Share your favorites on Show & Tell

some of my decca/london recordcollection

In Records > Classical Records > Show & Tell.
Records1138 of 1149Records as time capsules !THIS IS THE INSIDE COVER- READING STEAM
4
Love it
2
Like it

gunnerfusiongunnerfusion loves this.
rawinsonderawinsonde loves this.
waxheadwaxhead loves this.
MsDowAntiquesMsDowAntiques loves this.
bigbenbigben likes this.
potreropotrero likes this.
See 4 more
Add to collection

Please create an account, or Log in here

If you don't have an account, create one here.


Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate



Posted 4 years ago

Email

ramma
(23 items)

i really love the the sound of the first decca/london classical records,
i regard both labels to equaly good in sound, unlike many who think the deccas are the best, allthough both labels very made at the same plant in england, if there is a difference it is down to condition, the deccas where better keept then london s, this is something i have seen and heard many times.
i also like emi asd and columbia sax, dgg tulips, rca lsc, philips sabl, columbia ms, blue angel s early recordings.
i find that in many cases the second ed. records tend to sound better then the 1 ed. records.
with decca the ace of diamonds series and the true stereo decca ecs, some of these outperform the originals by miles.
i have a quite extensive collection to draw my experience from.

i would be nice to share information/experience/sound/ opinions about different labes/cleaning metods etc with other collectors of classical records.
yours
bjarne sorensen
denmark

Comments

  1. rawinsonde, 4 years ago
    Out of all the Deccas and Londons (sxl vs CS-6xxx) series I have collected, the Deccas have been by far found in the best conditions. However comparing conditions of ALL the collectibles, the UK records (Decca and EMI products) far exceed their US equivalents in overall condition. I'm sure much of this is owed to the plastic-lined innersleeves which tend to grip the records securely whereas the paper or glassine sleeves of early Mercury and RCA allowed the records to slide in and out of their jackets far too easily.
  2. ramma ramma, 4 years ago
    actually it is the way the records have played and stored that makrs the biggest difference, in the USA most records where played on old recordchanger turnablrs, left from an older age being 78"s, then refitted with a stereocartrigde, but still with the 5-10 gramms of weight on the record, so condition on Londons,Mercury,LSCs etc. are worse, then the Deccas and EMI/SAX records played in the UK/europe, they used better recordplayer and cartrigdes, and therefore most of the time are in better condition then US records.
    i collect all of the great labels and try get them in near mint condition, the ones i find to have the best soundquality are Londons, Mercurys, Columbia sax records,
    Decca Ace of Diamonds SDDs,Emi Colordogs/b&W dogs, Philips Maroon and Red labels, Deutsche Grammofon Large Tulips,and Speakers Corner reissues.
    i hope i have been helpfull, try it out for yourself, and see if i am correct in my jugdement of the records
  3. rawinsonde, 4 years ago
    You make some good points about the differences of equipment in those days. Those stacker-changers were pretty much "record-wreckers" ... pretty crude stuff!
    Of all the "audiophile" labels (and generally speaking) I find Mercurys the most dynamic but often noisy, RCAs and Decca/Londons the most natural sounding, and Columbia SAX the most "tubey" sounding. Many of the early ASDs (cream & gold) appear splendid visually but play noisily. The later ASD issues, along with the "Treasury" or AOD reissues are among the quietest with still-good sound, with many lacking the dynamics of the originals! Out of several Philips "hi-fi stereos" I have not found one yet with quiet surfaces, although some of them look fine to the eye. (just some observations to share)
  4. ramma ramma, 4 years ago
    you are right with ASD white/gold 1 st prints, they are mostly very noisy, though i have around 10 that are not so, but still they stroggle with the dynamics, and the frequency range, they actually distort a lot, and i have stopped bying them at all, and might put them all up for sale, as they fetch absurde prices in the market
    right now. 2nd print red semicircle, are the ones i go for, they are better in any way then the 1 st print. The later ASD`s, are more tecnical in the sound, almost cd-like in performance, some like this kind of sound very much( Arturo Salvatore The Audio Critiguqe for one foremost)
    as for the Philips " hi-fi stereo ", they tend to be noisy, but i got 5 that absolutely excel in every department, so dont count them all out, and the red label is almost always very good to superb sounding.
    it is important to have an open mind, to find the unknown tresures in records.
    i have found spectaular records in unknown labels like Hispavox of Spain, Olufsen-records & Point-records & Stepplechase of Denmark, Italian Columbia Saxd/ outperforms the English SAX in sound, And for the RCA LSC´s try the English SB RCA´s and you will be in for a heavenly sound, that will knock your socks of, they are that good!
    As for the visual surface of an record you can not jugde until you hear it properly, i have records with visual sratches that do not sound at all, and some visually perfect that crackle like a sandstorm, most important to me is using a recordcleaner, then i will know if they are good enough for the collection.
    this sums up what i know as of now, i hope it is useful to you also
  5. rawinsonde, 4 years ago
    I find that interesting about the "SAXD". I understand the French (saxf) outperforms the UK equivalent, but hadn't heard that about the Italian. I have a few UK SAXs but haven't come across either of the others. I have also heard those SBs are superior but have never even seen one... About as rare as hen's teeth (or Bluenotes) I guess. Happy Listening!
  6. rawinsonde, 4 years ago
    I found a 3-LP EMI box set at a thrift the other day with 3 different labels, 3rd, 4th, and 5th... Bach's Christmas Oratorio SLS-5098. It is probably close to worthless but I picked the set up anyway because I thought the 3 different labels were interesting to compare the sound. I listened to the 5th LP label so far and it sounded fine. Often with this type recording, the orchestra and vocal blend is a congested mess. This was not.
  7. rawinsonde, 4 years ago
    Bjarne, After reading your initial post again, let me introduce myself, Ray from Florida. I really like your "avatar?" It's immediately recognizable and also one of my very favorite RCAs. I can remember buying a teldec copy of it along with Liebowitz' vcs-2659 in an Army PX in Italy for 2.35 dollars. I had a sargent that also loved classical music and I would tote my portable player over to his room for cocktail hour and we would listen to albums with dry martinis. I would like to know how you clean your records. I have my own process based on ideas I've collected from other vinyl lovers.
  8. ramma ramma, 4 years ago
    i use a OKKI NOKKI Cadence MK III recordcleaner, its a german design , where the platter can run both ways, and vacumcleans the cleaning agents of the record when you have done brushing and cleaning, important to remember, is to give the record a rest for ½ hour before the first listen, the 1 time it may crackle a little, but it will be disapired next time you play it, clean your stylus, after this first run, there will be some resedue on it, from reminder particles from the cleaning.
    for the cleaning i use a non alcholic cleaning agent, i find that alcohol takes some of the clarity away from the recording and alters the property of the vinyl making it harder on the surface,because vinyl is an oilproduct, i use something called Art du Son made by Loricraft in England, and combine it with flatscreencleaner for lcds, that gives a very good result, in cleaning the record, the only thing left are the scratches already present on the record, a sure sign that your record is clean, is that there is no surfaceresistance left, when you dryclean the record with a brush afterwards

Want to post a comment?

Create an account or login in order to post a comment.