[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
I strongly disagree. The transfers of Brian Crimp which followed were even
worse. EMI transfers were mainly rubbish until Keith Harwick returned to
the fold. However, he seems to have put everything through a Packburn. His
work on CD was mediocre, to say the least. He was forced in many cases to
work from old tapes (presumably made by Griffiths) rather than original 78s.
With regard to Andrew Walters work noted by Don Cox, I would say this is
variable. Not in the same class as Obert-Thorne and Marston, neither of
whom are really state of the art.
Steve Abrams
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J Hodge" <rjhodge@xxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
And I still consider Anthony Griffith's transfers for HMV- especially
Sir Edward Elgar's performances reissued on LP, to be first class!
Without Exception, And Second To None!
Unflinchingly Yours,
Bob Hodge
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Don Cox
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:21 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
On 20/10/08, Clark Johnsen wrote:
Quite so. But in my view there was another, earlier golden age,
roughly 1928-1936. Many of those records sound superb, when rightly
reproduced -- such as they never have been, in my experience, either
on LP or CD.
The transfers of jazz recordings from that period done by JRT Davies for
labels such as Frog, Hep, and Retrieval sound superb on my equipment.
Especially the Victors.
I haven't heard quite such good transfers of any classical material,
although Andrew Walter at EMI has done a few very good ones recently for
the "Great Recordings of the Century" series.
Regards
--
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx