Mahler 5/Barbirolli/Esoteric SACD ESSE 90057

[ctcdaggett]

At around $70 + shipping, this is a bit on the pricey side for sure, but got glowing reports from Audiophile mag, "The Audio Beat".  Any takers, comments or info?

bob berkman, mojave desert

[John Kim]

Japanese companies are releasing SACD/SHM CDs lately.

SACD + SHM (Super High Material) CD!

I head the sound is beyond any reproach.

John,

[ctcdaggett]

This is a "straight" SACD.  No Esoteric releases are SHM.

berkman

[Prospero]

Extremely impressive SACD remastering. Great sense of depth and presence. It reveals the nuances of the performance better than any other mastering I have heard. On a high resolution system it may be slightly clearer and may have more immediacy than a top EMI analog pressing.

Surely a major Mahler performance in very fine sound.

Tom in Vermont

[Prospero]

I might also mention the Esotereic SACD remastering of the Klemperer Das Lied ESSE-90043, which is also a gorgeous sonic presentation. Christa Ludwig is heard singing from the middle of the orchestra with the score flowing around her. There is now a separate EMI SACD version the Klemperer Das Lied available from Japan that I have not heard. Though the EMI SACD of the Klemperer Missa Solemnis and German Requiem are both very impressive.

Tom in Vermont

[barry guerrero]

"may be slightly clearer and may have more immediacy than a top EMI analog pressing."

Gee, I would sure hope so!

[James Meckley]

Gee, I would sure hope so!

Careful, Barry. You risk triggering an analog vs. digital debate; this could become a less friendly place really fast.

James

[Prospero]

Barry,

Have you auditioned clean first pressings of great 1960s EMI recordings on high quality reproduction systems in the past 20 or 30 years?Or the great RCA Shaded Dog pressings of the late 50s and early 60s? Or the great mono chamber and vocal recordings of the 50s. Or even  a first pressing of the 1952 Walter Vienna Das Lied from an original issue? Or original 78 pressings of the Schnabel Beethoven or Casals Bach cello suites.

The reason some have pursued SACD format is that standard CDs, while pretty good at their best, seem not to have the nuance and subtlety of the best analog. Not everyone agrees, but there is evidence that standard redbook CDs have been exceeded in sound quality by SACD versions. Hence the interest in more refined remastering of classic recordings plus use of the superior information available in the SACD format.

It is thought by some that even the analog sources of earlier classic performances, such as the best of the Furtwangler perfromances, benefit from the greater resolution of the SACD format. The Esoteric SACD remastering of the Barbirolli Mahler 5 is a case in point. In the view of some, the standard CD format lacks some of the beauty and range of the analog original. The SACD version is superior to previous CD versions, in my listening, and captures more of the analog nuance  while benefiting from the digital removal of LP type surface noise. 

Best to all,

Tom in Vermont

[mahlerei]

I am a great believer in the virtues of SACD, but I have found that a fair number don't live up to the high sonic standards of the best ones. Conversely, some well-recorded RBCDs are excellent, which seems to imply - in part at least - that recording techniques rather than the technologies used can make the biggest difference.

On a related topic, I've just heard the 24/96 download of Solti's Mahler 8 (available from Linn Records) and I was staggered by how much better it sounds compared with the 24/96 Decca Legends CD. In theory they should sound much the same, but take it from me the download is one of the finest I've heard. It might also make those revisionists who malign Solti acknowledge his considerable talents as a Mahlerian.

[merlin]

Agreed that the recordings will determine the quality of both RBCD and SACD.  For example, the Sony Japan SACDs of Bernstein's first cycle are not nearly as good sonically as the remastered DG CDs of his later one.

[James Meckley]

I've just heard the 24/96 download of Solti's Mahler 8 (available from Linn Records) and I was staggered by how much better it sounds compared with the 24/96 Decca Legends CD. In theory they should sound much the same, but take it from me the download is one of the finest I've ever heard. It might also make those revisionists who malign Solti's Mahler acknowledge his considerable talents as a Mahlerian.

I'm glad to know of a true 24/96 release for this recording. Despite its detractors, it's always occupied a warm spot in my heart: I heard the original 1971 performance in Chicago a couple of months before they went to Vienna to record it, and it was a life-altering experience for this 21-year-old college student.

I've been pretty satisfied with the Japanese SHM-CD remastering—a noticeable improvement over the Decca Legends release—but it, like the Decca, necessarily ended up downsampled to 16/44.1 for Redbook production. The most glaring problem remaining is the overloaded pedal E-flat from the organ in the closing bars. Kenneth Wilkinson and/or Gordon Parry let the original tape saturate. It's most obvious from figure 220 to the end, and it's probably uncorrectable. Do you recall how this section fares on the Linn release?

BTW, I heard some wise-ass once describe Solti's Decca Mahler 8 as "sounding rather like a Phil Spector production" which isn't too far from the truth.

James

[Prospero]

The question still remains, what is the best version of any particular recording? To say that the DGG Bernstein Mahler pleases you more than a remastering of the Columbia version does not quite address the issue.

If  the best contemporary sound pleases you, what do you do with any performance from an earlier era? By this logic if I like the sound of the 20XX performance by Z best, what happens to the artistic achievements of any earlier time?

The goal, I would imagine, is to present the most convincing sound of any recording so we can access the performance. If, say, the Bernstein Columbia Mahler 3 were a more complete performance overall, would we set it aside because the latest Gilbert or Stenz seems a bit better in sound?

This is both a philosophical and an esthetic discussion.

Many listeners find the Schnabel Beethoven sonata series from the 30s to be the most compelling and revelatory. Should one say that pianist W's version from 2012 has "better" sound on my system and therefore let Schnabel fade?

There are too many pristine and sterile performances around for our own good. The life of the music, even when sound is less than ideal, is the thing.

The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Best to all,

Tom in Vermont
 

[merlin]

This is both a philosophical and an esthetic discussion.

Yes, indeed.  For me, if the SQ is unacceptable, then I am not very much interested in the performance.  There are many excellent versions of Mahler and other composers' works, which sometimes differ from one another by very little.

In those cases, I prefer sound quality I can enjoy, without loud tape hiss, recording artifacts, digital glare, reduced sound stage, and so on.

For example, there is no doubt that Schabel was a great interpreter of Beethoven, but the awful SQ and plethora of missed notes, make it at most a one-and-done for me.

[sperlsco]

On a related topic, I've just heard the 24/96 download of Solti's Mahler 8 (available from Linn Records) and I was staggered by how much better it sounds compared with the 24/96 Decca Legends CD. In theory they should sound much the same, but take it from me the download is one of the finest I've heard. It might also make those revisionists who malign Solti acknowledge his considerable talents as a Mahlerian.

Well, you got me all excited about this, but alas, it is not available in the US. 

[sperlsco]

...  For example, the Sony Japan SACDs of Bernstein's first cycle are not nearly as good sonically as the remastered DG CDs of his later one.

To which remastering do refer?  I own Lennie's DG cycle in both the original single performace releases and the first remastered box. I really don't find that the first remastering is anything special. Louder => yes, but better=> not really.  I know it was remastered again a few years ago, but i didn't purchase it.  This is my favorite of all cycles, so if the more recent one is definitive, please let me know. 

FWIW, I actually think that the Lennie Sony-Japan SACD's are light years better than their previous CD incarnations.