Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

[Clark Johnsen <clarkjohnsen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Robert J Hodge <rjhodge@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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!


While I'm not equipped to agree (or disagree) with you, it's my
general impression that earlier transfers are the best. You know, before
(shudder) digital noise reduction devices.

clark

>
>
> 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
>