[Dixielandjazz] Archeophone & King Oliver Sound - was Bix sound

[Robert S. Ringwald]

Wow!

What a difference!

I always suspected that Oliver and Armstrong were using mutes because of the 
primitive recording equipment.  But in the Archeophone version, you can tell 
that they were not.

Think about this -- If the recording industry continues to improve equipment 
and restore capabilities, what do you think we will hear in 50-years?

--Bob Ringwald




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Barbone" <barbonestreet at earthlink.net>
To: "Bob Ringwald" <robert at ringwald.com>
Cc: "Dixieland Jazz Mailing List" <dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 4:18 PM
Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Archeophone & King Oliver Sound - was Bix sound


> You can sample the King Oliver Sound on regular recording and then on
> Archeophone. Do not expect miracles as these are still acoustic 
> recordings,
> not electric. I suggest you listen to Snake Rag on each site below:
>
> Original Sounds are at:
>
> http://www.redhotjazz.com/kingocjb.html
>
> Archeophone Sounds are at:
>
> http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/7366017/a/King+Oliver.htm
>
> Those of  who us do not hear anything special in Bix's tone, will probably
> not hear anything special in King Oliver's tone either. Or Johnny Dodd's
> tone, etc. Basically because the original recording technology was 
> primitive
> and current re-issues can't get around that. They can only clean it up.
>
> Some may not hear any difference in the two recordings either. <grin>
>
> Cheers,
> Steve Barbone
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or change your e-mail preferences for the Dixieland Jazz 
> Mailing list, or to find the online archives, please visit:
>
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz
>
>
>
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
>
>