 |
 |
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]