The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

It's a quiet Sunday morning, and I'm thinking about how the average listener perceived the sound quality of his records throughout the acoustic era.

How did a 2-minute cylinder sound to the ears of a listener in 1905? Was he awed by the "advanced" fidelity of the cylinder, which was indeed advanced in comparison to the records that were made five years earlier, and was he aware of or bothered by the flaws of the sound technology of the day?

I also wonder if we are able to "hear" a 2-minute cylinder (or disc) as it was heard when it was released. I suspect that the improved technology of our era interferes with our capacity to "hear" what a listener heard 100 years ago. However, I believe that years of exposure to old recordings enables us to partially, but not completely, reduce the level of filtering and come close to hearing the recording as it was meant to be heard.

I imagine that the cultural differences between the early 20th and early 21st centuries also affect our capacity to "hear" a record, especially one with lyrics.

There's no real answers here, but that need not keep us from discussing the topic.



Rocky

I bet the guy who just shelled out $25-35 for an Edison Standard with a little witches hat or the like in 1904,5,6 thought it sounded absolutely amazing, especially when it was parked in the parlor with wooden floors and little if any soft furniture to soak up the sound.

I still think so even today but I'm afraid most people now listen to them, in many cases with reproducer not properly rebuilt and with the works all gummed up, playing unevenly and possibly not playing completely through the record. I don't think they can imagine in many cases how that guy felt in 1905 when he got that phonograph home and cranked up a rousing march or waltz for the first time...

.

Also remember there was little extranious noise especially in rual areas. When we listen now, we have that 60 cycle hum of the fridge, computer, ect ect, horns, tractors ect. Our ears for one are not as sensitive as years ago, as our world is louder We are so used to over amplification, and over exaggerated sound, if you take the din of the surface noise away, acoustic recording does a pretty faithful job of capturing the moment, even with the limited range, you can actually sing with an Ediosn phonograph, and it blends with a real voice very nicely!

Well remember..those records that they were playing were mint. In the case of an Edison customer, a mint Edison cylinder sounds very nice indeed with very low surface noise. And the reproducer would be tuned up to" factory standard" perfection. That said, the SECOND thing an Edison buyer did in 1905 was upgrade to a bigger horn. Both the customers and the dealers kicked about the 14 inch witches hat which resulted in the change of horn equipment in 1907.
But even a Victor owner would have the advantage of a pristine pressing. Up here in Canada the Berliner company was pressing on a brown shellac compound. They are usually in rough shape when found today but the reason is that Berliner was using less abrasive in the compound meaning they didn't stand up well, but when new would have had a very low surface noise. They sound lovely if one finds an unplayed one!
And the advances in sound reproduction in the years between 1900 and say, 1908 would have seemed remarkable to those at the time. Think of a Victor V with a wooden horn and an Exhibition soundbox all freshly gasketed and tuned playing a mint Caruso of Di Quella Pira compared to the sound of a Berliner Trademark machine. Or an Edison Idelia with a fresh cylinder of a Billy Murray specialty compared an Edison Standard of 1899 playing a badly dubbed brown wax and you'll get my point.
But on the other hand there were those who... like Sousa.... vilified the talking machine to their last breath. Think of the months of negotiations...and the thousands of pounds.... that the Gramophone Company went through in order to convince Melba to record

Jim