gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: shawn on June 29, 2019, 10:46:37 AM
-
I'm not a representative of High Definition Tape Transfers ;) I want to refer to their new entry for the sake of bringing 'new' releases to our attention :)
https://www.highdeftapetransfers.com/products/mahler-symphony-no-7-otto-klemperer-new-philharmonia-orchestra
I thought EMI did a very good job in their last remastering. I can't really say this transfer is very better or worse, based on the samples. The only factual difference is the much larger audio resolution. But then again, no matter how large a resolution, it doesn't often change the general soundscape.
Klemperer's Seventh is fascinating (it's certainly unique!) and lasts about twenty minutes longer than 'the norm'.
-
I’m perfectly satisfied with the Warner Classics issue of all the 2010-11 remastered Mahler symphonies by Klemperer (which sound great, BTW), that can be obtained for approximately the same cost as this download.
Wade
-
I just can't do it. I've tried listening all the way through the Klemperer and just can't take it. For me, it joins the Ferrier/Patzak/Walter "DLvdE" and the Solti M8 as among the most 'over-rated' Mahler recordings of all time. Scherchen's Toronto M7 is right up there too (but I like his Vienna Phil. one).
-
Hello Barry, I used the word 'fascinating' as an ambiguous statement :) because it is probably one of the most controversial Mahler interpretations ever recorded. My personal view is that the Mahler Seventh contains a lot more flexibility of phrasing, tempo and mood than Otto is willing to give. Klemperer mainly operates in a steady and levelheaded way, unable to sufficiently contrast every movement, or indeed within a movement.
The first movement works for me (sort of), and there is mystery in the long drawn first Nachtmusik, but there is no sardonic edge to the Schattenhaft, and the second Nachtmusik is, again, not as contrasted as I would have it. The Finale is the biggest problem, it is homogenized tempo-wise, and Mahler's demented exchange of themes is thoroughly sanitized. This is a Mahler Seventh on tranquilizers. Well.
-
I have the Japanese "HQ" mastering for all of Klemperer's EMI Mahler and the M7 sounds fantastic. That said, I consider his M7 conceptual art, or "performance art" (and not for everyday listening). It's almost "outsider art" it's so uncanny.
-
Speaking of lengthy Sevenths, I recently discovered Leif Segerstam's 1991 recording with the DR SymfoniOrkestret on Chandos. I love it. It clocks in at 1hr 28mins, but Segerstam conducts superbly, and the orchestral performance is top of the line. The first movement is a beastly 25 minutes, but the tempo relationships are ideal for me. The Nachtmusik movements are certainly on the slow side, but they can justified be in the right hands; here Segerstam conducts with an excellent sense of fantasy and atmosphere. The finale, at a whopping 19 minutes, is actually paced exceptionally well. The ritornellos are at a similar tempo as Stenz, and the episodes are like slower light dances. The final peroration is huge and satisfying. I'd recommend a revisit of this recording if you've forgotten about it.
As for the Klemperer, I also can't do it. I am fine with slow recordings if the tempo relationships can justify it (as is the case with a lot of the Chailly recordings), but I don't like slow just for the sake of slow. Actually, I do really like Chailly's slightly lengthy Seventh, but the finale is a bit too homogenized for me too, like the Klemperer. Incredible first movement though.
Erik
-
I share your enthusiasm. Segerstam is one of those conductors who doesn't mistake speed for excitement. Timings can be deceptive. The Danish play extremely well, bright woodwinds and powerful brass. And yes, I also like his ending to M7.
I always found Chailly's Decca 7th a bit on the cool side. He has great woodwind playing and excellent sound, but the Rondo is stately while it should be festive. And frankly I don't like the Mengelberg timpano. It bursts out of one's speakers like someone just opened fire in your living room.
-
I have the Japanese "HQ" mastering for all of Klemperer's EMI Mahler and the M7 sounds fantastic. That said, I consider his M7 conceptual art, or "performance art" (and not for everyday listening). It's almost "outsider art" it's so uncanny.
While Klemperer's Mahler as a whole isn't quite ideal in my mind, I'm perfectly happy with the sound of the 2011/12 remastering of his Mahler in the Warner Classics issue box. I cannot see spending a ridiculous sum for the Japanese SACD issue of his Mahler. The difference in sound has to be negligible between the SACD and the regular CD, and not worth the money. I spent $100 for Knappertsbusch's 1962 Parsifal on Japanese SACD, and cannot tell that much difference between it and the regular domestic CD issue. While Knappertsbusch's Parsifal is a valuable recording, to my mind, the extra $$$$ spent for the Japanese SACD wasn't worth it. The only benefit was that I got all of Act I on one disk of this SACD-only issue.
When reviewers do reviews of these Japanese SACD reissues, I wish they would A/B the SACD layer with the regular CD layer, or with the regular CD, to let people know if the extra money for the SACD is worth it.
Wade
-
Hi Wade,
Oh yes I agree. The Warner Classics box is very fine indeed and I can't hear a difference myself. Sorry I should've mentioned that in my post. (I just like collecting the Japanese releases too)
-
When reviewers do reviews of these Japanese SACD reissues, I wish they would A/B the SACD layer with the regular CD layer, or with the regular CD, to let people know if the extra money for the SACD is worth it.
Wade
The reason you don't see any A/B, blind or otherwise, is because there is no difference if it's level matched. Unless the mastering is different between the SACD and Redbook layer, there is no difference. The majority of people can't differentiate between 392MP3 and CD when done blind and level matched. With these older recordings that they remaster to SACD, you're just getting a lot of conversion. The actual remaster may make things sound better, but the format it was converted too has no bearing on what the actual sound quality will be. The mastering is where it's at.
Hi-Rez and DSD are mostly snake-oil, honestly. There are about 2 record companies that actually record in DSD the proper way. Meaning everything is done in one take, and the mastering levels are set before the recording session starts. There is no editing of anything, because to edit DSD, you have to convert to high bit-rate PCM. Also, most people don't posses speakers that actually play the high frequencies found on these hi-rez recordings, or ears to even to hear them. Especially when one starts to age.
-
The reason you don't see any A/B, blind or otherwise, is because there is no difference if it's level matched. Unless the mastering is different between the SACD and Redbook layer, there is no difference. The majority of people can't differentiate between 392MP3 and CD when done blind and level matched. With these older recordings that they remaster to SACD, you're just getting a lot of conversion. The actual remaster may make things sound better, but the format it was converted too has no bearing on what the actual sound quality will be. The mastering is where it's at.
Vehemence,
Thanks for writing this—it isn't stated often enough. Red Book CD is a perfectly adequate medium. I'm convinced that many/most companies use different masterings on their Red Book and SA-CD layers in an effort to convince people that Hi-Rez is better and worth paying extra for. But then Audiophilia is a confounding admixture of science and snake oil, and always has been.
-
I share your enthusiasm. Segerstam is one of those conductors who doesn't mistake speed for excitement. Timings can be deceptive. The Danish play extremely well, bright woodwinds and powerful brass. And yes, I also like his ending to M7.
Although I have not listened to Segerstam's M7 in long time, I am a fan of his Chandos cycle. I'm sure his overall slow tempi is a turn off for plenty of listeners, but he builds and releases tension very well and makes a convincing case for his way with the music.
-
I'll admit that Segerstam's entire cycle is a tad on the slow side for my taste. However, he's great at pegging big climaxes and typically Mahlerian local effects. I very like what he does at the endings to both M2 and M8.
-
I very like what he does at the endings to both M2 and M8.
Right. I love the tam tam crescendo at the end of M8!
-
Strange speculations that the medium makes no difference. We certainly have clear evidence that a well treated film in BluRay on a high definition screen can have significantly more detail and camera perspective nuance than a regular DVD on the same screen or an older one. Consider a Criterion BluRay on 2k or even 4K in a few instances LCD or OLED today in comparison to what you saw in 1995.
But there is probably much greater variation in sound reproduction dependent on variety of equipment, sonic resolution and balance, and room ambiance. Always a moving target.
-
Strange speculations that the medium makes no difference. We certainly have clear evidence that a well treated film in BluRay on a high definition screen can have significantly more detail and camera perspective nuance than a regular DVD on the same screen or an older one. Consider a Criterion BluRay on 2k or even 4K in a few instances LCD or OLED today in comparison to what you saw in 1995.
But there is probably much greater variation in sound reproduction dependent on variety of equipment, sonic resolution and balance, and room ambiance. Always a moving target.
Your TV analogy doesn't quite hit the mark. Yes, 4K and many other film remastering does make the picture quality good to amazing. The thing is, our eyes can actually see in the 'resolution you're watching on your 4K Oled. Our eyes can differentiate all of the colors, shades and depth that these transfers have to offer. Our ears a totally different matter. Human hearing tops out at 20,000KHZ, a recording made at 24/192 extends to 192,000KHZ. We can't even hear this extra frequency. IF you are over the age of 60, you most likely can't hear over 12,000KHZ. Much of what you find over Nyquist in recording is shaped noise, and filtering to remove ultra-sonics that can actually hurt your system.
You are correct that there is a lot of variation depending on equipment, and especially your room acoustics. Most stereo equipment can't even send a full hi-rez signal through the chain. Your tweeters don't extend high enough, your pre-amp or receiver downsamples, or your amp is only good 20,000KHZ. Unless you only purchase equipment with independent measurements, you have no idea what you are getting. Generally, the more money spent, the worse the measurements. If you honestly want to up your sound game, the best single purchase you can make is buying a USB microphone and learning a very simple, free program, called Room EQ Wizard. Then you can actually see what you are hearing, and adjust from there.
Again, most of this hi-rez, expensive cables, power conditioners etc...are all snake-oil. There is little to no science behind any of it, and none of it will pass a blind A/B/X test. It's pure marketing BS, to sell to subjective audiophile types. If any member here truly wanting a better sound when they listen, please PM me. I'm happy to help.