Re: [ARSCLIST] take numbers on emerson records

[Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>]

Acutally, measurement is a component of the factors for determining 
differences in performance.  So are timings.

I asked for time at the last ARSC conference to do a session on this but, 
when I got to work on it, the time required to set up the topic alone would 
have had me run over the 20 or 30 minutes allowed.

Should this be a workshop to preceed the the next conference?

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Seubert" <seubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] take numbers on emerson records


> James, George Dick et al.
>
> Thanks for your help here. Every company is different, but I'm always 
> skeptical that I'm misinterpreting the data if I find too many  alternate 
> takes (except Edison). Above about 10% in a given run of 78s  like Emerson 
> where I don't know the system used for designating takes,  I usually 
> question if what I think are take numbers are stamper  numbers or 
> something.
>
> I've never really relied on aural comparison (though it is obvious in 
> some cases, see: 
> http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/search.php?queryType=@attr%201=1020&query=cylinder4373&num=1&start=1&sortBy=&sortOrder=id) . 
> I don't trust my ears enough to detect the often slight variations 
> between takes. In the acoustic era it's not exactly like different 
> versions of The Dead doing Dark Star (though many would say these all 
> sound the same too, I suppose), but aural memory is notoriously 
> unreliable.
>
> My method is usually to lay the edge of a piece of paper across the 
> center hole of the disc and mark the beginning and end of the grooves. 
> Then I lay this paper on the other disc and see if they match. Even if 
> one take is only a few seconds shorter or longer it will be obviously 
> different as even a couple of grooves difference is noticable.
>
> I'm sure George's method works too, but the paper and pencil method is 
> very quick and we are essentially measuring the same thing in  different 
> ways.
>
> David
>
> On Jun 19, 2009, at 11:15 AM, James L Wolf wrote:
>
> > David,
> >
> >   I've worked a lot with Emersons in the LOC's collection, and while  we 
> > don't have many duplicates of the same record so that I could  aurally 
> > compare different takes, I did notice that the matrix  information (e.g. 
> > 3391-1) was usually matched by the known  discographical information. 
> > Which, of course, only means that  previous discographers have taken that 
> > matrix info to be take-number  information, but that may count for 
> > something.
> >
> > Furthermore, for the acoustic era I don't see anything odd about one 
> > copy have 2 first takes and another having a second/third takes.  I've 
> > seen similar situations on many labels in the acoustic era;  Victor, 
> > Columbia, Edison, etc.
> >
> > Until something definitive comes along saying otherwise, I think it 
> > would be safest to assume that the matrix information refers to the  take 
> > number.
> >
> > James
> > > > > David Seubert <seubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 6/19/2009 1:42 PM >>>
> >
> > I'm de-duping a stack of 9" Emerson discs and in the dead wax there is
> > what appears to be a matrix followed by a take number. However, there
> > are too many different take numbers for me to believe they are take
> > numbers. For example, I have one copy of #9118 with 3391-1/3397-1 and
> > another with 3391-2/3397-3. Are these stampers? Does anybody know  how to
> > distinguish alternate takes on Emerson discs?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> > --
> > David Seubert, Curator
> > Performing Arts Collection
> > Davidson Library
> > University of California
> > Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9010
> > Tel: 805-893-5444 Fax: 805-893-5749
> > seubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/collections/pa/