Rattle/EMI Mahler box definitely remastered - NOT!!!

[barry guerrero]

Nope; the Rattle Mahler box is not in the least bit remastered. I do like how the discs are layed out, however. But don't you fellows think it's odd that EMI didn't wait to include Rattle's new remake of the 9th? Are people supposed to buy both?

Barry

[michaelw]

It's disappointing. I already owned many Cd's of that series, but since amazon did a mistake in August and offerend the box for 20 Euro for one or two days, I pre-ordered it and hoped for remastered versions. But apparently they simply took the old originals. Not even the remastered M2 version has been used. Considering the "real" price of about 50 Euros, this is not state-of-the-art. And particularly not in view of a new M9 coming out now. 

Michael

[Leo K]

Very dissapointing...this cycle deserves better. 

[John Kim]

Remastered or not, for this Rattle/Mahler cycle I'd keep the M2 & M10 and to a lesser degree the M8. Let's hope the new BPO M9th will keep up to our expectation.

John,

[sperlsco]

Well I have all of the individual releases, so a remastering is probably the only thing that would make me consider buying the box.  OTOH, if I found the box for $20 I might consider it to make some shelf space. 

[chris]

Nope; the Rattle Mahler box is not in the least bit remastered. I do like how the discs are layed out, however. But don't you fellows think it's odd that EMI didn't wait to include Rattle's new remake of the 9th? Are people supposed to buy both?

Barry - does your copy (or the copy you saw anyway, if you saw one) have a booklet?   I just received a copy of this as a gift and thought it was odd there was no book, no notes, nothing.   

[barry guerrero]

When I go to work tomorrow, I'll check. I'm keeping our copy in the store for instore play.

Barry

[barry guerrero]

Yes, this does come with a set of notes. All of the song texts are there, translated into several languages (as usual).  Man, what a bummer for you! However, I'm sure that EMI will gladly send you a note book, but what a hastle! I find it hard to believe that EMI didn't take this whole project more seriously, given how much they've been pushing Rattle as the reincarnation of Furtwaengler, Bernstein, and Christ - all combined.

Barry

[John Kim]

I think a main problem with the Rattle's set is its sound. One of the earliest installments, the M2nd sounds terrific, close but with wide dynamics and many details, vividness all of which match with the best of DG recordings. But for some reason EMI engineers decided to shift to distant, murky sonics from the next recording on. As a result, Rattle's highly "individual" (if I use a nice word) approach to Mahler is bound to lose much of its impact, making the recordings boring and uninteresting.

John,

[sbugala]

Yes, this does come with a set of notes. All of the song texts are there, translated into several languages (as usual).  Man, what a bummer for you! However, I'm sure that EMI will gladly send you a note book, but what a hastle! I find it hard to believe that EMI didn't take this whole project more seriously, given how much they've been pushing Rattle as the reincarnation of Furtwaengler, Bernstein, and Christ - all combined.

Barry

How could you forget the others Rattle is reincarnated: Beecham, Boult, and Barbirolli.  Oh yeah, Karajan, too. Can't forget him. 

[barry guerrero]

Hmmmmmm  .    .    .  while there's no mention of this set being remastered - nor does it particularly sound it in the, "Great Recordings Of The Century" sense - I noticed that the sound quality now seems much more even from one symphony to the next. Tonight, I played symphonies 6, 7, & 8 (it's a long story, don't ask), and they sounded nearly identical. The 7th, in particular, didn't have that really "boxy" quality that was so prevelant in the original issue of it. What gives?

I also don't remember the original issue of the 7th having applause at the end, and now it does. Am I just not remembering it correctly?

Barry

[John Kim]

The 7th, in particular, didn't have that really "boxy" quality that was so prevelant in the original issue of it. What gives?

I also don't remember the original issue of the 7th having applause at the end, and now it does. Am I just not remembering it correctly?

Barry

That's strange...the M7th indeed sounded boxy and (if my memory is correct) didn't have the audience applause at the end. Could it be another live recording?

John,

[sperlsco]

I also don't remember the original issue of the 7th having applause at the end, and now it does. Am I just not remembering it correctly?

Barry

Yes, the original M7 has applause at the end.  Plus, I usually stand and applaud the performance myself.   

[michaelw]

Barry's comment and the following discussion let me compare the "old" and the "new" CD of the M7 strictly. First I switched between simultaneous playing on my Pioneer multiplayer and my pure CD/SACD player. Result:
The sound was MUCH better with the real CD player independent of the CD version, any possible difference in sound between old release and box was clearly below difference of equipment. So that couldn't be a way.
Next I converted the Scherzo to Apple Lossless and put both versions to my iPod with AKG headphones. Strangely, the conversion led to files with 10% difference in size (on high level, of course). Audible result: Couldn't really hear a difference, but one could imagine the new version a bit brighter.
Finally I converted the scherzo of both versions to WAV and compared the beginning in a wave editor. And there a difference could be seen: They have increased the level in the new version! There are also slight differences in the wave forms, but this is like "find the 10 errors in the picture".
I am not an expert in this field, but I would say: it is not a remastering, but only a wave editing/emphasizing/equilibration. This might lead to a different impression when listening to it. No guarantee, that this analysis is the full truth, but it explains Barry's impression that the sound is more even (most MP3 software has a function to equilibrate levels for a selection of tracks, so maybe they put anything on the same level beforehand).

By the way, the M6, M1 and M7 (in that order) were the first CD's of these works I ever listened to. So I have some affinity to this series. And I like the M8.

Best regards

Michael 

[John Kim]

I think a main problem with the Rattle's set is its sound. One of the earliest installments, the M2nd sounds terrific, close but with wide dynamics and many details, vividness all of which match with the best of DG recordings. But for some reason EMI engineers decided to shift to distant, murky sonics from the next recording on. As a result, Rattle's highly "individual" (if I use a nice word) approach to Mahler is bound to lose much of its impact, making the recordings boring and uninteresting.

John,

The balance engineer changed from Michael Sheady for the M2nd in 1986 to Mike Clements for the M6th in 1989 and the change in the sound is quite significant. The 1986 M2nd sounds close but with much warmth, vividness, and a wide dynamic range, while the 1989 M6th is more distant with not just as many details. This trend continued as the series went on and by the time they recorded the M3, 4, 7, the sound stage became murky lacking much impact. I wonder what the entire cycle might have been had the sonics remained as consistent and excellent as in the M2nd.

John,