Difference between RCA Red Seal and RCA Living Stereo
Paul Goldstein
Robert Lawrence wrote:
>
> I'm new at collecting classical CD's, and new to classical music in
> general.
>
> I recently purchased an RCA Red Seal CD containing Beethoven's violin
> concerto in D (Heifetz, BSO, Munch), and Brahms's violin concerto in D
> (Heifetz, CSO, Reiner).
>
> I am puzzled by two things: First, I've seen references to a
> recording with the very same specifications, under the name "RCA
> Living Stereo". Is this item different from the RCA Red Seal disc
> that I purchased?
The same performances are on both discs. However, the Living Stereo
issue MAY reflect a different digital remastering of the original
material than the RCA Red Seal issue. Interestingly, RCA does not
really claim, at least in any obvious way, that their "Living Stereo"
issues reflect new remasterings. To the extent that I have been able to
compare "Living Stereo" issues with previous RCA CD's I have heard very
little if any difference between the two. In particular, I hear very
little if any difference between the two versions of Reiner's Bartok,
Rimsky-Korskaov, Mussorgsky-Ravel, Stravinsky or Respighi recordings.
They sounded very good in their original CD incarnations, and they sound
very good but no better in their "Living Stereo" versions. I suspect
that anyone who buys the newer issues expecting clear sonic improvements
is wasting his or her money.
> Secondly, there is no mention on the CD that I bought (or on the
> accompanying packaging or program notes) of whether the CD is in
> stereo. This omission seems odd to me (though, to my ears, the CD
> does sound like a stereo recording).
Your ears are correct; both of these are stereo recordings, and very
good ones too!
Yi-kuan Jong
In article <343941...@aol.com>, Paul Goldstein <pgold...@aol.com> wrote:
:Robert Lawrence wrote:
::
:: I'm new at collecting classical CD's, and new to classical music in
:: general.
::
:: I recently purchased an RCA Red Seal CD containing Beethoven's violin
:: concerto in D (Heifetz, BSO, Munch), and Brahms's violin concerto in D
:: (Heifetz, CSO, Reiner).
::
:: I am puzzled by two things: First, I've seen references to a
:: recording with the very same specifications, under the name "RCA
:: Living Stereo". Is this item different from the RCA Red Seal disc
:: that I purchased?
:
:The same performances are on both discs. However, the Living Stereo
:issue MAY reflect a different digital remastering of the original
:material than the RCA Red Seal issue. Interestingly, RCA does not
:really claim, at least in any obvious way, that their "Living Stereo"
:issues reflect new remasterings. To the extent that I have been able to
:compare "Living Stereo" issues with previous RCA CD's I have heard very
:little if any difference between the two. In particular, I hear very
:little if any difference between the two versions of Reiner's Bartok,
:Rimsky-Korskaov, Mussorgsky-Ravel, Stravinsky or Respighi recordings.
:They sounded very good in their original CD incarnations, and they sound
:very good but no better in their "Living Stereo" versions. I suspect
:that anyone who buys the newer issues expecting clear sonic improvements
:is wasting his or her money.
If you get the latter reissue from Heifetz edition, then I believe there is
no big difference from the living stereo reissue since the transfer is probably
made after they release living stereo series. back in late 80s, RCA transfered
all heifetz stereo concerto recording in poor sound (hash sound). I believe
the new released CD covers are pictures of Hefeitz. If you want the cateloge
number, send me an e-mail you I will mail you back. I don't have it with me
now.
regards.
Joey
:
:: Secondly, there is no mention on the CD that I bought (or on the
:
drgonzopipeline.com
Paul Goldstein <pgold...@aol.com> wrote:
>The same performances are on both discs. However, the Living Stereo
>issue MAY reflect a different digital remastering of the original
>material than the RCA Red Seal issue.
In this case, the Brahms on Red Seal CD 09026-61742-2 is identical to that
on the Living Stereo CD which perceded it by less than a year (as part of
the Heifetz Collection).
>Interestingly, RCA does not really claim, at least in any
>obvious way, that their "Living Stereo" issues reflect new remasterings.
All Living Stereo CDs are remasterings, even if a previous CD incarnation
existed. The one exception: the Munch "Daphnis et Chloé" - the Gold Seal
issue which preceded the Living Stereo CD by less than a year was a Living
Stereo "dress rehearsal" transfer effected for internal demonstration.
>To the extent that I have been able to compare "Living Stereo" issues
>with previous RCA CD's I have heard very little if any difference
>between the two. {ker-snip}
I have heard differences between Living Stereos and earlier CD transfers in
every case where I have had discs to compare, all favoring the Living
Stereo transfers by at least a noticeable margin, some showing a huge
improvement.
>I suspect
>that anyone who buys the newer issues expecting clear sonic improvements
>is wasting his or her money.
Absolutly incorrect. The Living Stereo CDs are better sounding and cheaper
than their Red Seal counterparts (most of which went out of print shortly
before or after the LS CDs were issued), with the exception of the Brahms
Violin Concerto.
The Doc
Morten Vest Hansen
>I'm new at collecting classical CD's, and new to classical music in
>general.
>
>I recently purchased an RCA Red Seal CD containing Beethoven's violin
>concerto in D (Heifetz, BSO, Munch), and Brahms's violin concerto in D
>(Heifetz, CSO, Reiner).
>
>I am puzzled by two things: First, I've seen references to a
>recording with the very same specifications, under the name "RCA
>Living Stereo". Is this item different from the RCA Red Seal disc
>that I purchased?
>
>Secondly, there is no mention on the CD that I bought (or on the
>accompanying packaging or program notes) of whether the CD is in
>stereo. This omission seems odd to me (though, to my ears, the CD
>does sound like a stereo recording).
>
>I would be grateful for any light that anyone can shed on these
>questions.
Both were originally issued in the Living Stereo series. In the
meanwhile they have been out on Red Seal, but some four years ago RCA
wisely decided to resurrect the Living Stereo series. I have the Brahms
that you mention and it is stereo (one of the first). Generally speaking
the Living Stereo reissues are preferable. Original masters were used,
which was not always the case with the Red Seal reissues. But others may
be able to shed more light on this. But it's a wonderful Brahms
recording in any case!
Morten Vest Hansen, Frederiksberg, Denmark
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
Chloe Carter
In article <61bulo$p...@camel21.mindspring.com>, drgonzo<at>pipeline.com (Doctor
Gonzo) writes:
>All Living Stereo CDs are remasterings, even if a previous CD incarnation
>existed. The one exception: the Munch "Daphnis et Chloé" - the Gold Seal
>issue which preceded the Living Stereo CD by less than a year was a Living
>Stereo "dress rehearsal" transfer effected for internal demonstration.
Weren't the Living Stereo CD's mastered from the original master tapes
(where available)? And weren't tube electronics used at some points in
the signal chain? My impression was the the RCA folks watched what
Philips did with the Living Presence series, and then appropriated what
they felt were the more successful of those practices for the LS series.
>The Doc
- Chloe
Norman M. Schwartz
Chloe Carter wrote:
> Weren't the Living Stereo CD's mastered from the original master tapes
> (where available)? And weren't tube electronics used at some points in
> the signal chain? My impression was the the RCA folks watched what
> Philips did with the Living Presence series, and then appropriated what
> they felt were the more successful of those practices for the LS series.
I, for one, am not so sure if use of "original electronics" represents a set-back or an
advance. (I am not doubting the fact that some of these older recordings, of which I
have many, are excellent.)
Norman
Chuck Ross
In article <61dv54$1b52$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
qpc...@frontiernet.net (Chloe Carter) wrote:
> In article <61bulo$p...@camel21.mindspring.com>, drgonzo<at>pipeline.com
(Doctor
> Gonzo) writes:
>
> >All Living Stereo CDs are remasterings, even if a previous CD incarnation
> >existed. The one exception: the Munch "Daphnis et Chloé" - the Gold Seal
> >issue which preceded the Living Stereo CD by less than a year was a Living
> >Stereo "dress rehearsal" transfer effected for internal demonstration.
>
> Weren't the Living Stereo CD's mastered from the original master tapes
> (where available)? And weren't tube electronics used at some points in
> the signal chain? My impression was the the RCA folks watched what
> Philips did with the Living Presence series, and then appropriated what
> they felt were the more successful of those practices for the LS series.
>
> >The Doc
>
> - Chloe
Did you intend to say "Mercury" instead of "Philips"? The Mercury
Living Presence series of recordings were some of the best analog
recordings ever made, all with three mics only.
_________________________________________________________________
Chuck Ross
Reply to ckr...@enteract.com
Norman M. Schwartz
drgonzo pipeline.com (Doctor Gonzo) wrote:
> I have heard differences between Living Stereos and earlier CD transfers in
> every case where I have had discs to compare, all favoring the Living
> Stereo transfers by at least a noticeable margin, some showing a huge
> improvement.
>
> >I suspect
> >that anyone who buys the newer issues expecting clear sonic improvements
> >is wasting his or her money.
>
> Absolutly incorrect. The Living Stereo CDs are better sounding and cheaper
> than their Red Seal counterparts (most of which went out of print shortly
> before or after the LS CDs were issued), with the exception of the Brahms
> Violin Concerto.
I am familiar with one instance in which this is not the case. It may be an exception,
the rule, or something other. A favorite Fiedler/Boston Pops collection of mine is RCA
Red Seal RCD1-5479. My collection also contains the Living Stereo release "Hi-Fi
Fiedler, 09026-61497-2. Both discs have the same performance of the Rossini William Tell
Overture. The Living Stereo Release filters out some rumble (studio noise) and in
addition robs the recording of much of the low frequency information which provides a
lot of excitement and interest. The Red Seal release is a joy throughout and in addition
it's one of several discs I use to help check out my system. I have another (ADD) Red
Seal CD which may be my personal favorite amongst all my discs!
Norman
drgonzopipeline.com
ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>Did you intend to say "Mercury" instead of "Philips"? The Mercury
>Living Presence series of recordings were some of the best analog
>recordings ever made, all with three mics only.
Philips owns Mercury. As for their being some of the best analog-era
recordings, I cannot agree at all - repeated instances of overload,
too-close miking, and lousy (dry-as-the-desert) venues are only a few of
the problems you encounter all too frequently on Mercury. The CDs are an
improvement - usually a big one - over the LPs, but some problems just
can't be undone. There are a few winners, and big at that - the Dorati
Firebird is in the sonic top rank of "golden age" stereo recordings, for
example. But as a general rule, Merc was never able to touch the best
quality sound of RCA, Decca, some of the Capitols or the West Coast Walter
sessions on Columbia from the same period.
As for the "three mikes" myth, I know of a retired gentleman who played
Merc sessions in Detroit who recalls far more than three mics on some
sessions... the three mikes were their main feed; one can only conclude
they omitted mention of sweetener mics. Most of them do sound for certain
like three-mic recordings (the Dorati/London Wagner sessions surely are),
others just plain don't (a few of the Parays).
The Doc
Chloe Carter
In article <ckross-0710...@x2-44.d.enteract.com>, ckr...@enteract.com
(Chuck Ross) writes:
>Did you intend to say "Mercury" instead of "Philips"? The Mercury
>Living Presence series of recordings were some of the best analog
>recordings ever made, all with three mics only.
The entire Mercury catalog was bought by Philips many years ago.
All of the Mercury CD reissues are products of Philips, done by
Philips engineers.
>Chuck Ross
- Chloe
Norman M. Schwartz
Chloe Carter wrote:
> The phrase 'original electronics' is yours, not mine. The word I used
> was 'tube', and given today's technology that does *not* represent a
> setback. Tube amps today can sound quite as neutral as any solid state.
In the booklets accompanying the RCA Living Stereo releases RCA/BMG states:
"Becasuse the original recordings were made on multi-track machines with tube-type
amplifiers, these machines were restored and used to play back the work parts."
> Tube technology has not remained static during the solid state era,
> just as analog technology has continued to advance during the digital
> era.
I'd like to see if tube technology can come up with the 20 year or life-time warranties
(exclusive of the tubes themselves of course) available on some solid state amplifiers.
I believe tube amps are great for people who like to continuously transplant and replace
tubes, twist and turn knobs on meters adjusting bias, tossing out microphonic tubes,
etc, rather than using the same doing what this thing is about, listening to the music
itself. (Tube technology can also be good for the wallets of of their manufacturers,
dealers, and the people who write and publish magazines reviewing such products.
Norman
Chloe Carter
In article <61e1cr$c...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Norman M. Schwartz"
<NM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Chloe Carter wrote:
>> Weren't the Living Stereo CD's mastered from the original master tapes
>> (where available)? And weren't tube electronics used at some points in
>> the signal chain?
>
>I, for one, am not so sure if use of "original electronics" represents a set-
back or an
>advance.
The phrase 'original electronics' is yours, not mine. The word I used
was 'tube', and given today's technology that does *not* represent a
setback. Tube amps today can sound quite as neutral as any solid state.
Tube technology has not remained static during the solid state era,
just as analog technology has continued to advance during the digital
era. Many people in this NG who talk about 'analog vs. digital' are
comparing 1979 analog to 1997 digital, without realizing that analog
sound has not remained frozen at its 1979 level of performance.
>Norman
>
- Chloe
Morten Vest Hansen
>I'd like to see if tube technology can come up with the 20 year or life-time warranties
>(exclusive of the tubes themselves of course) available on some solid state amplifiers.
And I thought the discussion was about sound quality, but that just goes
to show how silly I am.
Morten Vest Hansen
Who gladly replaces his tubes when he has to
Norman M. Schwartz
Excuuuuuse me, the issue is sound quality, solid state sounds better than tubes!
Norman
drgonzopipeline.com
"Norman M. Schwartz" <NM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Excuuuuuse me, the issue is sound quality, solid state sounds better than tubes!
Agreed without doubt, though tube equipment is admittedly a lot of fun to
tweak & play with.
The Doc
Morten Vest Hansen
>Morten Vest Hansen wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 15:52:09 -0400, "Norman M. Schwartz"
>> <NM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I'd like to see if tube technology can come up with the 20 year or life-time warranties
>> >(exclusive of the tubes themselves of course) available on some solid state amplifiers.
>>
>> And I thought the discussion was about sound quality, but that just goes
>> to show how silly I am.
>>
>> Morten Vest Hansen
>>
>> Who gladly replaces his tubes when he has to
>
>Excuuuuuse me, the issue is sound quality, solid state sounds better than tubes!
But that's not what you wrote!
The tubes I've heard have sounded better than the solid states I've
heard, and so I''m willing to live with all sorts of inconveniences. For
me. at least, sound quality has little to do with 20 year or life-time
warranties. That would be nice to have, but I can live without it.
From now on this thread probably belongs in rec.audio... :-)
Morten Vest Hansen
On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 12:30:29 -0400, "Norman M. Schwartz"
<NM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Morten Vest Hansen wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 15:52:09 -0400, "Norman M. Schwartz"
>> <NM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I'd like to see if tube technology can come up with the 20 year or life-time warranties
>> >(exclusive of the tubes themselves of course) available on some solid state amplifiers.
>>
>> And I thought the discussion was about sound quality, but that just goes
>> to show how silly I am.
>>
>> Morten Vest Hansen
>>
>> Who gladly replaces his tubes when he has to
>
>With new 35 yr old stock tubes, or for the re-issued Marantz Model 7 and Model 9?
With original, still available tubes
Chloe Carter
In article <61k1nn$3...@camel12.mindspring.com>, drgonzo<at>pipeline.com
(Doctor Gonzo) writes:
>"Norman M. Schwartz" <NM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Excuuuuuse me, the issue is sound quality, solid state sounds better than
tubes!
>
>Agreed without doubt, though tube equipment is admittedly a lot of fun to
>tweak & play with.
>
>The Doc
I disagree on both counts.
First of all, there are plenty of people who *listen* to their
tube amps, and tweak them only when necessary. I would frankly be
happier if no tweaking were necessary, as with solid state, but
it's not yet a perfect world.
As for sound, the general pattern of your comments is to:
A) always prefer CD to any other storage medium;
B) always prefer solid state to tubes.
My experience is quite different. While the average CD sounds better
than the average LP, there are cases where the reverse is true, and
you seem unwilling to accept that such cases exist. For this reason,
your judgment on this point is IMHO suspect.
As for tubes vs. solid state: the superiority of solid state over
tubes is far less clear than that of CD over LP. Contemporary tube
amps by companies such as VAC and Audio Research sound fabulous.
There is nothing whatsoever that is 'without a doubt' in a
comparison of these amps to the better solid state amps.
Both technologies seem to be converging on a sound that has the
musicality of tubes combined with the neutrality of solid state. For
most listeners, the sound of solid state is undoubtedly good enough,
but for some listeners, at least, tubes still provide that last
bit of musical integrity that is mostly unavailable from solid
state electronics.
- Chloe
Norman M. Schwartz
Poor me, unfortunately I will never be able to hear the superiority of tubes since I
don't have dedicated power lines for my amps, power line conditioners, magic clocks,
exotic power cords for my amps, nor exotic interconnect nor speaker cables. Neither did
I ever bother to upgrade my Linn LP12. This is particularly unfortunate since I've heard
the LPs made from digital master tapes sound better that their CD counterparts, but then
again I'd better be careful because an article in The Absolute Sound proved that digital
LPs cause cracks and fissures in turntable rotors ansd spindles. I saw the proof with my
own eyes since the article included electron micrographs.
Norman
drgonzopipeline.com
qpc...@frontiernet.net (Chloe Carter) wrote:
>First of all, there are plenty of people who *listen* to their
>tube amps,
...including me; I've owned tube gear among my other audio assets for close
to two and a half decades. I have plenty of experience hearing and
tweaking tube gear - and most of it sounds OK but lacking the musicality,
accuracy and listenability of properly engineered solid-state.
>[snip]As for sound, the general pattern of your comments is to:
>A) always prefer CD to any other storage medium;
Not always; I prefer masters or clones of some of the 20-bit, 24-bit and
proto-PWM recordings I've been involved with... now, if only we could get a
72-minute, 5.1 channel, 24-bit, 96kHz disc to paly in our DVD that could
finally bring the -stereo- (biggest limiting factor in music playback) era
to an end...
>B) always prefer solid state to tubes.
In practically every comparison (sighted, blind, ABZ) I've been involved
with, solid state has simply sounded better. More like real music played
by real people rather than syrupy, synthetic, euphonic sound. And by a
noticeable margin, sometimes subtle, sometimes huge.
>My experience is quite different. While the average CD sounds better
>than the average LP, there are cases where the reverse is true, and
>you seem unwilling to accept that such cases exist. For this reason,
>your judgment on this point is IMHO suspect.
With the expreience of a some early botched transfers from inferior
non-first-generation source - some of which still sounded pretty decent
when compared to low-quality domestic LP pressings - there are very few
examples of LPs sounding superior to CDs. Maybe warmer... maybe
purrdier... but certainly not more musical or accurate.
>As for tubes vs. solid state: the superiority of solid state over
>tubes is far less clear than that of CD over LP. Contemporary tube
>amps by companies such as VAC and Audio Research sound fabulous.
I _have_ an AR. Sounds fine... but it does weird attenuative things to
high frequencies and throws in noticeable even-order coloration when you
compare it to a decently engineered solid-state unit (a comparably powered
Bryston or even Adcom)... even when it's operating optimally.
>There is nothing whatsoever that is 'without a doubt' in a
>comparison of these amps to the better solid state amps.
Only if you have faith in the subjectivist camp. I'd love to see this
assertion tested in a no-holds-barred ABZ test...
>Both technologies seem to be converging on a sound that has the
>musicality of tubes
Sounds more like "coloration" than musicality (which I associate with
solid-state) to me...
>combined with the neutrality of solid state. For
>most listeners, the sound of solid state is undoubtedly good enough,
>but for some listeners, at least, tubes still provide that last
>bit of musical integrity that is mostly unavailable from solid
>state electronics.
Which "most listeners"? The vast majority of listeners I've talked to who
have had a chance to compare - musicians, laymen, engineers, whomever -
genuinely _enjoy_ the sound of decent solid-state gear to tubes. And I
deal with these sort of people professionally and socially on a daily
basis.
The Doc