Sonics of Mahler recordings

[chalkpie]

OK - I am not an audiophile snob by any means, but I do own an "entry" level high-end system consisting of Rotel electronics, B&W speakers (DM 602 S2) bi-wired with Tara Labs interconnects. Not the best, but certainly not the worst by any stretch.

But for some reason, especially with Mahler, I find myself more attracted to superior sounding recordings versus older, "classic" ones. It just gives the music more impact in terms of climaxes, realism, and attention to detail in his brilliant orchestrations. Case-in-point: M2 with Mehta vs. any number of newer recordings. The Mehta is certainly great for its age, but there are moments that bug me when the sonics cannot handle the impact of the music, and those moments distract me. Same with the Klemperer - great for its time - but it doesn't impact me. Bernstein DG for example is not the greatest soundng recording of all time, but is good enough that I don't find myself yearning for better sound, and I only hear the music.

It's one of the reasons I love the Chailly, Gielen, Boulez, Tilson Thomas, etc sets - they all sound very good to exemplary, and even if there is a musical idea that I feel is conveyed less-than-ideal in my view, great sound can make it more palpable if that makes sense.

This extends beyond Mahler obviously, and more modern composers such as Stravinsky, Bartok, Ligeti, Messiaen, Ives, Webern, Kurtag, etc. also benefit greatly from improves sonics.

Thoughts? Agree or disagree?

[John Kim]

I can say only this.

As far as there is no serious drawback in the sound quality, I really don't mind if it's analogue or digital. By drawback, I mean it should be free of

1) distortion
2) variable recording level (I hate it )
3) overloading, i.e., recording level is too high to accommodate the high volume
3) extreme spotlighting

Within this limit, I love most of Klemperer, Walter, Horenstein, and Lenny Mahler recordings.

OTOH, I am marveled at the superb sonic qualities of some of most recent recordings, i.g., Fischer, Oue. But this doesn't mean I have a favoritism towards the modern recordings.

What's most important is the quality of the performance .

John,

[Leo K]

I can say only this.

As far as there is no serious drawback in the sound quality, I really don't mind if it's analogue or digital. By drawback, I mean it should be free of

1) distortion
2) variable recording level (I hate it )
3) overloading, i.e., recording level is too high to accommodate the high volume
3) extreme spotlighting

Within this limit, I love most of Klemperer, Walter, Horenstein, and Lenny Mahler recordings.

OTOH, I am marveled at the superb sonic qualities of some of most recent recordings, i.g., Fischer, Oue. But this doesn't mean I have a favoritism towards the modern recordings.

What's most important is the quality of the performance .

John,

I agree with John here...who says it better than I could.

I feel kinda bad because my hearing is not too good anymore...ringing, swimming sounds and all that tinitus jazz.  And I have one good ear left (the other is deaf)...I hope it lasts more years so I can continue to listen to Mahler!     If only I could hear stereo!   


Bright recordings can be a killer on my ear so I definitely prefer less brightness.  The good news is that a great performance can still be sensed on a bad recording.  

--Todd

[Damfino]

Chalkpie, I tend to agree. One should certainly not pick a poor performance over a great one just because of sonics. But there are now so many great Mahler recordings that one could easily limit one's self to the ones that sound great and not be disappointed by the performance.

Times have sure changed. I remember when I first bought a CD player around 1985 or so. I decided I wanted to hear Mahler in CD, and very little was available then. I think Inbal's recordings were available on Delos(?), and there was Slatkin's M2 and a few digital Solti recordings with the CSO. Now there are tons of great-sounding Mahler recordings available. I still play the Inbal recordings which sound pretty good to me today.

Case-in-point: M2 with Mehta vs. any number of newer recordings. The Mehta is certainly great for its age, but there are moments that bug me when the sonics cannot handle the impact of the music, and those moments distract me.

Have you heard Mehta's Israel Phil, recording of M2 on DVD-A? It really has stunning sonics, and the same no-prisoners approach as the VPO version. It was also released as a redbook CD which should also sound pretty good.

[sperlsco]

OK - I am not an audiophile snob by any means, ...
...
Thoughts? Agree or disagree?

I'm with you here.  First off, I rarely consider listening to anything pre-stereo.  Moreover, I find that I don't turn to some of my favorites from the 60's through 80's as often these days because there are enough great or near-great performances from the last 20 years that are in spectacularly clear and full sound (well-done multi-miking does not bother me in the least).  In other words, I still consider many of the old performances as first-tier favorites, but find that I look first to more recent favorites that are in more modern and excellent sound. 

FYI - you have much nicer stuff than me.  I consider my system to be mid-fi consumer level stuff:  Denon 3808 receiver, Oppo Universal disc players connected via HDMI, NHT Classic 3/Zero speakers.  Oh yeah, all cabling comes from Monoprice  .