Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Karajan Vienna Bruckner 8 on DG Originals – Review
344 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark S
Sep 16, 2012, 1:18:58 AM9/16/12
to
I received my copy of this CD today from MDT (arriving 2 days late to be considered a b’day gift to myself).
The symphony is contained on a single CD, which times out at 82’58”. It has been processed through DG’s usual “Original Image Bit Processing “ (whatever that means). I played the end minutes of the disc on my older Technics CD deck and it had no problem with the extended play length.
I then gave the entire disc a straight-through listen, following along with my Breitkopf & Härtel study score of the Haas version (later references to the score in this review refer to the B&H study score). I then went back and did a few A-B comparisons of the new Originals issue to the 2-CD set that was released in 1989.
Here’s the review:
Overall, it sounds like the engineers have opted for a less-close perspective than they did in 1989. There’s a good deal more air around the sound than the was in 89, more like you’re a few rows back in the orchestra section of the hall, rather than being on the podium. I think this is an improvement in many respects. The violins and trumpets gain enormously – their timbres are much more natural this time around. The horns and oboes, however, seemed to have less presence than before. In fact, they are a bit recessed in the sound stage compared to 1989. The bass line has been brought into better focus. Perhaps tighter focus is more descriptive. This has the advantage of firming up the bass line throughout the recording, but it’s at the expense of a certain haziness that added a sense of warmth to the recording in 89.
I would say that compared to 89, the new Originals version presents a more-analytical sound stage. This is great for hearing inner voices in the strings and winds, but the clarity coupled with the “seat in the hall perspective” compromises some of the mystery and timelessness that this recording has always evoked for me. As a musician, I think that’s a plus in most respects. Others may disagree.
Comparing the two issues, I can now detect some subtle and not-so-subtle knob twisting and tweaking that was done in 1989. For instance, one bar before rehearsal “S” (bar 330) in the first movement, the 2nd fiddles and violas have a little interchange that stands out in the 89 version. It comes as one of those points where K stops to smell the roses, as it were, and that comes as a nuanced highlight to the listener. In the new Originals version, the notes are there, but the moment passes without that little goose it had in 89. One could miss it if one wasn’t keyed into the small notes under the big phrases. I think the engineering in 89 better set up the new phrase at letter “S”.
Many of K’s recordings feature intense string playing that often pushes the envelope, pushing up against the seams of the recording, as it were. This is especially true in the 3rd and 4th movements of this Bruckner 8th. But that doesn’t happen in the Originals version, where these string licks are handily accommodated by the sound stage. The effect is of an orchestra playing with a fulsome sound but without that nth degree of intensity that sends it over the top. It sounds more like a real orchestra sounds, but it has me wondering if that’s what K actually wanted in this recording. That intense, hard-to-contain sound on the '89 version has a certain drama to it that isn’t there in the new version.
I mentioned that the bass line is now firmer and more focused. It’s a narrower sound than the 89 version. This does clarify the pitch in the double basses and celli. The timpani sounds more like the sound K drew from his Berlin player than what I’m used to from Vienna, which is to say the sound is tighter and cleaner. It’s a bit startling to put the new version up against the 89 version in this respect.
It sounds to me as if this time around, the engineers decided on a perspective and a philosophy that said to leave well enough alone, and to let the chips fall where they may when it comes to balances and nuances that were (to my ears) given a little “help” back in 89. I think it helps in that the recording sounds more natural. The question is, does it sound so natural as to sound commonplace? Is it really what K wanted to leave as a legacy, or is it not what he wanted, while ending up being a more-faithful representation of what was set down in the studio? The truth is that some of the “mystery” that has attached itself to K’s music making and this recording in particular has been jettisoned to make way for a more analytical perspective that may or may not be to everyone’s liking.
In an earlier discussion, I mentioned that I felt that the Finale of this recording got a bit congested in 1989. No chance of that here in Originals land, what with the added air and the more-distant perspective. The trumpets absolutely peal forth with a wide-open sound in the finale that is extremely convincing and exciting. I first noticed this in the second movement, which in 1989 had the trumpets sort of off in their own perspective. Here, they are integrated into the picture while soaring above the band when needed. In fact, the recording is now balanced to sound the way one would expect to hear it in a concert hall, which is to say that oboes, clarinets and horns are sometimes going to get swamped in orchestral tuttis.
I’d say the new Originals version is a good recommendation for those who don’t already own this recording. However, the 89 version has more mystery, and perhaps more closely represents what K wished to leave to posterity (the recording was issued after his death in 89…hard to know how much direct impact he had on the final mix).
If nothing else, this issue raises an interesting question about choices that K made about the mix of his recordings when he was alive. I don’t know how much of the differences in the Originals version can be put down to advance in technologies or the choices of the engineers who didn’t have K standing over them as they went about their business, but I find myself liking the choices they have made, if for no other reason than the fact that the orchestra just sounds more like a real orchestra than it did in 1989. For some, that may translate as the new Originals land version being more earthbound.
In any case, worth a listen.
The symphony is contained on a single CD, which times out at 82’58”. It has been processed through DG’s usual “Original Image Bit Processing “ (whatever that means). I played the end minutes of the disc on my older Technics CD deck and it had no problem with the extended play length.
I then gave the entire disc a straight-through listen, following along with my Breitkopf & Härtel study score of the Haas version (later references to the score in this review refer to the B&H study score). I then went back and did a few A-B comparisons of the new Originals issue to the 2-CD set that was released in 1989.
Here’s the review:
Overall, it sounds like the engineers have opted for a less-close perspective than they did in 1989. There’s a good deal more air around the sound than the was in 89, more like you’re a few rows back in the orchestra section of the hall, rather than being on the podium. I think this is an improvement in many respects. The violins and trumpets gain enormously – their timbres are much more natural this time around. The horns and oboes, however, seemed to have less presence than before. In fact, they are a bit recessed in the sound stage compared to 1989. The bass line has been brought into better focus. Perhaps tighter focus is more descriptive. This has the advantage of firming up the bass line throughout the recording, but it’s at the expense of a certain haziness that added a sense of warmth to the recording in 89.
I would say that compared to 89, the new Originals version presents a more-analytical sound stage. This is great for hearing inner voices in the strings and winds, but the clarity coupled with the “seat in the hall perspective” compromises some of the mystery and timelessness that this recording has always evoked for me. As a musician, I think that’s a plus in most respects. Others may disagree.
Comparing the two issues, I can now detect some subtle and not-so-subtle knob twisting and tweaking that was done in 1989. For instance, one bar before rehearsal “S” (bar 330) in the first movement, the 2nd fiddles and violas have a little interchange that stands out in the 89 version. It comes as one of those points where K stops to smell the roses, as it were, and that comes as a nuanced highlight to the listener. In the new Originals version, the notes are there, but the moment passes without that little goose it had in 89. One could miss it if one wasn’t keyed into the small notes under the big phrases. I think the engineering in 89 better set up the new phrase at letter “S”.
Many of K’s recordings feature intense string playing that often pushes the envelope, pushing up against the seams of the recording, as it were. This is especially true in the 3rd and 4th movements of this Bruckner 8th. But that doesn’t happen in the Originals version, where these string licks are handily accommodated by the sound stage. The effect is of an orchestra playing with a fulsome sound but without that nth degree of intensity that sends it over the top. It sounds more like a real orchestra sounds, but it has me wondering if that’s what K actually wanted in this recording. That intense, hard-to-contain sound on the '89 version has a certain drama to it that isn’t there in the new version.
I mentioned that the bass line is now firmer and more focused. It’s a narrower sound than the 89 version. This does clarify the pitch in the double basses and celli. The timpani sounds more like the sound K drew from his Berlin player than what I’m used to from Vienna, which is to say the sound is tighter and cleaner. It’s a bit startling to put the new version up against the 89 version in this respect.
It sounds to me as if this time around, the engineers decided on a perspective and a philosophy that said to leave well enough alone, and to let the chips fall where they may when it comes to balances and nuances that were (to my ears) given a little “help” back in 89. I think it helps in that the recording sounds more natural. The question is, does it sound so natural as to sound commonplace? Is it really what K wanted to leave as a legacy, or is it not what he wanted, while ending up being a more-faithful representation of what was set down in the studio? The truth is that some of the “mystery” that has attached itself to K’s music making and this recording in particular has been jettisoned to make way for a more analytical perspective that may or may not be to everyone’s liking.
In an earlier discussion, I mentioned that I felt that the Finale of this recording got a bit congested in 1989. No chance of that here in Originals land, what with the added air and the more-distant perspective. The trumpets absolutely peal forth with a wide-open sound in the finale that is extremely convincing and exciting. I first noticed this in the second movement, which in 1989 had the trumpets sort of off in their own perspective. Here, they are integrated into the picture while soaring above the band when needed. In fact, the recording is now balanced to sound the way one would expect to hear it in a concert hall, which is to say that oboes, clarinets and horns are sometimes going to get swamped in orchestral tuttis.
I’d say the new Originals version is a good recommendation for those who don’t already own this recording. However, the 89 version has more mystery, and perhaps more closely represents what K wished to leave to posterity (the recording was issued after his death in 89…hard to know how much direct impact he had on the final mix).
If nothing else, this issue raises an interesting question about choices that K made about the mix of his recordings when he was alive. I don’t know how much of the differences in the Originals version can be put down to advance in technologies or the choices of the engineers who didn’t have K standing over them as they went about their business, but I find myself liking the choices they have made, if for no other reason than the fact that the orchestra just sounds more like a real orchestra than it did in 1989. For some, that may translate as the new Originals land version being more earthbound.
In any case, worth a listen.
Ed Romans
Sep 16, 2012, 7:18:19 AM9/16/12
to
On Sep 16, 6:18 am, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The symphony is contained on a single CD, which times out at 82’58”. It has been processed through DG’s usual “Original Image Bit Processing “ (whatever that means).
It's their noise shaping software like Sony's SBM. DG's technical arm
>
> The symphony is contained on a single CD, which times out at 82’58”. It has been processed through DG’s usual “Original Image Bit Processing “ (whatever that means).
is now outsourced. It's unlikely they spend much effort remixing
reissues, other than a bit of tweaking or running them through
standard plugins in audio software.
Ed
Matthew�B.�Tepper
Sep 16, 2012, 10:20:01 AM9/16/12
to
Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in
news:41e207d1-e488-4dc0...@googlegroups.com:
> It has been processed through DG's usual "Original Image Bit Processing "
> (whatever that means).
It means: "Now, with Lanolin!"
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
letters to be typed in
news:41e207d1-e488-4dc0...@googlegroups.com:
> It has been processed through DG's usual "Original Image Bit Processing "
> (whatever that means).
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Gerard
Sep 16, 2012, 10:29:29 AM9/16/12
to
Matthew B. Tepper <oy�@earthlink.net> typed:
> Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in
> news:41e207d1-e488-4dc0...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > It has been processed through DG's usual "Original Image Bit
> > Processing " (whatever that means).
>
> It means: "Now, with Lanolin!"
That's OK as long as it sounds a little different.
> letters to be typed in
> news:41e207d1-e488-4dc0...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > It has been processed through DG's usual "Original Image Bit
> > Processing " (whatever that means).
>
> It means: "Now, with Lanolin!"
Mark S
Sep 16, 2012, 11:24:03 AM9/16/12
to
Mark S
Sep 16, 2012, 12:19:51 PM9/16/12
to
I'd add that I have always considered the 1989 issue to be an excellent sounding recording, one of the better efforts DG gave K in those years. If you already own that set, you may not feel the need to spring for this midline reissue.
M forever
Sep 16, 2012, 1:54:45 PM9/16/12
to
detail tweaking than just doing some OIBP. It sounds as if balances
have been noticeably changed in this new release, as if some actual
remixing had been done. Or did I read that wrong?
Mark S
Sep 17, 2012, 10:53:08 AM9/17/12
to
On Sunday, September 16, 2012 10:54:45 AM UTC-7, M forever wrote:
>
>
> Your review seems to suggest though that there was a whole lot more
>
> detail tweaking than just doing some OIBP. It sounds as if balances
>
> have been noticeably changed in this new release, as if some actual
>
> remixing had been done. Or did I read that wrong?
I'd say there's a noticeable change to the balances without the changes being so drastic as to constitute some kind of revelation.
>
>
> Your review seems to suggest though that there was a whole lot more
>
> detail tweaking than just doing some OIBP. It sounds as if balances
>
> have been noticeably changed in this new release, as if some actual
>
> remixing had been done. Or did I read that wrong?
As far as tweaking, it sounds to me like there was a bit of tweaking done on the 1989 issue. This time around, it seems like they've gone back to a working part (ie: not the final master) that hadn't been heavily tweaked, but that was basically mixed to a high level of completion, dumped that tape into their OIBP program, established a few settings that take advantage of the noise shaping and let it go at that.
All of this is speculation, of course.
Oscar
Sep 17, 2012, 2:42:07 PM9/17/12
to
On Sep 17, 7:53 am, Mark S wrote:
>
> ...they've gone back to a working part (ie: not the final master)
Or, you could just say this remaster is not also a remix. Which it
most likely is not, as Mr. Romans said. All Decca and DG production
work is outsourced: more man-hours = more money. In addition, for this
title there really is no reason, sonically, for a top-down remix à la
Bernstein NYPO Mahler, which was done while Sony Music Studios was a
still going concern and unionized staff engineers were collecting
salaries.
>
> ...they've gone back to a working part (ie: not the final master)
> that hadn't been heavily tweaked, but that was basically mixed
> to a high level of completion...
Or, you could just say this remaster is not also a remix. Which it
most likely is not, as Mr. Romans said. All Decca and DG production
work is outsourced: more man-hours = more money. In addition, for this
title there really is no reason, sonically, for a top-down remix à la
Bernstein NYPO Mahler, which was done while Sony Music Studios was a
still going concern and unionized staff engineers were collecting
salaries.
0 new messages