Robin L
Master Contributor
17 disc set, not 11.An 11-classic-LPs set with a prize tag like this will arouse limited consumer interest. But that would be nothing of surprise to anybody involved in that project.
17 disc set, not 11.An 11-classic-LPs set with a prize tag like this will arouse limited consumer interest. But that would be nothing of surprise to anybody involved in that project.
They are all a little strange and all follow the same pattern where the strings are more pronounced, with the woodwinds recessed and sometimes inaudible or floating in some strange area behind the left or right side of each speaker. I am not so sure I would lay it all on HvK as there has been considerable discussion of him allowing Gunther Hermann, the balance engineer to do his job which would make sense as they all have this same sonic footprint. What I heard from this new Bruckner release is the same that I have heard from all of Karajan’s recent Original Source releases, a larger soundstage and an enhancement of woodwinds, brass and all other instruments that were recessed and pushed back at the expense of strings on the original releases. The Original Source remasters are quite revelatory, in particular the 4 Last Songs, was quite impressive in how a complete section of the orchestra suddenly appeared that didn’t in the original recording. This is something no SACD or Esoteric SACD has been able to do.Favorite example - HvK's 1974 recording of Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique has an oboe hard-panned from left to right, like some out of Led Zepplin II. Karajan and Stokowski both thought they knew how to balance their recordings, sometimes to laughable effect. Haven't heard Karajan's Bruckner, suspect (like other 1970s recordings from the maestro) there would be weird balances in the original LP pressings, later ironed out in the CD and Blu Ray issues.
As regards the pressing quality, I would imagine that these pressings would be superior to previous LPs if only because they are spread out on more sides than the originals.
Agree wholeheartedly here, I have also purchased quite a few of the Esoteric vinyl releases and all have been dead quiet, same with the Acoustic Sounds jazz reissues. None have gone back. I suppose I am lucky with the DG pressings, but seems like my luck ran out with this box set. Part of me still wants to get it because they were meant to be heard on vinyl, and have been improved tremendously with this remastering/reissue, but having to run back to the Fedex office a second time should the same issue reappear is not too appealing right now. Maybe I'll feel differently in a few weeks time.
17 disc set, not 11.
[...] the seller [...] will not be sending me a replacement.
Which is why it's going back.
There are new build record plants, with new build presses, who recently (at least here in Europe) took a bit the pressure of the existing plants with very often presseng plant gear that is over a half century old. And that is a big issue now with vinyl, those old plants often are worn out andd very expensive to replace the gear.Indeed - the other Bruckner boxset that came out recently, the late symphonies by Giulini was luckily for me, also perfect. That one is TOS adjacent, so thinking is part of the same project, even if not labeled as such. With so few plants operating, thinking that is the main issue. Wonder how many shifts are running to press this 17 record monster along with ALL the Tay Tay records they also have to press!![]()
There are new build record plants, with new build presses, who recently (at least here in Europe) took a bit the pressure of the existing plants with very often presseng plant gear that is over a half century old. And that is a big issue now with vinyl, those old plants often are worn out andd very expensive to replace the gear.
I was involved 10 years ago in a study to set up a plant in Belgium, but the investments are so big, that the financer bailed out as the risk was to high, so it did not happen. A good pressing plant setup cost easely over 250K for the pressing gear alone, not counting the building and other stuff that is needed. The total project was budgetted as a 2 milion € investment to start up. The market is very strong, but that is a big investment to earn back, even in a strong market.
But some still did, there is a big relative new pressing plant in Lokeren (Belgium) called Belgian Vinyl Pressing Plant" that is backed up by some big Belgian and Dutch electronic music labels. They did that because the waiting row for pressing plants was getting almost 18 months and pressig prices were going trough the roof. He did install 6 modern pressing plants and can't keep up with orders also, altough the waiting row is reduced to a few months now. And he is not the only one, many new press facilities are set up, but always backed by a group of bigger underground labels who are tired of the waiting rows at the old still remaining pressing plants that are mostly working for the major labels and only do smaller pressings when there is a gap in the order list. To start such thing on your own, or as small label is almost impossible and profit is only made on the long run as the investment that must be paid off is huge.
I got mine last week and finally opened it up last night, went straight to the ninth only to discover a 2.5 cm long shiny scratch that ruined any sonic improvement I heard on the record. I only managed to hear 5 minutes and compared it to my SACD, but it was definitely better than the upsampled disc. I got it at a very competitive price and the seller has since increased his selling price, and will not be sending me a replacement. I have not decided whether or not I will seek another one from another seller, as DG’s quality control is quite inconsistent with these box sets. Surprisingly, I have not had any issues with the other DG Original Source releases, but with 17 records in one set you are bound to run into issues, and I am not the only one who has experienced issues with this release. They really need to step up their QC game. I used a Roksan Xerxes 20+ table with SME 309 tonearm and Shure V15 MK V cartridge and Jico SAS stylus.
Yeah, this was the first one, and frankly with 17 records kind of expected it, but also didn’t because all the others have been perfect. I am on the fence as to whether or not to try and purchase it again, because the dang thing is so heavy, and taking another one to my FedEx office today nearly took my back out, I don’t want to go through that again. I suppose I could just get them to come and pick it up.That’s a real bummer. I’m sorry to hear it.
I’ve had a few dogs show up as well, but in general I seem to have been pretty lucky with new vinyl. Problems have been very rare.
Those were a special one off and not part of the Original Source series, I think it was done as a tribute to Giulini and for Bruckner’s 200th anniversary. Besides, these are digital and not part of the 70’s era of recordings the Original Source is aiming at remastering. But good for you on getting them in perfect shape, I am considering getting them, even though I have them on CD. I am pretty sure though these are better sounding than my 80s era CDs.Indeed - the other Bruckner boxset that came out recently, the late symphonies by Giulini was luckily for me, also perfect. That one is TOS adjacent, so thinking is part of the same project, even if not labeled as such. With so few plants operating, thinking that is the main issue. Wonder how many shifts are running to press this 17 record monster along with ALL the Tay Tay records they also have to press!![]()
Those were a special one off and not part of the Original Source series, I think it was done as a tribute to Giulini and for Bruckner’s 200th anniversary. Besides, these are digital and not part of the 70’s era of recordings the Original Source is aiming at remastering. But good for you on getting them in perfect shape, I am considering getting them, even though I have them on CD. I am pretty sure though these are better sounding than my 80s era CDs.
The look-ahead delay is all analog and was described in the earlier video for the Bruckner recording.there's the very high probability that some form of look-ahead digital delay was used as a final stage before cutting anyway.
It is a product for a set of customers who don't want it that way. It would be like asking a mechanical watchmaker why don't they just use a quartz movement. To make sense of it, remember that we're talking about a hobby.This makes absolutely no sense to me. It all could have happened in the digital domain with greater timing accuracy and better control over dynamics.
There we do a new mix of the different tracks recorded in multimicrophones and a new master starting from the original analog tapes...This makes absolutely no sense to me. It all could have happened in the digital domain with greater timing accuracy and better control over dynamics. The final mix could work for both an LP and CD reissue. And there's the very high probability that some form of look-ahead digital delay was used as a final stage before cutting anyway. My sense is that a hybrid SACD with room ambience for back channels would sound better than any vinyl version. I realize that the profit margin for a vinyl re-release in a real incentive. But from a sonic and technological standpoint, it's re-inventing the wheel.
But the same master can be (has been) used for both CD and LP, I've heard it. While there are limits for cutting LPs in terms of how much bass can be inscribed and what peak levels can be cut, the master that reflects those limitations can also be used for a CD. All those recordings squashed by brickwalling for CD can be inscribed to an LP simply by taking the levels down a notch. There's plenty of LPs that have obvious dynamic limiting, lots of songs from the 1960s were mixed and mastered for top 40 radio, where being the loudest song mattered.There we do a new mix of the different tracks recorded in multimicrophones and a new master starting from the original analog tapes...
It's not just a new mastering of an already done mix...
There is a problem of musical ethics here...
Let me explain. The stereo versions which were published on LP at the time and then reissued on CD are in a mix which was validated by the artistic director of the recording and by the conductor.
Remaking them now that both are dead could lead to a profound distortion of the artistic wishes of the conductor... Because the brass a little louder here, a little fewer strings there, the cow bells a little louder, etc. ., etc. and musically the interpretation is changed...
At DGG it is possible that the mixing plan was precisely noted second by second, but this is not at all certain...
Furthermore, the same master cannot be used for LP and CD due to the technical limitations of the 33 rpm record.
That editors work like pigs is always possible of course... and we have confessions from certain editors of having practiced what you describe. Read on this subject, the important text which accompanies the very last edition of Maria Callas' studio recordings at EMI-Warner and you will be edified by the filthiness that this publisher has been able to do and which he ingenuously admits... as in example take a master prepared for the LP and correct it because it really didn't sound like it once digitized due to the frequency corrections made so that it fits in the groove...But the same master can be (has been) used for both CD and LP, I've heard it. While there are limits for cutting LPs in terms of how much bass can be inscribed and what peak levels can be cut, the master that reflects those limitations can also be used for a CD. All those recordings squashed by brickwalling for CD can be inscribed to an LP simply by taking the levels down a notch. There's plenty of LPs that have obvious dynamic limiting, lots of songs from the 1960s were mixed and mastered for top 40 radio, where being the loudest song mattered.
Speaking of musical ethics here, check out the recently remastered Beatles tracks using MAL technology to derive true stereo from tracks intended to be issued as mono.
Of course, the sorts of mastering found for orchestral or piano CDs wouldn't work for the LP of the same performance. But most of the complaints about brickwalled CD apply to Pop/Rock recordings anyway. Pop/Rock recordings don't usually take advantage of the potential quality of the CD format, they are consciously limited for various reasons. I'd say (from experience) that most chamber recordings don't need limiting or compression, most orchestral and piano recordings can use a little for CD replay. I have no experience with postproduction for LPs, but I would expect that LPs need even more compression or limiting.That editors work like pigs is always possible of course... and we have confessions from certain editors of having practiced what you describe. Read on this subject, the important text which accompanies the very last edition of Maria Callas' studio recordings at EMI-Warner and you will be edified by the filthiness that this publisher has been able to do and which he ingenuously admits... as in example take a master prepared for the LP and correct it because it really didn't sound like it once digitized due to the frequency corrections made so that it fits in the groove...
But normally, a master intended for the CD and taking advantage of the quality it allows cannot be used to burn an LP... except perhaps for acoustic guitar or viola da gamba...