Print

Print


Call off the dogs.  Found it today at the bottom of the metadata  list in
Wavelab.  I swear it wasn't there Saturday.  Refreshed over the weekend?
I'm blind?  Anyway, thatks for the input.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mickey Clark
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Acoustical Orchetral Records- A-440, was speaking of
pitch

He,Steve - Basically, playing it slow improves the sound immensely. There
was a ninth floor studio(below) at Joseph Stern Publishing - most likely
there. - Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Acoustical Orchetral Records- A-440, was speaking of
pitch


> Hi, Mickey,
>
> Thanks for the Price Rienzi.   Interesting sound.  I've not had the tome 
> to
> run my own copy to see what I can coax out of it here, but yourt's 
> shows they weren't just boasting.  I wonder where they recorded it to 
> get 90 guys into a room?
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mickey Clark
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 2:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Acoustical Orchetral Records- A-440, was 
> speaking of pitch
>
> Hello-I had this reply from Jolyon Hudson which sheds some light on 
> the studio issue in the early teens-Mickey Clark
>
>
> Dear Mickey
>
>
> I was not following that thread on ARSC but decided to do some digging.
>
>
> I was wrong on my dates this is because several books are confused 
> over the site of the studio and various publications give the 
> Woolworth Building as the site. The offices of Columbia were 
> consolidated in the Woolworth's Building in April 1913 and this has 
> led to the belief by some that the studio was was also there. Thinking 
> about the architectural construction of this building it would be 
> impossible for the studio to be there it would not
>
> have been conducive to the other tenants to have Prince's band making 
> a racket.
>
>
> However the answer lies in the October 1908 edition of Talking Machine 
> World
>
> whewre the following announcement appears:-
>
>
> SECURE LARGER QUARTERS.
>
>
> Columbia Phonograph Co. Move Their New York Laboratories to More 
> Commodious Quarters.
>
>
> The Columbia Phonograph Co. have secured for a term of years the entire
> ninth floor of the large building occupied by the Joseph W. Stern 
> Publishing
>
> Co., on Thirty-eighth street. This building was rented for recording
> purposes after an exhaustive search and examination of hundreds of 
> buildings
>
> in order to find a place where the acoustic and other conditions would 
> meet
> the exacting requirements in the art of record making.
>
>
> Victor T. Emerson, superintendent of the Columbia laboratory, is most
> enthusiastic over the results secured in tests already made. He claims 
> that
> records made in the new laboratory will be notable for their increased
> brilliancy, distinctness and musical quality. Mr. Emerson is probably the
> best known and most popular record maker in the world. His enthusiasm in 
> the
>
> results so far secured guarantee that more than unusual success has been
> attained.
>
>
> This is number 102 West 38th street, a building that is still extant. The
> ninth floor is also the top floor of the building, a preferred position 
> for
> a recording studio I believe. An overhead view of the building shows that
> the ninth floor appears to be in two part with the back of the building 
> with
>
> skylights. I now think it was here that the recording were made from the 
> end
>
> of 1908 until the beginning of electrical recording. A couple of views of
> this studio can be found here
> http://www.mainspringpress.com/studio_photos.html.With a crush 90 people
> could have been accommodated.
>
>
> Someone local maybe could go and knock on the door and try and find out if
> the layout survives> I won't be back in NY until April next year myself to
> check it out.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> Jols
>
>
>
>
> Follow me on Twitter
> https://twitter.com/MickeyRClark
> M.C.Productions Vintage Recordings
>    710 Westminster Ave. West
>             Penticton BC
>                V2A 1K8
>            1-250-462-7881
>    http://mcproductions.ca
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 7:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Acoustical Orchetral Records- A-440, was speaking 
> of
>
> pitch
>
>
>> On 5/3/2015 6:58 PM, Steve Smolian wrote:
>>> Absolutely none of the group of orchestras that recording for Victor
>>> around this time have shown up in the throes of recording in any
>>> photographs.  It astounds me that such monumental occassions were not
>>> taken down at the time. The same holds for Chicago and Cincinnati on
>>> Columbia around that time.
>>>
>>> The earliest ones I've found, obviously posed, are in the teacher's
>>> manual for the Ginn & Co set of New York Philharmonic records in 1923.
>>
>> It should be remembered that the technology of photography in the early
>> 20th century was comparatively primitive. Photographing indoors without 
>> an
>
>> elaborate lighting apparatus was quite difficult, since the average
>> photographic sheet film or plate had about the equivalent exposure index
>> (ASA to fellow veterans) of about 5. Maximum apertures on the view 
>> cameras
>
>> of the day were typically about f/5.6, so the exposure time *in bright
>> sunlight* would have been on the order of 1/40 sec. qith the lens wide
>> open (where it wouldn't perform all that well), or maybe f/11 at 1/10 for
>> better lens performance. And the long focal lengths of typical "normal"
>> lenses of the time gave little depth of field. Shooting indoors during a
>> recording session? Forget it. Unless you used flash powder, which didn't
>> exactly blend well with a musical performance.
>>
>> By the 1920s, handheld smaller-format cameras were beginning to hit the
>> market (the Ermanox even had a lens with a maximum aperture of f/2). But
>> films were still dreadfully slow -- ASA 32 was considered a high speed
>> film. Candid photography was still a very troublesome endeavour until,
>> propelled mostly by the movie industry, more sensitive films were
>> introduced in the 1930s and 1940s. The great years of candid photography
>> followed.
>>
>> Peace,
>> Paul
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
> 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com