Sound Quality- Columbia Compared To Victor

[smitharthur]

Is it me, or do Columbia records seem to have more surface noise, hiss, compared to Victor Records? Also, do the Victor's seem to have better, more pronounced highs?

[edisonplayer]

I've found that Columbia records around A3300 have a tendency to grainy surfaces.If you can get later copies with the Flag or Viva Tonal type labels they sound excellent. edisonplayer.

[smitharthur]

If I am not mistaken, Victor records were made from pure shellac, while the Columbia's used what looks like a paper mache filler material on the inside. Wonder if the abrasive material was also different?!

[Inigo]

I've noticed the same. But to my ears, Columbias as A2500s sound better (the recordings, not the surfaces) than Victors 18000s. Columbias seem to me as having a more detailed sound... One never knows, though, as recordings seem to vary depending on the engineer who made them... And to my ears, in general, the best acoustics seem to be the late Harmonys and those made by Columbia with their improved acoustic process and laminated surfaces of 1925-1929, but these are later products, anachronic per se... Also certain acoustic Okehs seem to sound pretty good, almost like electricals... I also find electrical Okehs as being among the best recorded, with a very life like sound.

[smitharthur]

I haven't heard that much variance from one brand's catalog range to another. But in the case of Victor batwings, to my ears, they sound the best on my Victrola.

[recordmaker]

Victor records are what was termed solid stock about 25% shellac and the remaining 75% mineral filler and carbon black.
Solid stock materials can be more or less noisy depending on the quality of the shellac an fillers and the idea that cotton fibers would strengthen the record sometimes leads to microscopic water damage if stored in damp conditions.
Records made in the period where the price of disc was quite high ( 1908 -1915) and where there were no wartime material shortages tend to be a bit more shellac rich and if not worn will be quite quiet.
In the acoustic period I think that Victor and HMV favored recording the higher frequencies with smallish mica diaphragms and close up smaller horns ( I have internal Gramophone co documents that show this)

Columbia seem to favour a larger sound and sacrifice some of the top frequencies and the "close mic" effect for a fuller more theatrical feeling.
There are a few UK studio pictures, for example of a vocal trio recording a song from the Bing Boys in about 1916 shows a single large horn much bigger than anything that victor or HMV would have used at he same time and the recorders were typically glass diaphragms with larger diameters than HMV/Victor.

Columbia used solid stock very early on and went over to laminated discs (which have a very ground fine filler shellac mixture on a paper layer and a cheaper stronger core material) I am not sure when they did this possibly before 1908 this should allow the surface to be vey high quality as very little shellac is needs and the cost of grinding the filler very fine is also reduced due to the small quantiles needed.
However the handling of these materials and processing is more difficult and up until 1923 the process seems to have been a little hit and miss the whole process was refined radically in 1923 by William Forze in the UK at Columbia and the promise of silent surfaces by this method was achieved I also think they improved the recording wax and at the same time or at least the shaving as the surfaces maintain a mirror finish in the pressing.

In short the Victor/HMV recording balance compensates for some solid stock noise (a bit like dolby)
The Columbia recordings are possibly a bit less clear to start with and don't benefit from the laminated record process until 1923.

[smitharthur]

Not to mention, in their day, Victor seemed to have most of the "bread and butter" top artists under contract, while Columbia seemed to have relatively few by comparison.

I often find myself making that cheesy Victor percussion sound of the 20's records. So iconic!

[Wolfe]

Columbia used solid stock very early on and went over to laminated discs (which have a very ground fine filler shellac mixture on a paper layer and a cheaper stronger core material) I am not sure when they did this possibly before 1908 this should allow the surface to be vey high quality as very little shellac is needs and the cost of grinding the filler very fine is also reduced due to the small quantiles needed.
However the handling of these materials and processing is more difficult and up until 1923 the process seems to have been a little hit and miss the whole process was refined radically in 1923 by William Forze in the UK at Columbia

The termed "New Process" records.

[smitharthur]

The Columbia records, by and large, seem so cheaply made. The only exception I have found to this have been a 12" "exclusive artist" Columbia, which is also quite thicker than any others I have seen.

[Wolfe]

Those can vary, those Banner label Columbias. "Exclusive Artist" ones or not. Some are very thick, some not as much. Many frustratingly noisy, though not all.