I have been processing my vinyl collection to digital. The intent is to put most of the collection onto CD. Seems to be easier to handle that way, especially for my frau. I have kinda gotten into the history of some of the artists and labels and have found some interesting (at least to me) facts that I thought I would share.

I processed a Jack Greene record, on Decca, from 1968, and, on the back of the album cover was a script that stated that it was made in the Capitol factory in California. I processed a Mel Tillis record from 1975, on MGM, that stated on the back that it was manufactured by RCA Victor, on 38th Street in Indianapolis. Can anybody shed any information on this?

I have found that the records that sound the best after all these years is, in order, Decca, RCA, and Mercury. The worst BY FAR, NOT EVEN A CONTEST is Capitol, followed by MGM, and Columbia. Do I have some crappy Decca records? Sure. Do I have any decent Capitol records? Yeah, a couple. Al Martino, and I bought them new. Seems like you can drag a Decca record down the road with your pickup for a couple of miles, and it will still play with a minimum of noise. Most Capitol records are horribly noisy, in my experience. One of my country favorites is on Capitol, Hank Thompson, and I have to jump through hoops to make his records sound decent. I have found that digital makes noise more noticeable than analog. May be just my imagination, but records sure seem to "gain" noise when they go digital.

This semi-scientific little survey was taken during the processing of 1,218 vinyl albums. I only have another 5,000 or so to go, so will be an expert by the time I am done. I bought an estate out a couple of years ago. I got 40 radios, lots of test equipment, a couple thousand tubes, miscellaneous stuff. After I loaded my truck and trailer with this stuff, the lady I bought them from asked if I was going to take the records. I answered in the affirmative. (How much room could a few records take, right?) She took me to a back bedroom that was stacked, to the ceiling and wall to wall, with LP's in boxes. I loaded my buddy's old Ford truck with all it would hold and had to make another trip for the rest. I have counted over 3,000 so far, and am not near through them all. All country and other stuff I like. Only one dud so far. A Tina Turner record...........Greg

It's not really possible to generalize like that, but here are some of my observations. American Decca's cutting heads in the 1960s cut the high end off. Capitol records usually sound gread unless they're "Duophonic" issues, and I've never seen a styrene Capitol record. Early MGM LPs and 45s records are noisy. Early Decca LPs are made of styrene and do not wear well. I'd have to say that the most consistant over the decades are RCA records. Columbia's quality is all over the map, and of course all their 45s are styrene and wear quickly.

Ken D.

I think there is far too many variables involved for one to pin point a "label" to be at fault. The master recording seems to be a bigger factor to me. The studio it was recorded in, the producer and engineer and production techniques as well as the year recorded itself. Recording equipment made leaps and bounds month by month and vastly changed the quality and volume of the sound on a record.

There is also the age of the masters, when the record was pressed and how many times that master was used. I have Your Cheatin' Heart Movie Sound track the first pressing and it sound HUGE and clean but the record is worn so I found another pressing from about 15 years later. looks identical and still on MGM but a later pressing and the recording is a very weak and thin. I like Buck Owens a lot and his stuff is all over the board on Capitol Records. Some of the early stuff sounds GREAT and some absolutely terrible. The goes with his later stuff, it all is a crap shoot on how that particular disc is going to sound.

I just think there are too many factors involved to pigeon hole a label.

Though I must say this I don't think I have heard an A&M album that has EVER sounded bad, everything I have heard on that early green A&M label has bee astounding.

Worst = Warner/Reprise/Electra/Asylum.

My Capitol Beatles stiil sound sharp but Capitol mastering took all the bass off. Last few years of vinyl acquisition I bought only superdiscs/half speed masters. Those are remarkable.

Age/wear of master, and particularly of stamper, weigh heavily. As does how much recycled vs. virgin vinyl, and how long the stamper cycles were. When they get behind in production, like the candy lady said in I Love Lucy, they "Speed it up a little". IINM, all 45s are stamped just a little faster than they can really get away with. Likely a habit from knowing that RCA 45EY2 was just going to grind it to dust anyway so why bother.

Regarding 45's, at least, I always found RCA's to play at a louder volume level than any other label.

Like I said, my little survey was not, nor was it intended to be, scientific or conclusive. I was merely passing on information I had gleaned from my stash of over 5000 albums. I kept careful records of the processing necessary to eliminate the noise.....tape hiss, pop and crackle, that kind of stuff. I neither know nor care about master wear and all that stuff. (I understood that recordings by the time LP's came out were mostly mastered on tape. What am I missing here?). But of the records in my collection, this has been my experience. 78's are a different story and 45's are all bad in my opinion. The material that has lasted the best for me has been open reel tape. Some of my tape is over 50 years old and is still in playable condition. It is reputed to have a short life span. Mine has lasted well. Part of the process of transferring vinyl to digital is to "clean up" the little boo-boos in mastering and pressing. Records with the bass taken out, I can put that back in to my satisfaction. Records that sound flat with little "top end" can likewise by restored. I have both a graphic equalizer and a compressor/expander that enable 78's from the '20's to sound more life like and with better range. I can take the hiss out of tape. It is amazing what a computer and a good reproduction system can do for these older recordings.

The bottom line here is that I am having a ball preserving my music collection. I am fully aware that my findings may differ from general opinion. I used to think that RCA was the bomb as far as recordings were concerned. This experience has shown me that Decca is actually better overalll. There are those who can and will find fault with my procedures and that is just fine by me. I am neither a sound engineer nor a computer expert, so I am happy with my accomplishment.............GREG

I don't believe they're as loud as mono Motown 45s.

Ken D.

I don't think I'd know; my collections pretty well stop a few years before Motown got going.

I approach this question from the classical, concert band, world music and jazz standpoint, with a five-star rating system for LP labels, based on comparison of discs to others of similar vintage.

If a label is left out, it means I haven't encountered enough samples to have any idea of their average quality.

Angel: * * * * *

Aris: * * * +

Audio Fidelity: * * * * +

Capitol: * * * *

Columbia: * * * *

Columbia Masterworks: * * * * *

Command: * * * * *

Decca: * * * *

Deutsche Grammophon: * * * * * +

Everest: * * * +

London Continental/International: * * * *

London FFRR, Phase 4: * * * * *

Mercury: * * * * *

Mercury Gold Imports: * * * * * +

Nonesuch: * * * *

Odeon/EMI, Waverly: * * * * * +

Philips: * * * * * +

Polydor: * * * * *

RCA Red Seal: * * * * *

RCA Victor: * * * * +

Telefunken: * * * * * +

Urania: * * * +

Vanguard: * * * * +

Verve: * * * * *

Vox/Vox Turnabout: * * * *

Westminster: * * * +

Larry

There was also the Capitol Record Club

The RCA record club

Columbia House, too.

I've seen records bought thru the clubs that were pressed strictly for the club by different companies than what originally pressed the records on first release.