) of about 5. Maximum apertures on the view cameras of the day were
>> typically about f/5.6, so the exposure time *in bright sunlight* would have been on the order of
>> 1/40 sec. qith the lens wide open (where it wouldn't perform all that well), or maybe f/11 at
>> 1/10 for better lens performance. And the long focal lengths of typical "normal" lenses of the
>> time gave little depth of field. Shooting indoors during a recording session? Forget it. Unless
>> you used flash powder, which didn't exactly blend well with a musical performance.
>> By the 1920s, handheld smaller-format cameras were beginning to hit the market (the Ermanox even
>> had a lens with a maximum aperture of f/2). But films were still dreadfully slow -- ASA 32 was
>> considered a high speed film. Candid photography was still a very troublesome endeavour until,
>> propelled mostly by the movie industry, more sensitive films were introduced in the 1930s and
>> 1940s. The great years of candid photography followed.
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.