Print

Print


Going back to the 78 era, HMV 78s were superior to th
Another paradox!

Going back to the 78 era, HMV 78s were superior to their RCA counterparts, (however, I believe Columbia "Viva~Tonal" pressings were always superior to English pressings).  The surfaces were quieter and there was less likely to be wow from an eccentric pressing.  But 50 years later, the surfaces didn't hold up and HMV pressings were much noisier than RCAs of the same disc and the British labels, which looked very classy when they were new, are now almost unreadable because they've faded.  The sound on both versions was identical because the RCAs were pressed from English stampers but today I'll take a Canadian or US RCA or Columbia 78 pressing over an English pressing of the same record.

db



>________________________________
> From: Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:28:30 AM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Bass less reissues from England,U.S.  Record club versions
> 
>
>That from a company that did fantastic work in their studios, and
>high-quality classical location recording. This echoes the situation with
>Columbia; often amazing productions were excessively compromised in disc
>mastering.
>
>What was it about the corporate cultures or shop floor realities in these
>American companies that caused this division? I've had the notion that in
>the early days, there was more unity of purpose, where all steps along the
>production chain were engaged in proving the quality of microgroove and
>stereo. Eventually, maybe because of the shear growth in volume of work or a
>sense of the mastering departments being second-class citizens in the
>engineering hierarchies, mastering became just overhead rather than an
>element in the creative process.
>
>If so, why or how did the English companies maintain a higher standard? Were
>they driven by different estimations of the demands of their market, or was
>it more something internal to the company cultures that supported better
>craftsmanship?
>
>There may be a historical element, too. Before tape, the lathe operator was
>a part of the session, right there with the artists. After, they were off in
>the back rooms, anonymous workers. Had to hurt if you started in the studios
>in 1940 and ended in the basement in 1980. Some of this dark spirit seems to
>have carried over into CD mastering.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Donald Clarke
>Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:09 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Bass less reissues from England,U.S. Record club
>versions
>
>On Jul 13, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Steven Smolian wrote:
>
>At one point I was working on a classical reissue project that had to be
>mastered, by contract, by the Capitol engineering staff in the U.S.  What I
>sent out and what I got back were quite different- less bass from Capitol
>and more compression.  
>
>============
>
>In 1989 I leased a classical recording made in 1970 from EMI in London for
>release on CD. There had been a digital transfer, issued on an Angel LP in
>the USA, but not on CD, and I asked EMI to find that so I wouldn't have to
>pay for a new transfer. They faxed Hollywood and back came a transfer of
>some old safety copy or something: unusable. They told me in London that no
>matter what they asked for from Capitol it was never right. We made a new
>transfer in the basement at Abbey Road.
>
>Donald Clarke
>
>
>