# Do you buy based on labels or not? (decca, naxos etc)



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

I've noticed that I tend to see certain labels and will buy those rather than sometimes cheaper CDs based on what I view as the quality of the label unless it happens to be the only if the cheap is the only one I can find of a certain piece or am just trying out a composer and don't want to go for broke. What about you? Are cd labels important in your decisions?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Yes, but in a negative way. After several bad experiences with EMI and CBS I tended to steer away from these labels.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Not always, but there are some labels that I have had so many good experiences with (Naxos) that I continue to buy. Before I buy any album I always sample the tracks on iTunes to make sure the quality is high enough.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Never, but I don´t care much for sound quality either nowadays, since I´ve got the repertoire in various more modern recordings already. The soloists involved mean a lot when making a decision though, if it concerns the standard repertoire.

That EMI and CBS should be poor labels in general doesn´t really make sense to me - care to specify a bit ? I think it is needed  ! They´ve had some of the greatest musicians and the sound quality of EMI at least a few decades ago was among the best available.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The label doesn't really affect me too much. The one label which seems to me to really beckon is Hyperion.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

Yes - more recently I've realised that I tend to select a label and filter through that label for specific releases.

The best examples are *Olympia Records*: they imported and licenced much of the *Melodiya* releases from the USSR recordings which were just unavailable in the west of Europe for decades. Their prices were mid-price at the time at £9.99 and exceptionally broad in their repertoire, bringing us some valued gems. Since their death, their out of print CDs command high prices due to the rarity and quality of their repertoire. 
*
Russian Discs* - another short lived record label which first brought us Myaskovsky's Symphony No.6 recording, and Taneyev's At a Reading of a Psalm; the Salmanov string quartets and most importantly - the first time ever, the complete Myaskovsky string quartet cycle. Prices for this label also rocketed after they went out of print. 
*
Acte Prealable* - this is one of my favourite little Polish Record labels that can! They have pioneered the release of many historical gems from the Polish romance era, like Zelenski, Noskowski as well as contemporary Polish composers like Slowinski, Meyer etc.

*Pavane Records* - although based in Belgium, they were the first to bring us Szymanowski' string quartets on high quality vinyl LP. This watershed recording went on to win numerous European and international recording prizes and sealed Szymanowski's destiny from obscurity for the mainstream record label. They went on to release Brudzowicz's string quartets (also out of print and fascinating Polish repertoire).

*CD Accord* - one of my favourite Polish labels has brought some incredible releases: the Silesian Quartet recordings and the works of Pawel Szymanski.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

If buying new music unfamiliar to me I tend to trust Chandos for taste and sound quality. Everything I've bought from them has been amazing. I respect Naxos too for their comfortable format that hasn't changed in decades. I like the familiarity.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

I buy based on reviews, usually following an edition of the Penguin Guide, the NPR guide, and compilation of ratings (such as the one found in the Naxos catalog).


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> Yes, but in a negative way. After several bad experiences with EMI and CBS I tended to steer away from these labels.


I have no problem with those labels, but did with Nimbus while they lasted. The label name describes their distinctive characteristic in piano sound.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Hill, I don't know that I ever bought a Nimbus piano CD, but did download some Nimbus chamber recordings from eMusic a while back, including their Brandis Quartet Schubert. The sound was glassy and repellent. 

However, their Haydn symphony cycle with Adam Fischer has fine sound.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

What I remember (it's 20-25 years ago, and I got rid of the CD's) is a couple of very bad CBS CD's, both performance and recording. including Mahler's 9th by Levine and Brahms' 2nd PC (can't remember the performers). For EMI, I was not happy with several recordings and their information on the backsides (a Hindemith/Karajan CD that had been recorded in the fifties, whereas no year was mentioned on the backside). Also, I think EMI tended to have more 40-45 min CD's than most labels, again not always making that clear. Since the mid nineties, I bought only after reading several reviews, which reduced the number of duds considerably. On average I would say this resulted mostly in DG, Decca, Naxos, Chandos, Hyperion, Ondine, ECM, Nonesuch, CPO and Bis.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

I seek out recommendations from you fine people, read customer reviews on Amazon, and then stream. I almost never buy a CD I did not first stream in part or in full. I never buy based upon professional reviews. I find pro reviewers to be too insiderish and incestuous to be trustworthy.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Hausmusik said:


> I seek out recommendations from you fine people, read customer reviews on Amazon, and then stream. I almost never buy a CD I did not first stream in part or in full. I never buy based upon professional reviews. I find pro reviewers to be too insiderish and incestuous to be trustworthy.


I also have come to distrust professional reviews.

Unless a person is very wealthy, one simply can not buy everything, so choosing what to buy, and which recording is always a dilema for me. My budget will allow me to buy 3 or 4 CD's per month, and though they do accumulate over time, I doubt if I will live long enought to get everything I want.

As someone else pointed out, these new internet streaming services might be an answer. I do not like the sound quality of YouTube, nor the lack of organization.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Looking through my collection and the variety of labels I guess I have to say no but I do have to also say that I trust the production quality of Chandos, CPO, Philips, DG, London. Naxos for the price point is usually a reliable buy. These days my collecting has dropped considerably and now I buy only if I really love a work and want a permanent copy. I look out for recommendations by members here who have similar tastes and are reliable in their assessments and I also read online reviews and subscribe to BBC Music Magazine to help with decisions. I haven't bought a loser in several years now.

Kevin


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I will quite frequently look at recording labels when purchasing recordings. Many of my favorite classic recordings are on EMI. I am a Bernstein fan and prefer his CBS/Columbia/Sony recordings and have more of those than his DG recordings. Decca is another I will usually pay great attention too because I especially love that late 60's Decca sound. I also own a ton of Philips recordings as well.

I usually look at orchestras, conductors and performers first, but I have definitely bought some recordings based on the record label.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

No really, recordings should be purchased on the basis of conductor and orchestra (and reviews) - the label is a brand name only and to believe otherwise is, well, naive. Of course the reviews generally come post-factum to the recording/release event and are therefore suspect i.e. possibly in cahoots with the label releasing it. Decca means pricey / Brilliant means cheap - not more/no less.


----------



## lorelei (Jan 14, 2013)

They should be based on conductor and orchestra. Something that I sometimes do is look for it on iTunes or Spotify and listen to a snippet before deciding whether to make a purchase.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

When I first started collecting classical music I thought that the yellow banner at the top of the record cover guaranteed quality. I was wrong about that. Then I thought that DDD on the label meant something. It doesn't. Up until recently, I would have thought that a mono recording was inferior to a stereo one. It isn't necessarily. With a good 5:1 speaker setup and the proper DSP processing, a mono recording can be just as good as a stereo one.

The thing I have figured out is that deep catalog is an indicator of quality. When EMI, DGG or Decca puts out a new recording of a warhorse like a Mendelssohn symphony or Beethoven overtures, odds are it is going to have some sort of reason to exist because it's competing with all of the other versions on that label. When an audiophile label or a specialty label like Naxos puts out a warhorse, all bets are off. It usually isn't competitive at all.

Another thing I've found is that there was definitely a golden age of classical music recordings, and we aren't living in it any more. The analogue recordings from the late 1950s and 1960s generally blow the pants off of modern digital recordings both in interpretation and in sound quality. Miking was done much more carefully to preserve a natural ambience. Every major label had spectacular sound and dynamic performers. Now we have clean sound and safe performances. It's all evened out to the average instead of the peaks it used to hit.

Beginning classical music fans often have all the wrong ideas about where to find great music. They go straight to the full price boutique labels with performers with nothing more than regional appeal. The truth is that the gold lies in the big label back catalog selling for bargain basement prices.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Sony, DG, EMI, have had to re-remaster much of their catalogs, because their early goings were abominations. All's well that ends well in many of these cases. 

Of the majors, I think Decca and Philips had the best recording reputations. That's my experience, anyway.

The indies have been around far less, thus many of these have been able to build a company without a track record of engineering misery, and a lot of re-mixing and remastering expense.

Any label is fair game for my collecting. I go first by performance, and what I'm looking for in an interpretation. Secondly, the sound must be good, and preferably in stereo. I'm not interested in historical, nor multichannel...except for Hybrids which often afford an excellent CD layer.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2013)

I typically read reviews first and listen to samples on iTunes as well, but there are certain labels that I give the benefit of the doubt.

For older recordings, DG and EMI and Decca get the benefit of the doubt. But for newer recordings, I definitely have a bias towards Harmonia Mundi, BIS, and Hyperion.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Vaneyes said:


> Secondly, the sound must be good, and preferably in stereo. I'm not interested in historical, nor multichannel...except for Hybrids which often afford an excellent CD layer.


I don't think a lot of people are aware of what a really good 5:1 system with well designed DSPs can do for both stereo and mono recordings. I did a demonstration for a friend of mine a couple of weeks ago. I played him mono and stereo recordings straight out with no processing. He said it sounded really good. Then I cut in my carefully tweaked EQ curve. His jaw hit the floor. Then I cut in the 7:1 Stereo DSP on my Yamaha amp and he practically fell on the floor. The soundstage widened to the full width of the room and deepened, giving a 3D sound. He was particularly impressed with the mono recording. He said that using the DSP was a game changer for mono recordings. So I took one of the boxiest Toscanini recordings I could find, and tweaked a couple of settings to create a wider soundstage and a bit of hall ambience. It was like night and day, making him totally reevaluate them as performances.

I only use multichanel programs with blurays. But I use 5:1 DSPs with everything I play.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

I think CD labels are very important with respect to _niche_, but this aspect is not the weightiest factor in purchasing decisions (which, for me, are about 40% "blind" buys, anyway).

Any label's significant contributions towards the advocacy, recording and dissemination of new(ish) music by contemporary composers are more revealing to me in hindsight - after I've accumulated about a half-dozen or so albums from any such label.
For example, not until after I'd acquired an album a piece by Ligeti, Koechlin, Penderecki, Xenakis, Roslavets, & Nono on the WERGO label have I taken stock of WERGO's focus upon (and championing of) 20th century composers and come to expect this level of quality repertoire more so from independent productions than from the major-league big wigs.

Here's a sampling of label names (either defunct or still current) from my collection which, like the above-mentioned one, have splendid offerings of recorded music "outside the box":

(in reverse alphabetical order)


Wergo
Valois
Timpani (one of the labels which has the greatest frequency of works by my favorite composers)
Supraphon
Stradivarius
Skarbo
Simax
Quantum
Pierre Verany
Orfeo
Olympia
NMC
Nimbus
New World Records
Montaigne
mode
Marco Polo
Lyrita
Kairos
Hungaroton
Harmonia Mundi
Finlandia Records
Etcetera
Erato
Dorian Recordings
Dabringhaus und Grimm
Cypress
Cybelia
col legno
Bridge
ASV
Argo
Albany Records
Ades
Adda
Accord

I have substantial amounts of albums on these not-small labels, too: Ondine, Koch Schwann/Koch International Classics, CPO, Chandos, & BIS plus others. These are what I consider to be as the "middle-man" labels who are (were) larger than independents but still are overshadowed by the limelight cast onto the corporate titans by customers and industry professionals alike.

I have handfuls of RCAs and Philips, a decent amount of Deutsche Grammophon plus lots on EMI, but none of these were purchased on the basis of their featured instrumental virtuoso soloists and rarely do their albums figure prominently on my 'top whatever' favorites lists.

Some labels I've collected on the basis of obtaining anything and everything by a specific composer (such as the music of Arne Nordheim on Aurora Contemporary and the ongoing Hanssler Classic survey of works by Charles Koechlin).
In rare instances, the composer himself produced his own label in order to distribute his music which otherwise might never have gotten recorded and/or marketed. Think of the volumes of CDs of Meyer Kupferman's music on his Soundspells Productions; if ya wanna hear Kupferman, ya gotta buys his CDs or else ya ain't never gonna hear it on da radio (or anywhere else, in all likelihood). 










And if any TC member has dreams of creating his/her own label in the future, please consider naming it with a word that begins with "Z" or "Y" - because we certainly don't need another classical music label starting with the letter "A"!


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Confused. Are we talking record (CD) labels or music reproduction systems?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

KRoad said:


> Confused. Are we talking record (CD) labels or music reproduction systems?


bigshot just likes to brag about his expensive set-up whenever possible, as you may have noticed. No, the thread is about record labels.

Anyway; no, I've heard great recordings from small labels, big labels, budget labels etc. and I think prejudice based on brands is pretty ridiculous, there's good stuff everywhere if you look for it.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I only buy reissues or historical recordings now. With these you have to be most careful because some historical transfers are very badly done, Bigshot knows all about this.
Naxos have a very good man who does theirs and Dutton Laboratorys are excellent ,Testament carry the famous EMI recordings and Orfeo look interesting.
Other labels to be trusted are Brilliant, Regis,Alto,Emi Red Line,Dgg and Decca budget labels. For the famous Decca sixties sound go to Australian Eloquence.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

The label doesn't mean much to me, personally, unless there is a performance of the same piece on different labels. Then I'm more discerning. For example, for a historic performance, I'd take Music & Arts over a competing label.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> bigshot just likes to brag about his expensive set-up whenever possible


My system is definitely not expensive. It cost me very little. I'll brag about how it sounds though, because it sounds great. And I'm happy to offer tips to others about how they can improve the sound of their systems without spending a lot of money. Knowing how is more important than money in anything. It's all about sharing information. That's why we're here.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm across the board - I do have a few so-called 'great' recordings but I don't especially go for 'best' versions, 'star' performers or pander to audiophiliac tendencies. My main concern these days is investigating material that is unfamiliar - and if it means a potentially incongruous mix of second rank musicians from Eastern Europe playing works by a previously-unheard composer on a budget label then it's job done as far as I'm concerned, especially if that work is rarely, if at all, available elsewhere. There are times when you do have to shell out, though - Birtwistle's Punch & Judy, the Reich box set on Nonesuch, the Complete Webern on DG and Simpson's symphonies on Hyperion all cost me deep in the purse at the time but they were well worth it.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Prodromides said:


> Some labels I've collected on the basis of obtaining anything and everything by a specific composer (such as the music of Arne Nordheim on Aurora Contemporary and the ongoing Hanssler Classic survey of works by Charles Koechlin).
> In rare instances, the composer himself produced his own label in order to distribute his music which otherwise might never have gotten recorded and/or marketed. Think of the volumes of CDs of Meyer Kupferman's music on his Soundspells Productions; if ya wanna hear Kupferman, ya gotta buys his CDs or else ya ain't never gonna hear it on da radio (or anywhere else, in all likelihood).


I'm a firm believer in self publishing in this digital age. Why be impeded by a middle man? Go straight to the artist. Many are lamenting this as the death of the music industry, but I say the time has come for a new era, a Renaissance for artists, writers and musicians of all kinds.

However, the fellow in the example above is in serious need of design know how. The artwork is cool and tasteful and the colors are nice, but the copy (the lettering) is not the best it can be. It may seem petty, but I would baulk at purchasing the CD unless I was already totally enamored of the music. I think this is why I tend to choose Chandos over DG, for example. DG was the gold standard for recording excellence when I was growing up, but today I find their stodgy packaging uninviting. Chandos has outstanding packaging, and it does enhance the experience in subtle ways you may not even notice. This goes for mp3 albums too, because the "packaging" still shows up on your playback device.

The old adage "You can't judge a book by its cover" has _never_ been true. So all those TC members who are now going to start up a label beginning with the letter "Z" should also give me a holler for design work.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

If we are talking CDs, then yes I will seek out certain classical labels. Decca is always good and was mainly engineered by Telefunken, which later became Teldec. I'd rank them at the top along with Phillips. (both have German/Holland pressing plants).
Also, consistently good are Telarc, Chesky, Chandos, harmonia mundi, Virgin Classics, remastered EMI Classics, Hyperion. Early DG CD quality was terrible, they didn't get into the CD groove until late 1980s, although their LP quality was always of the highest quality. The worst consistently is Angel which is EMI's budget label and does not use original masters.
But first and foremost, I look at the conductor, orchestra, ensemble.


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

What do you guys think about BIS?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Overall a very good and pioneering label, except from some of their earliest issues which featured less capable musicians now and then (Gunilla von Bahr and Westenholtz for instance).

Their exploration of composers such as Tubin, Sumera, Schnittke, Sibelius, Leifs, Holmboe, Sorabji and Skalkottas is very valuable. 

I like the more recent Vänskä recordings too, but they do have a tendency to a slightly too recessed sound picture. Likewise their Pettersson series doesn´t always comprise the best performances IMO.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

davinci said:


> If we are talking CDs, then yes I will seek out certain classical labels. Decca is always good and was mainly engineered by Telefunken, which later became Teldec. I'd rank them at the top along with Phillips. (both have German/Holland pressing plants).
> Also, consistently good are Telarc, Chesky, Chandos, harmonia mundi, Virgin Classics, remastered EMI Classics, Hyperion. Early DG CD quality was terrible, they didn't get into the CD groove until late 1980s, although their LP quality was always of the highest quality. The worst consistently is Angel which is EMI's budget label and does not use original masters.
> But first and foremost, I look at the conductor, orchestra, ensemble.


I think your information on Decca is incorrect,to what period are you referring ?


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> Overall a very good and pioneering label, except from some of their earliest issues which featured less capable musicians now and then (Gunilla von Bahr and Westenholtz for instance).
> 
> Their exploration of composers such as Tubin, Sumera, Schnittke, Sibelius, Leifs, Holmboe, Sorabji and Skalkottas is very valuable.
> 
> I like the more recent Vänskä recordings too, but they do have a tendency to a slightly too recessed sound picture. Likewise their Pettersson series doesn´t always comprise the best performances IMO.


Thanks! What do you think about their 24 bit recordings?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I applaud BIS primarily because of their numerous Schnittke recordings, the ones of which I have I enjoy a great deal. Ditto cpo and Hindemith/Hyperion and Simpson. Two labels I do miss are Russian Disc and Olympia - they were often my first points of contact with Soviet composers outside the Shostakovich/Prokofiev/Khachaturian axis.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

vertigo said:


> What do you guys think about BIS?


I have some MP3s that has this publishing mar on them (from this game: Europa Universalis II). Their quality is quite good, though they're mostly Renaissance and Early Baroque music.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Naxos and Decca are quiet reliable in quality music and having good archives. Also EMI, Philips and Deutsche Grammofon are good in next places.
So I've considered three things before buying a CD: Composer, Conductor, Publisher.


----------



## Rangstrom (Sep 24, 2010)

I find that Naxos, Hyperion, CPO, Opera Rara, Chandos and Music & Arts dominate my purchases of the last few years. I tend to avoid the Columbia/CBS/Sony back catalogue as the masterings can be horrible (and I have most of what I want on LP). I also stay away from EMI and Brilliant box sets because too many of the discs turn out to be faulty. The Brilliant 35 disc Strauss set had three discs that skipped for example--luckily none of the Kempe recordings had any problem.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Several years ago I collected quite a few Marco Polo discs, as they offered lesser known composers available on no other label. Sound quality was OK.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Truckload said:


> Several years ago I collected quite a few Marco Polo discs, as they offered lesser known composers available on no other label. Sound quality was OK.


That is something that puzzles me. What is the difference between Marco Polo and Naxos? They are virtually the same company and have the same catalog numbering system, just slightly different background colors. Is it just that Marco Polo was for _exploring_ more obscure stuff? Some identical recordings are released on both labels.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Weston said:


> That is something that puzzles me. What is the difference between Marco Polo and Naxos? They are virtually the same company and have the same catalog numbering system, just slightly different background colors. Is it just that Marco Polo was for _exploring_ more obscure stuff? Some identical recordings are released on both labels.


I think Marco Polo is the now defunct full price label owned by the company. Its catalog was swallowed up by Naxos, and much of it has been re-released there.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Marco Polo was (is?) held by HNH International Ltd.

The Marco Polo label started around 1985. One of the earliest discs I own is their album of 2 _Chorus_ by Villa-Lobos performed by the Hong Kong Philharmonic.










During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Marco Polo accumulated a catalogue of CD albums focusing on repertoire rarely ever recorded for LPs in the previous decades.
Marco Polo made available volumes of music by Respighi, Villa-Lobos, Szymanowski, Miaskovsky, Tansman, H. Brian, Florent Schmitt plus many others during a time when major labels passed over such works and even such composers.

Sometime during the 1990s, the Marco Polo catalogue was acquired by Naxos, who re-issued the same program contents at bargain prices.










That's why the same recording data exists and overlaps between the MP & Naxos catalogues


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

davinci said:


> If we are talking CDs, then yes I will seek out certain classical labels. Decca is always good and was mainly engineered by Telefunken, which later became Teldec. I'd rank them at the top along with Phillips. (both have German/Holland pressing plants).
> Also, consistently good are Telarc, Chesky, Chandos, harmonia mundi, Virgin Classics, remastered EMI Classics, Hyperion. Early DG CD quality was terrible, they didn't get into the CD groove until late 1980s, although their LP quality was always of the highest quality. The worst consistently is Angel which is EMI's budget label and does not use original masters.
> But first and foremost, I look at the conductor, orchestra, ensemble.


In 1950 Telefunken and Decca founded Teldec and Teldec manufactured ,not recorded Decca Records,this ended in 1983.
Decca Records was established by Edward Lewis in 1929,the company became famous for the development of recording methods. It soon became the second biggest record company in the world.
Decca eventually took up classical music with their FFRR technique ,the early use of stereo (1949, FFSS technique), these along with the hiring of John Culshaw gave them great success.
Their most famous triumph must be the extraordinary recordings of Ernest Ansermet and his Suisse Romande Orchestra from the 1950's, they are still technical triumphs,they are being reissued and can be found on the Australian Eloquence Labe.
Culshaw's Solti "Ring" (begun in 1958)--I can't believe this date,I remember all the fuss as if it were yesterday--is still considered the standard by many.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

This thread is interesting because I have great recordings from just about every label people say they avoid.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

One thing I've noticed lately as I rip my CD collection is that a couple of the labels have a definite "house sound". It may be related to the recording venues. In particular, I've noticed that the frequency response of EMI recordings, particularly the Karajan stereo records with the Philharmonia and BPO, leans toward the upper mids. Philips recordings, like the Concertgebouw Haitinks, lean the other way with a slighty muffled tubby sound. Classic Decca and Living Stereo RCA sit right in the middle. DGG varies a lot.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

moody said:


> I think your information on Decca is incorrect,to what period are you referring ?


I wasn't talking about early recordings...yes there was Decca UK and London for US distribution, but later on there was Teldec (Telefunken + Decca). I should have pointed out on the back of many Decca LPs and CDs it will give credit to Telefunken or Teldec for the engineering or mastering. Many times there is a Decca budget CD release and a Teldec CD both containing the same high quality recordings. 
And as you mentioned, the Decca engineers were the innovators of many recording techniques. ie: the Decca Tree which was a revolutionary way to record classical music.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

bigshot said:


> One thing I've noticed lately as I rip my CD collection is that a couple of the labels have a definite "house sound". It may be related to the recording venues. In particular, I've noticed that the frequency response of EMI recordings, particularly the Karajan stereo records with the Philharmonia and BPO, leans toward the upper mids. Philips recordings, like the Concertgebouw Haitinks, lean the other way with a slighty muffled tubby sound. Classic Decca and Living Stereo RCA sit right in the middle. DGG varies a lot.


Yes, definitely a "house sound." Agree DG is not consistent. Telarc, Naxos, Philips all have a house sound; the venue and their unique recording equipment play a part. Brilliant engineers.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

bigshot said:


> One thing I've noticed lately as I rip my CD collection is that a couple of the labels have a definite "house sound". It may be related to the recording venues. In particular, I've noticed that the frequency response of EMI recordings, particularly the Karajan stereo records with the Philharmonia and BPO, leans toward the upper mids. Philips recordings, like the Concertgebouw Haitinks, lean the other way with a slighty muffled tubby sound. Classic Decca and Living Stereo RCA sit right in the middle. DGG varies a lot.


Those are fair assumptions, though I'd put early DG CDs in a higher than average register also. Philips had hit-the-ground-running success with CDs, due to their "warmer" sound. EMI could be pretty good, meaning flatness attainment, except for French EMI, which were often stringent sounding...as were some harmonia mundi (with Banchini for example--though I didn't care for that artist anyway). Mercury and RCA Living Stereo had some ugly recs., up and down the register, but they almost always got across-the-board raves.

As I said earlier in my post, thankfully, many shortcomings were later rectified with good re-remasterings. Some unfortunately weren't recoverable, due either to poor master storage, or a screwed-up recording session to begin with.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

davinci said:


> I wasn't talking about early recordings...yes there was Decca UK and London for US distribution, but later on there was Teldec (Telefunken + Decca). I should have pointed out on the back of many Decca LPs and CDs it will give credit to Telefunken or Teldec for the engineering or mastering. Many times there is a Decca budget CD release and a Teldec CD both containing the same high quality recordings.
> And as you mentioned, the Decca engineers were the innovators of many recording techniques. ie: the Decca Tree which was a revolutionary way to record classical music.


I covered thisand I am quite sure that they only produced the discs, in fact I have nothing about Teldec on my copies and it is stated that there usually was nothing. I knew nothing of this Teldec thing until now and so I've delved into it.You just quote me some examples that you own, do !

Bigshot, what do you know of this ?


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

I find Telarc sound quite variable from superb (eg. Cleveland Qt Beethoven) to diffuse and lacking detail (e.g. some of the Previn recordings, Cleveland's Mendelssohn disc). Naxos is notoriously variable -- just compare the superbly engineered later discs by the Kodaly Quartet with say their Op. 18 Quartets....., or their Mahler recordings with different conductors....some sound marvelous, some horrid.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

moody said:


> I covered thisand I am quite sure that they only produced the discs, in fact I have nothing about Teldec on my copies and it is stated that there usually was nothing. I knew nothing of this Teldec thing until now and so I've delved into it.You just quote me some examples that you own, do !
> 
> Chill, man. From wikipedia..."Records manufactured by Teldec mostly were released under the Telefunken or Decca label, but normally these records contained no hint that they were made by Teldec. In 1983 Telefunken and Decca rectracted from their engagement in vinyl record production and Teldec was sold to Time Warner."
> 
> So I was wrong. The Teldec logo and credit is on Warner Music, not Decca. ie: Harencourt, Barenboim releases.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

davinci said:


> moody said:
> 
> 
> > I covered thisand I am quite sure that they only produced the discs, in fact I have nothing about Teldec on my copies and it is stated that there usually was nothing. I knew nothing of this Teldec thing until now and so I've delved into it.You just quote me some examples that you own, do !
> ...


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

moody said:


> davinci said:
> 
> 
> > Well,thank goodness for that,I thought I was going mad.
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

moody said:


> Bigshot, what do you know of this ?


I don't know anything about manufacturing, but the thing that made Decca Decca was the recording techniques. They didn't share that with anyone else.


----------



## jtbell (Oct 4, 2012)

I gravitate towards certain labels for their repertoire, because I'm interested in Nordic and Baltic composers: BIS, Ondine, Alba, dacapo, Danacord, Simax, etc.

BIS has become widely knows for high-quality recordings of a wide range of repertoire, but it started out specializing in Nordic composers and performers. A long time ago its founder Robert von Bahr said in an interview that BIS would never do something like a Beethoven symphony cycle because that wasn't their niche and they didn't want to compete with all the other Beethoven cycles out there (or something like that). And now they've done it with Vänskä in Minneapolis!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

jtbell said:


> I gravitate towards certain labels for their repertoire, because I'm interested in Nordic and Baltic composers: BIS, Ondine, Alba, dacapo, Danacord, Simax, etc.
> 
> BIS has become widely knows for high-quality recordings of a wide range of repertoire, but it started out specializing in Nordic composers and performers. A long time ago its founder Robert von Bahr said in an interview that BIS would never do something like a Beethoven symphony cycle because that wasn't their niche and they didn't want to compete with all the other Beethoven cycles out there (or something like that). And now they've done it with Vänskä in Minneapolis!


Perhaps because Vanska is both a Finn and a BIS stalwart from his days in Lahti and Iceland it still provides a Nordic connection of sorts?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Thanks to Mahlerian and Prodromides for the Marco Polo / Naxos disambiguation. I truly never knew this.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Hyperion and Naxos are usually safe. Deutsche Grammophon is also usually very good.

EMI, like everyone said, has its bad moments. Universal is usually bad.

Brilliant Classics is so-so: a budget label that aggregates complete works by lesser known performers. My usual grievance against Brilliant Classics recordings is the sound quality: there is frequently too much distance and too much echo, I can often barely hear the separate tones among the several instruments, or, if piano music, I can barely distinguish between staccato and legato--the attack is different but the persistent echo spoils the posterior effect of staccato, which is arguably its prominent character. Still, sometimes the recordings are excellent and with pristine sound quality--especially impressive is the complete Baryton Trios of Haydn under the Brilliant Classics label. It's hit or miss with that one.

Helios is also usually a safe label, if relatively uncommon.

Personally, I look to the performers first and then to the label secondly. But I use the label as a guide to sound quality, of which it's an admittedly imperfect criterion. If Amazon, for example, has audio samples of an album, I'll usually listen to those and judge for myself [keeping in mind that the sound file is usually compressed]. I have also had recourse to searching for the album title and performers' names on Google followed by the word "review"--sometimes allmusic.com has sensible and thorough reviews of albums. I take their sound judgment into account where possible.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I prefer recordings with a natural ambience over those that are closely miked. It sounds much better on speakers with some hall ambience.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Novelette, FYI, Helios = Hyperion. It is the imprint under which they re-relese their back catalog at midprice.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

If it's a Naxos CD, I may buy it, but I need extra powerful recommendations. A Decca, DG etc. disc with a trustworthy conductor and a quality orchestra I just might buy without any recommendations at all or even never having heard the piece.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

Naxos is always well engineered and well miked, but their house sound is a little bit "lean" or analytical, IMO. In other words, it's not a warm sound. Does anybody else find this so?


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

I must admit I go for value for money, Brilliant Classics, and Hyperion’s Helios label come to mind. 
I rarely buy full price CD’s with big names on!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I can't discern any Naxos house sound. Their CDs are recorded all over the world in dozens and dozens of different venues, probably by freelance local engineers.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

bigshot said:


> I can't discern any Naxos house sound. Their CDs are recorded all over the world in dozens and dozens of different venues, probably by freelance local engineers.


Me either! I own quite a few of their CDs and although I find most of them well performed and recorded they do vary. At the price point I can hardly complain though.

Kevin


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

I don't think label is ever a main criteria when I purchase CDs. That being said -

My collection is still pretty much dominated by yellow (DGG), blue (Decca), red (EMI), brown (Philips) - the big labels. They're so big, it's hard not to buy many of them. I like them mostly because they have the most famous performers. Their recorded sound is usually good to excellent while EMI seems decent enough.

There are some labels that actually appeal to me: CPO, Harmonia Mundi, Archiv, Naxos. Harmonia Mundi, espcially, I adore their baroque choral recordings. CPO and Naxos have a lot of obscure composers. CPO has very nice cover arts as well and their romantic period chamber recordings are very good.

Labels I'd like to add to my collection: Marco Polo, BIS, Dacapo.

Question: anyone ever had experience buying Marco Polo recording that are CD-Rs? Amazon has says some of them are CD-R's made on demand.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Hausmusik said:


> Novelette, FYI, Helios = Hyperion. It is the imprint under which they re-relese their back catalog at midprice.


Ah, good to know! Thanks, Hausmusik!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

EMI in the mono hifi era was miles ahead. For some reason things sunk a bit in the early stere era, but they got better eventually. I'm actually a big fan of mono. On speakers it can sound excellent.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

opus55 said:


> I don't think label is ever a main criteria when I purchase CDs. That being said -
> 
> Labels I'd like to add to my collection: Marco Polo, BIS, Dacapo.
> 
> Question: anyone ever had experience buying Marco Polo recording that are CD-Rs? Amazon has says some of them are CD-R's made on demand.


The CDR's Amazon sells are licensed copies by ArkivMusic. When a label discontinues a CD, Arkiv pays a fee and can distribute them. I have bought some good EMI cds from them directly. Not sure if they are also burning Marco Polo.

their website... http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/main.jsp


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

davinci said:


> The CDR's Amazon sells are licensed copies by ArkivMusic. When a label discontinues a CD, Arkiv pays a fee and can distribute them. I have bought some good EMI cds from them directly. Not sure if they are also burning Marco Polo.
> 
> their website... http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/main.jsp


I'm worried about CD-R's longetivity compared to pressed (?) CDs.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Naxos is a label I tend to explore because they're so cheap, and I have found quite a few great recordings by them. :3


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

opus55 said:


> I'm worried about CD-R's longetivity compared to pressed (?) CDs.


I also worry about that. The quality of the disk and the CD burner is what's important. I assume ArkivMusik is using Professional CD duplicators.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I have CD-Rs from the earliest days of recordable CDs and they still play fine.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

davinci said:


> The CDR's Amazon sells are licensed copies by ArkivMusic. When a label discontinues a CD, Arkiv pays a fee and can distribute them. I have bought some good EMI cds from them directly. Not sure if they are also burning Marco Polo.
> 
> their website... http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/main.jsp


I think I personally would try and find a site that would sell me a Flac version of the CD and burn my own copies. That way I have a Flac backup and I can still play the CD until and if it gives up the ghost. I have some CD-R recordings that are fairly old which no longer play. Now I burned those myself and it could be the quality of the CDs I used. That I do not know. The burner's I have used were always good quality and I always burned at the slowest speed to reduce error problems. Cover art is easy to find and print of my own covers. So I say all that to say I would probably not buy a CD-R and pay full price for it.

Kevin


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

CD-R's I burn on my computer generally last a couple of years before they become unreadable.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

What brand are you using? The only CD-Rs I have that have failed were scratched. I had some burned on Memorex that were awful, but those were awful from the very beginning.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

A variety...so I can't tell you which failed which didn't. But after a couple of years they start to skip or become unreadable. This is an experience not unique to me. And I haven't deliberately sought out cheapo CD-R's. It isn't a big deal...I just assume that I am burning to a temporary medium.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Naxos is a label I tend to explore because they're so cheap, and I have found quite a few great recordings by them. :3


Price was Naxos' primary marketing tool from the 80's to the 90's, and they would always put their DDD product up against other long-establish companies full-price product. Re quality, in many cases, this was silly, but obviously millions of consumers had price grudges to bear, so it worked to great success.

Eventually, though, they had to improve their product's quality, and they did. Maybe not always up to the standards some consumers would like, but there was a marked improvement.

Many years later, Naxos has added other endeavors to their business model, such as being classical music's largest distributor, representing many labels. They had to because more and more budget labels had arrived, as well as Amazon Marketplace, where you can often buy full-price (if that matters) for a few dollars.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Since Brilliant Classics came on the scene, I haven't bought a single Naxos CD.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

bigshot said:


> Since Brilliant Classics came on the scene, I haven't bought a single Naxos CD.


i never bought much from either label


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

As others have said, I typically listen to a CD on Youtube or Spotify before buying it to make sure I like it. I like to ask TC for recommended versions, and sample them.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I have quite a few Naxos CDs. After getting the complete Satie piano works in the early 90s I was impressed enough to invest in others (and the price was such a motivator). Not everything on the label is up to scratch, but the duds are few.

With the big labels, a lot of things from the back catalogue of Decca and DG are worth investigating. Things I have on LPs and then bought on CD to save the vinyl, like the Fitzwilliam Quartet's Shostakovich Quartets (A Decca recording licensed to some other labels in its vinyl incarnations). 

The labels I look at when I see them in thrift shops are: Decca, DG, Philips, EMI and on vinyl the old Fontana classical.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I don't care what the label is. A good recording is a good recording. I think I own something on every label available and I don't give a crap what the label is. I'm not a label person in any part of my life.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I've always acquired based on repertoire, not labels. That said, the labels that best represent my musical preferences are BIS, Harmonia Mundi, Hyperion, Aparte, Aeolus, PentaTone, Avie and a few others.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm genuinely quite surprised at the number of 'label snob' comments posted here. I'm surprised anyone cares where their recording comes from. I seriously don't give it a moments' thought. I buy for the music not the label.

"Oh Cedric, dahhhhhling, we can't possibly buy that Sibelius CD, it's on Naxos. People will think we are homeless."


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Merl said:


> I'm genuinely quite surprised at the number of 'label snob' comments posted here. I'm surprised anyone cares where their recording comes from. I seriously don't give it a moments' thought. I buy for the music not the label.
> 
> "Oh Cedric, dahhhhhling, we can't possibly buy that Sibelius CD, it's on Naxos. People will think we are homeless."


That's because you may be mistaken about what I wrote. I bought Naxos because they were cheap AND good. It's useful to know a supply of decently recorded music. Naxos was recording a lot of stuff that other labels hadn't bothered recording, and at half the price or less.
This was in the days when it wasn't quite so easy to just check the performance online then order the CD. So, if you recall, it was necessary to have to sit at a listening booth, which is easier with a CD, less so with vinyl.

I have plenty of recording on lesser-known, cheaper and obscure labels like BAM and L'Oiseau-Lyre, MFP/CFP, which were bought for the content rather than the label. The fact remains though, that the releases from Decca's and Philips's and DG's back catalogues contain a lot of great work, so if I see something in a thrift shop it's usually worth a look.

No snobbery involved at all.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

Some labels that I like:

Neos
Wergo
Ricercar
Harmonia Mundi
Christophorus
Kairos
Hyperion
Accent
Bis
Glossa
Metier
Aeon
CPO
NMC


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

It's a fact that labels like Hyperion, Chandos, Phillips, DG, Harmoni Mundi have superior recording techniques and their CDs often sound vastly superior to other labels. Naxos has many great recordings but often the best ones are recordings they have leased the rights from another company to republish. It's not snobbery to choose a Chandos CD over a Naxos CD if you can afford to do so. It's just trying to build the very best library you possibly can on the budget you can afford.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

NAXOS made its reputation chiefly through unusual offerings of material not readily available elsewhere (as did MARCO POLO, which I think it has since subsumed). They had quite a few very good recordings of solo or small ensemble works, perhaps because it was easier to arrange for such a selection of good performers at a low financial investment. Their early recordings of fuller orchestral works tended to be a bid dodgy, although they did manage to turn out some very acceptable recordings from relatively unknown orchestras. Over the years, they seem to have mostly resolved that problem, and some of their bigger recordings are quite admirable, even when not considering the budget price.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Kevin Pearson said:


> It's a fact that labels like Hyperion, Chandos, Phillips, DG, Harmoni Mundi have superior recording techniques and their CDs often sound vastly superior to other labels. Naxos has many great recordings but often the best ones are recordings they have leased the rights from another company to republish. It's not snobbery to choose a Chandos CD over a Naxos CD if you can afford to do so. It's just trying to build the very best library you possibly can on the budget you can afford.


Honestly, a lot of for example DG recordings have been criticized for poor recording and editing technique. Especially a good deal of their pre-1995 recordings. Many of their LPs were designed for mid-range or budget turntables, and the sound adjusted for those.

Naxos has mainly done their own recordings, it´s Brilliant, Membran and others who are using licensed material, Big Time.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Philips still has a stunning, jaw-dropping, cult value recording quality, I do not understand why some recording labels try to go against the hallmark set by great companies. I do not get all the hype of looming effect, as if the ambient is suppressed to zoom in somewhere making the treble unnaturally loud and dry. I hate it.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

joen_cph said:


> Honestly, a lot of for example DG recordings have been criticized for poor recording and editing technique. Especially a good deal of their pre-1995 recordings. Many of their LPs were designed for mid-range or budget turntables, and the sound adjusted for those.
> 
> Naxos has mainly done their own recordings, it´s Brilliant, Membran and others who are using licensed material, Big Time.


Naxos have leased some recordings on later releases, but you're right that they have for the most part produced their own recordings. Using orchestras and performers from mainly Eastern Europe, who probably would never have had a look-in otherwise. Among the splurge of budget classical CD releases that flooded the market in the early '90s they were the best, with proper liner notes and well-made discs.

I imagine that during this time Decca et al started putting out some of the their seconds recordings as budget priced releases. I've had some dickey recordings. I have one where you can clearly hear traffic passing by on every track!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

eugeneonagain said:


> That's because you may be mistaken about what I wrote. I bought Naxos because they were cheap AND good. It's useful to know a supply of decently recorded music. Naxos was recording a lot of stuff that other labels hadn't bothered recording, and at half the price or less.
> This was in the days when it wasn't quite so easy to just check the performance online then order the CD. So, if you recall, it was necessary to have to sit at a listening booth, which is easier with a CD, less so with vinyl.
> 
> I have plenty of recording on lesser-known, cheaper and obscure labels like BAM and L'Oiseau-Lyre, MFP/CFP, which were bought for the content rather than the label. The fact remains though, that the releases from Decca's and Philips's and DG's back catalogues contain a lot of great work, so if I see something in a thrift shop it's usually worth a look.
> ...


Tbh, i wasnt aiming my comments at you, Eugeneonagain. They were just observations about some general remarks in this thread. I understood your comments perfectly. ;-)


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Merl said:


> Tbh, i wasnt aiming my comments at you, Eugeneonagain. They were just observations about some general remarks in this thread. I understood your comments perfectly. ;-)


Sorry, I suppose took it too personally.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I usually buy based on composer and piece, but there are some labels, that if there is a piece I want and it is on one of these labels, I will buy it.

These tend to be "audiophile" labels that I am knowledgeable about, and I know their recordings are significantly better than standard labels in one or more aspects.

Lebels like: Reference Recordings (great on dynamics and clarity), Yarlung (no label does soungstage and imaging better), 2L from Norway, BIS is good (and they have plenty of contemporary composers), Chesky, and a couple others.

ECM recordings, are also high on my list. 

Not a fan of Telarc. Their recordings tend to be overblown.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

I buy a lot of recording on Hyperion and Testament - because they're labels that aren't available on Spotify.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

New releases from ECM New Series always get my attention.

-09


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Since Brilliant Classics came on the scene, I haven't bought a single Naxos CD.


I used to buy tons of Naxos when they were dirt cheap. Up until a couple of years ago they were 2 for $13 at Archambault in Montreal. I bought them for the music of obscure composers who you have a hard time finding anywhere else. Really loved the Casella recordings.

Certain labels always make me salivate because they often have good rare music - Lyrita, BIS, Simax, and Phono Suecia all catch my eye.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

The label definitely factors into my buying decision.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2018)

In the 50's through 70's I find each record label tended to have a distinct house sound, determined by their engineering techniques and equipment. I have a particular fondness for Mercury Living Presence. Starting in the 80's, I find the audio itself more-or-less converged for most mainstream labels. Only Nimbus stood out for it's god-awful audio. I used to avoid American labels because of the bad LP pressings (CBS, RCA), but they sound a lot better on CD. Telarc maintained its unique technique longer than most, but now they are gone. Nimbus is the only label I avoid unconditionally.

Now, labels are mainly distinguished by the repertoire they emphasize, as far as I can tell. So the label tends to be a function of what I am listening to.


----------



## Leinster (Aug 22, 2018)

deutsche gramaphon


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

What?? Buying by labels???

Never!! I buy by the artist! If Charles Munch recorded on 13 different labels, then I would have 13 different labels!


----------

