Good sounding Deutsche Grammophon recordings

do you reverse the phase on them?

My take on DG is that they always had some of the best artists and performances of any label, but the recording quality was inconsistent. I also own DG records from the 60s and 70s and many times have been disappointed by the recording quality.

IMO, these should have been excellent sounding LPs, as they were from the golden age of vinyl and made in Germany/Holland. I've often wondered if the many mergers and sale to Polygram in 1972 had anything to do with the engineering or quality control.

But Decca from that time period was always a sure thing.

Musically DG recordings are generally among the best. Sonically, a mixed bag. DG, unlike Decca, generally used a lot of microphones, some almost in the laps of musicians, ran the feeds through a mixing board and relied on the producer (tonmeister, I think they called the person) for the final mix, along, of course, with the featured conductor or artist. They still follow this practice, as I understand it. As a result, the end result depended on the musical sensibility of the producer, and DG had some good ones who did not care as much about how realistic a portrayal of the orchestra they could achieve but rather how the music recorded should sound. That's why in the middle of a quiet passage in a symphony you might hear a larger than life flute being spotlit, for example. DG actually acknowledges that their recordings are aimed at music lovers more than at audiophiles, though some of their recordings can satisfy both. I have found that many of their recordings from the late 60s on and especially their earlier digital recordings were on the bright side and lacking bass, though their recent offerings seem much better. I used to avoid DG recordings, but have now found that, as long as they don't chase me from the room with their tonal balance, the musical result overrides the occasional deviation from what I'd hear in the concert hall.

As an aside, with the exception of Mercury, earlier Telarc and a few purist labels, multi-miking is often used by labels, not just DG (though DG seems to use a lot more than, say, Decca or RCA). If RCA was recording Heifetz or Rubenstein, for example, they were going to spotlight their star artist, sometimes at the expense of a literal portrayal of a concert hall experience. In speaking with a former EMI recording engineer, I was told that using a lot of mikes was often a necessity for them, given the numerous places they were recording in which the acoustics of the hall were not so well-known and balances needed to be adjusted after the recording session to make recordings sound good. I was also talking this past weekend with the NJ Symphony's recording engineer, who records a great many orchestras and ensembles and uses not only the basic "Decca tree" with outriggers and a pair of spaced omnis in the hall, but also a large array of spot microphones over different sections when recording orchestras, in part because, to paraphrase, when a world-famous conductor listening to the playback tells you he wants more sound from the second violins in the final product, you don't ask him why he didn't have them play louder in the first place. In addition, he told me that today labels and artists generally want more impact in the recording, something you don't always get with a few spaced omnis in front of the orchestra (like Telarc used to do--while their recordings were certainly dynamic, they could sometimes sound a bit distant). I can tell you that this engineer's products are musically excellent and give a good facsimile of what you would hear in the concert hall, but they are certainly not purist recordings. The end result just depends on the skills of the recording engineers and producers, as well, of course, as the artists, not just the recording techniques.