I agree with Kal in that there is no way that you can say that the recordings involved are the same recording, but would like to point out at least one thing in general. Each of the recording companies mentioned has different recording philosophies and uses different techniques to record. Telarc has been more of a minimalist, "audiophile" label; depending on when the Telarc recording was made, they may have used as their principal miking array three spaced omni-directional mikes, which will result in a spacious but diffuse soundstage compared to a multi-miked product, such as EMI and DG use. EMI, while it does multi-mike, generally has in the past had a basic miking array that was the main source of their finished product--the spot mikes were used to fix things that didn't work as well as they had wanted in the limited time they had to make the recording in what may have been a new venue for them (this from a talk I had with one of their former recording engineers). DG's general recording philosophy, from what I have read in the past, has been to multi-mike everything, run it all through a very sophisticated mixer and let the producer (tonmeister), in conjunction with the artists, come up with a finished product. Their recording chain is highly processed, is often recorded using short takes of each part of a work rather than a complete movement, and is the antithesis of the audiophile purist recording philosophy--they will be the first to admit that their recordings are intended to appeal to the music lover rather than the audiophile, and I have found that they often tend to sound better on a mass-market system than they do on some high-quality audiophile systems. That their recordings sound like the real thing you'd hear in a concert hall is coincidental, in my view, but the fact that they sound as good as they do musically is a tribute to their artists and to the musical sensibilities of their "tonmeisters".
There, I got that off my chest. In answer to the question, ignoring the example, yes, different recording companies produce different results in their recordings, and there are some that are better than others, depending on what your priorities are in listening to music on your system. Check the archives, there are a lot of threads on this topic. I personally find that, as a general proposition, classical recordings these days of orchestral works have gotten to the point where most of them sound pretty decent to me, though my favorite labels seem to be Telarc, Reference Recordings, London/Decca, Harmonia Mundi, Bis, Ondine, Delos (now defunct, I fear) and the San Francisco Symphony's house label (and take note, there are a number of different recording philosophies represented in this group). None of these companies can match a live concert performance, but these are the labels that seem to produce a more realistic facsimile of a real performance to me. YMMV.
There, I got that off my chest. In answer to the question, ignoring the example, yes, different recording companies produce different results in their recordings, and there are some that are better than others, depending on what your priorities are in listening to music on your system. Check the archives, there are a lot of threads on this topic. I personally find that, as a general proposition, classical recordings these days of orchestral works have gotten to the point where most of them sound pretty decent to me, though my favorite labels seem to be Telarc, Reference Recordings, London/Decca, Harmonia Mundi, Bis, Ondine, Delos (now defunct, I fear) and the San Francisco Symphony's house label (and take note, there are a number of different recording philosophies represented in this group). None of these companies can match a live concert performance, but these are the labels that seem to produce a more realistic facsimile of a real performance to me. YMMV.