Vaughan Williams: The symphonies

[Beef Oven!]

Peerless Pastoral IMO

Yes, I listened to that the other day. I don't have the complete set and I probably won't get it. I have 3, 4, 5 & 6.

[Tony Halstead]

Peerless Pastoral IMO

Wow, I'm glad you like it... I was playing on that one as well as 2 and 9!

[Bryn]

Can anyone here advise whether this newly released set is effectively a re-issue of the earlier RCA box, or whether it comprises newly re-mastered transfers?

[Beef Oven!]

Can anyone here advise whether this newly released set is effectively a re-issue of the earlier RCA box, or whether it comprises newly re-mastered transfers?

I don't have the set, but on the back of the box it says, like all these latest RCA Victor/Sony Classical rereleases, "24 Bit Hi Resolution Audio".

For example, my original Boulez Schoenberg CDS are 16 Bit and the latest box set that I bought is 24 Bit. So they are not the same.

[Bryn]

I don't have the set, but on the back of the box it says, like all these latest RCA Victor/Sony Classical rereleases, "24 Bit Hi Resolution Audio".

For example, my original Boulez Schoenberg CDS are 16 Bit and the latest box set that I bought is 24 Bit. So they are not the same.

Well, the CDs are, of course, 16 bit, thought the remastering wil have been done at 24 bit, then down-sampled to 16 bit (with or without noise redistribution, dithering, etc.).

Anyway, the new box is very cheap, so having previously bought the LPs, then the RCA box, I might well 'upgrade' to the new version.

[Beef Oven!]

Well, the CDs are, of course, 16 bit, thought the remastering wil have been done at 24 bit, then down-sampled to 16 bit (with or without noise redistribution, dithering, etc.).

Anyway, the new box is very cheap, so having previously bought the LPs, then the RCA box, I might well 'upgrade' to the new version.

But you know you won't be able to hear any difference.

[visualnickmos]

But you know you won't be able to hear any difference.

That's what I would have thought, too. I have the 'original' RCA box set (CDs) and they sound brilliant - I can't realistically see how there have been any great advances on the technical front that warrant an 'upgrade'. How can one improve on something that sounds to the ears, which after all, are the final arbitrator, any better - whatever 'better' may mean in this context.

I won't bore everyone with the long answer!

[Bryn]

That's what I would have thought, too. I have the 'original' RCA box set (CDs) and they sound brilliant - I can't realistically see how there have been any great advances on the technical front that warrant an 'upgrade'. How can one improve on something that sounds to the ears, which after all, are the final arbitrator, any better - whatever 'better' may mean in this context.

I won't bore everyone with the long answer!

'Better', in this context, should mean more faithful reproduction of the dynamic range and consequent nuance of the analogue tape masters. The attentive should be able to hear the difference, significant advances in maintaining much of the clarification of dynamics when down-sampling having been made in the past 12 or so years since the RCA set.

[HighlandDougie]

If you look at the illustration of the back of the box (on Amazon, for instance), it says P (with a circle round it) Sony 2003 and 2016, which suggests that it'll be the earlier re-masterings which feature in this new box. These Sony boxes, while offering great value, are pretty basic in terms of presentation and, I suspect, preparation, in that they seem unlikely to make new re-masters especially for them. But I might well be completely wrong.

[Beef Oven!]

If you look at the illustration of the back of the box (on Amazon, for instance), it says P (with a circle round it) Sony 2003 and 2016, which suggests that it'll be the earlier re-masterings which feature in this new box. These Sony boxes, while offering great value, are pretty basic in terms of presentation and, I suspect, preparation, in that they seem unlikely to make new re-masters especially for them. But I might well be completely wrong.

Yes, that makes sense. The '24 Bit Hi-Res Audio' statement being just a bit of marketing spiel?

[Bryn]

If you look at the illustration of the back of the box (on Amazon, for instance), it says P (with a circle round it) Sony 2003 and 2016, which suggests that it'll be the earlier re-masterings which feature in this new box. These Sony boxes, while offering great value, are pretty basic in terms of presentation and, I suspect, preparation, in that they seem unlikely to make new re-masters especially for them. But I might well be completely wrong.

What it actually says is "This compilation ℗ 2003 © 2016". Not quite the same thing. I will dig out my earlier version to see whether there is any mention of 24 bit re-mastering. If there is no such reference, that would suggest either that 24 bit re-mastering was not used for the 2003 box, or BMG had missed a marketing ploy at that time (highly unlikely as that would be).

[Beef Oven!]

What it actually says is "This compilation ℗ 2003 © 2016". Not quite the same thing. I will dig out my earlier version to see whether there is any mention of 24 bit re-mastering. If there is no such reference, that would suggest either that 24 bit re-mastering was not used for the 2003 box, or BMG had missed a marketing ploy at that time (highly unlikely as that would be).

Some of my earlier Sony Classical Webern, Berg and Schoenberg releases say 16 Bit, some say 20 Bit. The latest Webern and Schoenberg boxes of those recordings that I bought more recently, say 24 Bit Hi-Res Audio.

[Pulcinella]

Just P and C 2003 on my copy, not even recording dates and venues.

[Bryn]

Just P and C 2003 on my copy, not even recording dates and venues.

Yes. I just found mine. What I also find strange is the the new box asserts that the recordings are a mix of ADD and DDD. Which of them is DDD? I thought they were all recorded between 1967 and 1972. I will hold back from ordering the new set until I can find more information about it, I think.

[HighlandDougie]

What it actually says is "This compilation ℗ 2003 © 2016". Not quite the same thing.

I assumed that by stating that the sound copyright was ℗ 2003 that that meant that it was the same sound recordings which were issued in 2003. © 2016 I took to be a more generic copyrighting of it as a new release in the Sony/BMG Masters series (??). Definitely no DDD, though, as the last recordings were made in 1972 ("London", "Pastoral" and, I think, the 5th).