Classical vinyl ???

[joessportster]

What's up ??? Seems my speakers are making me want to try new music more than in the past. Which leads to this thread. I found a few CBS masterworks titles some with gold foil stamps, some imports with gold foil stamps, and a few with just pics of the stamp stating CBS masterworks. Question is are these generally desireable for recording quality ?? And what are some lables to watch for in my hunt for classical ??? Joe

[DoubleJ]

Great post. I'm curious as well!

Larry will come to our rescue!!

Thanks

JJ

[joessportster]

Yea. Jj I hate buying totally blind a little insight into what's considered a safe bet as far as knowing it should be recorded well (not necessarily who's playing) is very helpful. And I find more and more I can tolerate almost any music if it's recorded well. But if it's a bad recording And questionable taste wise I tend to be turned off by the whole genre Joe

[LarryC]

Larry will come to our rescue!!

Too big a question, JJ. I suggest a search on 2-channel for classical music, perhaps narrowed down in an "advanced search" for posts written by me.

There were scads of posts on the subject back in the mid-aughts, but seems like interest has withered a bit. I put on a classical music "class" at Indy 2-3 years ago, and I think it was appreciated (that's what you do with classical, right?).

What's up ??? Seems my speakers are making me want to try new music more than in the past. Which leads to this thread. I found a few CBS masterworks titles some with gold foil stamps, some imports with gold foil stamps, and a few with just pics of the stamp stating CBS masterworks. Question is are these generally desireable for recording quality ?? And what are some lables to watch for in my hunt for classical ??? Joe

Labels can be iffy. I think London's are the best bet. Early DG's (six-digit numbers) can be terrible. Columbias are OK, but their cheaper re-release offshoots (e.g., Epic) tend to be tinny and brittle. RCA's are often excellent. Angels can have very noisy surfaces. I'd be a little suspicious of gold foil.

Nonesuch records were excellent.

Many classical LPs were bought but rarely played, and their surfaces are often very quiet! Some forum members like Garymd and Fini have had excellent luck picking up used LPs at library sales, thrift shops, etc. I (and Gary I think) have had good luck with looking at surfaces under good light and rejecting those that look very dusty and have lots of visible scratches. Do NOT buy records that have been on library shelves!!!

At least used LPs are cheap!

[thebes]

Hey Joe, here's a link to a thread over at AK I ran across some time ago. If you read into it a bit they offer up info on what record companies and types of labels you should look for in classical pressings. I thought it was quite informative.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=222146

Also a lot of that gold label stuff was marketing for things like Record Clubs, and even tv advertising.

[oldtimer]

I've never had bad luck with Deutsche Gramophon recordings.

[LarryC]

I've never had bad luck with Deutsche Gramophon recordings.

I should have qualified: I also haven't had bad luck with the vast majority of them, with the 7-digit numbers. However, the 6-digit records, numbered 138-xxx, were almost always scratchy. That's my only caution, be careful re 138-xxx DGs.

[LarryC]

Great link, Marty! AK seems to have the liveliness on classical that we had a few years ago. Yes, I forgot to mention Phillips as a very good label.

Those record clubs put out a lot of second-rate pressings, or sometimes were there mostly to clear record companies' warehouse inventories.

I'd stick with the top-line brands, like RCA Red Seal, London, Angel, London, etc., and bypass lesser labels. Arkiv was also almost always good (mostly Baroque and before). Westminster had especially natural sound. Yes, MHS was usually good, though they tended to record lesser-known composers and works.

[joessportster]

Wonderful info guys it is appreciated I will listen to those I have but will keep my eyes peeled for some good ones listed here. Also thanks for the link Marty I will check it out I visit there often now days !!! I did get an RCA Red lable 1812 symphony that I put on after cleaning I was supprised by some of the music. Very nice. Joe

[LarryC]

I put on after cleaning I was supprised by some of the music.

Great reminder, Joe -- clean the record before playing.

If you don't have a record cleaning machine, do what I did for many years: hold the record under very mildly warm running water over a big sink (to help keep the grooves away from plumbing), apply mild soap or dishwashing liquid and run the palm of your hand around the surface parallel to the grooves so you don't scratch them.

Then, rinse the LP very well under the running water. When the soapiness goes away, use a delicate paper towel to dry both sides (I think Viva is the softest towel these days), again by wiping parallel to the grooves. Dry as much as you can with the paper towel, then let it air dry for a while.

I think LPs sound much better after washing, if they haven't been cleaned in a while. And less scratchy, too.

[joessportster]

Thanks Larry. I do have a vpi hw17 RCM. I just got back from the local record store and found a few lp's a couple phillips, Columbia red seals, and a London. This should be fun. Joe

[TheEvan]

I always heard Mercury Living Presence was the end-all and be-all. I've bought a number, some excellent performances among them. Interesting music, mostly. But am I alone in mostly not liking their recorded sound? I find them generally brash and in-your-face and lacking space.

Here's a vote for Hyperion, Erato and harmonia mundi. Great labels.

[LarryC]

I very much agree re Mercury's sound. Too bad, too. It seemed more in place in the 1960's, maybe softened by the prevailing tube equipment. But, it's always been bery exciting to hear the Saint-Saens No. 3 so dramatically up close and personal. Somehow, it didn't sound so bad on K-horns and Marantz back then. I now turn to the Munch for relief, though it's also a little lacking in air.

[fini]

I now turn to the Munch for relief, though it's also a little lacking in air.

Larry, when you get the Munchies?

[Mallette]

I always heard Mercury Living Presence was the end-all and be-all. I've bought a number, some excellent performances among them. Interesting music, mostly. But am I alone in mostly not liking their recorded sound? I find them generally brash and in-your-face and lacking space.

Here's a vote for Hyperion, Erato and harmonia mundi. Great labels.

Well, it was and it wasn't (be all, end all). Their minimalist approach was very refreshing from the multi mike diffusion and complex stereo arrays taking hold elsewhere at the time. AAMOF, it's precisely the methodology I use in recording today. OTOH, they didn't do EXACTLY as I do: "Take two mikes, put them where your ears want to be." Instead, the followed the methodology of the Toscanini/NBC recording which were already legendary. Those were done in vault-like nearly reflection free studios. But that isn't all the story.

Bear in mind those NBC recordings were 78rpm, with it's high noise floor and with it's inherently limited dynamic range further inhibited by the average persons playback technology. As those wonderful reflections that so make a "live" performance in a great hall a transcendental experience did nothing on these discs but make them sound distant and incoherent, mikeing strategy was to get it as close as possible to the source in order to eliminate the surroundings entirely. Not surprising that the NBC studios built to the most advanced isolation technology of the day excelled at this and became the standard.

Now, let's jump a moment to something that is intimately connected to the above...though easilly missed. The biggest target for records in the 50's and 60's was the car radio. Auto AC was the domain of the well to do, so the majority of us drove around with our windows down. That meant that anything played on the radio that wasn't loud wouldn't be heard. Hence, almost dynamic rangeless "in your fact" music culminating in Phil Spector's "wall of sound" methodology. I hope I don't confuse the issue by stating that, in fact, Phil invented nothing but was simply returning to the 30's/40's big band sound which developed for the same reasons: Available technology simply didn't support dynamics, so the the music changed instead.

Now, back to Mercury. There was nothing "new" in the Living Presence approach, which is why it often sounds so "in your face" and dry. Precisely the same mikes in the same hall moved up and back a bit would have made all the difference in the world. The classic Minnesota Orchestra "1812" recording gives us a hint, as it actually shows a bit of space around the edges.

Much as I love my LP's, their limited dynamic range remains an Achilles heal ameliorated to some degree by DBX range restoration, but nonetheless a barrier to "virtual presence" and a complete suspension of sense of time and space. Certainly music whose dynamic range is limited by the instruments or score can be reproduced almost flawlessly, but the vast dynamics presented by a pipe organ in a complex multi-dimensional environment are not possible. That's a job for digital.

Dave

[pocket.change]

TIME/LIFE Classic Collection(s)

I've a complete collection and no complaints ...

[LarryC]

Now, back to Mercury. There was nothing "new" in the Living Presence approach, which is why it often sounds so "in your face" and dry. Precisely the same mikes in the same hall moved up and back a bit would have made all the difference in the world. The classic Minnesota Orchestra "1812" recording gives us a hint, as it actually shows a bit of space around the edges

Maybe so, but the miking sounded a lot closer than other companies' including RCA's recordings of Toscanini. Mercury claimed a number of distinctions, which they heavily advertised and implied were unique, that probably account for the reputation of their recordings:

• Three Telefunken omnidirectional microphones, suspended not far directly above the front line of the orchestra
• Use of 3-track tape, eventually going to 35 mm tape
• 200-watt McIntosh amps (tube, of course) for the cutting heads

A said earlier, the resulting close-up detail was startling and exciting, at least on the equipment of the day.

[Mallette]

Mercury claimed a number of distinctions, which they heavily advertised and implied were unique, that probably account for the reputation of their recordings:

• Three Telefunken omnidirectional microphones, suspended not far directly above the front line of the orchestra
• Use of 3-track tape, eventually going to 35 mm tape
• 200-watt McIntosh amps (tube, of course) for the cutting heads

I obviously didn't do a good job of making my case. It's all about the mike placement, which was too close and feature a redundant mike. The 3 track tape and the cutting amps had impact on the percieved quality of the recordings more in the area only in a relatively minor way. Great recordings sound great on car radios and are easily distinguishable by any half-trained ear. What cutting amp was used won't change that markedly.

I am so certain of the above because I have personally equaled, by blind trained 3rd party listeners some of whom may be reading this now, recording qualities reached by those using extremely expensive and esoteric recording equipment simply by keeping it simple and, most of all, doing it with the right mikes in the right place in the right space. Everything else is gravy, IMHO.

That whole story I told was more of a "why" they close miked and ignored the space. It certainly was a revelation to hear instruments up close and personal...however, certainly halls and spaces wouldn't be legendary if they didn't have a lot to do with the percieved sound.

Not sure if this is really relevant or useful, but you can make very good whiskey with a great mash, properly aged, and distilled into a mason jar. OTOH, the same whiskey will be MUCH better left to age in a charred oak barrel by someone who knows precisely how to do it. Orchestras, organs, pianos, and all acoustic instruments are the same. A Strad will sound great in an anechoic chamber...but in the right space it SINGS and soars. It's about the original recording engineer far more than the equipment or techniques used. Locally, I am heavily impressed with Todd Hulslander, recording engineer of our NPR station. He does almost everything opposite of me. He uses multiple mikes, edits heavily, etc. He also gets absolutely stunning results. I can do so as well, but not how he does. The "right" way to record is the way that comes as close as possible to freezing an acoustic space time event as closely as possible to the way it was originally experienced at the point the mikes occupied.

JMHO

Dave

[LarryC]

You make great sense. Mercury's difficult sound supports what you say. The 3 channel/Telefunken/McIntosh bit was partly marketing hype, but helped to make up a legend. Thanks.

[TheEvan]

Even with Mercury's purist approach, the resultant sound is, to my ears, the opposite of the Dave Mallette™ sound, which is utterly natural. You da man.