# Decca Phase 4 Stereo versus RCA Living Stereo



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

I notice quite a few of the recommendations in the "best sounding recordings" thread are old analog productions from the '60s and '70s. I've heard "Phase 4 Stereo" and "Living Stereo" mentioned.

What's the difference? How do they differ from normal recordings of the period?

What's recommended in these series?


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

RCA Living Stereo series for me. I believe Phase 4 used several more mics than other recording techniques, and can sound very good.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

"Living stereo" was mostly a marketing term whereas "Phase 4" referred to a method of sound manipulation to exaggerate the stereo effect;

In post-processing "_The sound engineer, in close collaboration with orchestra directors and arrangers, controlled the volume of certain musical instruments or orchestral groups to enhance their presence in the recording, or caused them to move between the left and right channels. It was also processed with electronic reverberation effects, microphone offset etc._ "


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I have the Stokowski Phase 4 box and I wish I hadn't spent the 50 bucks on it. The recordings don't sound very good to my ears and some of the discs sound pretty crappy.


----------



## Geoff48 (Aug 15, 2020)

Living Stereo was an RCA label. It utilised recordings by many great conductors including Reiner, Monteux and Munch. Primarily American it was bring out the best in its recordings but was essentially a guarantee of a good recording. Whereas Phase 4, part of Decca, was initially a light music label which eventually had a classical offshoot. It was the label which was as important as the performers. Which might account for its initial choice of artists. Much was conducted by Stanley Black, a perfectly respectable conductor but not really known for his classical expertise. There were recordings by a few mainstream artists, Fistoulari in Swan Lake, Ricci in the Tchaikovsky and Mendelssohn concertos, Munch and Dorati amongst others. Normally only a couple of records each.There was of course one exception, the one conductor who rebelled in the technical challenges the label permitted, Leopold Stokowski. He made some twenty records for the label, some of which were very good, some of which were frankly poor. His four seasons and his Messiah highlights show the label at its worst with large orchestras and massive rallentandos.


----------



## Rmathuln (Mar 21, 2018)

Geoff48 said:


> Living Stereo was an RCA label. It utilised recordings by many great conductors including Reiner, Monteux and Munch. Primarily American it was bring out the best in its recordings but was essentially a guarantee of a good recording. Whereas Phase 4, part of Decca, was initially a light music label which eventually had a classical offshoot. It was the label which was as important as the performers. Which might account for its initial choice of artists. Much was conducted by Stanley Black, a perfectly respectable conductor but not really known for his classical expertise. There were recordings by a few mainstream artists, Fistoulari in Swan Lake, Ricci in the Tchaikovsky and Mendelssohn concertos, Munch and Dorati amongst others. Normally only a couple of records each.There was of course one exception, the one conductor who rebelled in the technical challenges the label permitted, Leopold Stokowski. He made some twenty records for the label, some of which were very good, some of which were frankly poor. His four seasons and his Messiah highlights show the label at its worst with large orchestras and massive rallentandos.


Many Living Stereo recordings used a three channel format similar to the Fine Mercury Living Presence model, but not with as much heavy emphasis on the quality of the microphones, tape recprders, and other electronics. London ffrr was similar.

Often the Living Stereo SACDs would use the Multi Channel SACD layer to include the middle channel instead of mixing it into both channels as was done for stereo reproduction.

Like others have intimated Phase 4 was a whole different paradigm; monkeying around to try to bring more spacial qualities to the sound.

Living Stereo aims for purity, Phase 4 artificial enhancement.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

I think RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence are very comparable, whereas Decca Phase 4 was a horrible, knob-twiddling evolutionary dead end.

I’m not sure I agree that the Mercury Living Presence engineers used better microphones, tape decks, and other electronics than RCA Living Stereo. LS usually used Neumann U-47 and M-49/50 microphones while LP usually used Schoeps M201 and MK-23 microphones. By about 1958 both labels were consistently using three microphones—left, center, and right—and recording without equalization onto 1/2-inch tapes in 3 tracks (one per microphone) using Ampex 300 decks at 30 ips. There were interesting differences between the labels with respect to microphone placement, but the results were quite similar and usually excellent.

I and a lot of other collectors like the LS and LP box sets for both the performances and the sound quality. The sets aim to please collectors by including full details of recording date and venue, with LP even giving details of the microphones used.

I have 15 LS SACDs and 12 LP SACDs. These started to be issued about 15 years ago. What’s interesting about them is that they’re 3-channel, just straight from the 3-microphone, 3-track master recordings. To me, these sound very, very good. I prefer this audio arrangement to 5.1.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Agreed on the real/artificial nature of Living Stereo and Phase 4, respectively; but I have to say that two of my favorite “guilty pleasure” recordings are the Phase 4 Stokowski La Mer and Scheherazade. It’s so over the top, so interventionist, so utterly “wrong,” but as delicious and indulgent as cheesecake.

It’s too bad that I’m not a big fan of the performers featured prominently on Living Stereo (Reiner, Heifetz, Rubinstein, Munch), but it makes sense that they would appreciate the crystal-clear sound quality to complement their approaches that stressed clarity, directness, and an analytical quality.


----------

