Listen to the thunks. There are NONE at 160 but several sections where
there are 80 RPM thunks. This is the Diamond Disc original, not the
Blue Amberol dub.
Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] That Allelujah chorus cylinder
From: David Lewis <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, September 04, 2014 12:34 pm
To: [log in to unmask]
Not necessarily. The early Edison DDs were made out of material that
were pretty bad for making records. If the disc was in the catalog a
then you may have a chance of finding one on a better pressing. Or if
find a DD that has hardly been played. But the BAs, despite presenting
bag of issues, have slightly friendlier surfaces in a lot of cases.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Malcolm Rockwell <[log in to unmask]>
> Yeah, but... isn't this cylinder a dub of a take of Edison DD 80292-R?
> And wouldn't the fidelity be even better on the "original"??
> On 9/4/2014 12:35 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> Agree that is remarkably good sound for a cylinder!
>> I'm guessing quite a large horn was used and a lot of care was used
>> arranging and balancing the singers.
>> Even so, there's still typical acoustic recording issues with dynamics
>> (over-modulates anything loud, fails to capture anything soft). But the
>> usable dynamic range of this recording system is much greater than early
>> cylinder systems. Again, I'm guessing a large horn and more compliant
>> cutting aparatus.
>> -- Tom Fine
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 1:18 AM
>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] That Allelujah chorus cylinder
>> Hi folks:
>>> I was right -- finding Paul Fucito's page required going to the Wayback
>>> Machine for Dec 16, 2007:
>>> Scroll down to the list of recordings; it's the fourth one down. The
>>> notes suggest it *was* an Edison recording, presumably a Blue Amberol.
>>> Given that it's an acoustical cylinder, delivered as an .mp3, I think the
>>> sound is remarkable.