early electric records sound quality

Discussions on Records, Recording, & Artists
Post Reply
Vinrage_mania
Victor II
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu May 03, 2018 2:03 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

early electric records sound quality

Post by Vinrage_mania »

ok if you have three records a scroll Victor an Okeh ,and a viva Tonal and they are all E- or better condition what is everyone’s opinion which sounds best?......my vote might be Columbia ..... unless you throw in electrically recorded DD or needle cut too then well ;)

User avatar
gramophone-georg
Victor VI
Posts: 3984
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:55 pm
Personal Text: Northwest Of Normal
Location: Eugene/ Springfield Oregon USA

Re: early electric records sound quality

Post by gramophone-georg »

Vinrage_mania wrote:ok if you have three records a scroll Victor an Okeh ,and a viva Tonal and they are all E- or better condition what is everyone’s opinion which sounds best?......my vote might be Columbia ..... unless you throw in electrically recorded DD or needle cut too then well ;)
I have some early Columbia Flag label electrics and the sound plus quiet surface is astounding. OKeh has to be a close second.

I've always been WAY more impressed by Edison's acoustical records than the electrics. The DDs just allow too much side noise due to the vertical recording process and the Needle Types, while a nice curiosity, suffer from crappy shellac IMO.
"He who dies with the most shellac wins"- some nutty record geek

I got PTSD from Peter F's avatar

User avatar
Wolfe
Victor V
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:52 pm

Re: early electric records sound quality

Post by Wolfe »

So many variables to be able to round up that neatly. Played on modern hi-fi kit...

The Victor might win in the bass. I had one going not that long ago, a record that was made in the Church Studio in Camden. Just loads of bass.

The Viva-Tonal for a liquid midrange.

Okeh for palpability. Some of the Viva-Tonals too.

Electric DD. The ones I have sound fine to me. I don't notice anything that outstanding. If I had a fraction of electric DD's as I had of the likes of Victor or Columbia, there might be more examples that I could cite as outstanding. Most DD's I've ever found 'in the wild' are acoustic.

I have a few of the Needle Cuts. As noted above, the sound is good, the shellac is another matter. Edison's earlier electric DD's in 1927-28 were made with General Electric recording gear. Switched to RCA in 1928.

victor 15-1
Victor I
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:50 pm
Personal Text: to own an electrola is a blessing
Location: northeast nj

Re: early electric records sound quality

Post by victor 15-1 »

Vinrage_mania wrote:ok if you have three records a scroll Victor an Okeh ,and a viva Tonal and they are all E- or better condition what is everyone’s opinion which sounds best?......my vote might be Columbia ..... unless you throw in electrically recorded DD or needle cut too then well ;)
Here is an opinion purely personal:
My tastes are slanted because I like heavy bass.
For slightly over recorded bass..the Brunswick 4000 series.
For the best balance Victor (but the 1929-1930 Hal roach studios are delicious to listen to.)
For crispness (almost clinical sounding) Columbias but the quiet surface without the abrasives is nice when they are new but they do not stand up well on period machines even after changing the needle evert time

Only one very biased person's opinion!

estott
Victor Monarch
Posts: 4172
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:23 pm
Personal Text: I have good days...this might not be one of them
Location: Albany NY

Re: early electric records sound quality

Post by estott »

Many Viva Tonal records were made in a comparatively dead studio with little reverb or room tone. This can put the sound very "up front"

User avatar
gramophone-georg
Victor VI
Posts: 3984
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:55 pm
Personal Text: Northwest Of Normal
Location: Eugene/ Springfield Oregon USA

Re: early electric records sound quality

Post by gramophone-georg »

Wolfe wrote:So many variables to be able to round up that neatly. Played on modern hi-fi kit...

The Victor might win in the bass. I had one going not that long ago, a record that was made in the Church Studio in Camden. Just loads of bass.

The Viva-Tonal for a liquid midrange.

Okeh for palpability. Some of the Viva-Tonals too.

Electric DD. The ones I have sound fine to me. I don't notice anything that outstanding. If I had a fraction of electric DD's as I had of the likes of Victor or Columbia, there might be more examples that I could cite as outstanding. Most DD's I've ever found 'in the wild' are acoustic.

I have a few of the Needle Cuts. As noted above, the sound is good, the shellac is another matter. Edison's earlier electric DD's in 1927-28 were made with General Electric recording gear. Switched to RCA in 1928.
If we're talking EARLY electrics (1925-early 26) there's no comparison to me It's Columbia.

Early Victors could be ridiculous. Jack Shilkret's "If You Knew Susie" and Whitey Kaufman's "Padelin' Madeline Home" with the FEEDBACK are not too great, for example. Yes, they had great bass after that but lots of them... especially West Coast records like Herman Kenin... had SO MUCH bass it turned to an annoying bassy crackle after a few playings on period equipment. Then there's the grainy shellac and the patented "hiss" towards the end on lots of them.

Brunswick and Vocalion? Light Ray recordings are often disappointing. King Oliver's "Wa Da Da" is a superb hot record and annoying as hell to listen to. High input is too high with no bass. That tended to happen a lot. Same with early Gennett red label "GE" recordings, "Emersonics", NML electrics, Silvertone "Truphonic", etc. These records suffer from all possible ailments- input too high, craptastic shellac, poor pressing- often off centered, etc. Paramount/ Broadway and Regal suffer from it too. Romeos didn't have the best shellac but the sound is OK.

I had ONE Marsh Labs "Autograph"... Lampe's Orchestra. It even sounded forced and strained on a windup. We could give them a pass since that was 1924 and Marsh was THE pioneer for commercial electrically recorded discs.

But next to the first electric Columbia (and OKeh to a great extent) all the others were just playing.
"He who dies with the most shellac wins"- some nutty record geek

I got PTSD from Peter F's avatar

Vinrage_mania
Victor II
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu May 03, 2018 2:03 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: early electric records sound quality

Post by Vinrage_mania »

I have some Mc Gregor both solle and ingrahm (these are Columbia ARC I think ) when they are in good shape these are real quiet and are indeed very up front sounding ...The bottom end on victor records is at times excessive ,but the 23000 and 24000 series are really nice sounding

Rastus10
Victor I
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:24 pm

Re: early electric records sound quality

Post by Rastus10 »

Ditto what the others have stated in much better detail, especially concerning the earliest Columbia electrics. Case in point, Frank Ferera's St. Louis Blues (339-D) from March 10, 1925--only two weeks after Art Gillham's first electrics, sounding beautifully immediate: much better than the Columbians' sides from only three days previous (ok, unfair to compare recording a band and a Hawaiian guitar). Odd that there is not much else from March 1925 on the Columbia label: the electrics started in earnest around April 4th (guess who? Vernon Dalhart that's right!).

As to Victor, I recently listened to Marguerite Matzenauer's La Golondrina from March 19, 1925, and the carry-over acoustic-era orchestral accompaniment had a depth and immediacy that surprised me. Ditto for John McCormack's Moonlight and Roses from April 23rd with pizzicato coming through nicely (that probably wouldn't register well acoustically) and lush-sounding strings. One of the best early electrics that I can think of.

Not a fan of the Victor New York recordings from mid-1925: too constrained.

Post Reply