Classic Record RCA 45 rpm reissues - Which?

Thanks very much Albert and Doug - your experience with these 45 rpm issues is exactly the help and encouragement I needed.

Quincy, thank you. The reason for my caution is that I have most of the Classic Records classical releases in 33 rpm and the mastering is variable (some are very good, some are bright and harsh). Most of my pressings are the 180 gram, but as best I can determine, the 200gram pressings have not been remastered - CR is using the same metal parts. The 45 rpm versions would have been separately mastered, so there is no way to anticipate the results (for better or worse) based on experience with the 33 rpm versions.

Rush,
You're right about some of the CR remasterings. Off the top of my head I remember Solti/'Venice' and the much hyped Gibson/'Witches Brew' being quite glaring. I read somewhere or other that CR was attempting to emulate the classic Mercury sound, but clearly they went too far.

Doug,

Classic Records has been extremely frustrating to so many of us. As you say, both Solti/'Venice'/LSC 2313 and Gobson/'Witches Brew'/LSC 2225 are examples of hugely disappointing sound quality. And then CR can flip around and create something that is really well done, such as the Reiner Prokofiev/'Lt. Kije'/LSC 2150 or the Heifitz/Rozsa/LSC 2767 to list two out of several. I'm not looking for sound that mimics the original LPs; I'm looking for good sound in its own right with natural timbre and harmonic overtones, and one just cannot trust that Classic Records will deliver it. Perhaps if one knew the sequence in which the CR releases were mastered that could supply a key to the puzzle. Wilma Cozart jerked a knot in their tail over the Mercury reissue project, forcing them to upgrade their mastering chain and to insert tube amps to drive the mastering lathe. But, again, their results were inconsistent.

Speakers Corner has done such a better job overall with the reissues of the Decca catalogue, and now the Mercury catalogue. For that I am very thankful because the Decca's are superb performances with some of the best recording engineering symphonic music has ever received.

I've purchased some of the 45 rpm Classic Records reissues we've listed. If there is interest, I may add my thoughts about them when I've had a chance to listen.

Rushton,

I'm curious to see if you found much difference between the 33s and the 45s of the same title. I own 16 CR reissues in 33 and about 4 or 5 in 45rpm, not of the same titles. On the whole I've found the quality very variable, from dead to just acceptable. My main problem with CR records is that all they all have a sameness to them. There's a particular sheen to every pressing, I hear this across the board even in their jazz and rock reissues. I don't know whether this is the sound of their vinyl or their electronics but they've all been handled in a coockie cutter style. These reissues don't have the same character and individuality of the originals. I find them to be more of a clone of one another than the master.

Dkarmeli,

I don't wish to engage in a long discussion of Classic Records per se. But as to 45 rpm pressings versus 33 rpm pressings, other things being equal (and that is the operative condition here), the 45 rpm pressings always sound superior to me.

To my ear, the 45 rpm pressings consistently have a greater openess to the sound (greater "transparency" if you will), greater dynamics, and more solid imaging. The sound quality also is different overall, and I don't know how to describe this. It's like a certain sonic signature we associate with vinyl is gone or is shifted to a different resonance point. The 45's, for me, get closer to the sound I hear from good quality reel to reel tape.

This is easily observed in the Analogue Productions Fantasy series of reissues cut at 45 rpm. It also is very noticeable in the Classic Records 45 rpm reissue of the Mercury Stravinksy/Firebird. And I just had the pleasure of hearing the Billie Holiday "Songs for Distingue Lovers" from Classic Records today in 45 rpm, and the same can be said for that recording (although the source tape is not of sterling quality).

But, it's that caveat "all things being equal" that caused me to post my question at the beginning of this thread. Mastering at 45 rpm won't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, and any 45 rpm is separately mastered from any 33 rpm so one can't draw any necessary conclusions how well or how poorly the 33 rpm version was done. But, the sound charateristics of 45 versus 33 I described above are, for me, very consistent across the two formats.
.