Date:         Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:18:33 -0400
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Clark Johnsen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Aren't recordings original sources?
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <32F922AC2D224A2FA1F35B5F3A1E4726@newmachine>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Steve Abrams <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> I spoke to Hardwick once on the telephone, c. 1987.  He told me that he had
> to do some CD work from tape copies because of time pressure. With respect
> to special pressings I note that many if not most of the originals  in the
> original LP great performances series (in the late '50s and early '60s) are
> supposed to have been destroyed in the mistaken belief that it would never
> be possible to improve on the tape copies made at that time.


[Sigh] There's a word for that: hubris.

I once wrote up my own experiences with playing 78rpm originals over a
widerange system (read: bass-capable) and the effect on others. Would those
fellows (Hardwicke, Crimp, etc.) had heard this before venturing ahead with
diminished capability! (The process, not them.)

"Besides containing an historic musical treasure-trove, 78s can sound *more
like the real thing than any other source, *bar none except live feed—an
extravagant claim, perhaps, but consider what 78s have going for themselves,
besides those great old tubes. They have: high velocity, wide grooves, inert
material, ribbon microphones, direct-master pressings—in short, a medley of
superior engineer­ing attributes."

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue25/cjdiarires.htm

clark