2. analog
  3. 1357139212

Difference Decca / London records

Did someone made a comparison? I did a research in the www and the general opinion is, that the SXL are better. But in the last days I listened to a lot of both and I don't think so. I never read one posting about their differences in thickness for example (they have 200gr or a bit more), you have to change the VTA for example, no one wrote about that ... and there are some more differences ...
Your impression?
syntax
opus88
530 posts
 
For years, and in many instances I have typically found the Deccas just a tad cleaner and clearer sounding than the Londons, despite what Mr. Salvatore says regarding the identical production process of both. After all is said and done, it may just come down to personal taste. Some may actually prefer the slightly less sharply focused yet still musical Londons, which they may construe as a bit more appealing on the ears. I do agree with the assessmnet of Salvatore and others though that in certain instances some of the early stereo Deccas may sound a bit bright and possibly border on strident. I own a number of the same performances on both the Decca and London labels both produced by the Decca Record Company, Ltd. Depending on the individual recording, I sometimes prefer listening to the Decca, sometimes the London.
opus88
530 posts
 
Just to add another couple of points: My comments above strictly refer to original Decca/London pressings, not the more recent 200g, so called "audiophile" reissues. I generally tend to agree with Syntax's assertion concerning the Speaker's Corner remakes.
syntax's avatar
syntax OP
2,193 posts
 
A few lines to Speakers Corner Reissues ...
For comparison:
Decca SXL and London: Peer Gynt
Decca SXL and London: Espana

The Reissues are wrong in the higher frequencies, they simply hurt and all the details from different musicians are gone. They are equalized to be sonic blockbusters, in a way they remember me to MFSL. Impressive wall of sound even on a 500$ Turntable, but they can't show you anything new when your Equipment gets better. It is always the same "Performance".
The originals have a ton more details, a total different tonal color and a much deeper, detailed soundstage. You can clearly hear the differences even among the mastering engineers (Wallace / Burkett for example).
lharasim
130 posts
 
Syntax +1

the london ffrr are a very consistent sound from record to record..not all are wonderful though.... but there are many that are excellent there musical, have color, proper tone of the instruments (performance aspects) and dynamics...I have several that are dogs but there are more excellent ones then bad ones..

I have said this before... get some good ones this is what should be used to setup/judge your system IMO

Lawrence
Fidelity Forward
syntax's avatar
syntax OP
2,193 posts
 
Generally I think, the Decca/London/RCA books have to be re-written. Lots of those ratings are not true anymore (Sound, Performance for example). The majority was written in the 80's, beginning 90's, most of the time a Linn LP12 - which sounds definitely wrong and can't be used for classical recordings - or similar with limited Bandwidth was used for those "reviews".
More to discover