 |
 |
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 >>> >>> >>> >>