jas@proteon.com (John A. Shriver) (12/12/90)
(That was me sending as John Baldwin, I copied in his From: line as a for the confusion.) Phase 4 records were recorded in multi-track, for greater sonic impact. Most of them are dynamic warhorses. As multi-tracking of classical music goes, they are probably in the upper echelon, certainly much better than RCA "Dynagroove" or Columbia "360 Sound". However, they are not generally a "natural" recording, the engineering has to be viewed as artistic interpretation in its own right. Also, London Phase 4 records were cut overmodulated for the US market (where louder is better?), while the Decca Phase 4 records were cut at sensible levels. This is one case where the English Decca is usually better than the US London. Maybe these evil "split stylus" records are the first records that had been played on that system in years that had any dynamic range. Early stereo records were manufactured for a rather elite audience, the audiophiles of that time. (When you correct 1958-1964 audio prices for inflation, they are surprisingly high!) The early stereo records were not limited, compressed, and mangled for "playability" the way records were later. No bass blend. No pablum-ization. No Philips compression. They were show-pieces. One RCA inner sleeve reads "Stereo Spectaculars for 1959". Another possibility was that they were so dirty that the stylus got so gummy it didn't fit in the groove. There was plenty of mold-release compound used on those old records, they really need a wet/vacuum cleaning.