Groove damage should be fairly obvious. It will tend to raise its ugly head most obviously as a kind of crackling distortion on very dynamic passages. No amount of cleaning will get rid of it (I find that with a really dirty record, you may need to clean and vacuum two or three times with each subsequent cleaning following 2 or 3 plays of the record to "get the rocks out". That being said, not all Living Stereos or Columbia 6 Eyes or whatever are going to sound great. Some of them, yes, all of them no.
Living Stereo sound bad?
Sorta a sidebar to another of my threads but, I recently bought a bunch of original Living Stereo label LPs. The guy I bought 'em from had them stacked like flap jacks. When I cleaned the records, the pops and ticks were relatively far and few between but, I would've expected the sound quality to be much better. Does the reputation of these records apply to ALL the Living Stereo records or just a few? Could the way they were stacked have caused any damage? Could they have been played on a junky table that caused groove damage? Just curious.
- ...
- 7 posts total
Pawlowski6132, you might find interesting Arthur Salvatore's comments about the "Golden Age" era pressings of many records so highly touted by collectors. Arthur is a somewhat controversial figure, but I've found that I agree with most of what he says about the sound quality of various LPs (predominantly classical). Here's a link to the section of his web site where he explains why his listing of the best sounding LPs do not include any of the original RCA "Shaded Dog", Mercury "Living Presence," London "Blue Back" et al pressings: www.high-endaudio.com/supreme.html#Miss Here's the link to the beginning of his discussion of "the Supreme LPs" (the finest sounding LP recordings he's ever heard): www.high-endaudio.com/supreme.html . |
I collect many living stereo RCA recording's, where ever I can locate them. Much of their popular recordings are much better when it comes to such things as pops, clicks and ticks. I have found many RCAs even when in excellent to mint condition that sounded just horrible in their earlier shaded dog state and yet many white dog's{later pressings} sounding cleaner and more quiet even before a cleaning. |
My experience with the old ones- pre Dynagroove US RCAs was generally that they sounded 'soft' and did not have prominent bass, but very natural sounding strings, horns, massed instruments sounded anything but harsh- but more surface noise than other comparable vintage records, eg Living Presence, Londons, etc. I think the reissues by Classic make buying some of the older ones less compelling, if only because of less noise. Years ago, when the Chesky reissues were the ticket, a friend and I did some direct comparisons and found that we liked the sound of the early "White Dog" best- don't remember which recordings, though. RCA had some novelty records in the period, too- including all the Hugo Winterhalter, Music for a ____, and other (Esquivel) that were fun. I have tons of 'em. |
IMO, the classical shaded dog living stereos and other labels made in the late 50's have a mid to rear of the hall perspective. Many later recordings were more front row or even conductor's podium perspective, more "in your face". Some prefer one over the other, I try to decide based on the performance rather than the perspective. Fritz Reiner and Pierre Monteaux of Living Stereo fame were a couple of very fine conductors. |
- 7 posts total