I am not sure what you mean by "bookish comprehensive resolve" but with
respect to Columbia vs. Victor:

Munves's observation referred to production at the two labels. Until 1939,
when it was purchased by CBS, the Columbia Phonograph Co. had a rather high
quality product that didn't sell as well as Victor. Immediately following
the sale, the plating in the three-step metalwork of post-1939 Columbias
was cheapened and the introduction of mastering on 33-1/3rpm acetate
lacquer blanks made the subsequent development of a long-playing record
possible in 1947-48, but the dubbing of every approved take from slow speed
to 78rpm master resulted in an inferior sounding product, and Columbia 78s
from U, S. metals all sounded inferior until the format was abandoned in
1952. Matrices of European manufacture, however, did not have this problem.

Victor's "gold" then "white gold" pressings exhibit a similar decline in
manufactured quality which, fortunately, was limited to pressing quality,
particularly the "wartime" pressings. Vinylite was introduced into the RCA
biscuit immediately after WW2 and their discs from that period are quieter,
but are frequently bad sounding due to the label's mistaken use of audio
limiting in the mastering process.

Columbia's success with the Lp and its marketing strategy led to a rapid
improvement in the label's sales and production quality. Hence, the second
part of Peter Munves's observation.

Ciao,

DDR

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 6:36 AM Railroads On Parade <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Mr. Diehl,
> What is the compositional makeup of post war grunge?  I'm pretty familiar
> with what Carnegie did with the RCA Z recordings, but I've never seen
> anybody breakdown what was being watered down and/or what was being added
> or subtracted.
> The RCA exec R. Peter Munves once told me that Columbia was not so good,
> and then it was good, then it was not so good and RCA was better here than
> there, but I have never gotten any more than that.  I can see and feel the
> difference between Columbia gold band and grey, I can hear differences in
> HMV pressings and Columbia made in France, I am just at a dead end in any
> bookish comprehensive resolve.
> GW
>
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 at 21:45, David Diehl <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > The Haven sessions were re-released on Chronological Classics 1253. They
> > sound pretty clean to me, maybe dubs of test pressings but not typical
> > post-war 78 grunge.
> >
> >  David Diehl
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mickey Clark <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Tue, Nov 29, 2022 7:49 pm
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] acetate and vinylite
> >
> > Hi Guy - I think it would be worth your while to try a transfer with a
> > VRII
> > cartridge. Some records that sound terrible with a stereo cartridge can
> > sound flawless with a true mono cart-Mickey Clark
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Railroads On Parade
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 2:08 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [ARSCLIST] acetate and vinylite
> >
> > After searching around for a good sounding Bill De Arango/Ben Webster 78
> > Mr.Brim and Dark Corners it occurred to me that after listening to one on
> > youtube as rough sounding as mine, and the only transcription I have been
> > able to find, a better transcription might not exist.  I don't see the
> > recordings were ever transferred (please prove me wrong) but what also
> came
> > to mind is, the different formulas (I assume) of acetates, shellacs and
> > vinylite and any documentation of what they were and who used them and
> > when?
> > My copy and the one on youtube both appear to the eye as new, but sound
> as
> > if they are not.  It simply comes to mind that maybe the mix of the stuff
> > used to press the disc was inferior?
> > Guy Walker
> >
>


-- 
1006 Langer Way
Delray Beach, FL 33483
561.265.2976