Acutally, measurement is a component of the factors for determining
differences in performance. So are timings.

I asked for time at the last ARSC conference to do a session on this but,
when I got to work on it, the time required to set up the topic alone would
have had me run over the 20 or 30 minutes allowed.

Should this be a workshop to preceed the the next conference?

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Seubert" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] take numbers on emerson records


> James, George Dick et al.
>
> Thanks for your help here. Every company is different, but I'm always
> skeptical that I'm misinterpreting the data if I find too many alternate
> takes (except Edison). Above about 10% in a given run of 78s like Emerson
> where I don't know the system used for designating takes, I usually
> question if what I think are take numbers are stamper numbers or
> something.
>
> I've never really relied on aural comparison (though it is obvious in
> some cases, see:
> http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/search.php?queryType=@attr%201=1020&query=cylinder4373&num=1&start=1&sortBy=&sortOrder=id) .
> I don't trust my ears enough to detect the often slight variations
> between takes. In the acoustic era it's not exactly like different
> versions of The Dead doing Dark Star (though many would say these all
> sound the same too, I suppose), but aural memory is notoriously
> unreliable.
>
> My method is usually to lay the edge of a piece of paper across the
> center hole of the disc and mark the beginning and end of the grooves.
> Then I lay this paper on the other disc and see if they match. Even if
> one take is only a few seconds shorter or longer it will be obviously
> different as even a couple of grooves difference is noticable.
>
> I'm sure George's method works too, but the paper and pencil method is
> very quick and we are essentially measuring the same thing in different
> ways.
>
> David
>
> On Jun 19, 2009, at 11:15 AM, James L Wolf wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> I've worked a lot with Emersons in the LOC's collection, and while we
>> don't have many duplicates of the same record so that I could aurally
>> compare different takes, I did notice that the matrix information (e.g.
>> 3391-1) was usually matched by the known discographical information.
>> Which, of course, only means that previous discographers have taken that
>> matrix info to be take-number information, but that may count for
>> something.
>>
>> Furthermore, for the acoustic era I don't see anything odd about one
>> copy have 2 first takes and another having a second/third takes. I've
>> seen similar situations on many labels in the acoustic era; Victor,
>> Columbia, Edison, etc.
>>
>> Until something definitive comes along saying otherwise, I think it
>> would be safest to assume that the matrix information refers to the take
>> number.
>>
>> James
>>>>> David Seubert <[log in to unmask]> 6/19/2009 1:42 PM >>>
>>
>> I'm de-duping a stack of 9" Emerson discs and in the dead wax there is
>> what appears to be a matrix followed by a take number. However, there
>> are too many different take numbers for me to believe they are take
>> numbers. For example, I have one copy of #9118 with 3391-1/3397-1 and
>> another with 3391-2/3397-3. Are these stampers? Does anybody know how to
>> distinguish alternate takes on Emerson discs?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>> --
>> David Seubert, Curator
>> Performing Arts Collection
>> Davidson Library
>> University of California
>> Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9010
>> Tel: 805-893-5444 Fax: 805-893-5749
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/collections/pa/