Re: [ARSCLIST] early CD bashing

[Jeffrey Kane <jeffkane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

IMO Columbia's classical efforts were a cryin' shame. Some great
performances ruined (for me) thanks to the sonics. It's got to be more than
EQing, no? Miking techniques, mixing decisions... I can't put my finger on
it but Columbia (and to a lesser degree EMI) have never 'drawn me in' the
way RCA and Mercury recordings have. I suppose it's all personal preference,
I'm sure some prefer the latter over the former and think I've got waxen
ears and leaden brains.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Don Cox
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:47 AM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] early CD bashing

On 08/01/07, phillip holmes wrote:
> I snatch up Columbia promo copies whenever I see them. The classical
> promo copies are especially good, compared to the regular issues, even
> though the Columbia classical sound doesn't measure up to RCA,
> Mercury, EMI and Decca standards--mostly because of EQ decisions
> made--house sound?--the tapes and CD reissues sound much better than
> the LPs.

That has been my experience with Columbia LPs, especially if you mean
recent CD transfers.

> The cream of the crop, IMO, of classical records, produced
> domestically, are the Mercury Living Presence radio promo copies.
> Outstanding in every way. Recorded by some guy named Bob Fine,
> mastered by Piros, pressed at the RCA Indianapolis plant from the
> first master/mother/stampers. First rate!
> Phillip

Regards
--
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx