Best sounding acoustic record label

[smitharthur]

Now that I am somewhat more experienced at listening to acoustic 78's, I think I can say that I much prefer the sound quality of Victor Records. The early Columbia's, to me, sound not as lively, and have a significant amount of noise. The bulk of my collection is Victor and Columbia. And maybe I prefer the artists and genre diversity of the Victor label. But as far as sound quality goes, I do much prefer the sound of the Victors, the batwings in particular. The pre-batwings seem to suffer from the same quirks the Columbia's do.

Is this common knowledge? Or, am I way off here?

[edisonplayer]

I like the acoustic Brunswick records.Also the acoustic OKehs.edisonplayer

[Orchorsol]

Some of the late acoustic Harmony records are stunningly good. I believe they used the final and much improved Columbia acoustic recording system that was made obsolete almost immediately by the advent of electrical recording, and being Columbia's budget label, continued with it until sometime in 1929.

[Wolfe]

Brunswick - bright and clear.

Okeh and Harmony - full sound, suprising amount of "bass" on some.

Edison DD - usually good as long as record surface is.

Victor - I like the forward sound of early Victors. Most Batwings don't impress me sound wise, sometimes having weird peaky frequency response and recessed sound. The odd one can sound good.

Fonotipia - I don't own a lot of these, I have some. Others I've heard via CD transfers. Seems to be pretty reliably good sound for acoustically recorded records.

[smitharthur]

What do you think of the Columbia's?

[Wolfe]

What do you think of the Columbia's?

I guess you're asking me .

Hit or miss for Columbia. If you get decent recording quality and quiet record surface. Early 1920's Columbia's can have both. The acoustically recorded Viva-Tonal style label Columbia's before they were Viva-Tonal. Some are very good.

[smitharthur]

Yes. I think a lot of it comes down to the recording process, the horn inside the studio, and the amount of abrasive material that was used in the shellac itself. But to my ears, the Columbia's I have listened to have a lot of surface noise and hiss present.

[Wolfe]

I'm basing my pronouncements on listening to these on modern equipment, not how they sound on old cranker ups. You're mileage may differ, depending on what you use.

[Wolfe]

Yes. I think a lot of it comes down to the recording process, the horn inside the studio, and the amount of abrasive material that was used in the shellac itself. But to my ears, the Columbia's I have listened to have a lot of surface noise and hiss present.

Yes, Gold Band label Columbia's, Symphony Series, Magic Notes label, all tend to have a high degree of surface noise. Columbia seemed to have got that sorted by the early 1920's.

Some of the Symphony Series are the most frustrating. The record surface is just abysmal and a chore to try to get the music out from under it.

[smitharthur]

Correct. I listen on my restored, rebuilt Victor the 8th, with an Exhibition soundbox that is completely rebuilt, and medium tone needles. I do have a supply of Recoton needles that could prove fun for A/B comparisons and testing.