The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I'm sure this has been discussed before.
I have been playing with some of my records lately and noticed that the Victors don't sound as good as some of the other brands.
The older Victors sound better than the later ones. Seems like the older single sides have a "fuller sound" than the later 2 side ones.
The Columbia Disc label (1 sided) records seem to be much louder than their Victor contemporaries.
This is a subjective opinion and there are many variables involved, such as record wear, type of music, date of recording, etc.
The only constant is a rebuilt sound box, playing the Victor IV, and a new medium tone needle each playing.
Just some thoughts.-Howard

Is this just a comparison of Victor and Columbia?

I agree that older acoustical Victors can often sound better than later, though not always.

Columbia's sound improved in the 1920's, especially as the records tend not to be as noisy, but IMO, many of he acoustic Columbias have a thinner 'canned' sound compared to Victor. A quality that's irritatingly present on those Banner label classical / opera records. Play a Columbia Pablo Casals cello recording for instance and he's like he's coming from the bottom of a well.

Wolfe-
It was mainly a comparison between Victor and Columbia.
It was a small sampling involving maybe 35 records.
The older Columbias (single side "Disc" Record, Columbia Phonograph labels)
vs The Victor "Monarch" labels.
There were some other brands involved also, ie. Climax, Symphony, Odeon.
It seems the earlier Victors sounded better than the "Batwing" label ones.(They sound tinny to me).

Definitely not scientific research!

howardpgh wrote:It seems the earlier Victors sounded better than the "Batwing" label ones.(They sound tinny to me).

Definitely not scientific research!

I'm not terriby impressed with the recording quality of many Batwing era acousticals either. They often sound recessed and with strange peaky resonaces, whereas the earlier ones are smoother and more 'balanced.'

As you said, though, not scientific.


Some acoustic Odeons sound very nice. A lot of people seem to think Okeh acheived the best sound among lateral records in the acoustic era.

I have been impressed by the sound of some of the early Brunswicks, myself; I had to look up the recording date to make sure they were indeed acoustic recordings.

Bill

Wolfe wrote:

howardpgh wrote:It seems the earlier Victors sounded better than the "Batwing" label ones.(They sound tinny to me).

Definitely not scientific research!

I'm not terriby impressed with the recording quality of many Batwing era acousticals either. They often sound recessed and with strange peaky resonaces, whereas the earlier ones are smoother and more 'balanced.'

As you said, though, not scientific.


Some acoustic Odeons sound very nice. A lot of people seem to think Okeh acheived the best sound among lateral records in the acoustic era.[/quote]


Would that be pre-Columbia Okeh ?


I do not have a great deal of hands-on experience with pre-"Patent-label" Victors, but it has been my experience that the early Columbia discs ( silver on black "labels" ) are horribly noisy, with the disc medium looking like it was composed of anthracite coal. Maybe the examples I've heard are simply worn-out, but the record stock looks like it is a coarser material.

The blue-label Columbias with gold printing ( Teens ) are better in terms of lowering surface noise, but I feel that generally, Victor had some of the quietest playing surfaces of that era.

De Soto Frank wrote: Would that be pre-Columbia Okeh ?

Pre and post.

Also, Harmony records can sound very good. Harmony was a Columbia subsidiary that utilized the same studio equipment that was developed late in the acoustic era. Harmony made acoustic records, IIRC, all the way to 1930.

Brunswick is in there, fairly loud cut records with good clarity if not a lot on the 'bass end.'

Some of the early Columbia recordings can sound remarkably fine indeed, when pressed on good surfaces. I have Harmony and Velvet-Tone pressings of some numbers which were waxes as early as 1903 which were re-issued n Harmony in the late 1920's which really shine. The late pressings that I have of some of the Banner Label isues can be quite brilliant, which suggests that much of the problem early Columbia Symphony Series records lies in their pressings. The Blue Wax issues of the Mardones "Toreador" and the Nordica "Polonaise from Mignon" really do shine.

Uncle Vanya wrote: I have Harmony and Velvet-Tone pressings of some numbers which were waxes as early as 1903

That's interesting! I didn't know Harmony ever reissued stuff from that early. Earliest pre-Harmony Harmony I could find is from 1921.

It seems to me that nearly all the companies of the major suppliers went though some periods of very good sound and others will be lacking.

Victors to me are quite loud and the latter acoustics just before the transition to electric recording can be very wide ranging in sound. The Rachmaninoff Concerto he recorded for victor acoustically is very fine and if you close your eyes it hard to realize its an acoustic version. The Columbia Banner label classical things are often very full and warm sounding, more so to me that most Victors.. Today I was playing some Brunswick popular things and the fullness of tone is quite striking, yet the early electrical things were very harsh and disappointing to me.

There is a bit of a puzzle to the sound between Edison and other makers. Pathé seems to come the closest to the realistic sound. I tend to find that many acoustic pieces by the other makers tend to sound "blurred" compared to Edison . The vocalist are less pronounced in many cases in the dance type selections where as the Edison usually has a very pronounced and easy to understand singer in the latter acoustic selections.

Larry