Review: Karajan's DG Sibelius Boxed, Plus Thoughts on Audiophile Lunacy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2024
- Karajan was a splendid Sibelian, and his Berlin recordings for DG were momentous events in some circles. They have held up extremely well, and still sound terrific as presented here on 5 CDs. You also get a Blu-Ray disc with all of the analogue material, offering three different "audiophile" formats--if that floats your boat. I'll stick with simple stereo.
I'm loving these Sibelius talks Dave! Thank you so much for your efforts. Keep em coming! Now time to settle down and dig my paws into this one.
"Karajan was a great Tapiolist" - I love it! It was Karajan's Tapiola which introduced me to the work.
Dave, you crack me up!
Hello from parochial Helsinki!
I just found out about your channel and immediately became a subscriber. A wonderful and informative video, can't wait to watch the rest of your videos. I'm very surprised to find out that Karajan didn't like Sibelius's symphonies 1 and 2. I fell in love with classical music at age 14 when one afternoon my father played the 3rd and 4th movements of the Sibelius symphony #2. But I understand why he liked 3 and above. It's because they reminded him of the "urwald' (the mysterious forest). Anyway, thank you so much Dave for an educational video.
Thank you and welcome!
Kiitos, Dave!
Given that Sibelius was considered virtually interplanetary by the Center of the Classical Music World (Germany/Austria) in the 60s, all the more remarkable that Lorin Maazel was able to whip the Vienna Philharmonic into such fine Sibelian shape in his wonderfully intense Decca cycle - including a fine 5th and the best 7th.
And although he hardly managed to get started on his Sibelius cycle before the Grim Reaper made his appearance, Bernstein too taught the VPO what was important in Sibelius.
Back in the 60s, Sam Goody sold Karajan's DG Beethoven and Brahms Symphony LP boxes through mail-order at extremely affordable prices (full-page ad in New York Times Arts and Leisure section every Sunday). I was in High School and these were my introductions to these two composers (and I noticed that imported pressings were a big improvement over domestic record pressings). Other than these two boxes, DG was a premium label.
Those were the days!
@@DavesClassicalGuide Sure were!
Wow, that's incredible! Full-page ads you say? That's like the bygone era when Classical Music used to air on primetime TV (before my time). Btw, John, aren't you an avid Amazon reviewer? Fancy seeing you here! :)
Excellent talk, David! I have the box. Also, the EMI/Warner Karajan Sibelius box, too…. I think your comments on both are very insightful. I admit I love the consistent sound from the Jesus-Christus Kirche…. That Berlin 60s sound…
As long as one doesn't go nuts, being an audiophile can be a manageable way to better enjoy the music, e.g., I have a two-channel setup, consisting over, gear-wise, of a turntable, a one-box universal disc player (cds, SACDs, Blu-ray discs, DVD-A, and an onboard DAC for streaming/digital files), a preamp w/ built-in phono-stage, an amp, two speakers, and cabling for it all- four boxes, two speakers. As a genre, classical music in particular has a great deal of well-made SACDs and LPs along with great cds and streamed sound, and there's a lot of great performances on SACD, for example. The improvements in the sound and therefore my enjoyment of it from better formats/masterings/amplification etc. are not profound, but they are worthwhile. The main thing audiophiles need to do to keep sane and not go overboard is to not seek perfection ('The Absolute Sound'), but just to find the reasonably 'acceptable semi-absolute' sound for themselves and then take a rest on that pursuit!
I suspect the stages of being an audiophile are much like those of a record collector.
Thumbs UP & Loud Applause - I learn while being entertained - ++
Thanks, Dave, for another great discussion. I own the original ‘tulip’ DGG LPs of HVK’s Sibelius from the 60’s which I purchased while in college. As a student I found these performances wonderful and illuminating. Recently, I have been revisiting them and still find that they have held up well over the decades. The DG sound from that era is often gorgeous (Thank you, Gunter Hermanns!). For some of us, a critical value of Dave’s presentations is that they often prompt one to go to one’s shelves and revisit ‘old friends’. --- As for the audiophilia, an area of hardware that has improved over the years encompasses turntables, cartridges, phono preamps, and record cleaning machines. A well-made, well-cared for, and well cleaned LP with music worth listening to is not an obsolete format and may, arguably, sound more musical overall than the CD (particularly in the upper midrange). Happy listening!
I have the original Tulip LP pressings of the 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th symphonies and the Ferras violin concerto. They sound very good indeed, better than any of the CD transfers of these recordings I've heard, and I don't have audiophile super expensive LP playback equipment.
In the audiophile world, you'd think Janos Starker was the greatest musician of all time. They love (rightfully) their Mercury Living Presence, RCA Living Stereo, and recordings from the 60s upsampled to imperceptible levels of resolution. At least they are giving classical music a try instead of hours of Dark Side of the Moon, King Crimson, or Yes. This is coming from someone who has spent way too much on stereo equipment...almost as much as what I've spent on music because of this wonderful channel.
@@jasonclark901 Agreed. Growing up in Chicago, we took pride in Starker's role as a teacher and performer when he was at the CSO.
You nailed it!
Speaking of future boxes, I would love a Karajan Mahler box. Especially if it included video of his Mahler 5 rehearsals … of which I have seen a few snippets, and the film of his performance of the 5th. There is backstage video of a concert performance of the fifth which is quite fascinating.
assuming more rehearsal footage exists, that would be a major asset. I find this kind of thing fascinating.
My guess is that this is coming, because most of his Mahler was recorded analog in the 70s, which lends itself to the "hi-res Blu-Ray Audio" treatment. Only the live Mahler 9 was digital, and it sounds terrific. So I would wager we will see a box of HVK's Mahler 4,5,6,9 (x2) plus Das Lied von der Erde.
Agreed with your comments on audiophilia. But I'm still an audiophiliac and much to my financial distress, I am a hopeless addict. I strongly remembert back in 1962 visiting a friend whose parents just purchased a stereo set up. We listened for hours to the sound of a ping pong ball being batted from left to right and a locomotive charging into his living room from right to left.
So much to comment on here! First, I have to confess to a preference for "big-band" lush voluptuous Sibelius. That means Ormandy, Koussevitzky, Barbirolli (yes, despite deficiencies), Davis, Ashkenazy, and, of course, Karajan. My first encounter with Karajan's Sibelius was his EMI Tapiola. That storm sequence blew me away (pun intended), and I went on to explore all of his DG and EMI recordings of the composer. My obiter dictum on these competing versions is: the DG are more luminously played and recorded, the EMI are more impactful but a wee bit heavier (the EMI First is almost Wagnerian, as are his Fourth and Fifth to a lesser degree). But all are wonderful. If I had to choose between them, I'd probably pick the DG. On the issue of audiophilia, I am an nonbeliever on continuous progress. For me, the LP was progress over the 78, and the CD substantial progress over the LP. That was the "end of history" as we recording enthusiasts know it. Yes, digital technology and especially remastering technology has greatly improved since the compact disc was introduced. Otherwise, I see little justification for incurring the expense of purchasing the equipment for the new media, and the sound carriers that are made for those media. In short, the compact disc is for me the ultimate listening medium for classical music. Much more could be said, especially about the "parochialism" of Europen cultures, but I will conclude by saying how much I appreciated your on-the-target comments on digital media and, more importantly, on Karajan's splendid Sibelius.
Addendum: When I observed that Karajan's EMI Sibeilus was a bit "heavier' than his DG, I was referring to the later, stereo EMI's, not the earier ones with the Philharmonia. Those, in fact, are quite lean and luminious, due in large part to the difference in collective sonority between the Philharmonia (of that vintage) and the BPO. Those Philharmonia wind players were nonpareil.
BluRay Audio (BDA) - or BluRay tech in general - is highly affordable. One can get a player for next to nothing. My experience has been that BDA discs do improve the sound, and often more than marginally. In the case of the Sibelius set under discussion, the improvement is quite noticeable.
I listened to the Karajan Sibelius BDA “in good old stereo” in its 24/192 remaster. Well worth the marginal expense to acquire this latest remaster. I don’t consider this to be an audiophile issue. It’s more like super CD.
BTW - I recently bought a used Sony x800 player off ebay for under $100. It plays 4k, BluRay, SACD and - of course - CD. A very small expense to acquire the latest technology - and hard to resist adding to the stereo set-up.
Do you know why for each CD the booklet says "CD BD-A"? Is this meant to indicate that the CDs themselves have benefitted from a further remastering (ie since they were remastered for the originals)?
Sonic pudding! How did we ever do without that term until now? There is so much that qualifies!
Just to see what happens I listened to the Fifth on Blu Ray, just using the high res stereo option. I don’t have surround set up. Even this arrangement with nothing more than my usual CD system and a fairly inexpensive Blu Ray play delivered a substantially fuller sound. Funnily enough that’s not all gain: The ‘chill’ of the CDs actually works well with the music. That said, as sound reproduction it was very noticeably an upgrade.
And yes, you are right about the audiophiles, they are a bunch of fanatics. They try to mimic the concert hall by adding spatial effect, while conveniently disregarding the fact that the concert hall's sound is created by its structure, and so to create that effect you'd need to play the music in a place with a concert-hall-like structure. But here, the spatial effect that has already messed around with the sound would be changed again at home due to the resonating of the sound to the room's structure. So you would have the sound changed twice by the time you listen to the music. And how is that even "recreating the real sound"?
There’s a reason I tell people I’m more of a musicophile than an audiophile - for me, as long as you have reasonably good sounding equipment, that’s all you need. I am more than happy to leave the arcane arguments and tens of thousands of dollars in expense to others.
Me too, I expect there will be quite a consensus on here about that, Alex!
@@murraylow4523 I doubt there would be any consensus on what constitutes "reasonably good sounding equipment" and how much money you need to spend for it.
@@Don-md6wn maybe you might think that but for ordinary middle class mortals probably the vaguely decent sound reproduction is fine
@@murraylow4523 I'd think most people who have bought thousands of classical CDs, like many here, would want and be able to afford more than a vaguely decent audio system, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't understand why so many classical music lovers are so eager to say sound quality doesn't matter to them as if it's some kind of statement that they're real music lovers and people who like high fidelity aren't.
@@Don-md6wn Don, I'm from the UK and when we say "vaguely decent" here we tend to mean pretty good! So in my idiom thats what it means.
Yep audiophilia is a particularly form of mental abberation fueled by an industry that wanted to often sell you the same material you'd bought before - supposedly new and improved! Don't get me wrong sound quality (and I have my preferences for certain types of recorded sound) is important but basically if you can hear fairly faithfully what the musicians are doing and it's a great interpretation that's enough for me.
Audiophilia in classical music is also often about trying to achieve the impossible - recreating a concert hall ambience in a considerably smaller space with less dynamic range. It's also about audiophiles often not really having an idea about what an instrument sounds like in a real acoustic anyway.
There's a story, possibly apocryphal, which a friend of mine who worked in a hi-fi shop used to tell. It goes like this: There's a guy, who has a friend who considers themselves something of an audiophile. He regularly invites this friend when he gets a new piece of hi-fi to see what he thinks. Invariably the friend says something like yeah it's ok but not like the real thing.
So this guy decides to play a trick on his friend - he has someone actually playing a violin behind a curtain and makes out he's playing a CD and it's a new piece of equipment he's demoing. He again asks what his friend what he thinks. Yeah it's an improvement but still nothing like the real thing!
Just listen to the music.
Dear Mr. Hurwitz, we are hundreds out there dying of curiosity and wanting to know about your sound equipment!
Sorry. It will remain a mystery.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Fair enough, but I'd take my big mid '70's Wharfedale speakers with me to the grave!
Not being an audiophile (I’ve had the same basic system for 15 years), I’m still ok with taking advantage of my bluray player’s capabilities, which happens to have SACD capability (and a good onboard DAC). I don’t buy Bluray audio or SACD because they are in those formats, or care about 5 channel or Atmos, but if they fall in my lap (like the Karl Richter set or the Kertesz Vienna box, or that new Klemperer Amsterdam set, which is ONLY available as a Hybrid SACD release), eh, I’m ok with at least the 2 channel part of the whole mess. Ditto with streaming services that have titles in “hi-rez”. Still, I feel, if something sounds better in those formats it’s because it’s been mastered from better materials or with more care. I wonder what a Karajan Sibelius 3rd would have been like? Funny that he didn’t like the 1st or 2nd much but did them multiple times but didn’t do the 3rd. I suppose because the 3rd wouldn’t have sold as many copies?
With Dave on the whole audiophile issue. Don't laugh, everybody, but I have an old Quasar CR19 rack system with a recently purchased Panasonic dvd/cd player. Windows open, cranking my classics through a pair of old Thrusters. Best sound ever.
I've always wondered why Karajan didn't ever do the first Brahms Piano Concerto.
He did it once in his earlier years, it is said, and it was a disaster
@@sgfnorth Is there any actual evidence of either the performance or its quality, though?
About that European mindset that you talked about, I can assure you that Europe is not alone with such case ;) Where I live in the Eastern part of the Asia, a 2 hours flight mean you would arrive to a different countries with, though a lot of similarities, very different language, alphabet, dialect, cuisine, fashion, mindset, .etc.
Take the city that I live in for example, a 45 minutes drive would mean that I've already gone to place where people live, think, eat, dress and speak very differently, even when it's the same country. A 2 hours drive to the mountainous regions would mean a place with absolute differences in lifestyle and mindset, and the dialect is so different that though we are speaking the same language, I could hardly understand what they are talking about. A 2 hours flight to a region within the country equals going abroad basically, and sometimes me and my friends could spend an entire day trashing their cuisine alone (which is the exact opposite of our region's cuisine) ;) So I do understand when Germans or Austrians think of Finland as some exotic realms far far away.
Please do that video on your audiophile years.
I enjoyed your diatribe against the silly and self-destructive audiophile format wars over the decades. The one thing I do like about these Universal sets with Blu-Ray discs is that I can pop one disc into my Blu-Ray player and listen to all of Kempff's Beethoven Sonatas, Argerich's Chopin, the whole Solti Rng, etc., etc., and not have to fumble with multiple CDs.
"Don't ask why" was a statement made by Karajan in English to Richard Osborne in an interview where he the full statement was something like that he considered Sibelius symphonies like "huge erratic blocks they are there no one knows why don't ask why they just are and you never seem to come to an end with him"
Yes, that's in the booklet.
As much as I love Karajan, I find a lot of his Beethoven and Brahms negligible (though his first two recordings of Beethoven’s 5th for DG are magnificent). His Sibelius, however, is truly special. And as an aside, you are right about the Anthony Collins cycle; it’s garbage. I bought it because I was sucked in by all the hype. What a waste of money that turned out to be! Anyway, the Sibelius 6th and Tapiola with Karajan are absolutely, hypnotic, spellbinding, and as atmospheric as you could want. Symphonies 4, 5, and 7 are all superbly done as well.
Dave, I agree with your assertion that Karajan was really at his best when he conducted works outside the standard Austrian-German repertoire. For example, His Tchaikovsky 6th with Berlin is another one of my reference recordings.
I just want to add that the fact that there are so many Sibelians out there is really inspiring and heart warming. I value all of your comments and appreciate your engagement on this channel. You truly are a lovely bunch. Keep on listening and commenting. 🙂
Edwin, yes. And its a good reminder not to over-generalise about conductors' or soloists' styles, so one ends up dismissing everything they do on the basis of the things they don't do so well. Important with Karajan, but also with many others (Solti, Boulez, Haitink, Pollini etc etc). I quite like Karajan's Brahms but I'll leave it there :)
I totally agree regarding the brilliance of his Sibelius. But this notion that he was better outside the German repertoire I find absolute nonsense.
@@ewaldsteyn469 Yes, well, its an overdrawn distinction. As I said, I like his Brahms, and I was listening to his Mendelssohn symphonies the other month and was very impressed by the commitment of all concerned - I didn't find the strings 'glutinous' at all, just listen to Symphony 1! We know he was at least very good in much of Bruckner, his "Paris" symphonies are surprisingly good, and his Mahler is very good in parts (the strings in that analogue 9th are pretty incisive in the first three movements). On the other hand I don't think he was very well suited to Schubert and much of his later Mozart and Bach I find rather hard to listen to.
@@murraylow4523 his 1978 Brahms 4 is for me the finest out there. Same for his Tragic Overture from the same set.
@@johnanderton4200 I respectfully disagree. With regards to modern recordings, there is no greater Brahms 4th than Abbado’s with Berlin. An electrifying performance. The Karajan is solid though, just not on the same level. I do agree that the Tragic Overture is outstanding.
Yes! Thank you for the audio formats put-down! I think one of the really annoying things about that sort of stuff is that most people seem to confuse the format with the remastering. There *are* reasons for buying a new SACD version of X, sometimes: but those reasons aren't that SACD audio is 'better' than the original CD per se, but because the record company has remastered the recording and the remastering is much better than the CD original. Then audio nutters claim 'SACD is better than CD audio', etc. It's insane, but fools and their money are soon parted, I guess. Please do the audio demo talk: we need some plain speaking on the subject, I think!
I remember getting goosebumps listening to my parents scratchy old Beethoven records.
Thanks once again Dave. Yes, we've all met audiophiles who don't hear the music &, dare I admit it, have even been tempted once or twice down that arid road ourselves... remember Quad vinyl? Dear oh dear. Now that was a con! Karajan. Hmmmm. These are staggering performances. The quality of sound, the spotlight on particular details, the super-human perfection of the orchestral playing, the phenomenonal dynamics. I admire them but don't really like them, or anything much else Karajan did. They're monumental but somehow lack warmth; I search for a human pulse. All power, little heart; the blended sound banishing individual contribution. I don't feel comfortable with the Karajan aesthetic. There's something Leni Riefenstahl about it. Sibelius rendered as Riefenstahl did the Nubian warrior perhaps?
I think I prefer the later EMI recordings for their warm, atmospheric sound. Plus you get that great 1st. You are right about the 2nd, of course, though to be honest I don't think HvK was ever completely at home in the 5th either; its rhapsodic qualities escaped him.
I'm okay with a quick 6th. I do enjoy Maazel's Vienna 6 on occasion. It brings out the neoclassical aspects.
Obligatory lamentation that Karajan never recorded the 3rd. It might have been great.
GREAT DIGRESSION!!!!
I do like surround sound classical - if it's done right. And my old ears still appreciate what SACD can bring to music. But SACD players are outrageously expensive - upwards of $1000. But Blu Ray players are cheap - and sound excellent. I do wish these companies would make it possible to buy just the Blu Rays without the cds - you can save a huge amount of shelf space with them. And Karajan is first-class in Sibelius.
As I noted above, I purchased a used Sony player with SACD playback capability for under $100 (ebay). Acquiring the technology need not cost in the thou$and$.
The record industry, specifically the classical music industry went the opposite way of what the public wanted. The public wanted the convenience of downloads and streaming and portability in the form of music players like the iPod. The record industry came up with esoteric super-high quality formats like SACD and surround sound that requires you to fill your living room with speakers, things that no one but audiophiles would be excited about.
I loved the audiophile talk, having never been an audiophile meself. Makes me feel very smug as I do most of my listening in the car with a reasonably decent bass response. One thing I'll always be grateful for was the way listening choice was expanded when back catalogues got remastered, from the late 80s on. So you could get Furtwangler, Walter, Giulini's Don Giovanni and so many other things. It was the opening of Aladdin's Cave for me. Also, cassettes became really cheap when CD was launched - so I got Karajan's 60s Sibelius 5 plus the violin concerto and Tapiola if I remember correctly - all on one reasonably sounding good value tape. Until my mate Mike fast forwarded it while it was playing and it got stretched. Another favourite was Bernstein's Bartok with Stern, which I adored, also on cassette. Not a big deal, but for me it was, having just been introduced to orchestral music by Mike the tape stretcher. And I may be weird but I still prefer the 60s recordings, especially in the version of Tapiola in which the analogue storm is better for my money. Now, you used the word 'spooky'. Entirely agree. Classic recordings, all of them. A great talk. Oddly, I prefer Barbirolli's At the Castle Gate with the Halle. Mad right?
Karajan's comments about Sibelius and Tchaikovsky are puzzling. Yes, the influence is obvious but at the same time the music is obviously NOT Tchaikovsky. And then again Karajan loved Tchaikovsky, so why object?
Thank you Mr. Hurwitz, always a pleasure!
4:45 Not that it matters but I cannot even begin to describe how much I disagree with it. A correctly recorded surround is much better than stereo but it does require a proper speaker setup. The entire room comes alive which never happens with stereo. Not because of rear channel effects (although this does happen in some pieces) but because of that _hall presence_ that appears.
I'd like to request a review of the new Bruno Walter complete box set, please. Thank you
I already did it very extensively for subscribers at ClassicsToday.com, so I will not do it again here. Sorry.
I already did it very extensively for ClassicsToday.com subscribers and so will not do it again here. Sorry.
Dear David! After listening the 5th following your chat from yesterday I checked in a very praised French speaking book from a very renown and respected author and edition: une histoire de la musique Lucien Rebatet , Robert Lafont.
The very thin page about sibelius ended this way: " at 64, sibelius retired completely from a century were he didn't belong. Stravinsky said that he was the most BORING from the Serious Musicians. And we agree with that feeling"
I should say I am shocked that a well respectful book make these kind of comments after listening to the 5th and today 4th by Karajan.
I tried though to understand the comment... mabe they missed the flowing from the tonality that Haydn and beethoven developed. But that mean they passed aside of all the modal textures and emotions of sibelius... Vaughan williams...Braga Santos...
Thank you so much!!
This is the legacy of Adorno. Things have changed a bit for the better since the mid-50s.
There is an interesting anecdote about Sibelius and Stravinsky. The later one won some prize in Helsinki for composition and got a reward for this. After that Stravinsky reorchestrated one small piece of Sibelius - Canzonetta from Kuolema music, because, as he stated, it reminded him of Tchaikovsky's italian-like sound.
Electronic tech is cheap as chips. What is good is that one can find very affordable systems (playing CDs I specifically refer to), that deliver great sound and without any fuss about audiophile considerations. To each his own. Whatever pleases and sounds sweet to thine own ears!
I'm 76 so I remember when stereo records first came out. You had to have a stereo record player, not just for the sound, but for the stereo needle. And do you remember Quadraphonic?
Oh yes.
Not to mention Phase 4. Stokowski did a few of those too.
Blown away in the same manner, Karajan DG. But no mention of the equally monumental 5th, Dave...?
I'm an audiophile actually (but so are you Mr. Hurwitz or you wouldn't have a humongous GOAT RUclips channel devoted to every squeak, chirp, and blast ever recorded in the classical music world). HMost of the audio 'goodness' i.e. LPs and analog produce pitches that are inaudible anyway. Realistically, MP3 sounds just as good as 'lossless' on most stereos, but I always go for Flac/Mp4a lossless anyway (I have great speaker and an awesome wolfer). Sound depends on two things- the recording itself (duh), and the speakers you are listening from. If you have good speakers like me (we don't want to miss any details!) you don't need an 'equalizer' or other software modification. The ripping process can also ruin music. If you rip CDs on Apple, then it's usually best to play through Apple (instead of Pioneer or something) though it usually does not make a difference. How audio works and is transmitted from the recording mixing to your ear is fascinating, but it's a supplemental hobby to the real hobby- listening to music. Classical is acoustic, so those are the sounds we want to hear. If you're into techno, you can really indulge that audiophile proclivity, but, why? The bottom line is that if your orchestrial works sound like shit (muddy or wimpy), then something is wrong with one of the three varibales-- recording, amp, speakers, and you need to troubleshoot. It's very simple actually.
"Don't ask why" is, surely, an allusion to Marlene Dietrich belting out Kurt Weill's "Alabama Song" ("Oh, don't ask why. Oh, don't ask why.") -- in English!
I'm gradually catching up with your reviews, starting with the Repertoire videos. Great job! I also look forward to your future episodes with audiophile stories. Now it seems high res audio is the fashion, with classical music companies releasing everything in at least 24 bit 96khz format and some in SACD/DSD format. Do you think the traditional Red Book CD format is still all you need to enjoy all the details and sound quality that classical music offers? Thanks.
Yes. I don't think it matters at all.
I got tired of hearing audiophiles droning on about the technical marvels they had just purchased, or wanted to own. In many cases, it was more about bragging rights on the speakers, etc, than about the music.
Hello Dave.
I would like to ask you if you own the Complete Sibelius edition on BIS?
Best wishes Fred.
Yes.
Hello. I think you are missing an important point which is Theodor Adorno's influence in Germany.
I don't think I missed it--I was talking about results, not causes.
I am not yet a Sibelian - is the DG box a good place to start???
Look at the reviews and take your pick. It's the same music no matter what.
@@DavesClassicalGuide good advice as usual. Thanks
I care much more about the music and performances than audio quality. The easiest way to deal with the format proliferation was to buy a universal player that handles any kind of disc and also streams digital audio.
Great discussion that raises questions about whether Sonics or musicality and performance is more important. There must be a threshold here of how good the sound has to be in order to enjoy and appreciate the music and the performance.
I think of when most people’s access to classical music, especially opera, was either on radio or on 78’s. Were they enjoying the music? No doubt yes. Are those historical records no longer listenable? Yes and no. Some of them are amazing performances despite their sound limitations.
How many hours of great pleasure did I have as a kid listening to music in mono on my father’s hi-fi? Thousands. And how much incremental pleasure came from stereo? Well, not as much as you would expect. And then the move to CD’s, which was first a reduction of pleasure. Analog vs. Digital? Again not nearly as important as the musicality and performance itself.
There must be a middle zone where a threshold of good sound is necessary to appreciate the music and the performance, below which it takes away from listening but above which it adds little or nothing.
Perhaps with age my hearing has declined, but the equipment I have for playback from 25 years ago still serves me well.
Finally, my best friend upgrades his stereo yearly. He prefers what he calls “clarity” in his playback while I prefer a warmer sound.
De gustibus non disputandum est.
Thanks for a great discussion.
I never understood why he didn't record the 3rd..
I wish everyone would stop saying that. He didn't want to. Good for him.
My dad, an audiophile himself, would sometimes invite his audiophilic friends to come over, and he would intentionally play solo or chamber music to ask for their opinions. The answer that he gets the most is "Your system is lacking in bass". I mean, how the heck can a sonata for piano and violin or a wind quartet has a lot of bass? All these people who claim to love the real sound of music and spend tens of thousands of US dollars (my dad knows some guys who spent hundreds of thousands) have no clues whatsoever about what the "real sound" is. Our family goes to the concert hall a lot, and I can tell that the mid-range stereo system with mostly good old stuffs from the 50s, 60s that my dad has, which costs him only his free money, sounds far more "concert-hall-like" even in Mahler or Strauss than that surround sound thingy.
I believe that!
Many string quartets have a good amount of bass from the cello. I think using equipment than can reproduce those low tones is beneficial. Certainly larger scale orchestral works can have a ton of bass in the contrabasses and percussion, too.
No mention of the 7th Symphony?
I did mention it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide My bad. You did. But you didn't say anything about it : )
@@vladradek Yes, I did. I said it was excellent.
At what age do disenchanted audiophiles begin to grumble about how "advances" in technology are either a complete sham or negligible? Dvd-A, Single Bit, SACD, Hi-Res, MQA, Blu-Ray, Streaming, etc. What does your audiologist say?
I also have all the EMI Karajan Edition Philharmonia recordings. They are very, very good. I agree that the later EMI 2nd is bland but the Philharmonia one is a knockout....close to reference in my opinion.
The EMI Philharmonia Orchestra 2nd is a damned fine performance. The early 80s digital remake is a bowwow, with an impossibly slow finale and poor engineering to boot. I've never heard or read that Karajan didn't like the first two symphonies, but if true it's not evident in the earlier recording.
@@alanmillsaps2810 Yep. That's the nut of it. A bonus with the Philharmonia set is the usual forward woodwinds. What is it with the sound in the 80's EMI set? It sounds like it was recorded in the next room with the door shut! This presents a real problem because his only recording of the 1st is in that set and it's a reference interpretation. I have the original badly recorded version. My question is " has the sound of the 1st been improved/remastered in the recent black box re-release?" If it has, I would buy just for the 1st.
@@TOONACEDRELA I've heard that 1st as well and gave it away because of the poor sound. I've no idea if any of the re-issues sound better, and I listened to the Philharmonia 2nd on a mid 70s LP re-issue I've owned for years. Karajan's DG and EMI recordings with the BPO are very variable in sound quality, but almost all of them I've heard that were made in the Philharmonie sound mediocre to downright bad. The Sibelius 1st & 2nd are early digital horror shows. The Philharmonie must simply be a tough recording venue. Even Telarc couldn't get first rate sound there in the 'Ring without words' CD they made with the BPO and Maazel. Dave recently recommended the Decca box set of Karajan's work, and there's no doubt that some of those recordings have the best engineering he ever got. Most of them are opera sets with the VPO, and Decca mastered the acoustics of the Sofiensaal to a fare thee well.
@@alanmillsaps2810 Agree about the Decca VPO recordings. The Dvorak 8 is a knockout ( coupled with a very good Brahms 3) as are the Tchaikovsky ballet suites. Had them forever and never tire of them.
LOL. Dolby ATMOS is NOT audiophile...
Oh, pardon me...
@@DavesClassicalGuide Instead of gimmicks like Dolby, most listeners will get the best listening experience by having a room with good acoustics, good speakers with well matched components( at any price point), and by paying attention to speaker placement and room treatment. (Easy to find such info here on YT at channels like New Record Day, GR Research, PS audio, Steve Guttenberg, ect) Or in old issues of Stereophile or TAS.
I had a mini-disk player for a while. Thought it was the wave of the future. Swamped by newer stuff. I’m not overly impressed by blu-ray either. But at least you can buy a very cheap player to play the disks. Mini-disk is compatible with nothing.
David, I am a little disappointed that you did not comment on the atrocious cover of the new box, which shows Karajan's ghostly visage emerging from what I suppose is meant to resemble the Northern Lights. More pastels from Universal! However, as you have said before, it's the music that is most important. On the question of sound, I notice that a few people have asked whether the CDs offer any improvement over previous incarnations. I listened to the opening of the second and third movements of the 4th, comparing the originals release, the Karajan 60s box and this latest cd version, back and forth several times (how sad). I couldn't discern any difference in sound. That said, I notice that for each CD in the new box the booklet indicates "CD BD-A", which may suggest that the CDs themselves have benefitted from a further remastering.
Did they fix the gap in the middle of the seventh?
Sounded good to me.
David, do the CDs sound better than previous incarnations (like the Original Image Bit edition)? Thanks! :)
Agree. I have all of the old ones. Is there an improved sonic justification for buying this box?
I don't think so.
I wouldn't expect the CDs to be remastered. If the Blu-ray doesn't sound better than the CDs, what's the point of buying it?
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks, you saved me money on this as I really don't want every single Karajan Sibelius. I like the selection on the previous CD-duo by DG. So, if there's no sonic change I'll get that one.
I'm wondering the same thing, in fact I asked the same question about HVK's Sibelius 4 and 5. I have them on lp and on the Galleria cd issue. The lps are unquestionably better. In fact I find the same with many of those mid-60s Karajan lps compared to early DGG cd issues. Even more than most record companies, DGG engineers struggled with early cd transfers (the Prokofiev 5 and Turandot, two other examples). One of the regulars on this board said later DGG transfers were a significant improvement, but I haven't yet taken the plunge.
In anybody's interested, Decca's 96HZ 24-bit remasterings are a monster improvement over their early efforts, at least those I've tried. I've got Britten's Grimes and Bartok's Bluebeard on lp, early cd and in the 'Legends" series remastering. The last is a significant step up on both vinyl and earlier cd.
Dolby Atmos (which I only use on headphones) can really add to the listening experience. You only need to listen to the Atmos remix of Leonard Bernstein’s recording of West Side Story for an example of absolutely thrilling spatial imaging. What DG have now done with a LOT of their catalogue titles in a faux Atmos attempt is to simply add some generic reverb effect to the existing stereo mixes - that obviously already *have* the acoustics of the recording venue baked in - resulting in a hopelessly soupy, echoey mess… of which these Karajan Sibelius recordings are yet further embarrassing, unlistenable examples.
And yeah, Dudamel’s Mahler 8, although not of the faux Atmos variety I just described, does not sound very convincing at all. Krystian Zimerman’s new Beethoven piano concerto recordings are easily more convincing in terms of spatial imaging, but not to a degree that really adds to good stereo. The standard stereo of those recordings sound worse than the Atmos version, though. My feeling there is they should have given their love to the stereo, and just not do an Atmos mix.
Ah, the audiophiles and their $1000 cables (sorry, «interconnects»). Personally, I have attended enough concerts and recitals that my brain reproduces the sound of the instruments/vocalists even when I listen on a small transistor radio ... (Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit.)
His soapy string playing never fails to put me off
Behave yourself LOL!!! Tapioca indeed!!!
This sounds like a good set for someone who's never invested in all of the previous sets, but a nightmare for the obsessive completist hoarders :) A good review by the way, and far better than those written by the overabundance of self- indulgent technophiles who can't help themselves from giving you a complete bio of their audio systems. I'm like "yeah, I know that you take your SACD Blu Ray to bed with you and make love to it every night - I just want to know if Tapioca sounds good or not".
I'm sorry, but I love Sibelius, but find von Karajan for the most part repulsive. Sibelius spoke from his soul. Von Karajan conducted as if he still remembered the soul which he had discarded for the sake of his career and its performance goals of cleanliness and perfection. His soullessness is why he continued to record pieces of music to which he had no connection. I know that everyone will disagree with me, and I just don't care. Go for it.
You are entitled to your opinion and your feelings are what they are. Thank you for sharing them. I would only suggest that you be careful of confusing any performing artist's personally with the actual sounds they produce. Many of them are revolting narcissists whose behavior would be considered detestable, but they made great music nonetheless.
I sincerely believe that Herbert was a NARCCISIST. If you see his videos of him conducting, the camera is always trained on him and him only with his habit of conducting with his eyes closed. Just my opinion
@@DavesClassicalGuide I have kept a number of my von Karajan recordings, even though I don't think that I would like him as an individual. I'm not trying to speak in absolutes. And I had no idea that von Karajan was a narcissist. I was only responding to his conducting. Christian Ferras' recording of Beethoven concerto, with von Karajan conducting is wonderful. But look at the cover. Von Karajan is in focus and Ferras is not. Who chose that photo?
@@theosalvucci8683 And you had no idea that he was a narcissist?
@@DavesClassicalGuide I never thought about it, to be frank. There are people for whom I have respect that have had big egos, though. I just never paid von Karajan that much attention. I guess I got annoyed at people of my generation treating him like a god during the late sixties and early seventies. He didn't deserve all that, and it got under my skin. If he was a real narcissist, all the hype around him did him no good.