Bernstein Mahler - newly remastered version?

[Verena]

Hi,

Any Mahlerian here who can give me some advice on the newly remastered version of Bernstein's first Mahler cycle? Is the sound really much better than on earlier issues?

Thanks

[Daverz]

Any Mahlerian here who can give me some advice on the newly remastered version of Bernstein's first Mahler cycle? Is the sound really much better than on earlier issues?

Yes, it really is much better.  They actually remixed these from the original session tapes.

[Verena]

Yes, it really is much better.  They actually remixed these from the original session tapes.

Thanks a lot! This means I'll have to shell out some money soon...

[DavidW]

Well I don't think that they are much better, I think they were slightly better.  I wouldn't spend the money.  I thought that sony did a good job in the Bernstein Century anyway.  Besides neither remastering sounds comparable to a modern recording.

[DarkAngel]

Well I don't think that they are much better, I think they were slightly better.  I wouldn't spend the money.  I thought that sony did a good job in the Bernstein Century anyway.  Besides neither remastering sounds comparable to a modern recording.

I have both sets and agree with David........no "real" improvement I can hear, and I have a pretty high end system. The new set is remastered but the previous set was also remastered using Sony SBM.

The older packaging is definitely better. new set has 2 fold sleeves with slots facing center spine, a royal pain to extract CDs without scratching them 

[drogulus]

     I'm tired of this New! Improved! shtick. The first remaster is where they find a good source and improve on the original. After that what's there left to do?

Yes, it really is much better.  They actually remixed these from the original session tapes.

     If it's a new mix it might sound better because it sounds different (like the remixes for SACD).

     The Bernstein recordings are quite dated sounding for the most part. I don't really mind that much, but they're not as warm or vivid as many of the great Golden Age masters from other labels.

I have both sets and agree with David........no "real" improvement I can hear, and I have a pretty high end system. The new set is remastered but the previous set was also remastered using Sony SBM.

The older packaging is definitely better. new set has 2 fold sleeves with slots facing center spine, a royal pain to extract CDs without scratching them 

      I'm not surprised a bit to find that they aren't really different. If they were different they probably would sound worse.

[Scarpia]

Sounds implausible that the sound could be dramatically improved, especially since the previous master was made well after the early days of the CD.  In the 60's they had 3 channel recorders at best, so recordings had to be mixed live, with little potential for "remixing."  And Columbia sound was definitely the bottom of the barrel in those days.  Maybe RCA was worse, but at least the "dynagroove" process was applied when the LP was cut and can be reversed.

[Verena]

Thanks a lot to all for your advice!!

[drogulus]

Sounds implausible that the sound could be dramatically improved, especially since the previous master was made well after the early days of the CD.  In the 60's they had 3 channel recorders at best, so recordings had to be mixed live, with little potential for "remixing."  And Columbia sound was definitely the bottom of the barrel in those days.  Maybe RCA was worse, but at least the "dynagroove" process was applied when the LP was cut and can be reversed.

     Was RCA worse? Their best efforts were pretty damn good, though they didn't always hit that mark. Or are you referring to the vinyl?

     The best of the Boston and Chicago masters are waaayyy better than the Bernstein Columbia tapes from the same period, based on the evidence of the CD remasters from the respective labels. I don't downgrade RCA because some of the Reiner tapes are sludgy and bloated. Comparing best against best with Columbia they win.

[Scarpia]

     Was RCA worse? Their best efforts were pretty damn good, though they didn't always hit that mark. Or are you referring to the vinyl?

RCA living stereo was top drawer.  I'm talking about when they adopted the "dynagroove" system, which was some sort of automatic compression/equalization system which was supposed to make the LPs sound better, but which was abhorred by audio purists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynagroove

[drogulus]

RCA living stereo was top drawer.  I'm talking about when they adopted the "dynagroove" system, which was some sort of automatic compression/equalization system which was supposed to make the LPs sound better, but which was abhorred by audio purists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynagroove

     Thanks for clearing that up. Now I get it.

[Leo K.]

It is amazing how clear, warm, and modern these remixes sound...the improvement was obvious and not subtle on my first hearing...I totally recommend the new set.

[Mirror Image]

I own the Bernstein Century Mahler set, which is now out-of-print. I'm not sure if the new set is of significant improvement sound-wise or not, but the old set was remastered too, so I don't they can improve upon the sound that much. Also with all the comments regarding the new Mahler/Bernstein set's packaging, I don't think I would like it at all. I think it's ridiculous that these labels like Sony, Decca, Deutsche Grammophon, EMI, etc. continue to keep re-releasing the same recordings over and over. There's only so much improvement that can be done over the existing master tapes.

I'll just stick with this one: