[bigshot]

Yes, Columbia in New York pioneered recording to 16 inch disks at 33 1/3 in the late 30s. Everything on the Columbia label during this period was recorded this way. By the end of the war, West coast labels were doing the same. The takes on these 16 inch discs were joined on the fly to cut Columbia's first LPs. You'll see the same recording on 78s in the late 40s and on LP in the early 50s. Some of them were actually FFRR 78s. I've transferred a few of those and they sound great.

EDIT (more info): 16 inch 33 1/3 disks were the same format used for radio transcriptions during that period. The only difference is that the radio transcriptions were EQed to suit AM radio broadcast, while the disks used to master 78s (and later the earliest LPs) were full frequency range. Because the masters were full frequency range and the intended release format (78s) was band limited, there wasn't much generation loss from being dubbed. The 16 inch disks served the same purpose that a master tape would a decade later. The first Columbia LPs were made from these masters, with two turntables performing the side joins live on the fly DJ style as the LP was being cut. Because of this, there were some funky joins in those early LPs. But HiFi dubbed to HiFi sounded quite good.

I transferred a recording of Die Walkure Act III with Helen Traubel that was mastered to 16 inch disk and released first on 78s, and a few years later on LP. I had a complete set of the recording in both formats in pristine condition to work with. Overall, the LP version sounded fuller, but it had some funky joins. I had to match the speed and EQ of the 78s to the LP and use the 78s to correct a few of the side joins. It was a bit of work, but it came out well.

 

[gregorio]

From the late 30s through the 40s, a lot of records were recorded to 16 inch 33 1/3 disks. They would record multiple takes then dub the select takes from the 16 inch disk to 10 inch 78s- a little different than direct to disk.

I’m not sure that “a lot of records” were done that way or what the advantage would be over just recording different takes to different 10” 78s and not having any generation loss. If you mean editing takes, different parts of different takes or overdubbing, as far as I’m aware that was rare: “Disc-to-disc editing was possible, by using multiple turntables to play parts of different "takes" and recording them to a new master disc, but switching sources with split-second accuracy was difficult and lower sound quality was inevitable, so except for use in editing some early sound films and radio recordings it was rarely done.” - Wikipedia
It’s still recording to the same medium though, direct to a disk and then to a master disk, not to metal wire or metal strips.

Yes, it is easy enough to see what you have claimed…

Then what do you gain from making up false claims and falsely attributing them to me?

(even with your nack of randomized outlining to take things out of context)

Unlike you, I’ve quoted you directly rather than making-up assertions and falsely attributing them to you and I’ve stayed within the context of music industry recordings rather than gone off into unrelated contexts.

That and you speculating when Guthrie's albums may have been recorded on magnetic tape.

I did not “speculate when Guthrie’s albums may have been recorded on magnetic tape”, in fact it was you who erroneously brought up Guthrie to support your false claim about wire recording. I quoted Wikipedia dates of when the music industry recordings of Guthrie were made, which were not wire recordings and were before the music industry used magnetic tape.

Despite reliable evidence that your assertion is false and your Guthrie recording example is a red herring, your response is to continue arguing that red herring fallacy with yet another irrelevant assertion falsely attributed to me. Way to go!

G