Print

Print


On 22/06/2012, Jon Samuels wrote:

> It isn't an easy question to answer as to which was better at RCA,
> tape or disc. In 1949 recordings, I never found both a metal part and
> a tape for the same matrix. Some were missing both, and only existed
> in tape dubs. The 1949 and 1950 metal parts did not have the tell-tale
> sign of starting up surface noise at the beginning of the disc, which
> would indicate a dub, but that's not in and of itself absolute proof
> that they not dubs from tape. Most 1949 recordings, tape or disc, did
> not have particularly good sound. Sound in 1950 was better on both
> tape and discs. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that the 1949
> disc recordings were not dubbed from tape, but that the 1950 disc
> recordings were. As far as comparing 1950 tapes to 1947 metals (the
> last known year for recording only onto disc), I'd say the tape sound
> is marginally better. Some 1947 metals have fantastic sound, but the
> 1950 tapes are more uniformly good. And tape sound
> improved from 1950 through 1953 (when RCA starting recording
> binaurally).
> 
> As a tangentially related point, when RCA made simultaneous lacquer
> and wax disc recordings (which was not done uniformly at RCA like it
> was done at Columbia), the lacquer discs are noticeably sonically
> superior.
> 
Interesting. Thanks.

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
[log in to unmask]