Mahler 9 on sacd - which one?

[barryguerrero]

Which one (sacd)?:  J. Nott? Chailly? Zinman? A.Gilbert (BIS)? Gergiev?    .    .    .   I'd be playing this back in SACD 2-channel, and not a mix-down of the 5.1 layer. Thanks.

[ChrisH]

Honestly, Barry, I wouldn't worry about the SACD portion of it. Just get what you like. Engineering and mastering have much more to do with sound quality than the format. If it's purely about sound quality, Ivan Fischer tops the list in my room. However, those that you listed are all high quality recordings, too.

In a level matched double blind test, people can't tell the difference between formats that are well encoded.

[Brian Smith]

If one  listens to the Sacd on a high-quality multi-channel system, it would be difficult not to hear the difference between the SACD and the usual stereo of the same recording.  However, the difference between an SACD layer played in stereo and the stereo layer is generally inaudible.  If your system is limited to stereo it doesn't matter.

[Brian Smith]

I should elaborate on my previous post:  If a stereo recording is simply reissued as an SACD, there will be no audible difference.  However, if there is significant remastering the sound may be improved.  The RCA and Analogue Productions SACDs are a big improvement, especially if the original recordings were 3 channel.

There are quite a few MCH SACD recording that are poor.  For example, LSO recordings in the Barbacan are usually not good, but not the fault of the technology.  Hyperion stopped recording in MCH - the one example I have is the Rach PCs that sound better in stereo than MCH.

Almost all SACDs are multi layer.  You can play them in stereo if that is your listening environment.  On the question of which Mahler 8 to buy:  Gilbert on BIS and Chailly on DECCA  are terrific performances and well recorded in MCH.  Klemperer on Decca (stereo only) is another favorite of mine.

Hope I haven't stirred up too much of a hornet's nest.

[barryguerrero]

"Gilbert on BIS and Chailly on DECCA  are terrific performances and well recorded in MCH"

I had the Gilbert before and I think I'll try to find it again. I saw a used one somewhere, but all the used cd stores are closed for the virus. I could get a reasonable cost through Amazon. Getting the Chailly on sacd is really expensive now. I liked that one as well. For a single disc version, I like the Daniel Harding one on Harmonia Mundi about the best.

As far as Klemperer goes, I really prefer his 'live' and mono Vienna Phil. one.

Thanks for the all the input.

[John Kim]

I like the Harding M9th too but wish the playing & sound were better. It sounds coarse and constricted at climaxes.

For the best M9th SACD my recommendations are

1. Ozawa/SKO/Sony SACD (coupled with M2nd)
2. Bernstein/NYPO/Sony SACD

For non-SACD, I'd recommend

1. Bernstein/RCO/DG
2. Levine/PO/RCA
3. Solti/LSO/Decca
4. Ozawa/BSO/Philips
5. Haitink/RCO/Philips

I'd love to have the Levine and Haitink SACD.

[barryguerrero]

I'm not going to do anything radical. I gave my copy of the Alan Gilbert M9 to somebody, because they knew the first horn player in the Stockholm Phil.  When local stores finally reopen, I think I know where there's one for not much money. I'm fairly happy with what I have now. For Bernstein, nothing surpasses his '79 Boston Symphony one.

[John Kim]

Of course, in performance (if not in sound) the 1979 Tanglewood Bernstein/BSO is the grand daddy of all M9ths.

[SteelyTom]

It may be worth mentioning that Universal Japan reissued Karajan's analogue, studio BPO recording of M9 on SACD.  Emil Berliner Studios remastered the recording, and even remixed the session tapes.  Sonically, the SACD beats the DG LPs (which I bought upon release back in the day, and still own). 

[barryguerrero]

Thanks. That's good to know. My guess is that it doesn't come cheaply. However, I very much like his earlier, analog one - in spite of a few minor errors in the Rondo-Burlesque.