Print

Print


Mal,

Not necessarily. The early Edison DDs were made out of material that IMHO
were pretty bad for making records. If the disc was in the catalog a long
time,
then you may have a chance of finding one on a better pressing. Or if you
find a DD that has hardly been played. But the BAs, despite presenting
their own
bag of issues, have slightly friendlier surfaces in a lot of cases.

UD



On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Malcolm Rockwell <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> 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"??
> Malcolm
>
> *******
>
>
> 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:
>>>
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20071216110008/http://
>>> paulfucito.blogspot.com/2007/12/vintage-christmas-wax-revisited.html
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Peace,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>