HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote:Even you will admit that you are an unusual case Jerry.

Me? Yeah - totally fruitloop!

jandl100 wrote... Those old Deccas just can't be beat in classical music (I don't know much about other genres). You simply won't hear better recordings from any era, imo.

I don't agree. Decca almost certainly topped the league in analogue recordings, though Boult's older EMI's would give them a run for their money. I used to own all of Vaughan Williams symphonies on both EMI and Decca pressings.

However, I feel the simple crossed-microphone and 'you get what there is' approach from Telarc CD's is hard to beat. The Telarc Rachmaninov/Previn/RPO is just sublime and as near to a live concert as I've ever heard.

Sadly, Telarc since 2009 is simply a name, as the company formed by two classically-trained musicians in 1977 (won Gramaphone's label of the year in 2004) closed five years later. Now CD production is outsourced.

I objected to most Telarc recordings as they were mixed and mastered for hi-fi effect as opposed to music. The 1812 in particular was a joke, it was sold and marketed because of the cannons It was used at hi-fi shows for these same cannon shots and everyone went Oooo! as they reacted to the shock. Sonic fireworks not music. Similar to Pink Floyd and the helicopter.

I think there's a visceral, gutsy presence to the old stereo Deccas that modern digital recordings largely fail to capture. To me it simply sounds like higher rez, although I'm not sure what I am actually hearing, and much digital sounds a little smoothed over in comparison.

But it wasn't only Decca, as has been said EMI did great things then, too. And I have to confess a liking for Soviet-era recordings for their rather less sophisticated gutsiness and earthiness.

I do like a bit of immediacy in my listening.

Don't forget Philips, like EMI a little variable but some astonishingly good recordings. The company that consistently disappointed me was Deutsche Grammophon.

Fretless wrote:I very much agree.

As for Golden ages, I missed jazz in the 50's. Trane, Miles, Monk, Blue Note. One mic, no mixing.

Tape running at the wrong speed (Kind of Blue, Side 1)

Also remember EMI was a group, so many different constituents. By far the best was Capital, their early recordings were as good as Decca. Sinatra with Nelson Riddle is a classic example.

jandl100 wrote:I think there's a visceral, gutsy presence to the old stereo Deccas that modern digital recordings largely fail to capture. To me it simply sounds like higher rez, although I'm not sure what I am actually hearing, and much digital sounds a little smoothed over in comparison.

The Decca tree mic technique was full of phase distortion - a sort of almost amorphous kind of image that is rather like when you sit some way back from the orchestra. The vinyls cut pre 1970 or so had loads of eq added too and I understand from a mastering engineer, there at the time, that they were half speed mastered too. After 1970, they got modern Neumann lathes and were able to cut in real time and with less or no eq - the audiophiles apparently didn't like them in comparison. I can say this as I had loads of conversations with people who know these things and had daily access to the tapes themselves before Decca ceased to be relatively independent. The facilities closed in Belsize Road (although the remnants of part of the mastering suites remain as the Audio Archiving Company) some time ago (nearly twenty years?) and the tape library and 'vault' was transferred to another facility out-of-town I understand, tapes needing attention being couriered in as necessary.

I always enjoyed records from RAK, mainly 70s pop but for me the recordings always seemed great as a kid. Still recall the expression on my dads face as his Decca FFS cart missed the 7" and played the mat for a few seconds....

_D_S_J_R_ wrote:The Decca tree mic technique was full of phase distortion ....

You've got to remember that I like valve and class D amps - I enjoy distortion.