Mercury Living Presence vs RCA Victor Living Stereo

[vers la flamme]

These were two famous series within classical music records during the 1950s and 1960s, both known for excellent sound. I have collected a few of the CDs as reissues from both series. Living Stereo put out a lot of Reiner/Chicago, Munch/Boston, and Artur Rubinstein records. Living Presence put out a lot of Paul Paray, Antal Dorati, and Byron Janis, etc.

Do you have a preference between these great labels/series?

For me, I have to give it to Living Stereo... I love that Reiner/Chicago sound







If I had a couple million to blow on music, I would definitely pick up a copy of each box set. 

[Ratliff]

Reiner/Chicago is great, Munch/BSO does nothing for me. Mercury Living Presence has the edge, in my book. Reiner has nothing on Dorati, and Paul Paray/Detroit can be astonishingly good.

[JBS]

I have all three Mercury sets, and a bunch of Living Stereo as individual CDs or as part of other sets. Usually, I like the Living Stereo recordings better when they are directly competing with Mercury recordings of the same work.  But I think Mercury recorded a wider range of music than Living Stereo.

[Mookalafalas]

The Mercury boxes are full of surprises and are more fun.
   That said, there is little better than Reiner and Rubinstein, and that Living Stereo sound is still amazing. Best to get the Mercs, and the Reiner and Rubinstein "complete" boxes

[Irons]

A very good question. Both RCA 'Living Stereo' and Mercury were the vanguard of good sound but for me Mercury comes out top. 'Living Presence' sums up the label perfectly, the sound world created by Robert Fine is unique, not replicated by other labels although some have tried. Lewis Leyton was also an outstanding sound engineer at RCA, his approach is more the accepted norm but a very good version of. Mercury are different then the rest - upfront and immediate with little depth coupled with amazing dynamics. Unique, and not everyone's cup of tea, but I love it! I have collected Mercury for ever on both LP and CD and I acquire repertoire I have little interest purely for that special Mercury sound. 

[aukhawk]

AIUI the Mercury and RCA engineers pooled their knowledge on an amicable basis during the late 50s, as recording engineers the world over are wont to do to this day.  Mercury had a technical edge when they adopted 35mm film as their recording medium in 1961 - this ran faster and had more track width than the 1/2" tape they were using otherwise - theoretically giving better HF response and lower noise.  The recordings using this improvement can be identified to this day by the use of a sprocketed banner - eg:

where a plain, unsprocketed banner would signify the use of 1/2" tape.  But of course that was just the trimming round the edges (and IMHO any differences would be largely theoretical, not actual) - the venues, mic placements and 3-into-2 mixdown were what defined of the Mercury sound.

[Ratliff]

I generally liked the 35mm recordings less than the ones done on standard magnetic tape.

There is an article on-line somewhere by Fine's son describing the Mercury technique in some detail. The microphones in those days were nowhere near flat frequency response, and part of the trick was carefully adjusting the distance from the microphone to the source to compensate. The frequency balance depends on microphone placement because of the way sound of different frequencies propagates in a concert hall. It depended very much on the peculiar microphone they used.


Maybe this is it:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/fine-art-mercury-living-presence-recordings

[André]

I have all three Mercury sets, and a bunch of Living Stereo as individual CDs or as part of other sets. Usually, I like the Living Stereo recordings better when they are directly competing with Mercury recordings of the same work.  But I think Mercury recorded a wider range of music than Living Stereo.

+1 here.

Mercury's punchy sound often fit the 20th century repertoire better, with its emphasis on bite and clarity, and the aural experience is often startling. But my ears long for something smoother after the disc is over. I never listen to two Mercury discs consecutively. For my taste the Living Stereo sound is better balanced.

[Roasted Swan]

Interesting debate.  I must admit I'm generally with Andre on this.  Partly repertoire led and ensemble led I have more RCA than Mercury recordings.  The Mercury discs with say the LSO doing Tchaikovsky are literally brilliant - to the point of being aurallly wearing I find.  How do the original Everest recordings fit into this pantheon of the greats for people?

[Irons]

Interesting debate.  I must admit I'm generally with Andre on this.  Partly repertoire led and ensemble led I have more RCA than Mercury recordings.  The Mercury discs with say the LSO doing Tchaikovsky are literally brilliant - to the point of being aurallly wearing I find.  How do the original Everest recordings fit into this pantheon of the greats for people?

Will not interest most contributors here but Everest on vinyl is a minefield. Down the years there have been many changes of ownership resulting in extremely poor transfers - the orange and blue label issues are truly awful. Most of the recordings were reissued on Vanguard Classics CDs during the mid-1990s transferred from the original masters which are excellent. Incidentally, Everest also recorded on 35 mm film tape.

I agree listening to Mercury can be wearing but it should be noted the playback system has an important role here. The digital transfers by Wilma Cozart Fine are very good but maybe Mercury recordings are better suited to analogue in the final analysis.

[vandermolen]

I liked both labels very much - so difficult to choose. However those Howard Hanson Mercury releases were very special discoveries for me:

[Mirror Image]

I really think both Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo are both overrated, but if I had to choose, it would be RCA and the only reason I can gather was because this series exposed me to Bartók. Around 11 years ago, I ran across Reiner's recording of the Concerto for Orchestra (not the hybrid SACD version just the CD issue) in a used CD store. When I turned on the recording and blasted it through the stereo, I couldn't believe my ears. Even if I didn't quite understand the music at that point as I was very new to classical music in general, I was allured by the sound of it. To this day, this was one of the most important moments in my classical listening even if I have found other performances more to my taste.

[vandermolen]

The Reiner Scheherazade was my first ever classical LP. I must have been about 13 I think. My mother loved the work.

[vers la flamme]

I really think both Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo are both overrated, but if I had to choose, it would be RCA and the only reason I can gather was because this series exposed me to Bartók. Around 11 years ago, I ran across Reiner's recording of the Concerto for Orchestra (not the hybrid SACD version just the CD issue) in a used CD store. When I turned on the recording and blasted it through the stereo, I couldn't believe my ears. Even if I didn't quite understand the music at that point as I was very new to classical music in general, I was allured by the sound of it. To this day, this was one of the most important moments in my classical listening even if I have found other performances more to my taste.

I just got that CD, it's great! Though I couldn't disagree more that either of these imprints are overrated, but I love old analog sound.

[Jo498]

As far as sound goes, I think the Bartok with Dorati on Mercury might be even better than Reiner/RCA. (It's far more comprehensive, with almost all important orchestral works except the piano concertos included.) Dorati's Stravinsky Balletts are spectacular. I am not an audio buff anyway and I think both Mercury and Living stereo can seem a little too direct and somewhat brutal but the sound must have been sensational almost 60 years ago.