Could that "dullness" been the fault of the producer rather than the technical staffs?
My experience is more with theatre recordings than anything else, and overall, Columbia did *the* best job in creating show albums, both in sound and concept. Most of them were produced by Goddard Lieberson and his recordings are still treasured for both his recording technique, as well as the quality of sound. And the early stereos were especially vivid.
On Sep 26, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
> What I was always told about Columbia -- and keep in mind this is from the perspective of competitors, although my father did have contact here and there with Columbia over the years, including in the early LP days since Reeves developed their own microgroove system with Fairchild -- was that Columbia was very hidebound and conservative in all matters technical. Their recordings were considered technically "boring" and "dull," although I now thing that was more the fault of their mastering techniques. Columbia never embraced 2- or 3- mic stereo, opting for more mics than Mercury or RCA from the get-go. They also seem to have had some strange procedures and techniques, based on what veterans have said and written. And there seemed to be technical factions, meaning the product was uniform-sounding or consistent.