Print

Print


MD5 issues.

To get the BWF to show with its data in Wavelab 8.5, it is necessary to
click on BWF in Izotope RX4 (or a similar program?)

To get theMD5 number to show in Wavelab 8.5, it is necessary to go to Edi>.
Metadata>. Tab to and click on MD5. Click the check box.  This generated the
checksum number but it won't show.

To get the number to show in the metadata portion of the screen, it is
necessary to save the file, then reopen it.  When reopened, the number shows
and can be copied.

Phew!

Steve Smolian

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Smolian
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Acoustical Orchetral Records- A-440, was speaking of
pitch

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