2. analog
  3. 177435-9627

RCA Living Stereo

I have collected vinyl for over fifty years. Jazz, classical, rock… I have lots of late fifties jazz recordings… some of the best are RCA Living Stereo albums. So, over the years if I found a Living Stereo Album, even not in the category of music I liked, I would buy it. I just found a couple dozen… I had bought over the years, usually for a dollar. I had cleaned them on my record cleaning machine, treated with Last and hid them in the corner.

I am currently listening to one called, Lisbon At Twilight… stereo 1958. Wonderful recording. There are a lot of these orchestral works created.. jazzy often from contemporary tunes. The recordings are compelling, so are the orchestrations and individually musicians even though I would have to classify much as elevator music.

 

But with such great recordings in a great system they can be really enjoyable. They are 180 gram of heavier as well. $1… what a deal… blast from the past.

ghdprentice
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,308 posts
 

That was the golden age of vinyl. High quality hifi sound was a new thing then that sold and all the record companies marketed their own brand of cutting edge sound.    RCA was a big name back then!

That was a special time. These days most people pay little attention to sound quality. That alone will sell little. People could care less. That’s ok. It is what it is. Those who do care can feast on more great recordings than ever and more produced every day. The times they are always a changing.

ghdprentice OP
7,048 posts
 

There was real completion for higher fidelity in the 50’s. Before stereo I have a lot of Hi-Fidelity albums boasting of greater fidelity leading up to stereo. For me, unfortunately no mater how high fidelity is… if it is not stereo it doesn’t keep my interest. But the 50’s was a great time on advancement in high fidelity.

drbond
422 posts
 

???

I don't know what you're used to listening to, but RCA is by far the absolute worst manufacturer I've ever heard on LP.  The sound quality is very poor, and the engineering is as bad.  Supposedly, the shaded dog LP's are better quality RCA LP's, and the white dog about the worst, as RCA's focus on quality went to zero very quickly, and shaded dog are earlier than white dog.  Supposedly, some very early RCA, which I suppose could be some of the Living Stereo LP's are the best RCA LP's, but I have found that they are very bad for the music that I listen to: classical, acoustic, etc. 

lewm
13,110 posts
 

As more of a jazz aficionado and a some time classical music listener, I cannot agree that RCA are the worst among vintage LP brands. Although some recordings are not very good for sure. (I am trying now to think what brand is categorically worse than RCA. I personally always disliked Deutsche Gramophone for their shrillness, and for jazz, nothing sounds worse than Roulette.  I usually did not care for Angel recordings pressed in the USA; UK pressings were much better.) I actually like some of the Dynagroove recordings. Heifitz plays the Sibelius Violin Concerto was excellent, or so I thought. Or was it Heifitz per se who could overcome anything and blow your mind?

ghdprentice OP
7,048 posts
 

When Deutsche Gramophone went digital they were terrible! I pulled one out a couple months ago… horribly shrill! @lewm you are absolutely correct… before they went digital they were really good… often the standard. 
 

I remember buying albums in the late 70’s early 80’s and being really uncertain as to what was going on… it was hot or miss. 

More to discover