Best Mahler Cycle - In Terms of Sound Quality ONLY?

[Conchis]

I've been listening to the Sinopoli cycle recently: his interpretations will always be controversial but I think the sonics on the most recent DG remastering are pretty stunning. These were 1980s/90s digital recordings, so they ought to be a mixed bag sonically - but no, it all sounds great to my ears, at least (and I AM a Sinopolist, as well).

Sound quality is usually a prime consideration when assessing Mahler recordings. Which ones (I mean, complete cycles) do we think sound best, regardless of whether we approve of all the interpretative choices?

[DublinJimbo]

I'd suggest Michael Gielen's cycle on Hänssler Classics. The recordings (made in the magnificent acoustics of the Konzerthaus in Freiburg) are remarkable for their clarity and transparency.

[Bryn]

I'd suggest Michael Gielen's cycle on Hänssler Classics. The recordings (made in the magnificent acoustics of the Konzerthaus in Freiburg) are remarkable for their clarity and transparency.

Never mind the audio quality, those Hänssler recordings are recommendable for the performances, first and foremost. Don't forget the additional disc of a Cooke performing version of the sketches for the 10th, either.

[makropulos]

Sound quality is usually a prime consideration when assessing Mahler recordings. Which ones (I mean, complete cycles) do we think sound best, regardless of whether we approve of all the interpretative choices?

But what sort of "sound quality"? The engineering pure and simple? The sonority of the orchestra? The balance of orchestra and soloists in the vocal symphonies? Nobody is going to be satisfied with a Mahler cycle that simply shows off a sound system. When it comes to what is a "prime consideration" for a Mahler cycle, the interpretative insights of the conductor and the quality of the playing come a lot higher up my list than sound quality tout court. For that reason, I'd certainly agree with DublinJimbo and Bryn about Gielen - mostly wonderful performances captured in very natural sound.

Another set that has impressed me a good deal (some of which I reviewed for IRR when they first appeared) is Markus Stenz's series with the Gürzenich Orchestra on Oehms. The sound is pretty stunning, and several of the performances are marvellous. There's also a fabulous-sounding Mahler 3 from Manfred Honeck and the Pittsburgh SO on Exton, and I think Nos. 1, 4 and 5 in the same series, but it's not a complete cycle. I haven't listened to Sinopoli's set very much, but I don't remember it being noticeably better in terms of the engineering than much of Bernstein's second cycle, or some of Haitink's later recordings.

[Conchis]

But what sort of "sound quality"? The engineering pure and simple? The sonority of the orchestra? The balance of orchestra and soloists in the vocal symphonies? Nobody is going to be satisfied with a Mahler cycle that simply shows off a sound system. When it comes to what is a "prime consideration" for a Mahler cycle, the interpretative insights of the conductor and the quality of the playing come a lot higher up my list than sound quality tout court. For that reason, I'd certainly agree with DublinJimbo and Bryn about Gielen - mostly wonderful performances captured in very natural sound.

Another set that has impressed me a good deal (some of which I reviewed for IRR when they first appeared) is Markus Stenz's series with the Gürzenich Orchestra on Oehms. The sound is pretty stunning, and several of the performances are marvellous. There's also a fabulous-sounding Mahler 3 from Manfred Honeck and the Pittsburgh SO on Exton, and I think Nos. 1, 4 and 5 in the same series, but it's not a complete cycle. I haven't listened to Sinopoli's set very much, but I don't remember it being noticeably better in terms of the engineering than much of Bernstein's second cycle, or some of Haitink's later recordings.

I'd agree that performance quality is more important than sound quality and not just in Mahler. But this thread is asking people to focus purely on the sq aspect of the available recordings, factoring in all the things you mention in your first paragraph. :)

I've not heard any of the cycles mentioned so far, but can recall the Gielen one being much praised.

[mahlerei]

I'd suggest Michael Gielen's cycle on Hänssler Classics. The recordings (made in the magnificent acoustics of the Konzerthaus in Freiburg) are remarkable for their clarity and transparency.

Oh, sbsolutely. The music-making is consistently inspired, too.

As for Stenz, I'm afraid I didn't care for the performances or the sound...

[makropulos]

Oh, sbsolutely. The music-making is consistently inspired, too.

As for Stenz, I'm afraid I didn't care for the performances or the sound...

Each to their own. At least we agree about Gielen which I think is pretty special.

[mahlerei]

Each to their own. At least we agree about Gielen which I think is pretty special.

indeed it is. And that goes for his Sony Mahler 8 as well.

[BBMmk2]

My favourite, hmmm Haitink, Abbado, or Solti? Hmmmm.....

[Beef Oven!]

Sinopoli, here.

[Petrushka]

I've not heard Gielen, apart from a 5th Symphony that I didn't particularly like, so strictly in terms of sound quality I'd go for Sinopoli as well. You'll get an 8th that is one of the very best around in every way not just sound. The others aren't bad either.

[Conchis]

I've not heard Gielen, apart from a 5th Symphony that I didn't particularly like, so strictly in terms of sound quality I'd go for Sinopoli as well. You'll get an 8th that is one of the very best around in every way not just sound. The others aren't bad either.

That Sinopoli 8th is pretty stunning, isn't it? I saw G.S. conduct it at the RAH in 1999.

[HighlandDougie]

Based very unscientifically on comparing known-to-be-good recordings to hand of complete cycles in the same movement (third movement of Symphony No 3) - in no particular order: Gielen; Nott (SACD); Zinman (SACD); Bertini; Boulez (SACD); Chailly (SACD); Tilson Thomas (SACD) and with the SACDs listened to in 2-Channel mode - I'd be hard put to say that any one of the three front-runners to my ears from the above (Chailly; Gielen; Zinman) was "better" than another - all three are excellent (as, really, are all the others). But, the big, open acoustic which seems particularly suitable for the 3rd might work less well for other symphonies (the 6th, say, or the 9th) and recording venues sometimes vary across cycles (Bertini and Boulez; Abbado etc) so I'm not sure that there is a single cycle which answers Conchis's question.

But it has rekindled my interest in hearing the Sinopoli/Philharmonia cycle. I used to have some of the Sinopoli cycle until Burglar Bill made off with it in his swag bag - but have been put off buying the Eloquence box by the dreaded letters 'AMSI' on the box and by rude comments on Amazon Italy about the split of symphonies across CDs. However, if that box is the one which Conchis is extolling, maybe it is worth the relatively modest amount being asked for it.

[Conchis]

Based very unscientifically on comparing known-to-be-good recordings to hand of complete cycles in the same movement (third movement of Symphony No 3) - in no particular order: Gielen; Nott (SACD); Zinman (SACD); Bertini; Boulez (SACD); Chailly (SACD); Tilson Thomas (SACD) and with the SACDs listened to in 2-Channel mode - I'd be hard put to say that any one of the three front-runners to my ears from the above (Chailly; Gielen; Zinman) was "better" than another - all three are excellent (as, really, are all the others). But, the big, open acoustic which seems particularly suitable for the 3rd might work less well for other symphonies (the 6th, say, or the 9th) and recording venues sometimes vary across cycles (Bertini and Boulez; Abbado etc) so I'm not sure that there is a single cycle which answers Conchis's question.

But it has rekindled my interest in hearing the Sinopoli/Philharmonia cycle. I used to have some of the Sinopoli cycle until Burglar Bill made off with it in his swag bag - but have been put off buying the Eloquence box by the dreaded letters 'AMSI' on the box and by rude comments on Amazon Italy about the split of symphonies across CDs. However, if that box is the one which Conchis is extolling, maybe it is worth the relatively modest amount being asked for it.

I'm not really a hardened audiophile (which might beg the question as to why I started this thread. Sorry!) but I can't say the sound shaping bothers me.

As to the splits - yes, they are an irritant but I've found, in practice, only a minor one. And you do get a helluva lot of supplements with this set (Das Lied, Kindertotenlieder, Gesssellen and Wunderhorn).

[Petrushka]

I'm not really a hardened audiophile (which might beg the question as to why I started this thread. Sorry!) but I can't say the sound shaping bothers me.

As to the splits - yes, they are an irritant but I've found, in practice, only a minor one. And you do get a helluva lot of supplements with this set (Das Lied, Kindertotenlieder, Gesssellen and Wunderhorn).

I'd go along with this. Most Mahler sets have splits at irritating moments (that between the fifth and sixth movements of the Third is the only one I find musically damaging) but at the asking price it's a minor inconvenience.