 |
 |
Hi Mickey: More good info again! If this photo shows the studio: http://www.mainspringpress.com/studio_specht.jpg the recording horn seems to be about 2 feet diameter at the bell and maybe 1 foot diameter at the beginning of the throat. It seems to me that wouldn't be able to capture low-frequency waves, but there we have them on that Rienzi recording. Here is another look at the Columbia studio, said to be 1921: http://www.mainspringpress.com/studio_ColumbiaO.jpg I would assume the photographer moved out to a corner to capture this view, in which case the room doesn't seem large enough to accomodate 90 musicians. -- Tom Fine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mickey Clark" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 2:35 PM 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 > >