The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Several months ago I asked at what record numbers Victor went to electric recordings. Now, the same question for Brunswick. I'm fairly sure when I see the small print on the label advertising Panatropes that we're probably in the electric era, but aside from that clue, I'd like to know at what record numbers the change over occurred. Thanks!

JerryVan wrote:Several months ago I asked at what record numbers Victor went to electric recordings. Now, the same question for Brunswick. I'm fairly sure when I see the small print on the label advertising Panatropes that we're probably in the electric era, but aside from that clue, I'd like to know at what record numbers the change over occurred. Thanks!

As with Victor and Columbia, it's not an exact date or number because certain studios went electric before others did- in the case of Victor it was NYC first, followed by Camden, and the West Coast somewhat later.

Usually Brunswicks after about 2950 are likely electric, by about 2980 they all were. The "Light Ray" process was quite problematic, though. The later system used after about 3300 was a lot better.

Hope this helps.

JerryVan wrote:Several months ago I asked at what record numbers Victor went to electric recordings. Now, the same question for Brunswick. I'm fairly sure when I see the small print on the label advertising Panatropes that we're probably in the electric era, but aside from that clue, I'd like to know at what record numbers the change over occurred. Thanks!

the lowest Brunswick catalog number is 2881

JerryVan wrote:Several months ago I asked at what record numbers Victor went to electric recordings...

I missed that thread so I will add this here but the other day I came across this early experimental electric disk recording done by Bell Labs for Victor in 1924. Sounds pretty good in my opinion

(Double-click the video above or click this link to watch the video on YouTube in high quality.)

This is all excellent information. Thanks to all! I've been into buying records lately and have been "burned" a couple times when the records turn out being acoustic. Burned is s a strong word here really, they're not bad records or recordings per se, but I really enjoy hearing the electric recordings on the machines designed to play them. Wonderful sound! Thanks again.

JerryVan wrote:This is all excellent information. Thanks to all! I've been into buying records lately and have been "burned" a couple times when the records turn out being acoustic. Burned is s a strong word here really, they're not bad records or recordings per se, but I really enjoy hearing the electric recordings on the machines designed to play them. Wonderful sound! Thanks again.

Like I said... Brunswick (as well as Gennett) had real issues with their early electric recordings. I have some early electrics from each that are about as pleasant to listen to as fingernails on a blackboard- input too high, blasting, screeching... on visual E+ records! So- sometimes acoustical records from these early days can actually be a blessing, haha. Acoustical recording had gotten so much better by the mid 20s that making the jump to electrical recording was anything BUT a "no brainer". It was a difficult learning curve and the early equipment was quite problematic... to the point that they wouldn't let a drum set into the studio at first- the drummer had to use pads to keep time.
Brunswick switched from "Light- Ray" to the Westinghouse system to solve their issue. Gennett actually went back to recording acoustically until they unveiled the "New Electrobeam" process- and even that left a lot to be desired.

Then there are other systems like "Emersonic", which was also used for NML and other labels that can be quite horrible. Even Victor had their issues at first- the horrible feedback on Whitey Kaufman's "Paddelin' Madeline Home" comes to mind. I always thought that maybe the engineers couldn't hear it on their non- electric playback system, but no, it hums through just fine there, too.

Then there was Marsh Labs (Autograph) who pioneered electrical recording before anyone else... most of those are "interesting" to listen to- all high and midrange with plenty of distortion for good measure.

Columbia alone seems to have gotten it right, right out of the gate.

I'm attaching a photo of a first go- round Gennett Electric if you've never seen one.

gramophone-georg wrote:

JerryVan wrote:This is all excellent information. Thanks to all! I've been into buying records lately and have been "burned" a couple times when the records turn out being acoustic. Burned is s a strong word here really, they're not bad records or recordings per se, but I really enjoy hearing the electric recordings on the machines designed to play them. Wonderful sound! Thanks again.

Like I said... Brunswick (as well as Gennett) had real issues with their early electric recordings. I have some early electrics from each that are about as pleasant to listen to as fingernails on a blackboard- input too high, blasting, screeching... on visual E+ records! So- sometimes acoustical records from these early days can actually be a blessing, haha. Acoustical recording had gotten so much better by the mid 20s that making the jump to electrical recording was anything BUT a "no brainer". It was a difficult learning curve and the early equipment was quite problematic... to the point that they wouldn't let a drum set into the studio at first- the drummer had to use pads to keep time.
Brunswick switched from "Light- Ray" to the Westinghouse system to solve their issue. Gennett actually went back to recording acoustically until they unveiled the "New Electrobeam" process- and even that left a lot to be desired.

Then there are other systems like "Emersonic", which was also used for NML and other labels that can be quite horrible. Even Victor had their issues at first- the horrible feedback on Whitey Kaufman's "Paddelin' Madeline Home" comes to mind. I always thought that maybe the engineers couldn't hear it on their non- electric playback system, but no, it hums through just fine there, too.

Then there was Marsh Labs (Autograph) who pioneered electrical recording before anyone else... most of those are "interesting" to listen to- all high and midrange with plenty of distortion for good measure.

Columbia alone seems to have gotten it right, right out of the gate.

I'm attaching a photo of a first go- round Gennett Electric if you've never seen one.

Many thanks! This all awesome history.

The first (issued) electric Brunswick recordings. Might have been 16 May 1925 (recording date) - thus about 3 months after Victor, and 3 months + 1 day after Columbia. That was mx E 15747, cat. 2915; a re-make of an acoustic recording 4 days earlier, by Isham Jones. (See attachment from the 1927 catalogue). It was recorded in Chicago, which of course was the headquarters of Brunswick.
Probably there's no definitive cut-over date, the recording rooms were likely to have been converted one at a time. (For example, this certainly happened at Edison; in August 1927, the acoustic and electric matrix numbers are interleaved). I think it's safe to say that the first electric would be somewhere between mx nos. 15716 and 15747. (Maybe one of you can refine this more exactly?) Like other companies, Brunswick gave their electrics a "secret-code" prefix to the mx no.; in their case, "E" - subtle, eh? (Oh, and while we're at it, the "GE" prefix on electric Gennetts is not for "Gennett", it's for "General Electric").
The erudite Allan Sutton wrote an article "Brunswick Goes Electric", an extract of which I attach.
And lastly, here is a picture of Brunswick's acoustic and electric recording studios, and their propaganda for their magical "Light Ray" recording system (actually rather boxy).

I have a copy of Brunswick 2939,"Red Hot Henry Brown",sung by Margaret Young. That's electric, and was her last Brunswick record.