Superiority of Columbia records

[Torjazzer]

One of my favourite records is Casa Loma Stomp by the Casa Loma Orchestra. The same session was pressed both on Brunswick and Columbia, with the pseudonym Louis' Harlem Stompers used as the band's name for the Columbia pressing. After a few back-to-back sound tests on the Credenza I've discovered that the superiority of the Columbia is astounding.
The Brunswick is flat with a strange echo that suggests the session was made at a live venue. The Columbia is much more balanced with a nice separation between the ranges.

[Wolfe]

Maybe the Brunswick is a dub. Or the metal parts were worn by the time it was pressed.

Brunswick's and Columbia's of the period are both very good, and one may be better than the other depending on the quality of the particular recording.

[Harold Aherne]

"Casa Loma Stomp" was recorded by Columbia's OKeh division (and originally issued on OK 41492), which has consistently enjoyed a good reputation among collectors for the quality of its work.

Here's the UK Parlophone pressing for comparison purposes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf9T7SWSPk4

The Columbia disc, which is a 1932 reissue, shows the control number (W100464) assigned to the Harmony pressing (1271-H) of "Casa Loma Stomp". Quite a bit of OKeh material was being shared with the Harmony group of labels by the early 30s.

[Torjazzer]

"Casa Loma Stomp" was recorded by Columbia's OKeh division (and originally issued on OK 41492), which has consistently enjoyed a good reputation among collectors for the quality of its work.

Here's the UK Parlophone pressing for comparison purposes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf9T7SWSPk4

The Columbia disc, which is a 1932 reissue, shows the control number (W100464) assigned to the Harmony pressing (1271-H) of "Casa Loma Stomp". Quite a bit of OKeh material was being shared with the Harmony group of labels by the early 30s.

Thank you for that. It's certainly more information than I was able to garner from Rust's book. That's a great clip you supplied.

[Cody K]

I'm always glad to find something good on a Viva-Tonal record. They're so forgiving of scuffs and scrapes, and when in really good condition, even a so-so title seems to sound better on them. Even just when handling them, they feel less brittle and more resilient than ordinary shellacs. I'm a big fan.

[ImperialGuardsman]

I'm always glad to find something good on a Viva-Tonal record. They're so forgiving of scuffs and scrapes, and when in really good condition, even a so-so title seems to sound better on them. Even just when handling them, they feel less brittle and more resilient than ordinary shellacs. I'm a big fan.

I have experienced the same with my few Viva-Tonal records. I have a rather worn looking copy of "Me and my shadow" by the Columbians that has less surface noise than many of my great looking Victor scrolls (it is also a very clear and snappy recording). I have a couple of blue shellac ones that are near silent too.

[larryh]

My experience with electrical releases is that Columbia records can be very fine in sound and surface. The classical releases of Brunswick are close to awful in comparison.. The acoustic era popular Brunswicks are quite good and Columbia also has a somewhat more full sound to the classics.

Larry

[beaumonde]

Most of the classical issues on both the Columbia and Brunswick labels in the late 20s-early 30s period were licensed British and European recordings (English Columbia and Polydor) and were somewhat variable, but generally quite good.

[Cody K]

Just now, I played a Harmony record of about 1925, and noticed again how like it is to the laminated Columbias of around those years. It has the same heft, and much less surface noise than a Victor would in the same -- not great -- condition. This may be something that's common knowledge to everyone but me, but -- did Columbia manufacture records for Harmony in that period? I can't think of a label other than Harmony that has a look, feel and tone so like Columbia.

Adam, I have an incomplete set of, I think, a piece by Grieg (I'd have to look) from 1930 on blue Columbias, and several other classical blue Columbias from the period. They're in very good shape (though we all know looks can deceive), and they sound good, but they seem to give more surface noise than black Columbias of the period in similar condition. Might not mean a thing, though -- my sample size is pretty small, and there are always variables in the quality of the actual masters, plates, batch and so on. So, just an offhand observation about the blues -- they don't sound quite as good as the blacks, to me.

[Wolfe]

Harmony was a budget label made by Columbia. The Harmony records 1925-1930 were (mostly?) acoustical. But very good quality, both on the record surface and recording.

A lot of collectors seem to think the Royal Blue are better than black. To me, they seem about equal, as far as surface noise. Like you said, there will be mitigating factors, including playing wear.