U.K. pressed Deutsche Grammophon LP's...

I have some of these, the pressing quality ist inferior to the German stuff, so is the art work/cover. Some UK DG's where done in Holland at Philips. You can see this by a 'ring ridge' on the lable, typical for Philips plant pressings. DECCA had a lot of work done there in the late 1970? The Philips pressed stuff is better (judging by what I've seen)but still NOT on par with German pressed stuff. DG also pressed in South Africa and that stuff is plain awful.

I would generally agree with Axelwal: the UK-pressed DGs are inferior to the German ones (sound less full and detailed, higher incidence of pressing faults). I think, however, that if you go back as far as the beginning of the 1970s, the UK pressings were sometimes up to the level of the German ones. I have a box from the 1970 Beethoven Edition (Volume 7 - violin sonatas, cello sonatas): the records are UK-pressed, they are quiet and have very good (valve-like) sound. I have second copies of a few of these records: these are later German pressings and the sound, though perhaps a little more immediate, is not significantly better.
Whatever the quality of the final product, it seems that the UK records were pressed with DG metal stampers sent from Germany. So any differences are presumably to be attributed to the quality of the vinyl, the degree of care exercised in the pressing process and the length of the pressing run using the same stamper (more on this below).
Interestingly, the 1970 Beethoven Edition came out in the UK with the tulip label, while the continental pressings (issued at the same time) had the later DG label.
Apparently not all non-German pressings of DG material are to be despised. I was in a record shop in Athens (of all places)some months ago and they had a special bin dedicated to French-pressed DGs. I quizzed them about this and they said that in their opinion these have the best sound of all. Why? More limited pressing runs (in Germany DG was pressing for the extensive home market and also for many foreign markets). I do not have a sufficient number of these records to make any comparison, but I suspect that the difference (if it exists in a significant number of cases) will not be great.
What I would like to know is why - irrespective of where they were pressed - DG records so frequently have poor or very mediocre sound (it is well known for instance that the Amadeus Quartet, despite being DG’s premier string quartet throughout the stereo period, was hardly ever given anything more than mediocre sound) . Was ‘conservative’ mastering to blame? One might think this, given that some DG record sides (those with short programme content - say 10 -12 minutes) have very wide ‘dead wax’ areas, i.e. the music grooves are bunched together in the first centimeters of the disk, suggesting that nobody in the disc-cutting team had thought of spreading the grooves out and thus realising a more powerful cut. But in fact it may be wrong to blame the cutting engineers; the problem may well have been with master tapes themselves. When (a few years ago) the Drolc Quartet recordings of the Reger quartets were reissued on CD, the reviewer in Classical Record Collector made a point of commenting on the mediocre sound. Presumably DG had gone back to the original masters!

Hi Pgtaylor,

a very nice contribution, thank you for sharing it. There is on 'take' regarding your 'dead wax' question:
it was done FULLY on purpose to avoid ------- INNER GROOVE DISTORTION!

As to the general DG quality, as I have most of my vinyl second hand German DG (can't speak for French, never seen one ever). DG even had stuff pressed in in old Rodesia (South and North) Zambia and Zimbabwe. Alas not any better then the South African junk (sorry to say).

The pretty early (stereo) DG was WELL below DECCA and RCA quality. But as DECCA shipped there stuff out to Holland (Philips) it seems DG got their act together. Good example are late 1970 to early 1980 Berlin Philharmnonic (Karajan etc.) recordings, which are very detailed (too much?) with beautiful tone-colours and very impressive hall information.
Still not quite as good as most of the 2000 series SXLs and RCA Plum- Shaded- White Dog stuff - but as close as it gets and CERTAINLY better than most of the later 6000 series SXLs.
Greetings,
Axel

Hello Axel,
Here are some observations of mine on your interesting reply. They are offered in a spirit of friendly exchange!
Despite what you say, among the earliest DG stereo records (I am talking about the 136 & 138 series) there are some formidable recordings. A couple that spring to mind: 138054 (from 1959!) - Ravel & Mozart trios with the Trio di Trieste (compare this with many of the later Trio di Trieste recordings, mostly pale efforts by comparison); 138692 (from 1961) - BPO/Karajan Liszt Mazeppa & Hungarian Rhapsodies). These are pretty much up to the level of the best of the Decca SXL2000 series (in my opinion), and are practically as good as anything DG ever produced.
Regarding your idea that DGs get better as time goes on, I am afraid that I can’t really agree. Of course there are some successes (I haven’t heard the 1970s Karajan Beethoven symphonies that you mention) but in my experience the general level of DG recordings - symphonic, opera, chamber - is mediocre. How - for example - they could engage such a fine pianist as Wilhelm Kempff (for a complete Beethoven sonata cycle!) and then not bother to give him decent sound, I simply cannot understand. The same goes for the trio Kempff, Fournier & Szeryng (for the complete Beethoven piano trios). With purely vocal recordings (lied), things are in general a bit better: Fischer-Dieskau’s recordings of Schubert, Schumann, Wolf etc (with Moore, Barenboim or Demus) are generally quite vivid. Some (few!) later DGs that have stuck in my mind as having rich, Decca-like sound: 139181 BPO/Kubelik Dvorak Symphony 8, 2530781 VPO/Böhm Strauss Ein Heldenleben, 139450 Melos Quartet Bartok, Kodaly, Weiner.
Regarding the Decca SXL 2000 series (of which I am lucky enough to have a considerable number), once again I can’t really agree with the idea that these collectively represent the peak of Decca’s achievement. There are of course many great recordings (my own favourites are probably SXL 2189 LSO/Britten Nocturne & Four Sea Interludes and SXL 2188 SRO/Ansermet Stravinsky Pulcinella & Song of the Nightingale), but there are also others with pretty obvious defects (the most common being wiry high frequencies, as noted by Robert Moon in his book on the corresponding London CS series - try the violins on SXL 2098 VPO/Krips Haydn Symphony 94 & 99 for instance). And there are some that are downright poor: a couple of examples might be SXL 2064/65 VPO/Kubelik Smetana Ma Vlast, and SXL 2278 Curzon/Vienna Philharmonic Quartet Frank Piano Quintet (or is it just my copy??).
For me the quintessence of Decca sound comes a bit later, with some of the earlier SXL 6000 series. Take, for instance, SXL 6208 Vienna Octet - Britten Sinfonietta & Hindemith Octet. This is simply as good a recording of a small chamber group as one could reasonably ask for (with no tizzy higher strings or obvious defects). Other fine examples: SXL 6196 Weller Quartet Shostakovich Quartet 10 & Berg Quartet, SXL 6390 LAPO/Mehta Schoenberg Chamber Symphony & Variations for Orchestra (Op. 31).
Of course the question is to some extent an academic one, in that the transition from SXL 2000 series to SXL 6000 series does not appear to have coincided with any significant change in recording or mastering techniques. For Decca it was just a way of simplifying the catalogue numbering: by starting again from zero, they were able to use the same catalogue number for the stereo version (SXL) and the mono (LXT). Previously the stereo records had followed a completely different numbering from the mono issues.
Later on in the SXL 6000 series maybe there was (as you imply) a small fall-off from the highest level of recording/mastering, but there continue to be fantastic records right up to the end. Listen to the string sound on SXL 6846 LPO/Lopez-Cobos Respighi Antiche danze ed arie, or the huge (but lucid) orchestral sound on SXL 6802 LPO/Solti Bartok Violin Concerto 2 (Chung). Another fantastic recording is SXL 6956 LAPO/Lopez-Cobos Rimsky Korsakov, Chabrier & Falla (compare with the original ‘Espana’). As a general rule, Decca records - whether from earlier or later in the SXL series (the same applies to Argo) - excite higher expectations (from me) than DGs.
Interestingly, my copy of the Respighi record is a Dutch pressing (published 1980, maybe too late for any UK pressed copies to exist). And this positive outcome of Decca recording, UK mastering & Dutch pressing is not an exception (in my experience): in fact I have a Dutch pressing of another famous Ansermet/SRO record from the beginning of the SXL 6000 series. It is SXL 6121 Bartok Dance Suite, Two Portraits & Rumanian Dances. The deadwax codes show that it was pressed with Decca UK stampers (ZAL 6323-1L), but the vinyl is clearly Dutch & the sound is really excellent (I have a much earlier London UK pressing for comparison). Even more surprising, there are excellent Dutch pressings of many other fine SXL records in the ‘London Enterprise’ series from the mid-1980s - many of these are as good as, if not better than, the originals - try (if you can stand the music - I can't) London Enterprise 414 169 -1 VPO/Khachaturian Symphony 2 (= SXL 6001). And I even have a French reissue (Decca Classiques BA-342) of SRO/Ansermet Chausson Symphonie (= SXL 6310). It is a Polygram pressing (& mastering) but it nevertheless has superb sound, with little or no loss of subjective weight.
What all this suggests to me is that the quality of the original recording is the really important factor. The question of where the records were (mastered and) pressed is distinctly secondary. Excellent pressings emerged from Holland, as well as from ‘New Malden’. The ‘first pressing’ obsession of recent years is precisely that. It is always possible for a later mastering/pressing - whether in the same series or in a reissue series - to be inferior but it is also possible for it to be superior or to score equal honours with the original.
Best wishes,
Peter