Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: jdhill@BBN.COM (Jack D. Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Arcanity to excess
Message-ID: <7897@uwm.edu>
Date: 27 Nov 90 13:38:45 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 24
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


In article <7800@uwm.edu> Steve_Graham@ub.cc.umich.edu writes:
>I have collected records since age 4; I have been an audiophile since at
>least high school, i.e. for a couple of decades plus, but I have no clue
>as to the meaning of the phrase, "London Blueback", in spite of having
>owned/seen London and Decca recordings of all vintages.  Anyone out
>there have a TAS decoder ring?
>Give me a hint...

London "Blueback" refers to the light blue that filled the entire back cover 
of all the London releases from the late '50s to early '60s. The important
thing to notice is whether it's an FFSS pressing (Full Frequency Stereo
Sound) or FFRR pressing (Full Frequency Range Recording). FFSS were the
original pressings and are the ones most sought after. They sometimes suffer
from a slightly bright sound due to the inadequacies of the disk cutters of the
day. After advances were made in disk cutting technologies Decca started
releasing the FFRRs. They have smoother, more extended highs but are sometimes
a little looser in the bass. I prefer FFRRs because I'm after better sound not
collectibility. The good news is they are much less expensive in the used
record market. In Boston, FFSSs fetch prices from $15 - $40 while the FFRRs are
only $5 - $10. A few people I know prefer Decca/London recordings to RCA
"Living Stereos" and Mercury "Living Presence".

Jack