Help me learn about classical LP's!

GarethJones

GarethJones

Active Member
Hey there people
ive been buying a ton of classical lp's lately and id like to learn about the differences in sound quality between various record labels and recording studios.
anybody care to enlighten?
for instance how can i tell the difference between different RCA recordings like red labels and shaded dogs.
are there any labels i should know to watch out for as far as low quality is concerned?
cheers!
 
Register to hide this ad
Hi,

If you are interested in sound quality primarily, make sure of avoiding buying historical recordings (typically, live recordings made in the 40's or 50's with no professional equipment). BTW, I love those but in terms of musical performance! Some lables like Olympic Records, Fonit Cetra or Turnabout have a catalog that features many historical recordings. Many CBS LPs can sound a bit shrill. London or Decca, Archiv, Deutsche Grammophon LPs tend to heav very good sound. European pressings of EMI recordings tend to be better than their American releases on Angel.

All the best
 
Way above and beyond sound quality of the the recordings are the performances themselves. And way above and beyond the performances themselves are the actual works (compositions). Unlike popular music of any genre, classical music is actually written down and can and is performed by many different ensembles over the course of the centuries. I can't begin to describe how fortunate I feel for living in a time when music can actually be recorded and saved for posterity.

I've been collecting recordings of classical music for just over 40 years, and I've learned this: a fantastic recording of a bad performance of Beethoven's 5th is worthless. A lesser recording a great performance of the same work is priceless.

I have lots of great recordings of not so great performances that don't get much air time. I wasted my money. If you do your homework you won't waste yours as well.
 
thanks for the input,
as far as compositions, i have a fair idea of what i like, and certain performers ive been looking out for lately, rostropovich, oistrakh, gould,kempff, horowitz etc.
i guess im looking for a balance between quality and performance, i have a fairly revealing stereo and i have trouble listeining to lps that sound flat and lifeless.
a big one for me is trying to discern between the difference RCA recordings, red label, gold label, shaded dog, dynagroove etc.
is there anything i should specificly look out, or watch out for?
 
My advice is that you stick to performers you like, and don't give so much importance to the labels. A great performance makes you forget soon about the recording itself.

All the best
 
Well, if you are after a record that came out originally as an RCA, Decca, or EMI, and want the best pressing, there are differences.

In particular, the RCA Gold Seals are unlistenable garbage, as are any later Victrolas and Red Seal side dogs. What you would want to get a good-sounding copy is either the original Shaded Dog or White Dog (could be expensive and noisy), a plum Victrola reissue (inexpensive in today's market), a Chesky reissue (the best of the reissues, can be expensive) or a Classic reissue (superficially impressive, but weak in string sound and sonics). Of course, some LPs originally on RCA were reissued as London STS/Decca Ace of Diamonds. These will sound different from the RCA original, but good.

For Deccas, even the humble Stereo Treasury reissues will provide good sound, but the UK Ace of Diamonds is better. Some of the more popular titles remained in print as SXL Deccas or CS Londons, and they will also usually be good. The only really bad Londons are the yellow-label Made in USA Stereo Treasuries - do not buy these. The Speaker's Corner reissues range from mediocre to very good, and it is better to avoid Japanese King pressings.

With Columbia, there is no reason not to go for the original six-eyes because they do not command big prices, and it is surprisingly easy to find a clean copy. For later LPs, the black two-eye would be the earliest press. The later reissues are mediocre, with certain known exceptions. The sound will never be great on most Columbia pressings, again with a few exceptions.

For EMIs, the English ASD will always be better than any US Angel pressing. There are many great artists on this label, and while early ASDs can be expensive, the later issues and the budget Concert Classics series are quite good. Some of the old recordings even turn up on Classics For Pleasure in excellent sound. The Testament reissues are the best reissue series ever, but they didn't do many titles.
 
thanks a lot!
how about angel, mercury, and vanguard?
i have a few of these.
how can i identify a shaded dog or a colombia 6 eyes?

i have a couple philips lp's that sound pretty good, are they generally thought of as having good overall sound quality?
and how about phase 4 london and deccas versus non phase 4's, or london ffrrs?
 
Mercurys are very good sounding in general, and have some great performers of the 50's and 60's like Dorati, Janis, etc. For my personal taste, Philips recordings are great sounding, with natural balance, and superb vinyl quality. The recordings made at the Concertgebouw are great and most of the time involve great performances, like many conducted by Colin Davis or Bernard Haitink. I prefer London ffrr over the phase4 (a bit too much miking for my taste).
 
I'm new to classical and I've been buying a fair amount lately myself. I'm not yet familiar enough with the genre or the compositions to pick a great performance from a mediocre performance, but I can certainly pick a good recording from a bad one. I've found so far that the London FFSS series and the Archiv Produktion LPs I've bought have sounded great. The RCA's have been hit or miss. The Columbia Masterworks have been OK, some marginally so. I bought a lot of early Angel LPs (mono) at one yard sale because the vinyl was pristine and they had really cool covers. Unfortunately they don't sound very good at all. I don't know if my limited experience is very representative, but this is what I've found so far.
 
are EMI records a product of RCA?
ive got an lp, "itzakh perlman play fritz kriezler", on EMI, and theres no mention anywhere on the lp of rca, but it has a red label and nipper on the center of the lp
 
You must keep in mind that some of the differences will be perceptible depending on the resolution of your gear and your ability/training to hear it..secret is, dont pay too much attention and simply enjoy.

Angels: the earlier mono/Stereo with the red recording Angel made in UK are pretty good.

pay attention for Harmonia Mundi (usually always excellent), Lyrita if you like newer composers like Bliss, etc....BIS has great works and great sound.

The Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo, I dont believe they are as good as the prices command...I bought some when I started my vinyl addiction.

If you dont mind mono: the Mercury/RCA/UK Decca, London FFrr are as good as gold.

Underdog: VOX label with the RVG in the dead wax (mono or stereo).

The problem with evaluating is that its dependent on the condition of the LP....try to only get the ones that are in better condition.

Nonesuch has one of the better Brandenburg Concertos releases, but most people dont pay much attention to it.
 
GarethJones said:
are EMI records a product of RCA?
ive got an lp, "itzakh perlman play fritz kriezler", on EMI, and theres no mention anywhere on the lp of rca, but it has a red label and nipper on the center of the lp
Click to expand...

You need to know something about the history of record labels to understand this sort of thing.

RCA in the US and HMV in Europe were at one time affiliated labels. By the time the LP came along, HMV was part of EMI in Europe, while RCA was a major label in the US. They each had the rights to the 'dog and trumpet' logo in their respective countries.

If you look at European RCAs, such as the Decca pressings from the 60s or German Living Stereos, or the Soria US pressings that were exported to Europe, you will see they did not have a dog, because RCA did not have the rights to that logo in Europe.

Similarly, any EMIs officially exported to the US had the dog on the label and cover plastered over with stickers. There was also a special 'Odeon' export label that did not contain the dog, but used a Roman archway.
 
GarethJones said:
thanks a lot!
how about angel, mercury, and vanguard?
i have a few of these.
how can i identify a shaded dog or a colombia 6 eyes?

i have a couple philips lp's that sound pretty good, are they generally thought of as having good overall sound quality?
and how about phase 4 london and deccas versus non phase 4's, or london ffrrs?
Click to expand...

Angels: Some people like the mono red-label Angels pressed in the UK, but in general a US Angel pressing will not usually sound as good as an English EMI of the same LP. There are some later blue-label stereo Angels that do sound acceptable, and of course the price difference is enormous. I bought a blue Angel stereo 'Music of Old Russia' with Milstein for $3, while the EMI original will cost several hundred. But there are many inexpensive later EMI orchestral records with good performances in fine sound.

Mercury: Original Mercs are FR- and RFR- pressings. The later M- pressings are not as good, but better than nothing. The CTFR- and CFR- pressings are Columbia Record Club. The CRC insisted they be playable on Columbia's $9.99 phonograph, so Piros had to take out all the bass from the mastering - not good. The Philips Mercury Golden Imports reissue series is bland and homogenized. The Classic reissue series is souped-up audiophile, interesting, but nothing like the originals. The Speaker's Corner reissues are generally high-quality.

Vanguard: The best Vanguard pressings are the early ones made by RCA at the Indianapolis plant. They have RCA markings in the deadwax, and red labels. The later Vanguard gold and multi-colored labels are not as good.

London/Decca Phase 4: The equalization of these is dramatically different. Decca added a four decibel boost in the mid-bass and the mid-treble to the London pressings meant for the American market, apparently believing that a ridiculously souped-up sound would sell best here. The Decca Phase 4 pressings do not have this. For this reason, you can buy all the London Phase 4s you want for a buck or two, while the Decca Phase 4s are quite expensive.

London/Decca. Many people do not believe these sound different, but they do. I have never heard a Decca that did not sound better than the London, but the Londons are inexpensive and quite good, certainly way better than most Columbias and Angels. Keep in mind, too, that my listening has been done on very high-resolution systems, and you might not hear much difference on regular or vintage equipment.

Labels: To see pictures of the labels, go to the labelographies at www.ronpenndorf.com. He does not show all minor variations in the labels, but that will get you started.
 
Perhaps you should ask yourself what is your natural reaction to classical music: some people become fascinated by the sound (sort of the flesh of music) and some others get more into the discovery of the composers and interpreters, even at the expense of having to bear bad sound sources (sort of the soul of music). These two elements are always related to each other while listening to music, because we actually experience both at the same time. Enjoying music sometimes makes people curious enough to get deeper into one of these two avenues, and sometimes they become experts in one of these two areas. I though that this sort of general reflection could be useful to be remained at this point.
 
Some of the best "classical" LPs and CDs that I have are on the Deutsche Grammophon label.
 
" Perhaps you should ask yourself what is your natural reaction to classical music: some people become fascinated by the sound (sort of the flesh of music) and some others get more into the discovery of the composers and interpreters, even at the expense of having to bear bad sound sources (sort of the soul of music). These two elements are always related to each other while listening to music, because we actually experience both at the same time. Enjoying music sometimes makes people curious enough to get deeper into one of these two avenues, and sometimes they become experts in one of these two areas. I though that this sort of general reflection could be useful to be remained at this point.
Reply With Quote"

a very good point!
and honestly i find both sides of the adventure equally as exciting.
ive found in the past that i have some excellent performances by composers i am unfamiliar with, on not the best quality pressing, and they have lead me to look for more works by the same composers by different labels/ artists.
my stereo resolves quite well, im running a thorens 145 w/shure v15 IV, hafler dh101 pre, dynaco st-35, to ICS cornerhorns ( a vancouver made klipschorn clone )
im seeing what your talking about in regards to homogenized recordings, and instrument separation.
one of my favorite recordings is casals at the marlboro music festival conducting beethovens 7th, on cbs "great performances"
its beat to hell and the recording isnt that great, but the arrangement and conduction is really moving.
 
GarethJones said:
one of my favorite recordings is casals at the marlboro music festival conducting beethovens 7th, on cbs "great performances"
its beat to hell and the recording isnt that great, but the arrangement and conduction is really moving.
Click to expand...

I agree with your opinion about Pau Casals: he was a superb musician!!
 
That Casals Beethoven 7th is a great performance, probably my favorite for that symphony, but the sound is very mediocre.

You can really appreciate a great, or unusual performance much better if you can hear all the little details. Listen to some of the Knappertsbusch recordings in stereo on Decca, compared to the murky Furtwangler monos, and you will see what I mean. Kna was not nearly the conductor Furtie was, but listening to the recordings is really much more enjoyable with good sound.
 
Interestingly, every classical lp on the Nonesuch label has sounded excellent. I don't usually see Nonesuch in these lists of the best labels to look for in the classical genre, but I've been pleasantly surprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom