Decca SXL 2302 vs London CS 6236 -- a FFSS vs FFRR showdown
Handel: Water Music, Royal Fireworks Music
London Symphony Orchestra
Georg Szell, conductor
Pressing: UK, ED1
Date first published: 1962
Matrix numbers:
Decca: ZAL 5285-1E, ZAL 5286-1E
London: ZAL 5285-5A, ZAL 5285-6A
Performance: 5/5
Sound: 3/5 (Decca FFSS), 5/5 (London FFRR)
Price range: $23-539 (mean $160) (Decca) on popsike.com
Comments: After having just listened to EMI/HMV ASD 286, I felt compelled to pull this recording off the shelf for comparison. Then I realized that I owned both the Decca and the London, the former in an ED1 FFSS pressing and the latter in a narrow band FFRR pressing. Collectors know well that the Decca pressing, especially the ED1, sells for a lot of money on the market, but what they don't know is that this is a perfect example of when the original pressing pales in comparison to the later pressing with respect to sound. I'm serious. I have 1E/1E matrix numbers, and I can tell you that I was horrified by the sound when I first got this LP. It's very much distorted -- enough so, that I decided to sell my copy. The narrow band FFRR London issue hands down wins here. The Decca cannot even put up a fight here. The sound here is far more natural, far more balanced, clearer, more dynamic ... just about superior in every way. It ranks up there with the Sargent EMI recording for best sounding early stereophonic recording of these works, and the performance here is both more refined and spirited than the Sargent. And the beauty of this all is that the London pressing can be had for a mere few dollars. So, the choice is yours. Pay a lot of money for an inferior sounding original (okay, at least you get a nicer looking cover) or save yourself some cash, get the London for less than $10, and really enjoy some fine music.
Update 7/7/2024:
I came across an Australian Decca of this recording with the same matrix numbers 1E/1E and in excellent condition. It sounds far better than the UK Decca I described above, which leads me to believe that the distortion I heard on the UK copy I had may have been caused by prior groove wear. Collector's note: Australian Deccas sound excellent to my ears and can frequently be found for a fraction of the price of the UK Deccas.
Maybe your narrow-band has different matrices - but my late-1968 reissue copy on SDD189 is 2E/2E - the 1971 SPA 120 reissue (1972 copy) is 4W/4W - and now consider the latter to be slightly veiled/less dynamic than the 1962(?) SDD matrices (and later SXL: my copy is '11th/22nd' impression with a #3 mother used for the latter side).
ReplyDeleteAnyhow: the superiority of the SDD seems tied-in with the stylus used, as sort of recall getting distortion with an early (sold) SXL via Shure V15/3 Elliptical and, without checking, (now have NOS Shure E/HE stylii), got a similar result with the 2E matrices using that stylus - but not using Shibata profile in a fairly recent 'comparison'..
Thanks, Tin Ear. I suspect that the improved sound of the narrow band here may be related to Decca's use of the Neumann cooled cutter head after 1968 (at least according to Moon and Gray). Your SDD probably would've also been cut with that equipment and thus could also sound far better than the original.
DeletePretty darned certain that the 2E's were the 'spare' set of 1962 matrices being used - not something from 1968 on - which were, according to M.Gray, no longer half-speed mastered.
Deletehttp://www.arsc-audio.org/journals/v18/v18n1-3p4-19.pdf
Thanks also for the link!
DeleteAhhh yes, sorry, you're right! So there's no distortion on your SDD?
ReplyDeletePerhaps the 5a narrow brand pressing is much later. is the liner ricepaper style? Maybe even dates on it?
ReplyDelete'High Density' inner plastic - post 1975..."A's" re-start about that time.
DeleteAs implied: I'd slightly suspect some replay distortion in the 'E' matrices may be stylus-profile related: guess I could fit an E/HE into the V15/III (used for 78's) to re-confirm - but was surprised in my later sound-quality preference.
There are a few errors in the link: the Rachmaninov: Isle/Liszt Paris 1954 stereos are on Decca ECS 702: uploaded the latter years back.
ASD330/Kempe was reissued in 1967 on SXLP30077 (1G/2) with the 1963 Offenbach: Orpheus added - rather nice LP for sound..
Yes, the High Density inner plastic inside the paper is much like what one sees in an audiophile rice paper sleeve. You'll see these with the later Lyrita Decca pressings which are often A pressings. I have a non-grooved FFRR large label reissue with 2E/2E matrices and it truly sounds horrific. It is BU, BC stampers from the 2E mother which is the 20th stamper or so made from the mother. It may be that these have a much more homogenized distorted sound without treble air and detail due to wear of the mother or the stamper in use. The Szell probably sold fairly well in the US which would have made Decca run through the stampers. I've got the Ansermet Nutcracker Highlights on Blueback and Whiteback FFRR and both are 1E/1E (memory not as photographic as Tin's). The blueback is VG+ but sounds divine with wonderful treble detail. The whiteback sounds solid state and much less interesting and has stampers BUCKINGHAM stampers into the third letter if I recall (which is really scary) and probably accounts for the bleached out sound and harmonics. I've always assumed Decca restarted their mastering letters with each new style label because the sound is so different (pretty sure I have some other even higher dollar dupes with this same effect.) Now, I am thinking it is simple loss of fidelity from making too many stampers from the same mother. The Moon Blueback guide gives this a 10 for sound based on the Blueback and I must say that it is a major failing of the guide that they did not list detailed matrix information. I really hate the record and its supposed to be one of the best. The A stamper sounds like it might be the ticket and these later masterings I believe might be the mighty Neumann SX-74. I don't generally love these, but the HF detail might work very well for Water Music. Might current theory on Decca is their is no telling which pressing will be the best.
DeleteHaven't gotten the Kempe SXLP30077, but it is wanted. Listened to SXLP30076 last night and it was pretty good.
I've downloaded the Katin and some other Music Parlour stereo digitizations and I've got my pc configured to output 24/96 to the headphone outputs (not sure how good this setup will do, but my home theatre laptop has demonstrated some very nice sound on movies from these to my main system.) I might actually break down and listen to Tin Ear digital later today.
Interesting that your FFRR pressing is so abominable and it just goes to show that pressing quality is so unpredictable and individualized.
DeleteAs in "a nervous breakdown" ?? - in which case throw a duvet over the 'speakers..though doubt your h/p out socket will be all that good - my Dell 6400 laptops 'high-definition audio' heaphone socket is anything but when used for outputting to an amp...matters are better when using the Terratec 24/96 PC soundcard - though using Windows 2000 in that system means only Audacity will decode the 24/96 FLAC files..
ReplyDeleteI never tried listening out of my Mac's sound card so I can't comment on the quality here ... with Tin Ear's 24/96 remaster, I'd recommend outsourcing it a dedicated DAC. I "Airplayed" mine from the Mac (using iTunes) to my TEAC UD-501 DSD DAC, then listened through headphones and was very pleased with what I heard.
DeleteI'd be a bit nervous about listening on headphones (or any LP's 'straight' via that method) as, except in exceptional circumstances, these files are 'un-filtered' - and headphone small dynamic drivers surely get energized by errant transient 'ticks' - or you'll be more aware of the basic vinyl background; however they can be pretty stunning (or at least unusually vivid for such transfers) via decent HiFi 'at a distance'...especially recent 24/96's.
DeleteWell, you can certainly here some nice bass noise with my Sennheiser 280s and on my main system there is a bit more bass noise too. I found the normal flac files quite listenable and gave a nice window on the sound of the LP. The 24/96 stuff was much more enjoyable. I really wish those Lyre SOL records were 24/96 and some of the EMI stuff. They sounded quite fine on my system leaving one wanting more. I am not a headphone listener. A common issue with PCs is the Advanced sound settings on the headphone output (Sound in control panel). They are usually set to CD quality. I just upped mine to 24/96 Studio. I am quite happy with the sound and a friend just got the iFi iDac as entry level HD digital DAC. I've requested an audition on my system.
DeleteI like the sound of the Stanton just fine. Hi end audio review Michael Fremer likes to take a 24/96 of his mighty rig with a Lyra Atlas around with him. Says it blows away front ends whereever he goes. Atlas has big soundstage and dynamics so the difference is immediately obvious. Tin, what are you using for phono stage? I've got friend who has about 40 high performance MM tube units he wants to sell. Might be able to get you one pro bono. If you like you can mention it, link, etc. He also has his own recording studio where he made everything in it. Its He also put his last LP out on all analog and seems like 24/96 Music Parlour upload using his phono might be of interest and help his LP sales (hard to sell 1000 LPs). I can check with Dr. T if you interested.
Dr. T does Rockabilly and is a self confessed audio cheapskate. He likes higher output cartridges prefering the sound with less amplification stages versus the high dollar low output MC setups. Dr. T has phd in electrical engineering.
DeleteThere doesn't seem much difference between the stuff I regularly use (I could build my own, I guess..) - only when I substitute 'sub V15/III Shure' levels does some degree of playback 'magic' vanish.
DeleteI think all the 24/96 are via Pioneer C-73 'Ultimate Fidelity' Control Unit (mainly fronts 2 Quad system/s)- which has good distortion, etc, specs...though my NOS Stanton 980LZS would need more than its 100ohm input to avoid EHF losses- so have my ancient Meridian 101 + various input modules there..but never used that system for dubs (Linn LP12/Garrard 301/Thorens 124 neither)
A variety of cartridges have been used: the 24/96's are JVC X-1 - or Decca Gold...not used my Dynavector DV17D2 except for a couple of 16bit mono dubs from '80's LP
My 'tube' stages are nowadays unused: ancient Leak (Varislope Stereo/Point One Stereo) / QUAD 22 (3 sets of the complete amp/tuner systems + spare NOS original Mullard/Telefunken tubes) - as the phono sensitivity - S/N isn't too good for most post mid-60's MM cartridges - easily 20dB worse then SS stuff...
...but
I'd hate to point out that the recording-chain in those days (+ the LP's) was hardly 'Ultra HiFi' in terms of specs/components - so a bit of a nonsense to spend a fortune to listen to quite high distortion-levels.
1000 LP sales seems not bad - but presumably he also offers Hi-Definition downloads??
However, I don't have space for much stereo 24/96 as a GigaByte virtually = an LP....though now realize it captures the 'feel' better (previously I preferred MiniDisc dubs of LP..) - however it's quite unnecessary for Historical material from LP - which sound fine via CD-RW dubs - though a few recent were 24/96 recorded.
I never completed some intended Oiseau-Lyre stereos - have most - but the Handel/s are certainly worth a 24/96 transfer...but 'de-nitting' old vinyl is really tiresome...and would prefer just to listen to the material without such time-wasting as this Lark has simply cost me money - so it doesn't make sense to spend (much) more (especially as I've 'a dozen of this/a dozen of that' - mostly never switched-on) - unless it was Commercial: and my only USP would be non-use of digital NR/de-click - which messes everything up - even at the lowest levels using 'pro' software - whilst attempting to make an ersatz CD-quiet product.
1000 lps total he needs to sell, Maybe 250 so far. Forgive my delay in responding as I wanted to take time to research some of the electronics. Do you have Quad speakers (doubled)? I guess you can do low output mc's if you wish.
DeleteThose Lyres are hard to get in the states (some bluebacks). Love to get some Handel SOL. Well, it's very interesting the 24/96 and my friend is eager to show off his new DAC and we'll see if I care enough to get one on place of the HP.
You speak distortion specs which really are engineering conventions having only some influence on the overall sound of a component. Salvatore has hit the nail on the head with his sound floor concept, but those old recordings are particularly low in odd order distortion. They do have a lot to offer, but not blackness of background and the micro and macro dynamics that seem to come out of the woodwork when a system is black enough.to do it. The golden oldies do have something going for them beyond the current vocabulary. I've been amazed at their improvement as I've improved some of my solid state components via relatively cheap Schockty diodes and low voltage black gate capacitors (dirt cheap compared to Maestro Salvatore's Teflon capacitors). Seems like electrolytic capacitors and diodes are much the sound of solid state and reducing/eliminating them helps both tube and solid state gear. The surprise for me has been the improvement in the venerable Golden Age recordings from Decca, RCA, etc.
For SOL 60000series, the earliest masterings seem to have more 'Transparency/Life'; but really think a superior source to Vinyl is needed to 'appreciate' this 'golden-age' material - without mechanical compromises....btw; the Wenzinger 'Fireworks' on Archiv must be available in the US as have the export stereo (ARC 73146) - the 1966 mastering, there, is very good (for DGG) - and the performance is funky.
DeleteSingle pair of (modded by me) mid-70s QUAD ESL57's + recently-bought mid-2000's QUAD 11L's - mainly for DVD playback (the 5inch drivers giving extended/precise bass).
A modern tube phono-stage would allow a wide-range of cartridges - but don't have it as any priority (or many MC's) - and running QUAD II amps is now hideously expensive (check what my NOS 4x matched GEC KT66's would be worth - I paid, privately, £200 nearly 20years back - also then getting Philips ECG military 7581A/Saratov 'KT-66' - and failed to discern any real superiority compared to just using QUAD 303/405.2 amps into the '57's).
Thanks for the Archiv Fireworks suggestion and I concur on the early SOL which are just like early Decca (don't concur on superior source to vinyl as usual.)
DeleteWow original Quads with Quad electronics (never heard those, but must match well). The 57 is what my friend the Quadiohile uses (his made 1963). Vandersteen speakers were meant to emulate the Quad sound, but I can tell you that in quite a few departments I prefer the Quad over any Vandersteen speaker. The Quadophile is using a modified Allen Organ amp with upgraded output transformers. He's got a pair of Tungsol 6550 in each and typically runs them in triode mode for 27 watts and can play quite loud. He was able to get a B&W subwoofer to integrate with the Quads which play unaltered. He crosses the sub over pretty low. I can get details if interested, but the sub is probably $500 used and they are getting old enough for expensive failures.
It is ouch time when you have to replace tubes (Tungsol 6550 bad too). Expensive solid state like Krell, etc. is extremely expensive to fix with shipping costs. With solid state when you are down, you are down hard. Some tube units will take out a resistor when the tube fails. I've got some Allen Organ amps modified for 6b4Gs and another set for 300Bs. Directly heated triodes seem to last a lot longer than standard tubes and just tend to get tired without blowing anything up. Mine have never failed, just swap in a tube and you are back up and running. My Electron Kinetics Eagle 2a soldered on for almost 30 years, but went down hard and that caused a lot of commotion. So, I like tubes, you just need equipment that does not dine on expensive ones (my ARC D160 tried to get 200 watts out of quad of 6550 and loved to cherry bomb 6550s.)
Aqlam and I have been intriigued by VTL Tiny Triodes which use 4 long lasting 6bq5 per channel. Not a graceful cliipper so it might run out of gas. A great, great amp for under $1000 used that is very affordable to keep in tubes. I've never liked 6L6 amps. I've got Eico ST-40 integrated and the 7591 in it is obtainable and considered to be like half a tungsol 6550. Perhaps something vintage in this area might get the Tin man to open up his heart to tubes again.
Would've bought "Acoustat X" imports over 30 years back: but there was a 'phone # after the £-sign: sounded stunning/holographic via Linn LP12/Grado Signature 8(?) + (probably) an AR SP* pre.
DeleteEarly stereo Oiseau-Lyre's were not always Decca-recorded.
I'll leave you/others to deal with the 'Blueback' catalogue as am fixing 'some' vintage HiFi - so won't now be interfering...
...but you're missing Gavazzeni Italian Opera overtures,etc: STS 15025 (1E/1E)- presumably CS-issued (LXT5288: sounds better); suspect your 'SXL2038' is incorrect: presumably the non-SXL Stravinsky/Magaloff - and Ricci Virtuoso non-SXL 2033 is ECS595: the Haydn/Backhaus is ECS692 ....SXL2100 was the Leimer Piano C....etc, etc
I'll take care of these. Leaving out Opera and I think Leimar too (Some things are best shielded from the public.) Need your input very much especially on Jubilee.
DeleteNice catch on the Gavazzeni and I own the STS 15023 (CS 6121). I picked up SXL2038 from the Charm database and I'd say they never put out the LP. Its now SXL2038c. May have a few more of these Charm haps. Not the Magaloff. Updated the ECS table and now SXL2033c and another Charm aborted release.
Got ECS692 in master spreadsheet too. These will update on site later tonight as I am error checking extensively right now. May start doing the old ebay searches or discogs to look for missing ones.
Quite a few local Audiofools are doing the Acoustat thing, but I've not been over to hear. Used to have a thing for ARC gear. You seem to have quite the beat on sanely priced used audio equipment. Dr. T needs to sign up for the Tin Ear academy.
DeleteMy STS typo (doing too many things at once).
DeleteCan scan/upload the (late?) Niel Ellingham's 'complete numerical listing' booklet from 20years back - or the early part- but suspect the info is around...but he shows SXL2033/2038/2061/2063/2066/2099/2100/2148(Flagstad on SDD)/2203/2283 as no issue + quotes wrong issued SXL for: 2036/2138/2139/2142/2143/2146/2147 - at a quick glance.
Have a fully illustrated JB Jubilee leaflet from 1981 - goes to JB78 (1979) - but have JB's to 145..
Will check back in a few weeks - as that lark will be time-consuming :~))
Thanks for further input. I stumbled back upon Youngrok Lee's sight where it was easy to confirm these issues. Our guide now has gobs of high rez Decca photos.
DeleteI have a small Jubilee leaflet from Canada. I believe they number JL and all the pressings appear to be Dutch and as quiet as quiet can be. I've also seen longer Jubilee numbers too. I am going to search net for catalgues, etc., but I don't have great hope.
Thanks very much for your help. No luck funding much on Niel Ellingham and his "The Decca Book of Numbers".
No luck searching. Definitely would love to see the Jubilee brochure. I have a JL one for JL41001-410015 plus five opera starting at JL42001. For those who wan't cassette there is the JL5 prefix.....
Deletehello there, I know it is being almost 10 years since the last comment, but still. I type this comment while listening to my German Teldec, blue label copy, which set me back 1-2 Deutsch Marks back in the day, but boasts british -1E stampers and marvellous, quiet, teutonic vinyl. No sign of distortion here, but I will be happy to hunt for some more copies and see if other records were pressed with different stampers and/or sound better.
ReplyDeleteThis may be the post of the century; I did not realize that Teldec was reusing the British mothers. EMI does this all the time, but it is much more rare with Decca. I'll reiterate what I said above that the 2E/2E does not sound good at all. So yeah if some uber expensive blueback has a Teldec reissue hell to the yes I'm going to buy that for $2. Is there any way to tell what year your Teldec was manufactured/pressed?
Delete(finally writing under my own google-nick). Teldec did use British mothers occasionaly. So did french, italian, spanish and dutch Decca! (though the latter is to be avoided due to inferior vinyl). Unfortunately I am not the only one who knows about it, so the prices nowadays are not as low as they used to be. Another problem is, the use of british stampers is fairly inconsistent, sometimes the very same record with the same label, cover etc, can be found with british or local stampers. The upside is, even a Teldec record with german stampers will seldom sound really bad.( It will be inferior to a british original in terms of dynamics, space and nuance, but not so much that it will hurt your ears. Most people will not know what they are missing, unless they hear a direkt comparison between a british and a german record version of the same recording-some may not care even after that.)
ReplyDeleteBut I digress. You want to know how to identify the right stuff:There is only one way Im afraid, by looking at the dead wax. The giveaway for german stampers is the numbering, they are numbered with latin numbers after the ZAL-Code. If you ask a dealer and he gives a matrix code like ZAL-3559-II-X, that is a german one. The ZAL-number on the labels is the same as the british ones, so buyer beware!
concerning the dates: I have not managed to find a way to date those pressings, my copy of the Händel is probably from the seventies, judging by the edition, but that is all I can say.
I don't pay much attention to Dutch pressings Because I never was a massive fan of the later ones But as far as noise floor goes, which is a big deal, The later Dutch Philips pressings are supposed to be excellent. This applied to mercuries. I may be way off base but I thought these all kind of came out of a shared plant. So are you saying the early Dutch pressings, as in not late, Are quite bad Or is this all relative and we're just going up against the excellence of Decca ?
DeleteI am saying that all is relative and no Decca should be written off before you hear it first. Most dutch pressings I have are nothing special, but some late dutch ones, with Polydor mastering sound pretty good. I have some dutch Deccas and the British equivalent, I can do some comparison if you want.
ReplyDelete